Help me understand this better.

From what I have read online, since arm just licenses their ISA and each vendor’s CPU design can differ vastly from one another unlike x86 which is standard and only between amd and Intel. So the Linux support is hit or miss for arm CPUs and is dependent on vendor.

How is RISC-V better at this?. Now since it is open source, there may not be even some standard ISA like arm-v8. Isn’t it even fragmented and harder to support all different type CPUs?

  • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
    85·
    1 month ago

    each vendor’s CPU design can differ vastly from one another unlike x86 which is standard and only between amd and Intel.

    The ISA guarantees that a program compiled for it can run on any of these vendor designs. For example native binaries for Android run on any SoC from any vendor with the ARM ISA compiled for. The situation is exactly the same as with x86, Intel and AMD. Their core designs are very different yet binaries compiled for x86 run on either Intel or AMD, and on any of their models, even across different architectures. E.g. a binary compiled for x86_64 would run on AMD Zen 2, as well as Intel Skylake, as well as AMD Bulldozer.

    How is RISC-V better at this?

    It’s better in that it’s free to use. Anyone making a chip implementing RISC-V doesn’t have to pay ARM or Intel for a license. Not that Intel sells them anyway.

    The fragmentation issue might become a new problem. With that said we definitely want to move away from the only usable cores using ARM or x86, neither of which we can design and manufacture without the blessing of two corpos, one of which is a proven monopoly abuser.

      • pivot_root@lemmy.world
        363·
        1 month ago

        TL;DR: While Intel had their heads shoved up their ass making the Itanium architecture, AMD made a 64-bit variant of x86 that was backward compatible with the older x86 ISA. Technology moved on, and amd64 was adopted while Intel kept trying and failing to push their binary-incompatible architecture.

        Eventually, Intel had to give up and adopt AMD’s amd64 ISA. In exchange for letting them use it, Intel lets AMD use the older x86 ISA.

        • CameronDev@programming.dev
          42·
          1 month ago

          AMD were already using the x86 ISA long before amd64.

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD

          Intel had introduced the first x86 microprocessors in 1978.[51] In 1981, IBM created its PC, and wanted Intel’s x86 processors, but only under the condition that Intel also provide a second-source manufacturer for its patented x86 microprocessors.[12] Intel and AMD entered into a 10-year technology exchange agreement

          AMD were also second source for some other Intel logic chips before that deal.

          • pivot_root@lemmy.world
            151·
            1 month ago

            I was only going for explaining why AMD still continues to have the license to the x86 instruction set in modern times, but I appreciate the added historical context to explain to others how they originally had the rights to use it.

        • acockworkorange@mander.xyz
          4·
          1 month ago

          Itanium also failed miserably in performance and everything else it set out to deliver. While being ridiculously expensive.

      • Laser@feddit.org
        22·
        1 month ago

        VIA also built x86 CPUs for some time, they have a license as well; the issue with modern x86_64 is though that basically, you need licenses from both AMD and Intel. They do have a cross-license agreement, but there’s no single point of contact for all licenses for a modern x86 CPU.

      • wewbull@feddit.ukEnglish
        12·
        1 month ago

        To sell into the US government in the 70s you had to ensure your parts could be sourced from a second company. That way, if you had supply problems, the government would just got to the second source.

        AMD was a second source for the 8086.