Gabriele Svelto (gabriele.svelto.delete@this.gmail.com) on November 4, 2019 10:42 pm wrote:
>
> Sorry that my posts are not interesting to you. Here's one thing though: if you're interested
> only in larger cores "mobile through server" in your words then you'll have to wait for a RISC-V
> implementation that target that markets if you want to make an ISA comparison. I'm sure that particular
> implementation will have an ISA that will be significantly different than base, vanilla RISC-V
> just like modern ARM cores ships with ISAs very different from the original ones.
>
> In the meantime comparing AArch64 to base RISC-V and claiming superiority
> of the latter is as meaningless as comparing it to the original ARM.



I agree that the initial products with RISC-V target a very different market, so their base ISA might not be comparable with AArch64.


Nevertheless I believe that everybody who referred to AArch64 did that not as an example of an ISA targeting the same market, but as an example of an ISA which was designed recently so that it could take into account the experience with the older RISC ISAs in order to attempt to have a superior ISA.


What I do not like about RISC-V is that I have not seen in the base ISA any sign that its designers understood what was good and what was bad in the older RISC or CISC ISAs. On the other hand, I appreciated very much the propaganda that the RISC-V team made in favor of vector extensions, about which their opinions were all right.


If we refer to the same market, then RISC-V sucks badly in comparison with ARMv7-M & ARMv6-M, despite the fact that those were partially constrained by backwards compatibility with an ancient ISA, as shown e.g. in the cryptography paper that was linked in one of the messages from this thread.