DVI is a very large spec. It supports everything from pure VGA over it's analog pins as well as full fledged HDMI (its actually the other way around, HDMI is secretly just DVI). Finding monitors which support all of the simpler modes is an issue, whereas finding monitors which support old school VGA is fairly easy.
it's a little frustrating that things which used to be kosher, like nvidia and nvidia_uvm linking are all of a sudden not because they got caught up in this crossfire.
RISC-V is inherently a customizable ISA though, whereas ARM implementations are very specific about what they require to be called an "ARM processor". This wouldnt change from this acq.
no. they're isolated for a reason, with the RISC-V processor being used as the controller to manage the behavior of the other parts of the chip. beyond just licensing ARM is expensive because it's required to implement a lot. With that chip being RISC-V they can make it as minimal and perfectly tuned as possible, so it's slow when it can afford to be cheap and fast when it needs to be.
> GPUs are generally black boxes that you throw code at.
umm... what? what does that even mean? lol
I could kind of maybe begin understand your argument from the Graphics side, as users mostly interact with it at an API level, however keep in mind that shaders are languages the same way "cpu languages" work. It's all still compiled to assembly, and there's no reason that you couldn't make an open instruction set for a GPU the same as a CPU. This is especially obvious when it comes to Compute workloads, as you're probably just writing "regular code".
Now, that said, would it be a good idea? I don't really see the benefit. A barebones GPU ISA would be too stripped back to do anything at all, and one with the specific accelerations needed to be useful will always want to be kept under wraps.