If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Phoronix, Linux Hardware Reviews, Linux hardware benchmarks, Linux server benchmarks, Linux benchmarking, Desktop Linux, Linux performance, Open Source graphics, Linux How To, Ubuntu benchmarks, Ubuntu hardware, Phoronix Test Suite
I don't see why anyone would be interested in ARC when there is RISC-V.
There is and there will be much more ARC stuff around than RISC-V for a long while, and many companies will likely have committed to it decades ago for their embedded/microcontroller stuff even if it is not mainstream like ARM or MIPS.
There is and there will be much more ARC stuff around than RISC-V for a long while, and many companies will likely have committed to it decades ago for their embedded/microcontroller stuff even if it is not mainstream like ARM or MIPS.
One of the big surprises I got at Synopsys' ARC conference is that ARC is #2 in terms of share of licensed microprocessor shipments. I think most readers of Semiwiki would know ARM is #1 but would guess that MIPS (now owned by Imagination Technologies) is #2. But you'd be wrong, ARC is over twice…
Note, among other things, that ARC is used in the Management Engine for Intel processors (except Atom, which use embedded SPARC cores.)
As for the person saying "why not RISC-V", ecosystem means a lot. RISC-V has a negligible RTOS ecosystem (well, last I looked) and still no mainline Linux port. For those of us that have to design systems for a decade-plus of use, maturity matters.
I don't see why anyone would be interested in ARC when there is RISC-V.
Cause ARC is configurable and comes with a whole ecosystem of fitting modules (peripherials, busses). Those who need some kind of special-purpose CPU won`t be served with a rather standardized ARM, MIPS or RISC-V.
Comment