- Oct 3, 2008
28nm process part. Perf/Watt isn't going to be much better. When they go to 20 or 14, then we're talking.
SiFive has a board that I believe currently has people working on Linux support for.Has risc-v produced more than initial silicon yet? I recall I saw someone playing a NES emu on that which is something, but not exactly a benchmark.
Ah, that's second or maybe later silicon. I've found the video I saw, which apparently uses a Kendryte K210 CPU, while this newer board is based on a U540 SoC. That initial board apparently ran micropython inside WSL inside Win 10 embedded, which sounds like a lot of effort to go to to me, but this new one supports Linux natively. Still, they're charging a dollar less than $1k to buy one, which is beyond my budget for shits and giggles at present.
Actually, I would totally love to see something like this, but based on a 486dx4/100. Reason being is that a TON of things written around the time period of the 286,386 and 486 lines were best run on a 486dx4/100. It would be the definitive time period for which to build a 'retro' computer for the time. Windows 3.1, or even Windows 95 would be completely functional on something along those lines. Instead of software emulation. Just my $.02.I have always wondered if someone took the old 80386 CPU 1.5µm to 1µm lithography masks and shrank them - and the rest of the system platform of a 'maxed out' 1987 80386 DX with on-die 4GB of RAM, an on-die 16bit Soundblaster equivalent and an on-die SVGA card equivalent, IDE drives connection - pile everything that would have been in a 'maxed out' desktop machine form 1987 into a single chip - would it be any good?
It would lack any control for WiFi, USB, SATA, etc... So, that part would suck...
I agree that better process will give better performance. However, accessibility is a big issue here. Powerful (enough) chips being built on these improved processes are pretty expensive and difficult to source. You typically need to be a big name purchasing large quantities to get access to the latest and greatest or even get close.28nm process part. Perf/Watt isn't going to be much better. When they go to 20 or 14, then we're talking.
It’s much easier to just make up numbersI love ARMs graphs. Forget misleading axes, just omit them entirely!
Especially when you can cherry pick a specific set of conditions for which the 'new' has a special trick to be faster - and not give any detail as to what was actually running for this, likely highly selective to their favor, "same workloads" 'test'. Trust nothing presented as marketing spin. Until someone gets one in a dev board and runs it side by side to a Pyra or OMAP5 dev board with a direct measure of consumption and heat generated, claims like that are pretty much worthless.It’s much easier to just make up numbers