“Risc V greatly underperforms”
I don&#x27;t think they even tried to read the ISA spec documents. If they did, they would have found that the rationale for most of these decisions is solid: Evidence was considered, all the factors were weighted, and decisions were made accordingly.<p>But ultimately, the gist of their argument is this:<p>&gt;Any task will require more Risc V instructions that any contemporary instruction set.<p>Which is easy to verify as utter nonsense. There&#x27;s not even a need to look at the research, which shows RISC-V as the clear winner in code density. It is enough to grab any Linux distribution that supports RISC-V and look at the size of the binaries across architectures.