Revisited: Question of the Month: Which processor architecture will dominate the market in a decade?

Ten years is a really long time in hardware. What is that 4 iterations of existing processors. Yet, I think ARM will hold on to the lead. the only alternative would be is if China comes out with a totally new processor and floods the market to gain market share. I don't believe RISC-V will become mainstay and Intel is not really an option for embedded. There is just too much history with that platform.

I need to read this! 

I went with "yet to be developed", but I am torn.  I'm concerned that increasing reliance on AI will decrease true understanding and that impedes innovation.

I’m specifically thinking of security. Every architecture has yet another security flaw, and particularly for embedded, the ability to modify the computational architecture will become critical in the cyberwars.

Don’t worry: invention will be automated.

dougw said:

Intel could go after the embedded market, but it isn't clear if they will.

They entered the scene and left. Leaving big players such as Siemens in the wake with a range of dead-end products.

Today you can find FPGAs with integrated MCUs. Someone has to the opposite, an MCU with an integrated FPGA.

They entered and left several times, each time there were casualties who invested with high expectations. They can do the technology but seem to struggle adapting their business model to a commodity market.

I'm going with ARM in ten years, and RISC-V in fifteen. While it's difficult to predict with certainty which embedded software architecture will dominate the market in a decade, we can consider the following current trends and extrapolate from there.

1. ARM: ARM architecture has already gained significant market share in the embedded and mobile device markets due to its power efficiency and scalability. With the increasing adoption of ARM in data centers and Apple's shift to ARM-based processors for its devices, it's likely that ARM will continue to play a major role in the market.

2. Intel/AMD/x86: The x86 architecture has been dominant in the desktop and server markets for decades. However, ARM's increasing presence in these areas and the growing demand for energy-efficient processors may limit x86's growth in the embedded market.

3. RISC-V: RISC-V is an open-source instruction set architecture that has been gaining traction due to its flexibility, customizability, and cost-effectiveness. As more companies and industries adopt RISC-V, it may become a significant player in the embedded market, potentially competing with ARM.

4. Another existing architecture: There are other architectures such as MIPS, PowerPC, and SPARC that have had various degrees of success in the embedded market. However, none of them seem poised to dominate the market within a decade.

5. Other: It's possible that a new architecture or a combination of existing architectures may emerge as the dominant player in the embedded market. This could be driven by innovations in processor design, the rise of new application areas, or shifts in market dynamics.

   Given the current trends, it seems likely that ARM and RISC-V will continue to grow in importance in the embedded software market over the next decade. While it's difficult to predict which one will ultimately dominate, the competition between them will likely drive significant innovation and advancements in the embedded systems space. ARM currently has a head start due to its established presence, but RISC-V's open-source nature and customizability could make it a strong contender, particularly as more organizations and developers adopt it.

   Additionally, it's important to consider that different markets and applications may favor different architectures. For example, ARM might maintain its dominance in the mobile and IoT markets, while RISC-V could carve out a niche in specific industries that require specialized, customized processors.

   It's reasonable to assume that ARM and RISC-V will play significant roles in the market. The competition between these two architectures, as well as the influence of other existing and emerging technologies, will shape the future of the embedded systems industry.

   And I think someone said China will flood the market with a cheap alternative. China's chip industry doesn't lag behind the European/US technology for no reason: the knowledge and technology required for advanced photolithography processes are predominantly held by a small number of companies, such as ASML, which produces the state-of-the-art extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography machines. ASML, a Dutch company, relies on Zeiss, a German company, for the production of high-quality lenses and optics required for these machines. Gaining access to these technologies is difficult due to strict intellectual property protections, export controls, and the geopolitical landscape. While countries like China and Russia have made strides in investing in their semiconductor industries, they still lag over a decade behind established players like the United States, Taiwan, and South Korea in terms of expertise and technological know-how. The global semiconductor supply chain is highly interconnected, with various specialized companies responsible for different aspects of chip production, such as design, fabrication, packaging, and testing. Developing a competitive chip product requires not only the ability to produce advanced semiconductor devices but also the capability to navigate andmanage complex supply chain relationships. This includes securing reliable sources for raw materials, equipment, and other components necessary for chip production. For countries like China and Russia, establishing these relationships can be challenging due to geopolitical tensions, trade restrictions, and limited access to leading-edge technologies. Also, ARM or x86 architectures benefit from standardized platforms and extensive ecosystems of developers, tools, and software. Developing an alternative chip product requires not only the creation of a competitive hardware solution but also the establishment of a robust ecosystem that can compete with existing offerings. This can be a time-consuming and resource-intensive process. 

I think you are right about the inefficiency. Do you think the industry will go back to automating the conversion of FPGA "prototypes" to custom optimized chips?