How do you feel about RISC-V?

>>61178743
Message not clear, need more info.

>>61178743

Based Nvidia with RISC-V

https://riscv.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Tue1100_Nvidia_RISCV_Story_V2.pdf

I dont know what it is ;>

>>61179707
WTF I love Nvidia now

I think the way opcode space works in risc-v is really dumb.

>>61180184
RISC-V is an open source ISA (like x86, arm)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISC-V

I have high hopes for it.

>>61180199
basically everybody supports it ignore the gayming manchild

>>61178743
between this and j-core I'm pretty excited

>>61180212
Why?
Maybe you didn't think hard enough?

>>61178743
It's not POWER8

>>61178743
I've seen fuck all done with it so I don't care about it. Is there even a real piece of hardware coming out yet?

>>61180614
http://www.lowrisc.org/

Basically, a RasPi but with a RISC-V processor.

Fully open hardware, and made by one of the dudes who made the RasPi.

Sounds p cool.

>>61180322
What's so good about POWER8?

>>61178743

it's not a FPGA

>>61180899
But is it, really? It's not even out yet and doesn't look all that interesting, just looks like a boring, bog-standard gutless SBC running the same boring software on a different ISA buried under several layers of abstraction with an "open" label slapped on it that ultimately means nothing.

But it's something, at least, I won't totally move the goalposts here, but still nothing that really excites me for it.

>>61180907
good if you plan arson

>>61180907
It has International ThinkPad Corporation's logo on it for maximum hipster points

Will this give me more fps in csgo?

File: 1498826599134.jpg (56KB, 700x400px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 700x400px

x86 and x86_64 are already risc under the hood

You are diluting yourselfves

>>61181278
do people really fall for this meme?

As a hardware engineer that designs SoCs I've been following their progress for the last 3 years. The tools even today are still very lacking, but the industry support is great. I want to be very clear though: we don't care about it being free and open, we just want to be able to take an off the shelf ISA and avoid paying licensing fees while still getting access to a mature software ecosystem. Companies that can afford to do so develop their own proprietary ISAs for their application domains but RISC-V's extensability allows people to do so license-free without having to start from scratch in terms of software ecosystem.

Anyways again, just want to underline that no one is working on this for the sake of FOSS.

>>61181775
>No one is working on it because of FOSS
>They're only working on it because of the benefits of FOSS
That's cool, I guess.

>>61181793
If it was true FOSS it'd be under something like GPL. The ISA allows us to make mods without every folding back our findings to the community at large and profit from it. Stallman wouldn't be too happy. BSD licensing is best anyways.

>>61181821
BSD license is a cuck license to be honest. RISC-V being BSD is the main thing that bothers me about it. I understand their reasons for why, but it's just like - all of the benefits of it being open source go right out the window the second a proprietary design becomes the mainstream one.

BSD is literally just "here's my software, take it, use it to make money, don't worry about giving anybody back anything, lol. take my work for free and profit off of it legally!"