x86 and ARM is what RISC-V designers frequently compare to in their own documentation. Likely because those are well known architectures.
But your argument doesn't really make any sense as ARM is a frequent choice for this kind of things. In fact is one of the main competing CPUs considered by Nvidia. ARM is widely used in embedded system. That it became a desktop CPU is a fairly recent phenomenon.
Esperanto Technologies use RISC-V both for general purpose processor and specialized coprocessors.
Anyway the whole point of RISC-V is to be able to span from small embedded systems to super computers.
> I did include the microWatts link in the post above.
I cannot find any quote on number of transistors it uses or comparison to other designs. Given that it is supposed to implement the IBM POWER ISA v3.0 which is quite huge I don't see how you can get the transistor count below that of RISC-V while still having decent performance.
But your argument doesn't really make any sense as ARM is a frequent choice for this kind of things. In fact is one of the main competing CPUs considered by Nvidia. ARM is widely used in embedded system. That it became a desktop CPU is a fairly recent phenomenon.
Esperanto Technologies use RISC-V both for general purpose processor and specialized coprocessors.
Anyway the whole point of RISC-V is to be able to span from small embedded systems to super computers.
> I did include the microWatts link in the post above.
I cannot find any quote on number of transistors it uses or comparison to other designs. Given that it is supposed to implement the IBM POWER ISA v3.0 which is quite huge I don't see how you can get the transistor count below that of RISC-V while still having decent performance.