[HN Gopher] Intel announces Arm investment, talks up RISC-V
___________________________________________________________________
Intel announces Arm investment, talks up RISC-V
Author : klelatti
Score : 131 points
Date : 2023-09-07 07:32 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.tomshardware.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.tomshardware.com)
| gavinray wrote:
| I'm 26 and I don't know anything about finance or stocks.
|
| I've never invested before and I'm planning on purchasing ARM
| stock the day they IPO.
|
| Is this a bad idea? I was planning on investing a sizeable chunk
| of my savings.
| wskinner wrote:
| Yes. If you know nothing about investing, the best thing you
| can do is read "A Random Walk Down Wall Street". It's quick and
| easy and explains why beating the market by picking stocks is
| not a great way to invest.
| qznc wrote:
| For people who prefer a website over a book, this is a solid
| place to start: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Main_Page
| Varloom wrote:
| Softbank are dumping their shares in ARM while at peak
| valuation, before RISC-V eats its market share (they saw it
| coming, that's why they are rushing to IPO before rise of
| RISC-V).
|
| Most big ARM clients are dumping ARM for RISC-V.
|
| Including, Qualcomm:
|
| https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/08/qualcomm-one-of-arms...
|
| Google (Converting whole Android system to support RISC-V):
|
| https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/01/google-announces-off...
|
| And Samsung :
|
| https://research.samsung.com/news/Samsung-Electronics-Partic...
|
| When you want to invest look for the underdog, not a company
| that has it's market share ready to be eaten alive by RISC-V in
| the coming 5-10 years.
| [deleted]
| janc_ wrote:
| Not dumping ARM, but certainly moving away from being ARM-
| only, so ARM's share of the market will drop...
| usr1106 wrote:
| Investing a sizeable chunk of your savings is gambling. In a
| couple of years you will know whether it was a good idea or
| not. And some so-called experts will tell you, that's what we
| said. And some other so-called experts will be very quiet.
| brucehoult wrote:
| If you don't know anything about finance or stocks then you are
| EXACTLY the retail customer they are looking for!
|
| SoftBank paid $32 billion for Arm in 2016. People at the time
| were saying that was waaay too much, and that was even without
| 99.9% of people in the industry having RISC-V on their radar
| yet.
|
| A fair valuation of Arm, assuming that they're going to grow at
| a kind of industrial average rate from here on, would be 15 to
| 20 times annual profits. That's something like $8 to $12
| billion. $50 billion is insanity.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Buy an ETF instead, this is a bagholder IPO riding the AI hype.
| Do you want to be a bagholder?
| SilverBirch wrote:
| This may seem like a dumb question: Do we know how much Intel is
| paying? I can understand Intel wanting to invest.... but at what
| price and how much? Because I could imagine Softbank (who seem
| pretty desparate at this point) punting off big chunks of the
| company at a discount simply to try and trick retail into
| inesting. It's certainly not ethical, is it legal?
| roughly wrote:
| To be honest, it's a little hard to really take this seriously.
| The number of times I've watched Intel make Serious Declarations
| of Significant Strategic Realignments in the last decade or so
| only to watch them inevitably shed all the new divisions and
| product lines to Focus On Core Products makes it hard to really
| give this the attention it might warrant.
| imachine1980_ wrote:
| they are making only one bet now, (two if you account discrete
| gpu), making the production of the chip different division than
| the design of the x86 processors, and selling as service , most
| of this chips are arm or risc-v base so this is more a
| necessity to change the brand awardness and say "we will
| produce your non x86 chips", and we are in the committees of
| this technologies.
| BirAdam wrote:
| Not only is IFS a separate division, it's almost a different
| company. The x86 group has to purchase foundry services IIRC.
| mhh__ wrote:
| The difference now is that Intel is being run by an engineer
| again so at very least there might be some top-down strategy.
| depereo wrote:
| Pat hasn't been an engineer for a long, long time. He doesn't
| appear to act or plan like one now.
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| And yet they are still delaying releases, canceling promising
| products, and making some questionable technical choices
| (like overhauling AVX512 _and_ bifurcating the new standard,
| instead of uniting it like ARM and AMD did, among others).
|
| I like Pat, I like what Pat says, I get plans are long term,
| but it still feels like the rubber is not meeting the road.
| tester756 wrote:
| >canceling promising products
|
| Like? I hope you aren't talking about Optane
| someperson wrote:
| What was wrong with Optane?
| tester756 wrote:
| There was nothing wrong with Optane (I'm talking about
| non-volatile memory, it is important because there were a
| few products under Optane name)
|
| I believe that was/is impressive tech.
|
| You could have disk and ram in one stick aka kinda
| unified memory.
|
| Think of it: instead of purchasing RAM+Disk, you purchase
| one stick and configure it as e.g 40% of the capacity
| works as a disk and 60% as a "RAM".
|
| But saying that they "cancelled" doesn't tell the whole
| story.
|
| IIRC: they couldnt find a fab which would produce them
| after Micron sold their fab.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| It was supposed to be cheaper than the equivalent amount
| of ordinary DRAM but ended up more expensive and slower.
| networkchad wrote:
| [dead]
| oldgradstudent wrote:
| It's not just the last decade
|
| Does anyone remember ViiV, or explain what exactly it was?
| paulmd wrote:
| just looks like centrino or the multimedia PC standard: a
| basket of technologies (and like centrino/ultrabook, all
| intel ones) that define a standard for media PCs and set-top
| hardware that would support a certain distribution model.
|
| now of course a lot of people didn't get what centrino was
| either (or what vpro is today!). it's a little hard to market
| these hardware standards when it's not something obvious like
| "the multimedia PC standard" that consumers grok. But it's
| the same kind of idea: we're going to need X, Y and Z
| hardware and feature support to do this workload or customer
| use-case. If your PC has it, then it's
| Centrino/Ultrabook/whatever!
|
| But again I think it's true that people respond more
| intuitively to the idea of branding the product and not the
| platform. "Ultrabook" or "Multimedia PC Level 3" makes more
| sense as a concept to people than "Centrino" or "Viiv".
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Viiv
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrino
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_vPro
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_PC
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrabook
| MenhirMike wrote:
| Centrino was an absolute slam-dunk success that did
| significantly bring x86 laptop computers forward (it may
| not be complete hyperbole to say that the Pentium M is the
| most important Intel CPU of this century), but in some ways
| it became obsolete by its own success: As all laptop
| manufacturers followed and gave us Ultrabooks that were
| amazing, Centrino as a brand didn't become a differentiator
| anymore, and Viiv just wasn't offering anything important
| enough - though the brand made perfect sense, given how hot
| Media Center PCs were for a short while.
| jmclnx wrote:
| No, I do not want Intel to touch anything associated with RISC-V.
| I do not want to see Intel MI cloned into RISC-V (and other
| backdoors), nevermind all the SMT Issues Intel is having.
| BirAdam wrote:
| Too late, see Horse Creek.
| mhh__ wrote:
| Intel can dig for gold and sell shovels here at the same time
| here.
|
| They have a long way to go (it will require a herculean effort by
| the leadership) but nonetheless the upside potential is huge.
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| Will Nvidia do something similar? If not dig themselves, could
| they actually design and license derivatives of Risc-v? I don't
| know how licensing works here.
| mhh__ wrote:
| They could but they have a very strong relationship / want to
| acquire arm so it might not make much sense in today's terms
| -- for Nvidia, Arm/RISC-V is more of a software thing and
| they've spent a lot of money making their drivers and
| toolchain work on Arm so similar.
|
| My point WRT shovels is selling fabrication, which Nvidia
| can't do, to be clear.
| drexlspivey wrote:
| ARM is preparing to IPO next week, their main business is
| collecting license fees. Here are last year's income statement:
|
| Revenue: $2.67B (down from 2.7)
|
| Gross profit margin: 96%
|
| Net Profit: $524m
|
| And they are planning to IPO at a valuation of 60-70 billion
| dollars! Thats a P/E of 130 and a P/S of 25. Frankly this is
| ridiculous for a company that collects license fees, there is no
| potential for massive growth, all smartphones are using ARM chips
| already and their biggest client has a perpetual license already.
| Why is it valued like a tech startup?
|
| This is Softbank dumping on retail and they somehow got Apple and
| Intel to buy a small piece of the IPO (700m combined).
| tester756 wrote:
| Do I understand ARM's business?
|
| They rely on people wanting to design their own ~~ships~~ chips
|
| So if we assume that their ecosystem is healthly and mature at
| this moment,
|
| then there's potential that customers wanting to design their
| own stuff will go to them.
|
| So until RISC-V matures, then they'll be making profits, yup?
|
| But is there growth potential? Are companies really interested
| in designing their own chips except a few startups that already
| license from them and probably google/amazon/whatever that need
| highly specialized chips, but already license from them?
|
| What I'm missing?
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| > then there's potential that customers wanting to design
| their own stuff will go to them.
|
| There is plenty of evidence that anyone 'wanting to design
| their own stuff' are targeting RISC-V. Licencing ARM for that
| sort of thing is both costly and a pain in the arse and a
| distraction from actual processor development.
|
| You dismiss startups, but the ripest growth market for
| processors is in AI accelerators and they are predominantly
| RISC-V based in the startup world.
|
| RISC-V is growing fast and has a structural advantage to
| ARM's ISA monopoly, in that sense it is a real danger to
| ARM's business model.
| DesiLurker wrote:
| purely from investment perspective the scaling RISC-V
| development provides a hard cap on the how aggressive their
| pricing policy can be. At this point all major SoC companies
| have some interest/activity in RISC-V development so I doubt
| ARM is is in any form of monopoly position. with basically
| negates any significant stock growth opportunity. Given that
| era of cheap/easy money is done I really doubt anything good
| will come out for the IPO holders. this is just finding a
| bag-holder.
| Veserv wrote:
| Generally speaking, ARM sells chip blueprints in return for a
| royalty on every chip manufactured using their blueprints (or
| designed to be compatible). Their growth potential is more
| chips being made using their blueprints or getting a higher
| royalty per chip manufactured.
| cma wrote:
| > there is no potential for massive growth, all smartphones are
| using ARM chips already and their biggest client has a
| perpetual license already.
|
| There's a war for the next platform. Meta uses ARM, while Magic
| Leap 2 for instance uses x64.
| dehrmann wrote:
| > there is no potential for massive growth
|
| There is the PC business, but it's slowly dying. Seems a bit
| late in the game to drag it to a new architecture.
|
| Datacenters are another place ARM might see growth, but Intel
| and AMD already competitive there. The biggest growth area
| might be Nvidia's Grace Hopper, but you might as well buy
| (already overpriced?) NVDA.
|
| The reasons for IPOs are for investors to cash out (Saudi
| Aramco) or to raise money for growth (tech before ~2010). This
| feels like a cash-out. It's not that investors will necessarily
| _lose_ money, it 's that they're buying a much more mature
| company than they think.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| The strange thing is that even if Softbank is effective at
| floating at this valuation (apparently by having 28 banks
| hawking the IPO and having a small float), there is almost no
| prospect of it remaining at that valuation, and Softbank is
| left holding the vast majority of the shares.
|
| I don't see how this doesn't end in tears. It seems to be
| mostly wishful thinking.
| mhandley wrote:
| Seems like this is mostly about making sure that Intel Foundry
| customers who will inevitably use lots of ARM processors are well
| supported.
| rwmj wrote:
| This is exactly the reason. There are now (in all but corporate
| legality) two Intels, the one that makes x86 and the one that
| runs the foundries. Most RISC-V was going to be made on TSMC,
| and Intel Foundry Services (IFS) wants a piece.
| joachimma wrote:
| Anyone have some insight into why RISC-V seems to be getting
| traction?
|
| Has there not been prior attempts to make an open source cpu?
|
| Is there a lot of skill in making the ISA? It seems to me
| (naively) that most talented EE students could probably come up
| with their own ISA, or is there some "magic" in the RISC-V one?
|
| I assume that there are a reference implementations in
| VHDL/Verilog and Cadence and good support in compilers. Is this
| what pushed through, where others failed?
| spiralpolitik wrote:
| The big part is royalty-free open-source licenses. If you don't
| want to pay ARM for an ISA and RISC-V is good enough for your
| needs then RISC-V might be for you.
|
| Plus there are limitations on which countries the latest ARM
| designs can be shipped to. RISC-V has no such limitation. The
| RISC-V Foundation is based in Switzerland and so isn't subject
| to US trade sanctions.
| photonbeam wrote:
| Nvidia trying to purchase Arm got a lot of companies noticing
| that they have a sole-source provider, and instead want options
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| Because it's a free, well designed, clean and simple ISA.
| askvictor wrote:
| ARM also license chip designs that implement the architecture.
| Not quite sure, but I think they'll do (for a fee) much of the
| process of making a chip that doesn't involve the fab.
| BirAdam wrote:
| ARM had some blunders with licensing changes for one, and then
| the split with ARM China was bad. Price plays a part. The next
| thing is that several open designs, including the reference
| design from Berkley, did very well at optimizing the most
| common instructions on which easily 90% of computation actually
| happens. As a result, very early RISC-V silicon showed
| seriously good performance at extremely low cost. As things are
| now, RISC-V is becoming increasingly competitive with ARM and
| x86 with amazing rapidity. There will be a few more hurdles in
| making RISC-V as performant as x86 or ARM, but given the ISA's
| open source nature, many eyes will make all bugs shallow.
| meepmorp wrote:
| Oh wow, it's xscale again.
| micvbang wrote:
| Somewhat related: I believe RISC-V is going to well in the coming
| decade. I've been trying to figure out what I can invest in to
| get exposed to it, but have been unable to find anything. If
| anybody had got any angles, I'd love to hear them!
| photonbeam wrote:
| You could buy private stock for some companies like SiFive on
| something like EquityZen.
|
| Other companies are already public, like Andes
|
| Look at names of companies that give talks at
| https://events.linuxfoundation.org/riscv-summit/
| rwmj wrote:
| I'm guessing most of the value will be taken by TSMC. They
| don't care who wins :-) This move is about Intel Foundry
| Services (IFS) trying to get some of that action. IFS is now
| operated separately from the x86 part of the company.
| prabhu-yu wrote:
| .
| dboreham wrote:
| I thought parent was asking about potential stock investments
| that could be expected to do well based on future RISC-V
| popularity.
| micvbang wrote:
| You're right!
| upsidedownside wrote:
| [dead]
| mattnewton wrote:
| Depends on where you think the value will accrue - Maybe cloud
| providers who are some of x86's biggest customers today but
| would switch if workloads work there? But their bottom line is
| exposed to so many different things it's not a clean bet.
|
| For the processors designers themselves, I wouldn't bet outside
| value accrues to them since the instruction set is open and
| competition could be fierce.
|
| Another option would be to figure out who you think will be
| manufacturing the other peripherals needed to use RISC
| processors. Something like Supermicro on the server side (which
| benefitted hugely from a similar relationship making nvidia
| cards into servers), or find some supplier on whatever market
| you think will pop because of RISC-V (automotive, military
| systems, etc). Basically whoever turns these processors into
| finished systems is probably a good bet, but I haven't done
| enough research to know who that would be.
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| I can see AWS developing a risc-v based cpu, like with
| gravitons as a competing offer.
|
| disclaimer: this is pure speculation, I am not privy to any
| information, I am just a rando engineer.
| micvbang wrote:
| Thank you. Yes, I agree that it's a good idea to look for
| companies that create divided systems based on RISC-V. It's
| primarily these I've had trouble to identify :)
| sobkas wrote:
| I believe RISC-V will recreate balkanization and UNIX wars of
| the past. There will be just to much incentive for corporations
| to introduce closed/proprietary extension to distinguish
| themselves from their competitors. So either users would be
| forced to use only core specification(that would be not as
| competitive as new extensions) or be forced to choose extended
| ISA from one of big players.
| paulmd wrote:
| Yes. People upthread are talking about how corporations want
| to recreate the open software revolution with open hardware
| and this will (and already does) play out exactly like it has
| with open software: big vendors extract all the value from
| the product, contribute nothing back, and keep any cool
| features they come up with internal and proprietary.
|
| This is the problem with arm, it's this foundational
| technology that underpins everything from Grace to Dojo and
| TPU and yet arm doesn't make any fucking money. They lost
| money during the first year of the pandemic (and the two
| years prior iirc!) despite the boom in electronics sales!
|
| Nvidia buying arm for the synergy of forcing CUDA as the
| default arm graphics IP (and BYO for higher price) was the
| good ending. Nobody else is going to pay $40b for a company
| that makes 0.5b +/- 1b without some other synergy, and the
| other possibilities are companies like Samsung, tsmc, or
| Oracle with their own synergies.
|
| Well, if it's not nvidia (and it seems any other buyout would
| be equally unlikely to get approval) then SoftBank is just
| gonna have to make the existing licensees pay up, and cash
| out the business that way (revenue and then IPO). So there's
| a lot of licensees who are going to find an extra zero on
| their TCO of ARM usage.
|
| That's the reason you saw Qualcomm pitch a fit and start
| lying about the terms of their licensing deal last year. And
| google and meta and Amazon are equally upset. And they're
| gonna start funding a competitor.
|
| Those companies (and the bulk android market) mostly don't
| care about performance, this is the "cheapest thing that
| works" market. The accelerator (TPU etc) is the thing that
| really matters now.
|
| There may be a minimal amount of collaboration (ala Minix or
| CDDL) to build that common platform but that's all they
| really care about, is some basic P-core and E-core designs.
| There is no incentive for Amazon to build processors that are
| way faster than googles, actually everyone is still selling
| vCPUs based on sandy bridge processing power. They'd rather
| make cheaper smaller CPUs (this is why zen4c and zen5c exist,
| in large part) than compete on performance or features.
| That's just not where the secret sauce is, and it's not where
| the revenue is.
|
| So we are going to see the same thing as the software space,
| where vendors take the fruit of risc-v, build their own stuff
| around it, and pay nothing and contribute nothing back.
| Everything important will live in proprietary, non-portable
| IP that doesn't need to be shared under open terms. The same
| problems as always when you BSD/MIT license.
|
| The future is a google TPU that you are not allowed to
| purchase yourself, stamping on a human face endlessly. But
| the boot will be based on a core of open-source/open-license
| designs, how wonderful! (with the interesting parts living
| inside proprietary parts of the core ofc)
|
| Nvidia/CUDA dominance is _way_ better than google platform-
| as-service that you can't even run on-prem if you wanted to.
| And for all you can say about them, nvidia has never stopped
| pushing to the next thing, even when they had an
| insurmountable lead, and even when nobody else believed in
| the goal or saw where they were trying to go. Google and
| Amazon don't benefit from pushing the limit like this, they
| just want cheap arm.micro instances and a host for their
| proprietary accelerators.
|
| The difference between BSD/MIT and GPL is fundamentally about
| who gets the freedom - BSD/MIT let developers do what they
| want with it, and that sometimes comes at the expense of user
| freedoms. And when google/Amazon/meta want free cores, they
| certainly don't mean free for you.
| brucehoult wrote:
| Since RISC-V already has standard extensions for pretty much
| every feature that any other mainstream ISA has, it is pretty
| hard to see what is left for generally-applicable custom
| extensions that make enough difference to be worth getting
| locked in to.
|
| The only Balkanization that has occurred so far is companies
| implementing draft versions of standard extensions because
| they don't want to wait years for the final version: e.g. the
| Kendryte K210 with priv ISA 1.9.1 [1], THead C906 and C910
| implementing draft 0.7.1 of the Vector specification [2],
| THead implementing Physical Memory Attributes which didn't
| even have an official draft spec yet, THead and Andes
| implementing equivalents to (mostly) the eventual Zb or Zc
| extensions [3]
|
| None of that has much in the way of lock-in as affected code
| can be either simply recompiled using the relevant official
| extension or else trivially ported.
|
| [1] they appear to have simply used the current Berkeley
| Rocket snapshot at the time, 1.10 is what was ratified
|
| [2] which document said "we think we're really really close
| to being ready to ratify this" but there turned out to be
| three more major revisions over 1.5 years. Nevertheless, many
| important library functions such as memcpy() are binary
| compatible between them, and forward-porting other 0.7.1 code
| to 1.0 is trivial.
|
| [3] e.g. clz and popcount, shift-and-add for addressing
| calculations, byteswap, short opcodes for simple forms of
| byte load/store
| whatshisface wrote:
| If that happens we will just end up with math libraries with
| tons of feature detection branches and the return of Gentoo.
| cinntaile wrote:
| Then your actual bet is that RISC-V based products will
| outperform products based on competing ISAs, no?
| micvbang wrote:
| Yeah. My thought is that RISC-V has the potential to be very
| competitive in terms of compute/watt and compute/$. At the
| very least versus x86, but hopefully also with arm
| hakfoo wrote:
| I'd expect it would expand the market for customized
| SoC/microcontroller parts.
|
| We know there's already a lot of "built to purpose" RISC-V
| products ending up in embedded environments. When you have
| less obligations to a restrictive ISA grant, you can make
| something that fits your needs exactly.
|
| So the business case is second-order:
|
| * As has repeatedly been joked, fab companies who aren't
| locked to a captive/capricious owner (Intel) look
| appealing. It likely isn't about cutting-edge there, but
| the flexibility to handle diverse custom orders. Plenty of
| these products will be like "133MHz and a couple hundred
| thousand gates" that would be fine on 90nm or bigger.
|
| * Firms that can move from "product" to "consultancy".
| There's a lot of brilliant work in existing ARM and RISC-V
| MCUs, but will existing firms be able to move away from
| "here's a matrix of features, order from the list" and into
| "Let us meet with your team, build a custom pick-and-mix
| and add a bespoke unit to meet your need for (smaller
| number than was historically common) product-specific
| MCUs?"
| bradstewart wrote:
| Is there something unique to RISC that makes it
| inexpensive to manufacture custom chips?
|
| Otherwise, I'd imagine the cost of the mask set and
| validation to far, far outweigh any reduction in unit
| cost you might see from a custom chip. MCUs are already
| extremely cheap, especially if you're buying significant
| quantities.
| [deleted]
| mhh__ wrote:
| That's such a weak edge you might as well just buy
| TSMC/ASML or even Intel their fab business play works out.
| rwmj wrote:
| The ISA is permissionless. You don't have to sign any legal
| documents, just download the specs, download some chip
| designs off github, and get going. The model is very
| different from x86 and Arm.
| 3cats-in-a-coat wrote:
| They might, on the basis of it being an open unencumbered ISA
| that will see a lot of investment from parties trying to get
| rid of Intel/ARM dependencies.
|
| Think of it a bit like what happened to JS. Being the open
| language the web runs, it saw immense competition from
| multiple particles and today we have a what should be a
| shitty dynamically typed prototype based scripting language
| outperform and outoptimize the likes of Java with its static
| classes and types in some scenarios.
| mhh__ wrote:
| Is JS faster than java?
|
| Also the web ecosystem is still basically a pile of shit on
| a few key metrics compared.to (say) boring Microsoft-land
| stuff a decade or 3 ago, so I'm not so sure if that's such
| a good argument.
| alostpuppy wrote:
| Just as God intended
| qwytw wrote:
| I would be wary about comparing software to hardware in
| this way. Open source software is generally only successful
| in cases when it's a cost center not the actual end
| product.
|
| I don't see how than can work when developing competitive
| CPU cores is extremely expensive. Why would anyone who does
| that make them free? (even licensing seems like a poor idea
| looking at ARMs business model).
| voytec wrote:
| It may not overpower other ISAs but could be attractive from
| the cost-effectiveness perspective.
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| Invest in companies making esoteric accelerators, like Fujitsu,
| Marvell, Broadcomm, probably many more I don't know about.
|
| RISC-V is going to show up more and more in heavily customized
| stuff like HPC chips or networking accelerators before it
| starts replacing Xeons, as (right now) thats what its best
| suited for. Look up what Jim Keller said about RISC-V usage for
| Tenstorrent and how ARM just doesn't allow for the kind of
| customization these specialized designs need from a
| standardized ISA.
| nickdothutton wrote:
| I'm old enough to remember the 1997/8 Intel deal with ARM.
| https://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/1998/CN0223...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-09 23:01 UTC)