On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 20:59:47 -0500 zap <[email protected]> wrote: > Isn't Risc-V supposedly supposed to be more secure and isn't open power > based on the old risc? I am just wondering, if the level of evils risc-v > has done, justifies abandoning usage of it when you could just as easily > do some risc-v processors with or without their help
The ISA has nothing to do with security. All the meltdown/spectre stuff is implementation, hence why AMD is unaffected by much of it. > and moreover, > power, doesn't it require an immense, even crazy amount of watts? > I guess my point is, they use more battery power than intel even. And > intel is bad enough. The old Mac laptops basically tried to use a desktop cpu on mobile, kinda what Intel P4 did. It's about design choices, not the instructions. There are a number of lower-wattage Power cpus; using that does not mean the chip will burn lots. The POWER9 chips IBM offers, 90W for 4-core, 160W for 8-core and 190W for more, they are server chips. Compare to Epycs and Xeons, not to mobile 15W ones. The older Power core in the Wii U uses around 20W. All about choices. > Okay, well you did say openpower, what is that? IBM released the ISA under open terms, and started the OpenPower foundation to govern it. > Oh really? That's odd... hmm... so you have to abandon risc-v you are > saying? Pity that's your only option. I wonder if I should tell others > about this. Just making sure it's clear, the ISA choice is about licensing and extensibility. Risc-v, mips, power are about equal in other ways; in some ways, power and mips are better, like existing compiler support. IOW dropping risc-v is not a loss in ways most users would care about. - Lauri _______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list [email protected] http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to [email protected]
