Nvidia to ship a billion of RISC-V cores in 2024
Nvidia quietly adopts RISC-V and replaces proprietary microcontrollers.

Although Nvidia's GPUs rely on proprietary CUDA cores that feature their instruction set architecture and support for various data formats, these cores are controlled by custom cores that rely on the industry-standard RISC-V ISA, albeit with some extensions, the company revealed at the RISC-V Summit this month (via NickBrownHPC).
Modern GPUs are highly complex system-on-chips with a massive number of functions and resources — starting from compute resources and power management and all the way to display engines and security — that must be managed.
These things are now managed by 10 to 40 custom RISC-V cores developed by Nvidia, depending on chip complexity. Nvidia started to replace its proprietary microcontrollers with RISC-V-based microcontroller cores in 2015, and by now, virtually all of its MCU cores are RISC-V-based, according to an Nvidia slide demonstrated at the RISC-V Summit.
By now, Nvidia has developed at least three RISC-V microcontroller cores: NV-RISCV32 (RV32I-MU, in-order single-issue core), NV-RISCV64 (RV64I-MSU, out-of-order dual-issue core), and NV-RVV (RV32I-MU, NVRISCV32 + 1024-bit vector extension). These cores (and perhaps others) replaced the proprietary Falcon microcontroller unit based on a different instruction set architecture. In addition, Nvidia has developed 20+ custom RISC-V extensions for extra performance, functionality, and security.
Perhaps the most important RISC-V-based part of Nvidia GPUs is its embedded GPU System Processor (GSP). According to Nvidia's website, the first GPUs to use RISC-V-based GSP were based on the Turing architecture. This GSP offloads Kernel Driver functions, reduces GPU MIMO exposure to the CPU, and manages how the GPU is used.
Since MCU cores are universal, they can be used across Nvidia's products. As a result, in 2024, Nvidia is expected to ship around a billion RISC-V cores built into its GPUs, CPUs, SoCs, and other products, according to one of the demonstrated slights, which highlights the ubiquity of custom RISC-V cores in Nvidia's hardware.
Nvidia ships millions of GPUs every year. In 2023 alone, Nvidia shipped 31 million desktop discrete GPUs (according to Jon Peddie Research), around the same number of standalone GPUs for laptops, several millions of data center GPUs, and plenty of other types of hardware. That said, multiple RISC-V cores exist in all of Nvidia's chips.
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Anton Shilov is a contributing writer at Tom’s Hardware. Over the past couple of decades, he has covered everything from CPUs and GPUs to supercomputers and from modern process technologies and latest fab tools to high-tech industry trends.
-
Kamen Rider Blade The sooner we throw ARM out and replace it with RISC-V, the better.Reply
Deny them any financial stream via Royalties. -
acadia11
Why would you want less competition in the market? A lack of competition leads to stagnation imagine if Intel ruled x86 alone? You’d still be paying nvidia type prices for consumer level CPUs or rather old Intel type prices. One ring to rule them all, and in the “darkness” bind them.Kamen Rider Blade said:The sooner we throw ARM out and replace it with RISC-V, the better.
Deny them any financial stream via Royalties. -
Kamen Rider Blade
RISC-V isn't alone, there are literally thousands upon thousands of developers within RISC-V.acadia11 said:Why would you want less competition in the market? A lack of competition leads to stagnation imagine if Intel ruled x86 alone? You’d still be paying nvidia type prices for consumer level CPUs or rather old Intel type prices. One ring to rule them all, and in the “darkness” bind them.
And we have x86, OpenPOWER as competing ISA's. -
acadia11
The more the merrier , and ultimately it may force ARM to change their approach, it drives innovation … both cost wise as well as in terms of derived solutions. I don’t know about you the hegemony of cuda ISA dominating the AI and consequently arena didn’t personally good for my wallet. Despite arms licensing practices they’re push has driven key efficiency and innovation solutions by both Intel and AmD to address.Kamen Rider Blade said:RISC-V isn't alone, there are literally thousands upon thousands of developers within RISC-V.
And we have x86, OpenPOWER as competing ISA's. -
Kamen Rider Blade
Is there anyway you can start using ROCm instead of CUDA?acadia11 said:The more the merrier , and ultimately it may force ARM to change their approach, it drives innovation … both cost wise as well as in terms of derived solutions. I don’t know about you the hegemony of cuda ISA dominating the AI and consequently arena didn’t personally good for my wallet. Despite arms licensing practices they’re push has driven key efficiency and innovation solutions by both Intel and AmD to address. -
folem
Could people and companies, probably. Will they, almost certainly not. As expensive as Hopper and RTX cards are, they're still a lot cheaper than paying engineers to learn ROCm, translate all the old CUDA, debug it all again, and have made no progress on improving their software in the time they were doing that.Kamen Rider Blade said:Is there anyway you can start using ROCm instead of CUDA?
New projects may use AMD, maybe 10-20% will, but everything that is already CUDA will stay on Nvidia. -
acadia11
Is there anyway for Intel to revive IA-64 and the Itanium?Kamen Rider Blade said:Is there anyway you can start using ROCm instead of CUDA? -
michaelmantion acadia11 said:The more the merrier , and ultimately it may force ARM to change their approach, it drives innovation … both cost wise as well as in terms of derived solutions. I don’t know about you the hegemony of cuda ISA dominating the AI and consequently arena didn’t personally good for my wallet. Despite arms licensing practices they’re push has driven key efficiency and innovation solutions by both Intel and AmD to address.
100% of the AC outlets in my house are NEMA. Plenty of companies compete for my $$$. I only buy devices that comply with the open standard. In your world a company that designs an alternative to NEMA should exist.
I am all for an alternative but I am not going to sign a contract with them that could cost me millions in legal fees and lost sales.
I love free markets and a free market should cast out a company that tries to force people to re-negotiate licenses because their biggest partner has a decent product.
People paid ARM for convenience of using a commonly used core. R&D cost to use RISC-V will be less then future legal fees with ARM.