Depending on how well/thoroughly it handles it, that could also remove a lot of the worry of companies adding ccp-accessible backdoors.
j4k3@lemmy.world 1 day ago
If China ever goes hardcore on open source across the board for all hardware and software, it would absolutely crush the present Western hegemony. It would be the most moral high ground move too.
milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 9 hours ago
vext01@lemmy.sdf.org 1 day ago
From what ive heard, these risc v chips have a long way to go for performance. Is that still true?
j4k3@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Yes and no. It would have a long way to go for similar x86 single thread speeds. However, the future will belong to whatever single processor can handle all workloads. The dual processor workloads for GPU and CPU is a temporary hack. Around 8 years from now a new architecture will emerge as dominant. That is the 10 years it takes from idea to real hardware product in silicon. The problem has been obvious for 2 years already. The next architecture must be done from scratch on a level very similar to the gap between RISC-V and x86 right now. So ultimately, it is a no because that redesign renders the lead of the present useless. Present processors are power constrained for the L2 to L2 cache bus width. If all of those bits on the bus are high, it pulls the whole core down. This is where things are optimised for high speed single thread operations like traditional code. Large math tensors need a wide bus to load and offload quickly so it is entirely incompatible. Regardless of the merits of everyone running AI or not, in the data center business where there are very little profit margins, anyone that can make a single processor that can scale to handle both workloads well enough will win out in the long run. This dual processor paradigm has already been tried and failed. When x86 was in the x286 to x386 era a second floating point math unit was required for any advanced workloads like CAD. That created a dual processor architecture that resulted in a flop. Everyone is hardware is aware of this history. Why would anyone support a new grassroots proprietary hardware design for this new generation of hardware that requires a fortune in royalties if a similar processor is negligibly different at the same phase of development and is a free and open instruction set architecture with no royalties. Plus this means that the IC designer is no longer locked into an ecosystem of vendor peripherals. Anyone can design and sell little circuit blocks and on chip peripherals, even proprietary ones, for use on any chip. This is basically true open market capitalism for an ISA. It is a standardized framework for anyone to build on instead of the notoriously authoritarian, oppressive, and anticompetitive Intel. The outcome of that set of constraints seems obvious to me.
yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 23 hours ago
Anyone can design and sell little circuit blocks and on chip peripherals, even proprietary ones, for use on any chip.
What’s the likelihood of a dominant player emerging and implementing patented, proprietary RISC-V architecture changes which turn out to be necessary for high-performance? And if such a company gains sufficient market share, they could turn RISC-V into basically another x86-64 with many proprietary extensions. Sure, others could create their own RISC-V base processor - but if their performance is 500% lower than processors from the proprietary vendor who would purchase them?
enumerator4829@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
I agree with you, mostly. Margins in the datacenter are thin for some players. Not Nvidia, they are at like 60% pure profit per chip, including software and RnD. That will have an effect on how we design stuff in the next few years.
I think we’ll need both ”GPU” and traditional CPUs for the foreseeable future. GPU-style for bandwidth or compute constrained workloads and CPU-style for latency sensitive workloads or pointer chasing. Now, I do think we’ll slap them both on top of the same memory, APU-style á la MI300A.
That is, as long as x86 has the single-threaded advantage, RISC-V won’t take over that marked, and as long as GPUs have higher bandwidth, RISC-V won’t take over that market.
Finally, I doubt we’ll see a performant RISC-V chip from China the next decade - they simply lack the EUV fabs. From outside of China, maybe, but the demand isn’t nearly as large.
bruhduh@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
AMD APU approach already bearing fruit, PlayStation, Xbox, steam deck, strix halo, and their instinct datacenter cards, show that one chip approach is good as you’ve said
j4k3@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Open AI is showing holes in the armor already. Open source always wins in the long term. There are many attempts to limit RISC-V adoption but if you look, even the old guard is putting chips on this board.
Having half a data center on a different architecture and load is untenable. Nvidia got lucky and is in a good position but that will only last 6-8 years at most. It is likely far less when China takes Taiwan and NK attacks SK at the same time. Nvidia has nothing without TSMC in Taiwan. That will leave only Intel and they are a train wreck that is relying on TSMC too. All of the Chip-Act fabs are trailing edge by the time they come online so those won’t save Nvidia either. This is what the US voted for; massive taxifs and WW3 by 2030.
It will end up just like with AI in China. They are more agile and capable than the West imagines. They will pivot the chip limitations into the future. All of the American hegemony is based on layers upon layers of anticompetitive stagnation. Once those walls come down the future will move more quickly. All of these US companies are traitors as far as I am concerned. They outsourced at the expense of their neighbors and country. There are hundreds of thousands of homeless people in the USA. We have neo feudalism largely thanks to these shit companies. I hope they all crash and burn and will gladly buy Chinese.
Also, with the current posturing of the USA towards Europe, EUV may become much more available in China. The Chinese look a whole lot less like stupid fascist Nazis than the US does now. We are the ones creating massive human rights violations and burning down the world in rancid stupidity. There is no moral ground to stand on do don’t expect ASML and the Dutch to feel all warm and fuzzy about US loyalties.
notthebees@reddthat.com 1 day ago
Yes, but it doesn’t have arm levels of growing pains.
zarenki@lemmy.ml 8 hours ago
I’m only aware of one RISC-V system where I can say the core count is there: the Milk-V Pioneer board and its 64-core SG2042 processor from two years ago. It’s comparable in price to a 64-core ARM Ampere CPU+motherboard (USD$1500 for the board), which seems somewhat reasonable when not considering the performance of each core. Hopefully the C930 core described in this article leads to more systems that aim for multi-core performance.
Most RISC-V development boards are only 4 cores or fewer, with just a few popping up in the last year with 8 cores and nothing higher besides the SG2042. The best single-core RISC-V performance so far is on the SiFive P550 but it’s only 4 cores and comes on a development board that costs USD$500 (plus another $150 for tariffs if shipping to the US). You could easily get a 12-core AMD CPU and motherboard combo for less than that.
notthebees@reddthat.com 2 hours ago
There’s also the deep computing mainboard from framework. Also that p550 uses a new CPU while the mainboard uses a jh710.
The p550 is less rpi and more like those rockchip powered boards from radxa. (ignoring core count).
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
i’ve heard rumors that they’ve made great surprises and developments so far; but i have nothing substantial to point you to, as it’s mostly rumors that i got from friends/other people at this point.
drmoose@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Funny how in “communist” China almost no code is open source. It’s almost like it was never about “the people” huh
turnip@sh.itjust.works 6 hours ago
Can’t have the people using unsanctioned software.