- Jan 30, 2010
Agreed. They should and they will. But they can also simultaneously sue Qualcomm.Then ARM should compete by producing better designs.
Agreed. They should and they will. But they can also simultaneously sue Qualcomm.
This. Competition is always good for the consumer, even though it may not be good for ARM in their perspective🤪
There is also some middle ground. They could always renegotiate the ISA licence in a way that it isn't an outright ban. Like asking for some revenue per chip sold.Licensing core designs is much more profitable than just licensing the ISA for ARM. Hence, if Nuvia designs are as good as Apple's, then ARM will lose a huge customer in Qualcomm, and will lose royalties from companies like Mediatek due to Nuvia dominating non-Apple sales.
Nuvia is a huge threat to ARM.
Which Qualcomm wouldn't agree to.Like asking for some revenue per chip sold.
Probably far too late for this, but anyone pouring lots of money into designing a new CPU from the clean sheet is going to really consider RISC-V. And that's even if ARM's ISA is better. For some the risk is just to great - spend ages and huge resources designing a world-leading CPU implementation and then have a chance for lawyers to get it banned? Better to go the extra step and avoid ARM.Nuvia's design based on ARM ISA is the problem. They can create their own ISA and end this legal battle.
The way things are headed, this is something we will probably see at some point. The problem is RISC-V is actually quite fragmented as far as implementations go (much more than ARM) and getting ARM servers to the point they are took 10 years of work more-or-less. Just ask Jon Masters who is mostly responsible for it.Probably far too late for this, but anyone pouring lots of money into designing a new CPU from the clean sheet is going to really consider RISC-V. And that's even if ARM's ISA is better. For some the risk is just to great - spend ages and huge resources designing a world-leading CPU implementation and then have a chance for lawyers to get it banned? Better to go the extra step and avoid ARM.
Luckily this article is nearly 4 years old.The OS ports are just the tip of a software iceberg, warns Jon Masters. He has spent the last nine years working on a standard version of Red Hat Linux for Arm servers. So far, just two commercial systems have been announced as certified to run it.
The process involved identifying a set of low-level hardware primitives that are assumed in the x86 world for things like how interrupts and power states work. Those de facto standards were articulated in a 50+ page document, then applied to the Arm architecture.
A separate effort documented x86 boot standards across Linux and Windows and applied them to Arm cores. They included obscure but crucial details of BIOS, power, and multiprocessing functions.
“I worry that the excitement of a new thing like RISC-V misses the real problems” of defining such support details, said Masters, who has been working on Linux for Arm servers since 2011.
RISC-V backers “will learn that no one got PCI right in Arm for the first few generations — to do PCI right [in a non-x86 host system] is tricky,” he said.
Server customers want support for both Windows and Linux, said Richard Jones, an emerging technologies specialist at Red Hat who worked on the RISC-V port of Fedora. In addition, they need a single image of an OS kernel and an applications binary interface that remains stable for years, Jones said in a talk at a RISC-V event last year.
A bootstrapped version of 64-bit Debian is available for RISC-V, but the architecture won’t be natively supported in the upcoming version 10 of the code. RISC-V still lacks support for an LLVM compiler, Java, and languages such as Golang and Rust, said a Debian developer at a recent event.
For its part, Arm led the formation of Linaro, a collaboration that has worked for several years on low-level software for servers as well as systems for telcos and the internet of things. Linaro helped pave Arm’s expansion into a wide variety of areas but has required dedicated engineering time from a wide variety of members at an estimated cost of $100 million.
RISC-V “needs standards and something like a Linaro, and they know this,” said Masters. China’s burgeoning interest in RISC-V could accelerate such efforts, perhaps collapsing them to a five-year journey. However, the opportunity for servers is arguably closing with two strong x86 companies and Arm server alternatives available from Ampere, Cavium, and Huawei, he said.
“Cloud server vendors are hedging their bets with Arm, but they don’t want 10 alternatives, so I’m not sure a RISC-V server opportunity really exists,” said Masters. “I’m sure startups will get funded, but I think they will build domain-specific accelerators.”
Not true though, Krait were miles better than Cortex A15, and in those area where A15 perform better it used more power.The core designs they produced before were no better (and sometimes worse) than ARM designed cores. Some will claim the difference is that Qualcomm cores (from Nuvia) are better now, but I still think there must be some language in these agreements about transfer of IP since that's what ARM keeps harping on in their filings and what Qualcomm's filings seem to dismiss.
If the language was absolutely crystal clear in either direction it would be tough to fight in court, so I'm guessing there's enough ambiguity that lawyers on both sides can attempt to argue their side is right. Too bad we can't see that language, if nothing else so we can armchair lawyer it and attempt to guess which side has a stronger position.
The details of a contract, one we can not see matter. And the details may be stupid, and included to benefit one party and not the other party, but that is the point once it is in a contract one does not get to renegotiate like that.But legally QC designs beating Arm designs now and not before changes nothing on the legal front.
If Arm was happy before, it will be harder to argue suddenly there's a problem.
Though they seem to have no problem at all asking for it when selling their chips!Which Qualcomm wouldn't agree to.
Who knows what the current terms are for ISA? For all we know, Qualcomm and ARM agreed to a lifetime license for their ISA already and it can't be changed.There is also some middle ground. They could always renegotiate the ISA licence in a way that it isn't an outright ban. Like asking for some revenue per chip sold.
Depends on how you see it. Despite the article being 4 years old, most of the things stated there still hold true. That shows you how slow things are moving and that a decade is already underestimated.Luckily this article is nearly 4 years old.
For such markets and for now, maybe.Depends on how you see it. Despite the article being 4 years old, most of the things stated there still hold true. That shows you how slow things are moving and that a decade is already underestimated.
In fact as was pointed out, the window of opportunity might be closing for RISC-V, as there is not much interest (and not much gain) in a 3rd server ecosystem.
Personally I think the space to watch is not commercial data centers but science and education. And the latter will show its effect only in the long run, slowly affecting other markets afterward.In fact as was pointed out, the window of opportunity might be closing for RISC-V, as there is not much interest (and not much gain) in a 3rd server ecosystem.
I will just quote the answer I made to a claim you made months ago:Personally I think the space to watch is not commercial data centers but science and education. And the latter will show its effect only in the long run, slowly affecting other markets afterward.
Sorry but you are overestimating the impact of the ISA. I studied and played with MIPS at Uni (back in a time it was used in workstations and servers, yes I'm old). If RISC-V had existed back then, I would surely have used it rather than MIPS, but that wouldn't haven't changed anything as I never used MIPS in my career in CPU design later on. When you have learned an ISA, you can switch to any other in very little time, or you are missing some of the qualities that make a good engineer.
Probably TSMCI wonder which foundry they are going to use to make this Hamoa SoC?
They can, but they would run into exactly the same problems that Intel did breaking into the Android market - native ARM binaries for many popular apps.RISC-V is catching up. It takes time. If I were ARM I would be worried. Qualcomm could always drop the ARM license and build a RISC-V chip.
Ascalon has been known for sometime...That being said I wouldn't be surprised to find that Jim Keller's Tenstorrent company weren't also working on a straight up RV CPU core along with their RV based ML accelerator.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|S||Question Arm-based Alibaba Cloud T-Head Yitian 710 Crushes SPECrate2017_int_base||CPUs and Overclocking||15|
|T||Question ARM lawsuit against QCOM/Nuvia !||CPUs and Overclocking||115|
|Question Qualcomm, maybe SK Hynix, and others to form consortium to buy ARM?||CPUs and Overclocking||8|