Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:17:20 10/24/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 2001 at 15:23:14, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On October 24, 2001 at 13:35:48, Tony Werten wrote: > >>>Although 128 bit microprocessors are probably 20 years away or longer... >> >>Why 20 ? The amount of bits seem to have doubled every 10 years until now. > >Computer hardware has dramatically outpaced most computer software, hence the >slowdown in sales. People are happy with their current processor speed and >memory. Now that you can get 512MB of RAM for $40, or something silly like that, >most people have way more memory than they know what to do with, and they aren't >even approaching the limits of 32-bit addressing, much less the 36-bit >addressing afforded by the P6/P4. Switch to 64 bit addressing and you get 4 >_billion_ times more memory than people know what to do with. Not very >compelling. > >Making a 128-bit chip would be pretty easy, kind of like how 64-bit chips are >pretty easy to make (heck, there's one in the Nintendo 64 and Compaq iPAC). But >even though 64-bit chips are easy to get, PC users aren't trying to switch >because there's no need... > >-Tom Don't get too hung up on the 64 bit address space. That isn't what has driven the 64 bit world to date. The important point has always been FP precision and speed. And 64 bit hardware is more accurate than 32 bit hardware when dealing with FP. And 128 bit would be even better as it gives larger exponents and fractions at the same speed. That has really been the driving force in 64 bit cpu development, starting with CDC, to the Cray, and on to the Alpha, IA64, etc. More precision per instruction executed. For MS word and the like, it is a total waste of course. But I'll bet we see 64 bit machines doing word processing nonetheless... Sort of like a Ferrari taxi.. :)
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.