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?

  • johnklos@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is a bit pedantic, but x64 refers to Alpha, which existed long before 1999. 64 bit x86 (x86-64, or amd64) wasn’t purchasable until 2003, although it was announced in 2000.

    There were several additional shifts between 1978 and 2003:

    • 8088 / 8086 has what’s essentially bank switched 16 bit addressing which gives 1 MB, or 2^20 bytes
    • 80286 has physical support for 16 megs, or 2^24 bytes
    • 80386 has physical support 4 gigs, or 2^32 bytes
    • Pentium Pro has PAE support for 64 gigs, or 2^36 bytes
    • AMD Opteron from 2003 has support for 1024 gigs, or 1 terabyte, or 2^40 bytes
    • Current AMD and Intel CPUs physically support anywhere between 2^48 and 2^57 bytes of physical hardware (256 terabytes to 128 petabytes)

    But let’s just use three points of data: 8086 / 8088, 80386, and let’s say the first 64 bit AMD Opteron supports 64 bits:

    • 8086 / 8088, 1978, 20 bits
    • 80386, 1985, 32 bits
    • AMD Opteron, 2003, 64 bits

    1978 to 1985 is 7 years, with a change in addressing of 12 bits, or about .6 bits per year.

    1985 to 2003 is 18 years, with a change in addressing of 32 bits, or about .56 bits per year. So far, pretty consistent.

    How long would it take to go from 64 bits to 128 bits? At around .56 bits per year, that’d be about 114 years, and we’ve had twenty so far.

    Check back in 94 years.