RISC-V wants to be the third major chip architecture. CEO Calista Redmond has a lot of work to do.

RISC-V backers think its open-source chip cores could be a viable alternative to chips made by Intel, AMD and Arm’s partners. It will be an uphill battle, but some chip makers are intrigued.

CEO Calista Redmond

RISC-V doesn’t have some of the problems that companies building around Nvidia and Arm do.

Photo: RISC-V

At the outset of Nvidia’s bold $40 billion purchase of chip design maker Arm, semiconductor engineers and executives viewed an open-source alternative called RISC-V as a potential backup option should Nvidia exert more control over Arm’s design philosophy. More than a year later, Nvidia’s deal has run into trouble, but the appetite for an alternative — such as RISC-V — has not waned.

Nvidia’s Arm deal has run up against one of the things that makes RISC-V attractive: techno-nationalism. The COVID-19 pandemic made clear that semiconductors are vital for a range of consumer goods but also national security. The U.S., for example, has a plan in the works to spend billions to ensure that the domestic capacity exists to manufacture a sufficient supply.

RISC-V also doesn’t have some of the problems that companies building around Nvidia and Arm do because it is open source: free of licensing fees, restrictions and reliance on companies such as Intel or Arm pushing research and development forward. Most importantly, no government has successfully intervened in its development so far.

RISC-V’s present and future path also doesn’t hinge on turning a quarterly profit to appease Wall Street. As a result, its technological future is shaped by other priorities as organizations and national governments are free to transform the underlying blueprints to suit their needs. And several, such as China, India and Russia, have decided to do so.

But RISC-V is unproven at scale, and is well behind rivals when it comes to the maturity of software built for its architecture. To dig into some of the considerations around adopting RISC-V and a host of other recent developments, Protocol caught up with CEO Calista Redmond at the organization’s RISC-V summit in San Francisco last week. In our conversation, Redmond discussed how widely the tech has been adopted and some of the reasons why startups, big business and governments are taking a chance on developing hardware around RISC-V.

This interview has been condensed and edited.

What are some of the signals RISC-V is gaining traction in the marketplace?

The entire silicon industry has been disrupted by RISC-V. Some larger organizations like Intel are getting in the boat, they want to participate, as has Nvidia. The fundamental shakeup of RISC-V in the industry is being watched carefully by public institutions, [by] startup companies, [by] thousands of engineers.

Look at the job postings for RISC-V. We have a venture capitalist on our board of directors [Eric Li of Chengwei Capital] who does nothing but invest in RISC-V. $22 billion is the level of venture capital investment now [Editor's note: from 2020 to 2022, Deloitte estimates VCs will deploy that amount], which surpasses the $21 billion VCs put into this segment from 2005 to 2016. RISC-V can truly be a kingmaker, and that’s why VCs are engaged and involved. They are saying, “Look at the trajectory of companies like SiFive.”

During your keynote address at the RISC-V summit in San Francisco, you said that there are currently roughly 2 billion RISC-V cores in the world. What does that mean?

That data is anecdotal and probably low because it’s just what we hear about from our various community members. But it means we have crossed that inflection point. We're no longer just considered as an option. We're actually being moved into production and companies making a strategic hardware decision for a generation of hardware. You can’t change your mind every six months like you can with software, you’re pretty much locked in. That’s because of how long the development cycle takes.

So that level of investment, that level of confidence in RISC-V as a strategic underpinning [means we have] really crossed the chasm. RISC-V will be the foundational block of compute across the spectrum from embedded to the enterprise and everything in between.

What makes RISC-V different, and what are its benefits compared with other instruction set architectures? What are the tradeoffs using it versus x86 or Arm?

The really critical distinction is with a proprietary architecture [such as x86 or Arm], which is a black box in most cases. With RISC-V you have full transparency, and transparency is the base layer of a highly secure technology, whether it’s hardware or software. RISC-V is highly secure because everything can be proven.

Our ecosystem growth has been accelerating to the point where it's not going to take the decades that it did for other architectures to amass their ecosystem of software, tools and other resources to design and build with. That’s the piece we’re playing catch up on. We’re not there yet, but we’re getting there very rapidly.

In some ways, folks have pointed to the other variables outside of the instruction set that you need to think about. What does my engineering team already know and love? They probably don't all know and love RISC-V, they probably have grown up on other architectures. That's where their wealth of experience and other customizations have been in. We have to make things portable from one architecture to another. And we've improved that dramatically.

Why is RISC-V important for the world, which already has two excellent processor architectures?

I’m not proposing that you go to your boss and say, "I’d like to throw out all the millions of dollars you’ve already invested in your existing product portfolio." That’s the day you hand in your badge. There are so many factors that go into an architecture decision. And ripping and replacing something you've already been doing for decades is not usually the place to start.

Where we see multinationals and startups and everything in between diving into the RISC-V pool is on new workloads, new capabilities, such as artificial and machine learning. If you add AI and ML to your enterprise data center, you don’t have a sunk investment already, and it’s worth taking a look at an alternative.

RISC-V doesn’t require you to take everything that’s in a pre-packaged black box, it’s an alternative that doesn’t require you to negotiate a proprietary license — which can take a good year and a half to two years — that requires you to take the whole package. RISC-V lets you choose something that gives you the design flexibility so you can get a differentiated product. Hyperscalers or cloud providers need to compete on the new piece that they’re bringing to an existing solution.

What about startups? Why would a young company take a chance on RISC-V?

There are more startups and design houses on RISC-V than any other architecture. So we already have become a formidable third option. They have no sunk investment. They’re not going to come at it with high volumes, with huge negotiating leverage. They need to start [with] something that has as few barriers to entry as possible but yet has tremendous growth opportunity. Internet of Things or embedded — those have been huge sweet spots for RISC-V startups, for example.

Look at the simplicity and the ability to actually modularly compose the solution you want rather than incrementally add on to a very large base, which profoundly simplifies and reduces the level of engineering might that you need to get to market. A lot of these variables go into a startup’s decision to take a RISC-V approach to a fast-growing green-field opportunity. For example, in automotive or autonomous vehicles, or consumer devices like chips in your toothbrush, or toaster or whatever, there are lots of these opportunities.

But there are those similar opportunities in enterprise in high-performance computing, and other scale-up type implementations.

One of the advantages about RISC-V you discussed was that it’s open source, unlike its rival major architectures. Why does an open-source architecture matter geopolitically?

The geopolitical nature of where technology has gone has been disappointing in some ways — but all [countries] want to have a great technical economy. Everyone wants to hold onto economic thought leadership on the global stage, everyone wants to be a leader, technology is getting a bit on the nationalist side of things. I’m not talking about any one country, either.

The tune has changed with things like open source, whether it’s software or hardware — it doesn’t matter. Folks want to use global standards, and globally open-source software and hardware because it has been an approach that brings nations together, and builds those bridges rather than tears us apart. And you see that time and again.

India has had a RISC-V strategy, the European Union is on board with its processor initiative. They’re heavily investing in RISC-V because it’s a running start — it’s a platform you can use to build your local technical economic leadership while also participating in global supply chains, global opportunities, global development partners and global markets. Russia is stepping up to that as well, and you see that in China too.


A pro-China disinformation campaign is targeting rare earth miners

It’s uncommon for cyber criminals to target private industry. But a new operation has cast doubt on miners looking to gain a foothold in the West in an apparent attempt to protect China’s upper hand in a market that has become increasingly vital.

It is very uncommon for coordinated disinformation operations to target private industry, rather than governments or civil society, a cybersecurity expert says.

Photo: Goh Seng Chong/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Just when we thought the renewable energy supply chains couldn’t get more fraught, a sophisticated disinformation campaign has taken to social media to further complicate things.

Known as Dragonbridge, the campaign has existed for at least three years, but in the last few months it has shifted its focus to target several mining companies “with negative messaging in response to potential or planned rare earths production activities.” It was initially uncovered by cybersecurity firm Mandiant and peddles narratives in the Chinese interest via its network of thousands of fake social media accounts.

Keep Reading Show less
Lisa Martine Jenkins

Lisa Martine Jenkins is a senior reporter at Protocol covering climate. Lisa previously wrote for Morning Consult, Chemical Watch and the Associated Press. Lisa is currently based in Brooklyn, and is originally from the Bay Area. Find her on Twitter ( @l_m_j_) or reach out via email (ljenkins@protocol.com).

Some of the most astounding tech-enabled advances of the next decade, from cutting-edge medical research to urban traffic control and factory floor optimization, will be enabled by a device often smaller than a thumbnail: the memory chip.

While vast amounts of data are created, stored and processed every moment — by some estimates, 2.5 quintillion bytes daily — the insights in that code are unlocked by the memory chips that hold it and transfer it. “Memory will propel the next 10 years into the most transformative years in human history,” said Sanjay Mehrotra, president and CEO of Micron Technology.

Keep Reading Show less
James Daly
James Daly has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, including understanding various audiences and targeting messaging accordingly. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, particularly in launching new ventures and building passionate audiences. Daly has led teams large and small to multiple awards and quantifiable success through a strategy built on teamwork, passion, fact-checking, intelligence, analytics, and audience growth while meeting budget goals and production deadlines in fast-paced environments. Daly is the Editorial Director of 2030 Media and a contributor at Wired.

Ripple’s CEO threatens to leave the US if it loses SEC case

CEO Brad Garlinghouse said a few countries have reached out to Ripple about relocating.

"There's no doubt that if the SEC doesn't win their case against us that that is good for crypto in the United States,” Brad Garlinghouse told Protocol.

Photo: Stephen McCarthy/Sportsfile for Collision via Getty Images

Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse said the crypto company will move to another country if it loses in its legal battle with the SEC.

Garlinghouse said he’s confident that Ripple will prevail against the federal regulator, which accused the company of failing to register roughly $1.4 billion in XRP tokens as securities.

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers crypto and fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Google Voice at (925) 307-9342.


The Supreme Court’s EPA ruling is bad news for tech regulation, too

The justices just gave themselves a lot of discretion to smack down agency rules.

The ruling could also endanger work on competition issues by the FTC and net neutrality by the FCC.

Photo: Geoff Livingston/Getty Images

The Supreme Court’s decision last week gutting the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions didn’t just signal the conservative justices’ dislike of the Clean Air Act at a moment of climate crisis. It also served as a warning for anyone that would like to see more regulation of Big Tech.

At the heart of Chief Justice John Roberts’ decision in West Virginia v. EPA was a codification of the “major questions doctrine,” which, he wrote, requires “clear congressional authorization” when agencies want to regulate on areas of great “economic and political significance.”

Keep Reading Show less
Ben Brody

Ben Brody (@ BenBrodyDC) is a senior reporter at Protocol focusing on how Congress, courts and agencies affect the online world we live in. He formerly covered tech policy and lobbying (including antitrust, Section 230 and privacy) at Bloomberg News, where he previously reported on the influence industry, government ethics and the 2016 presidential election. Before that, Ben covered business news at CNNMoney and AdAge, and all manner of stories in and around New York. He still loves appearing on the New York news radio he grew up with.


Microsoft and Google are still using emotion AI, but with limits

Microsoft said accessibility goals overrode problems with emotion recognition and Google offers off-the-shelf emotion recognition technology amid growing concern over the controversial AI.

Emotion recognition is a well-established field of computer vision research; however, AI-based technologies used in an attempt to assess people’s emotional states have moved beyond the research phase.

Photo: Microsoft

Microsoft said last month it would no longer provide general use of an AI-based cloud software feature used to infer people’s emotions. However, despite its own admission that emotion recognition technology creates “risks,” it turns out the company will retain its emotion recognition capability in an app used by people with vision loss.

In fact, amid growing concerns over development and use of controversial emotion recognition in everyday software, both Microsoft and Google continue to incorporate the AI-based features in their products.

“The Seeing AI person channel enables you to recognize people and to get a description of them, including an estimate of their age and also their emotion,” said Saqib Shaikh, a software engineering manager and project lead for Seeing AI at Microsoft who helped build the app, in a tutorial about the product in a 2017 Microsoft video.

Keep Reading Show less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of RedTailMedia.org and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.

Latest Stories