← Back to context

Comment by whizzter

18 hours ago

I'm sure there's plenty of other stuff invented in Japan, but that's really beside the point.

The industry is now mature enough that nobody really wants the headache of a new architecture at this point in time, Risc-V got a pass for being a grassroots movement growing out off FPGA's since the IP situation was more or less clear or even predatory with all existing architectures, Power, Sparc,SuperH,68k,etc are buried for good reasons.

POWER is still holding on just barely but I do suspect that IBM are looking to sunset it in the next few years.

  • Given that IBM just announced a dual-ISA mainframe with support for both z/arch and ARM, they might indeed be looking to sunset POWER.

Powers not dead yet! IBM is still clinging to it and I can't blame them, it's a pretty good ISA

  • Yep, I have said it for a good 20 years now.

    POWER/PowerPC is what happens when you take a brilliant design to execute it poorly. x86 is when you take a poor design and execute is brilliantly.

    • PPC could have any number of merits, the 2 nail in the coffin imho is that the community/implementations seems to have held on to a big-endian tradition whilst the mass of users/developers firmly shifted to little-endian when Apple went to x86 and that IBM didn't push it properly open in the 2005-2008 timeframe when PS3/Xbox360 were still relevant (OpenPower seems to have been created in 2013, after the creation of Risc-V and PS4/XboxOne going to x86).

    • PPC was great with the G4, it was much better than the P3. Intel with P3 based-Core Duos won against the G5.

UC Berkeley developed RISC-V, so no doubt their influence within the computer science academia sphere had something to do with it.

  • Dunno, I think Risc-V's simplicity gave it the initial popularity rush rather than being from a certain institution (the institution perhaps gave it visibility, but it does have own merits and no idea if other archs from the time had those?), don't remembere exactly but iirc it was possible to implement with a ridiculously small amount of FPGA gates. Conversly heard some rumblings that it had parts t hat were unsuitable for scaling up but it seems to have gained enough momentum for people to engineer past stuff like that.