x86 came out 1978,

21 years after, x64 came out 1999

we are three years overdue for a shift, and I don’t mean to arm. Is there just no point to it? 128 bit computing is a thing and has been in the talks since 1976 according to Wikipedia. Why hasn’t it been widely adopted by now?

  • brian@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why would it be cutting your effective RAM in half? I know very little about hardware/software architecture and all that.

    • kakes@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Imagine we have an 8 bit (1 byte) architecture, so data is stored/processed in 8-bit chunks.

      If our RAM holds 256 bits, we can store 32 pieces of data in that RAM (256/8).

      If we change to a 16 bit architecture, that same physical RAM now only has the capacity to hold 16 values (256/16). The values can be significantly bigger, but we get less of them.

      Bits don’t appear out of nothing, they do take physical space, and there is a cost to creating them. We have a tradeoff of the number of values to store vs the size of each value.

      For reference, per chunk (or “word”) of data:
      With 8 bits, we can hold 256 values.
      With 64 bits, we can hold 18,446,744,100,000,000,000 values.
      With 128 bits, we can hold 3,402,823,670,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 values.
      (For X bits, it’s 2^X)

      Maybe one day we’ll get there, but for now, 64 bits seems to be enough for at least consumer-grade computations.