On Monday 14 May 2007 22:28, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> > otherwise). So then, if there is no speed advantage, what's the
> > point in even having a 64 bit processor right now?
>
> Addressing large virtual address spaces and / or installing large
> amounts of physical RAM.
>
> If you don't need one or both of these things, it's just overhead
> without payback.
Although the analogy is going to be a little contrived, its something
like
the concept of cylinders in an internal combustion engine... there were cars
made back in the 30s-50s with 10, 12, and 16 cylinders... but due to
harmonics, balance, and other issues (8) seems to be the best (optimum)
number of cylinders. von Neumann processors are going to be similar... my
gut feeling is that 32 bit width is going to be optimum and that 64 bit is
the beginning of the end of no returns. I mean if PCs really ever do need to
have more than 4gig of real storage/virtual storage then.. .maybe. But also
remember that the processor's instruction set complexity (and performance)
play a role (are impacted).
I really think that multiple cores is going to be more practical (32
bit)
than a wider bus. I would much rather have a quad processor (32 bit) right
now than a 64 bit bus... which for the most part I do not need.
--
Kind regards,
M Harris <><
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
