Because most ARM SBCs are still limited to whatever linux distro they added support to. Intel SBCs might underperform but you can be sure it will run anything built for x86-64.
So what? Are you suggesting that Apple would have switched to RISC-V?
I like RISC-V (it's my job and I'm very involved in the community) but even now it isn't ready for laptops/desktop class applications. RVA23 is really the first profile that comes close and that was only ratified very recently. But beyond that there are a load of other things that are very much work in progress around the periphery that you need on a laptop. ACPI, UEFI, etc. If you know RISC-V, what does mconfigptr point to? Nothing yet!
Anyway the question was why would anyone switch from one proprietary ISA to another, as if nobody would - despite the very obvious proof that yes they absolutely would.
But it's still something grafted onto the existing architecture, of many grids with many blocks with many warps, and lots and lots of coordination and passing intermediary results around. It's only a 4x4x4 unit, afaik. There's still a lot of main memory being used to combine data, a lot of orchestration among the different warps and blocks and grids, to get big matrices crunched.
The systolic array is designed to allow much more fire and forget operations. It's inputs are 128 x 128 and each cell is its own compute node basically, shuffling data through and across (but not transitting a far off memory).
TPU architecture has plenty of limitations. It's not great at everything. But if you can design work to flow from cell to neighboring cell, you can crunch very sizable chunks of data with amazing data locality. The efficiency there is unparalleled.
Nvidia would need a radical change of their architecture to get anything like the massive data locality wins a systolic array can do. It would come with massively more constraints too.
Wouldn't you expect the country with the most manufacturing and one of the biggest population to also have the biggest pollution?
I feel you'd need to adjust the sum total by something, capita, or square footage or be more specific like does a manufacturing X in China pollute more than an equivalent one in the US, etc.
Not all goods and services involve the same process, some come with more pollution.
For example, Nvidia will contribute to a big chunk of US GDP, but it only designs the chips, which won't have the same pollution impact as the country in which they'll have it manufactured.
Doesn't really make sense in my opinion. Why boycott a specific group of people for their collective emissions when their individual emissions are lower than many others? The latter is the important metric, else you're simply punishing them for having a large population.
reply