I have a couple of earlier RISC V systems that were advertised as nearly desktop performance: I always like unconventional systems, but cant find a reason to like these, they are much slower than similar priced arm systems, the software/hardware support is not as good, and the instruction set is also just not that interesting. Also once you run Linux, you are just running Linux, it is just like Linux only harder to install, and slower.
At the pace every PC component is becoming quite expensive it's not entirely out of the realm of possibilities that my next CPU will be RISC-V based. /s (kind of)
PS: for those still hesitating to tinker with RISC-V the workflow is becoming quite convenient already, to the point you can "just" boot and install Linux (as mentioned in the article) on it to get a headless server running in minutes.
> to the point you can "just" boot and install Linux (as mentioned in the article) on it to get a headless server running in minutes.
This is basically what I've been waiting on. Besides the mentioned Milk-V Titan, what are some other good boards people here tried out and could vouch for being good? Ideally European, but happy to receive any recommendations as long as you've actually tried it yourself :)
As far as I know, there's still no real RISC-V equivalent to Raspberry Pi, and I think that's what early adopters want the most.
The closest thing is probably Orange Pi RV2, but it has an outdated SoC with no RVA23 support, meaning some Linux distros won't even run on it. Its performance is also much poorer than of the RPi5.
I'm not even sure it's just instruction support that's the problem with the RV2. I bought one since I thought it would be cool to write a bare metal os for it (especially after I found the AI results to be so bad.) But the lack of documentation has been making it very hard to get anything actually up and running. The best I've got is compiling their custom u-boot and linux repos, and even those come with some problems.
I have been disappointed with Orange Pi hardware, I am not surprised.
Seldom does an SBC vendor want to actually support their products. You get the distro they made at launch, that is it. They do no updates or support. They just want to sell an overpriced chipset with a fucked and unwieldy boot sequence.
Same thing with all the Android devices. Pick a version of Android that you like because that's what you'll have on it forever.
Milk-V Titan is a Mini-ITX RISC-V board that has support for UEFI with ACPI and SMBIOS, 1x M key PCIe Gen4 x16 slot with GPU support, 2x USB Type-C (though unfortunately not USB-C PD), and a 12V DC barrel jack.
To add a 2x20 pin (IDE ribbon cable) interface like a Pi: add a USB-to-2x20 pin board, use an RP2040/RP2350 (Pi Pico (uf2 bootloader) over serial over USB or Bluetooth or WiFi; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38007967
The board itself looks pretty spartan, at least compared to any other x86 ITX board I’ve seen in the last ten years. The only thing it doesn’t seem to have is audio jacks.
Is that because the platform itself is very lite, or is just typical for a dev ITX board?
Let's be honest - RISC-V doesn't make sense to 99% users at this stage. ARM is cheaper for 99% use cases, has far more choices on the market, much better performance, greater software ecosystem and tooling.
For 99% users, the only real "benefit" RISC-V can bring to the table is the _false_ feeling that "I am different". Before you start to be excited about those a few cents risc-v MCUs - there are much cheaper MCUs, consider those risc-v MCUs are dead expensive.
Thanks for reading my honest opinions, please feel free to downvote.
Some people care less about squeezing out performance and more about open standards. I like having more choices, especially open ones.
I am a user, I like to tinker, I'm fairly confident there's more than 1% of people who care about these things. If you live in a country that is threatened by export embargos and the like it also makes a lot of sense to prioritize open.
Open standards don't mean a thing; you can't execute code on a standard. There are past open ISAs like OpenSPARC, MIPS, and OpenPOWER that never gained any traction.
High performance implementations, i.e. actual chips you can buy, are going to be proprietary and that's not going to change. Engineering hardware is expensive.
I have increasingly negative things to say about this.
There is (so far) nothing 'open' about RISC-V. and I wonder if there really ever was any desire for it, at this point.
This whole "Open ISA" crap appears to be a thin veneer to funnel quite large sums of investment into an otherwise completely proprietary and locked-down environment that could never harm the incumbents in any meaningful way - while still maintaining just enough of a pretense of open source, that the (regrettably myself included) shallow nerds and geeks could get smitten by it.
Where is the RTL? Where are the GDSII masks? Why am I unable to look at the branch predictor unit in the Github code viewer? Or (God forbid!) the USB/HDMI/GPU IP? I reject the notion that these are unreasonable questions.
I want my SoC to have a special register that has the git SHA ID of the exact snapshot of the repository that was used to cook the masks. that, now that - is Open Source. that is Open Computing. And nothing less!
I dont care about the piece of paper with instruction encodings - the least interesting part of any computer!
Wasn't that the whole point? We're more than a quarter of a century in and we're still begging SoC vendors for datasheets. Really incredibly embarassing and disappointing.
> Where is the RTL? Where are the GDSII masks? Why am I unable to look at the branch predictor unit in the Github code viewer? Or (God forbid!) the USB/HDMI/GPU IP? I reject the notion that these are unreasonable questions.
As you note correctly, the ISA is open, not this CPU (or board).
The important point is that using an open ISA allows you to create your own CPU that implements it. This CPU can then be open (i.e. you providing the RTL, etc.), if you so desire
I assume it will be much more difficult (or impossible?) to provide the RTL for a CPU with an AMD64 ISA, since that one has to be licensed. I wonder if you paying for the license allows you to share your implementation with the world. Even if it does, it's less likely that you will do so, given that you will have to pay for the licensing fee and make your money back
Since there is no license to pay for in case of RISC-V, it allows you to open up the design of your CPU without you having to pay for that privilege
My superficial understanding is that arm does not prevent from sharing implementation details of your own design but most chips also license a starting implementation that has such limitations. So the end result is often more restricted than the ISA licence some would require
Couldn't have said it better. The moments these people promise everything would be free is a massive red flag. Unfortunately it seems most poodle haven't learned the lesson.
I have a couple of earlier RISC V systems that were advertised as nearly desktop performance: I always like unconventional systems, but cant find a reason to like these, they are much slower than similar priced arm systems, the software/hardware support is not as good, and the instruction set is also just not that interesting. Also once you run Linux, you are just running Linux, it is just like Linux only harder to install, and slower.
At the pace every PC component is becoming quite expensive it's not entirely out of the realm of possibilities that my next CPU will be RISC-V based. /s (kind of)
PS: for those still hesitating to tinker with RISC-V the workflow is becoming quite convenient already, to the point you can "just" boot and install Linux (as mentioned in the article) on it to get a headless server running in minutes.
> to the point you can "just" boot and install Linux (as mentioned in the article) on it to get a headless server running in minutes.
This is basically what I've been waiting on. Besides the mentioned Milk-V Titan, what are some other good boards people here tried out and could vouch for being good? Ideally European, but happy to receive any recommendations as long as you've actually tried it yourself :)
Maybe the open/free part will help with slightly better prices.
What a sad world to live in, stochastic bullshit machines and exploding drones get more computers than I
A number of distros have support for RISC-V: Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, openSUSE, Arch, QEMU
conda-forge/conda-forge > "RISC-V Support?" https://github.com/conda-forge/conda-forge.github.io/issues/...
As things are now, I can only afford boards that take the RAM modules I inherited from my grandfather.
Luckily this board runs with old DDR4 sticks. If you still have some lying around good for you.
As far as I know, there's still no real RISC-V equivalent to Raspberry Pi, and I think that's what early adopters want the most.
The closest thing is probably Orange Pi RV2, but it has an outdated SoC with no RVA23 support, meaning some Linux distros won't even run on it. Its performance is also much poorer than of the RPi5.
The SpacemiT K3 with 8 SpacemiT X100 RVA23 cores, which are faster than Pi4 but slower than Pi5, should be available in a couple of months:
geekbench: https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/16145076
rvv-bench: https://camel-cdr.github.io/rvv-bench-results/spacemit_x100/...
There are also 8 additional SpacemiT-A100 cores with 1024-bit wide vectors, which are more like an additional accelerator for number crunshing.
The Milk-V Titan has slightly faster scalar performance, than the K3.
> The Milk-V Titan has slightly faster scalar performance, than the K3.
So the main difference between this Milk-V Titan and the upcoming SpacemiT K3 is that the latter has better vector performance?
The Titan has no SIMD/Vector support at all, so it doesn't support RVA23.
I'm not even sure it's just instruction support that's the problem with the RV2. I bought one since I thought it would be cool to write a bare metal os for it (especially after I found the AI results to be so bad.) But the lack of documentation has been making it very hard to get anything actually up and running. The best I've got is compiling their custom u-boot and linux repos, and even those come with some problems.
I have been disappointed with Orange Pi hardware, I am not surprised.
Seldom does an SBC vendor want to actually support their products. You get the distro they made at launch, that is it. They do no updates or support. They just want to sell an overpriced chipset with a fucked and unwieldy boot sequence.
Same thing with all the Android devices. Pick a version of Android that you like because that's what you'll have on it forever.
Milk-V Titan is a Mini-ITX RISC-V board that has support for UEFI with ACPI and SMBIOS, 1x M key PCIe Gen4 x16 slot with GPU support, 2x USB Type-C (though unfortunately not USB-C PD), and a 12V DC barrel jack.
What is the difference in performance?
Titan hw docs: https://milkv.io/docs/titan/getting-started/hardware
To add a 2x20 pin (IDE ribbon cable) interface like a Pi: add a USB-to-2x20 pin board, use an RP2040/RP2350 (Pi Pico (uf2 bootloader) over serial over USB or Bluetooth or WiFi; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38007967
I’d also like an updated RISC-V Framework laptop board. There is one but it’s too limited. If they came out with that I’d try it as a laptop.
I mean a board with decent storage and better performance.
The board itself looks pretty spartan, at least compared to any other x86 ITX board I’ve seen in the last ten years. The only thing it doesn’t seem to have is audio jacks.
Is that because the platform itself is very lite, or is just typical for a dev ITX board?
https://www.cnx-software.com/2026/01/12/milk-v-titan-a-329-o...
Another thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46588159
Another chip without V extension.
Oh, no vector extension. Probably a dealbreaker for me.
why?
Well Linux distros are consolidating around RVA23 target, for one thing (I'm not OP).
Let's be honest - RISC-V doesn't make sense to 99% users at this stage. ARM is cheaper for 99% use cases, has far more choices on the market, much better performance, greater software ecosystem and tooling.
For 99% users, the only real "benefit" RISC-V can bring to the table is the _false_ feeling that "I am different". Before you start to be excited about those a few cents risc-v MCUs - there are much cheaper MCUs, consider those risc-v MCUs are dead expensive.
Thanks for reading my honest opinions, please feel free to downvote.
Some people care less about squeezing out performance and more about open standards. I like having more choices, especially open ones.
I am a user, I like to tinker, I'm fairly confident there's more than 1% of people who care about these things. If you live in a country that is threatened by export embargos and the like it also makes a lot of sense to prioritize open.
Open standards don't mean a thing; you can't execute code on a standard. There are past open ISAs like OpenSPARC, MIPS, and OpenPOWER that never gained any traction.
High performance implementations, i.e. actual chips you can buy, are going to be proprietary and that's not going to change. Engineering hardware is expensive.
ISA being open matters very little if chip design isn't and RISC-V isn't going to change much here
“People who care about these things” enough that they’re buying Mini ITX RV motherboards? Definitely well under 1% of the market.
I have increasingly negative things to say about this.
There is (so far) nothing 'open' about RISC-V. and I wonder if there really ever was any desire for it, at this point.
This whole "Open ISA" crap appears to be a thin veneer to funnel quite large sums of investment into an otherwise completely proprietary and locked-down environment that could never harm the incumbents in any meaningful way - while still maintaining just enough of a pretense of open source, that the (regrettably myself included) shallow nerds and geeks could get smitten by it.
Where is the RTL? Where are the GDSII masks? Why am I unable to look at the branch predictor unit in the Github code viewer? Or (God forbid!) the USB/HDMI/GPU IP? I reject the notion that these are unreasonable questions.
I want my SoC to have a special register that has the git SHA ID of the exact snapshot of the repository that was used to cook the masks. that, now that - is Open Source. that is Open Computing. And nothing less!
I dont care about the piece of paper with instruction encodings - the least interesting part of any computer!
Wasn't that the whole point? We're more than a quarter of a century in and we're still begging SoC vendors for datasheets. Really incredibly embarassing and disappointing.
> Where is the RTL? Where are the GDSII masks? Why am I unable to look at the branch predictor unit in the Github code viewer? Or (God forbid!) the USB/HDMI/GPU IP? I reject the notion that these are unreasonable questions.
As you note correctly, the ISA is open, not this CPU (or board).
The important point is that using an open ISA allows you to create your own CPU that implements it. This CPU can then be open (i.e. you providing the RTL, etc.), if you so desire
I assume it will be much more difficult (or impossible?) to provide the RTL for a CPU with an AMD64 ISA, since that one has to be licensed. I wonder if you paying for the license allows you to share your implementation with the world. Even if it does, it's less likely that you will do so, given that you will have to pay for the licensing fee and make your money back
Since there is no license to pay for in case of RISC-V, it allows you to open up the design of your CPU without you having to pay for that privilege
My superficial understanding is that arm does not prevent from sharing implementation details of your own design but most chips also license a starting implementation that has such limitations. So the end result is often more restricted than the ISA licence some would require
Couldn't have said it better. The moments these people promise everything would be free is a massive red flag. Unfortunately it seems most poodle haven't learned the lesson.
It is a free non-copyleft licence, it is the expected result that derivatives are not similarly free
>> For 99% users, the only real "benefit" RISC-V can bring to the table is the _false_ feeling that "I am different".
How is that feeling "false"? People running RISC-V systems are different, or at least they have different motivations than you.