[HN Gopher] High-performance RISC-V processors: UltraRISC UR-DP1...
___________________________________________________________________
High-performance RISC-V processors: UltraRISC UR-DP1000, Zhihe
A210, SpacemIT K3
Author : fork-bomber
Score : 88 points
Date : 2025-07-23 12:58 UTC (4 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cnx-software.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cnx-software.com)
| snvzz wrote:
| Reminder: Haswell and Zen1 were around 8.1 specint2006/GHz.
|
| These CPUs are above that.
| brucehoult wrote:
| So is P550 ... 8.65 is the claim I think. It doesn't have the
| MHz though. My i7-4790K (which is still in the back room
| somewhere) had a base of 4.0 GHz and could turbo to 4.2 or 4.4.
| My Megrez is doing just 1.8 GHz.
| snvzz wrote:
| Main issue with P550 is no V. Huge handicap, can't easily
| make up for that.
|
| RVA23 requires V. These incoming CPUs are the real deal, a
| perfectly usable performance level in the present day.
|
| (unless they cache-starve them or some other such fuck up)
|
| My 4790k was still my main PC until I recently (weeks) built
| a new PC with 9800x3d, 96GB ECC, rx7900gre.
|
| 4790k had 4 cores. If these new chips clock reasonably, say,
| 3+ GHz, and have 8 or 16 cores, they'll easily generally
| outdo this old -but very usable still- Intel chip.
| sitkack wrote:
| Everyone needs to be focusing on memory controllers. No one
| has enough main memory bandwidth.
| nubinetwork wrote:
| I'm okay with ddr4 as long as you can still buy it.
| camel-cdr wrote:
| Reminder: The Cortex-A76 cores in the Pi5 are 9.9
| SPECint2006/GHz, only the UR-CP1000 is above that, but that
| doesn't support RVV.
|
| The SpacemiT X100 is slightly below that, but has 256-bit RVV
| and RVA23 support.
| 6SixTy wrote:
| No V instruction set is going to be a big handicap though, as
| that's pretty much RISC-V's equivalent of AVX and missing those
| instructions is going to suck big time.
| snvzz wrote:
| RVA23 compliant implies V.
|
| Two of the three processors seem to be RVA23.
| 6SixTy wrote:
| Pretty much my issue is that the one that is the closest to
| shipping is also the one missing V instructions. I am far
| more skeptical over potential processors especially after
| Horse Creek just vanished into thin air.
| geerlingguy wrote:
| High performance for RISC-V; still a ton of catchup especially in
| efficiency (perf/W) to Intel/AMD and Arm.
|
| At least we're getting close to Raspberry Pi level performance
| now.
| deivid wrote:
| Can't wait for a faster risc-v SBC, waiting for rust builds on my
| VisionFive 2 drives me crazy.
| fidotron wrote:
| The performance here is less interesting than the apparently
| quasi imminent availability of real RVA23 devices. If/when that
| occurs it will set a baseline and things should not warrant from
| scratch rebuilds constantly for at least a while.
|
| Anyone that believes semiconductor performance claims before
| device availability is in for a rough time.
| gchamonlive wrote:
| You are right, but I think this is different than say
| performance claims for the next generation by mainstream GPU or
| CPU manufacturers.
|
| This is a chicken and the egg problem. You need interest in the
| architecture and belief in performance for device availability
| to start to pop, after all who would invest a lot of money in
| something they don't think will have a market, but you also
| need device availability to support performance claims.
|
| So I think for newer products, performance claims will have to
| do.
| bjoli wrote:
| Milk brags about their "proprietary extension". I understand that
| the vendors can do whatever they want, but that turns me off.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-07-27 23:01 UTC)