Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

64bit to 128bit?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 6, 2008 2:47:58 PM

Ok this may be a dumb question, i know cpus have gone from 32bit to 64bit, But do you think they will go to 128bit in the foreseeable future? like 5 years or so. Just curious.

More about : 64bit 128bit

a c 473 à CPUs
April 6, 2008 3:14:22 PM

Nope. Too soon.
April 6, 2008 3:35:04 PM

We needed around 20 years to get form the 64K RAM limit of a 16bit to the 4GB RAM limit of a 32bit architecture in an average desktop computer.

2^16 = 65,536 = 64KiB
2^32 = 4,294,967,296 = 4GiB
2^64 = 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 = 4Gi*4GiB = 18EiB

I think its quite safe to say we are still good for at least 10-15 years with 64bit on the common desktop.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 6, 2008 6:57:21 PM

lol... really i doubt programs will require anywhere beyond 4 gbs for years... so yeah silly question
April 6, 2008 7:05:54 PM

While 64 bit CPUs are abundunt and you can get 64 bit OSes 64 bit computing has not taken off. In fact it will probably be another 5 years before it catches on. As of right now I'm not sure if it's even worth using. From what I've seen it doesn't really give you an advantage.
April 6, 2008 7:27:16 PM

128bit
2^128 =340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456
April 6, 2008 7:27:33 PM

Quote:
lol... really i doubt programs will require anywhere beyond 4 gbs for years... so yeah silly question


You are kidding, right? Some software already needs more than 4 GB.
April 6, 2008 8:02:03 PM

I can buy a 4GB DDR2-800 kit on Newegg.com for $70. My next system will have 8GB. I have programs now that are capable of using as much RAM as I can throw at it. If you run VMware then you probably know what I mean. With the advent of more multithreaded software programming I think we may see system memory requirements take a big leap. Also memory technologies are catching up to the need so its the perfect time for software to take that next step.
April 6, 2008 9:50:18 PM

There's really no benefit to 128-bit computing over 64-bit unless you're doing some weird scientific or engineering work that needs to process very large numbers rapidly. So I don't expect to see it for a very long time.

April 6, 2008 9:53:23 PM

allhands said:
From what I've seen it doesn't really give you an advantage.


Hardly surprising when most of those tests are FPU-limited or GPU-limited... that's kind of like complaining that the top speed of your car doesn't increase when you replace a 1.2 liter four-cylinder engine with a 12 liter V-8, but keep the same gearbox and the same rev limit.

April 6, 2008 10:30:57 PM

It could happen that we see the first 128 bit cpu in a few years, but not because of memory address limitations.
The merging of GPU and CPU could lead to the introduction of 256 bit precision floating point units sooner than most anticipate though. While that is not true >64bit it is heading in the right direction.
April 6, 2008 11:04:24 PM

Slobogob said:
It could happen that we see the first 128 bit cpu in a few years, but not because of memory address limitations.
The merging of GPU and CPU could lead to the introduction of 256 bit precision floating point units sooner than most anticipate though. While that is not true >64bit it is heading in the right direction.


While it is usefull in scientific applications such hardware has no use on the common desktop (128bit)
Maybe a 256bit precission FPU would appear as a custom add in board like todays PPUs and GPUs.

For every day computer usage 32bit precission FPU is "good enough" and it offers a 7 decimal digit precission.
64bit offers 15 decimal digits and for let us say 4MPixel displays in 3D graphics that's already overkill.
That's why todays graphics cards use single precission FPU (32bits).
CAD is another story, but again I see custom add in boards for those applications (as today).

But that is just a FPU. There is even less use for 128bit integers.
April 7, 2008 11:22:28 AM

mpavao81 said:
Ok this may be a dumb question, i know cpus have gone from 32bit to 64bit, But do you think they will go to 128bit in the foreseeable future? like 5 years or so. Just curious.


x86 needs to die and we need someone to give us a decent OS that will run on whatever replaces x86.
April 7, 2008 12:21:10 PM

Andrius said:

Maybe a 256bit precission FPU would appear as a custom add in board like todays PPUs and GPUs.

Like Toshibas Spurs Engine, just with a wider bus. We'll probably see Intel doing someting like that with 64bit though.
a c 127 à CPUs
April 7, 2008 1:27:19 PM

JonnyRock said:
x86 needs to die and we need someone to give us a decent OS that will run on whatever replaces x86.


You mean like Intels IA64 on Itanium? That should have replaced x86 but it had no 32bit support and we all know you need to transition. But maybe someday we will se a IA64 with x86 extensions instead.

Slobogob said:
Like Toshibas Spurs Engine, just with a wider bus. We'll probably see Intel doing someting like that with 64bit though.


Yea. I have heard a rumor from someone at IBM(I work next to them) that Intel and IBM are researching a 512bit CPU or something in a CPU. Would be interesting to see even a purly 512bit CPU and see what it can do huh?
April 7, 2008 1:49:59 PM

mpavao81 said:
Ok this may be a dumb question, i know cpus have gone from 32bit to 64bit, But do you think they will go to 128bit in the foreseeable future? like 5 years or so. Just curious.


Nope. In fact, I wonder if we will have adopted 64-bit in 5 years. Right now there seems to be some major issues. I think we won't see wide adoption until mainstream machines start needing 4+ gigs of RAM.

I would guess that MS's next OS will be only 64-Bit (with 32-bit support). Then we'll see adoption.
April 7, 2008 1:55:35 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
I would guess that MS's next OS will be only 64-Bit (with 32-bit support). Then we'll see adoption.

I really, really hope they make it 64-bit only! At least then it won't be a RAM hungry 32-bit emulator!
I am very tempted to go to Vista, because at present I have 4096Mb of RAM installed in my system, but as well know, PAE will use whatever it needs for other peripherals, meaning I have 2.8Gb in Windows! I could cope with 3.3Gb, but 2.8 is just ****!
a b à CPUs
April 7, 2008 1:58:40 PM

jimmysmitty said:

Yea. I have heard a rumor from someone at IBM(I work next to them) that Intel and IBM are researching a 512bit CPU or something in a CPU. Would be interesting to see even a purly 512bit CPU and see what it can do huh?



<giggles at the thought of the billions of posts crying that 64/128/512 bit addresses take up more space and How Dare You Use My Hard Drive and Memory when I want it sitting there doing nothing bloated pig stole my money and space why can't we just stay with XP>


Yeahhhhh.... :pt1cable: 
April 7, 2008 2:03:16 PM

if im not mistaken.... i recall when the Barcelona came out there was an annoncement and AMD claimed that the Barcelona had a 128-bit FPU
April 7, 2008 3:14:31 PM

LukeBird said:
I really, really hope they make it 64-bit only! At least then it won't be a RAM hungry 32-bit emulator!
I am very tempted to go to Vista, because at present I have 4096Mb of RAM installed in my system, but as well know, PAE will use whatever it needs for other peripherals, meaning I have 2.8Gb in Windows! I could cope with 3.3Gb, but 2.8 is just ****!


That might be a motherboard issue as well. Check to see how much RAM your BIOS thinks it has. My Asus A8n-SLI motherboard (S939) only sees about 2.8 GB of my 3 gigs of RAM. I was so frustrated when I upgraded. I'm glad I'm only wasting a few hundred megabytes and not more.
April 7, 2008 3:34:39 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
That might be a motherboard issue as well. Check to see how much RAM your BIOS thinks it has. My Asus A8n-SLI motherboard (S939) only sees about 2.8 GB of my 3 gigs of RAM. I was so frustrated when I upgraded. I'm glad I'm only wasting a few hundred megabytes and not more.

Don't worry, checked that. :( 
It's an OS issue as the BIOS shows 4096mb as it should. Used to have 3.3Gb, but when I went SLi I lost another 768mb for PAE for the 2nd GTX. Makes it a real bastard as I lost a whole chunk more RAM! :( 
April 7, 2008 4:40:37 PM

It's been done already. No one cared. No new horizons. No new worlds to conquer.
April 7, 2008 4:42:33 PM

LukeBird said:
Don't worry, checked that. :( 
It's an OS issue as the BIOS shows 4096mb as it should. Used to have 3.3Gb, but when I went SLi I lost another 768mb for PAE for the 2nd GTX. Makes it a real bastard as I lost a whole chunk more RAM! :( 


I am jealous of your rig. Just one of your video cards would kick my video card's butt, but you have two...
April 7, 2008 5:17:26 PM

LukeBird said:
I really, really hope they make it 64-bit only! At least then it won't be a RAM hungry 32-bit emulator!
I am very tempted to go to Vista, because at present I have 4096Mb of RAM installed in my system, but as well know, PAE will use whatever it needs for other peripherals, meaning I have 2.8Gb in Windows! I could cope with 3.3Gb, but 2.8 is just ****!


I can't remember exactly where I heard this, but I heard that Windows Server 2008 will be the last 32-bit OS coming from Microsoft. Small Business Server 2008 will be 64-bit only (mainly because Exchange 2007 is 64-bit only).

Therefore, if the above is true, then Windows 7 (Vista's successor) will be 64-bit only.
April 7, 2008 5:27:53 PM

Scotteq said:
<giggles at the thought of the billions of posts crying that 64/128/512 bit addresses take up more space and How Dare You Use My Hard Drive and Memory when I want it sitting there doing nothing bloated pig stole my money and space why can't we just stay with XP>


Yeahhhhh.... :pt1cable: 


Theory:
A program takes up anywhere from 10% to 50%(for the same functionality) more memory space on a 64bit OS than it did on a 32bit OS.
It can however (in theory at least) address 4Gi(2^32) times more RAM.

I really doubt anyone would have a genuine reason to whine :lol: .
There is always a sollution($) if you want more storage space.


April 7, 2008 5:33:14 PM

killerb255 said:

Therefore, if the above is true, then Windows 7 (Vista's successor) will be 64-bit only.


But we all know that means all the 2-3 year old hardware from certain vendors will not be supported.
And it will take at least 2-3 years until all (y)our favourite programs work in it as they should.
Right in time for SP2.


April 7, 2008 5:38:50 PM

Andrius said:
But we all know that means all the 2-3 year old hardware from certain vendors will not be supported.
And it will take at least 2-3 years until all (y)our favourite programs work in it as they should.



They can make a 64-bit OS that supports 32-bit software.

However, hardware will be a different issue, but right now hardware is transforming and all the new stuff is 64-bit compatible (but they don't all have "good" drivers).
a b à CPUs
April 7, 2008 5:46:47 PM

jimmysmitty said:

Yea. I have heard a rumor from someone at IBM(I work next to them) that Intel and IBM are researching a 512bit CPU or something in a CPU. Would be interesting to see even a purly 512bit CPU and see what it can do huh?



<giggles at the thought of the billions of posts crying that 64/128/512 bit addresses take up more space and How Dare You Use My Hard Drive and Memory when I want it sitting there doing nothing bloated pig stole my money and space why can't we just stay with XP>


Yeahhhhh.... :pt1cable: 


Andrius said:
Theory:
A program takes up anywhere from 10% to 50%(for the same functionality) more memory space on a 64bit OS than it did on a 32bit OS.
It can however (in theory at least) address 4Gi(2^32) times more RAM.

I really doubt anyone would have a genuine reason to whine :lol: .
There is always a sollution($) if you want more storage space.



Running 64 bits now, so yeah - I'm familiar with the differences in addressing, usage, and requirements... :) 


As far as needing a genuine reason to whine?? Since when is a "reason" needed?? :lol:  I mean... Nobody would "ever" b*tch about (needing to) spend money for a different proc... on a different socket... to run applications that take more space in memory and in storage. For the same functionality... Keep going down that road and next thing you know, someone will say the "V" word! And then we'd have to get out the cans of kerosene, nail the "V" word user to a tree, and burn it before it spreads!! :lol: 

I mean.. Really... :D 


{edit} Just had another thought: Going from 32 to 64 will equal, what, - 2 OS changes probably. Figure 64 bits will run for a decade - so 3~4 OS's, a couple OS changes while transitioning to 128. Then another decade....


Yeahhh.... Nobody'll whine.... Not at all! :na: 



Mooore's Law: The Whining about minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year... Certainly over the short term this rate can be expected to continue, if not to increase. Over the longer term, the rate of increase is a bit more uncertain, although there is no reason to believe it will not remain nearly constant for at least 10 years.....
April 7, 2008 6:32:17 PM

Scotteq said:

As far as needing a genuine reason to whine?? Since when is a "reason" needed?? :lol:  I mean... Nobody would "ever" b*tch about (needing to) spend money for a different proc... on a different socket... to run applications that take more space in memory and in storage. For the same functionality... Keep going down that road and next thing you know, someone will say the "V" word! And then we'd have to get out the cans of kerosene, nail the "V" word user to a tree, and burn it before it spreads!! :lol: 

I mean.. Really... :D 


{edit} Just had another thought: Going from 32 to 64 will equal, what, - 2 OS changes probably. Figure 64 bits will run for a decade - so 3~4 OS's, a couple OS changes while transitioning to 128. Then another decade....


Yeahhh.... Nobody'll whine.... Not at all! :na: 



Mooore's Law: The Whining about minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year... Certainly over the short term this rate can be expected to continue, if not to increase. Over the longer term, the rate of increase is a bit more uncertain, although there is no reason to believe it will not remain nearly constant for at least 10 years.....


Whining without a proper reason makes you a woman! :lol: 
And ignoring a whining woman was the first thing we had to learn growing up.

Nothing ever works fast enough unless it's obsolete.
Software bloat makes you need more hardware not software function.
Point1: Refreshing 2 numbers on the screen takes up less resources than a PINK elephant carrying folders from one edge of the screen to another.
Point2: Transparent Windows look cool (for 20 minutes). Then they get old and you want responsive applications back.
Point3: Why do you need a 3D interface to a text editor ?
Point4: Why do you need a 3D interface to a web browser ?
Point5: If you want more bling spend more money!

"V" as in Virus or Vista ? ;) 

The memory size limitations of 64bit are almost funny. I'd say we are good for 25-50 years (with desktop usage).
April 7, 2008 8:40:55 PM

640K ought to be enough for anybody - Bill Gates (1981)


(Actually, Bill Gates didn't say it, but the urban legend is that he did)
April 7, 2008 9:35:01 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
640K ought to be enough for anybody - Bill Gates (1981)


(Actually, Bill Gates didn't say it, but the urban legend is that he did)


18EiBytes RAM should be enough for everybody in the next 25 years sounds less silly today.
The "simple math" is as follows.
Let's say RAM capacity doubles every year (A bit faster than Moore's law of 18 months for doubling transistors in an IC).
In 25 years we'd be at 2^32(today)*2^25 is 2^57 (with 2^7 for any (less /un)predictable revolutionary advances).
If we stick to Moore's law like bubblegum to the bottom of a shoe we get :
2^32*2^17(rounded up) = 2^49 leaving a margin of 2^15 for less predictable revolutionary advances.

Memory usage, the primary reason desktop PCs went from 32bit to 64bit, will not likely be the cause of going 128bit in the next 25 years. Other causes are harder to predict.



April 7, 2008 10:10:35 PM

it be the ultimate folding machine
April 7, 2008 10:23:08 PM

At 6GiBytes/second memory bandwidth it would take todays PC around 90 years to fill/read 18EiBytes.
;) 

Folding just needs more FLOPS. 64bit FPU is good enough.



April 7, 2008 10:33:12 PM

Quote:
lol... really i doubt programs will require anywhere beyond 4 gbs for years... so yeah silly question
not really, I've thought of the same thing. After doing some good (Wikipedia :p ) research, I have found that we will not be using 128 bit in the mainstream in the next even 10 years. Remember that even Windows 3.1 was 32-bit. This was back in 1992 when windows only needed 2MB of RAM to run! It has taken 16 years to get to mainstream 64 bit, and most systems are 32 bit now regardless.

And @ your quote thogrom, what are you talking about? Even in small businesses a 64-bit operating system is necessary. A server with even 8GB of RAM is considered an outdated one by far. High definition video applications require massive amounts of RAM aswell. I love looking at motherboards on newegg that have 16 RAM slots and 4 processor slots. Thinking of buying one :) .

Sure the average home user or even a gamer will not need 8GB of RAM for the remainder of this year, and even next year, but I assure you 64-bit will be the only way to go in late 2009+.

April 8, 2008 1:36:06 AM

Quote:
Sure the average home user or even a gamer will not need 8GB of RAM for the remainder of this year, and even next year, but I assure you 64-bit will be the only way to go in late 2009+.


Extremely doubtful. Despite the fact that it is somewhat common for computers to run a 64-bit OS (not nearly as common as you suggest), you will notice that 99.9% of the programs that are run on desktops are still 32-bit. There is a huge difference between writing a program for 32-bit and writing one for 64-bit. There currently aren't a lot of experienced 64-bit programmers writing desktop applications so while we will start to see more 64-bit applications in the near future, it will be at least another 4-5 years before 64-bit comes anywhere close to the point where it can be called mainstream.
April 8, 2008 2:08:36 AM

Once XP dies off and Vista or Windows 7 start to become more mainstream I think you'll see a bigger turn over to 64-bit. Mostly because Vista uses alot more memory than previous generations and more programs use more memory. I would also expect future OS's and programs to keep up this trend. I also think that because RAM is getting cheaper we'll start to see more systems with more RAM for no other reason than just because it's cheap.

It's not like software is really using less memory, less power, or less of anything than it was 5 years ago. So the future is probably going to be bigger and faster.
April 8, 2008 6:54:04 AM

Just_An_Engineer said:
There is a huge difference between writing a program for 32-bit and writing one for 64-bit.


That difference is called a compiler flag. And making sure that you weren't using 'long' to mean a 32-bit integer, or copying pointers to and from 32-bit integers.

I've been writing combined 32/64-bit code which had to run on both architectures on and off since the early Alphas back around 1993; so long as you follow a few basic rules the differences are trivial... most things will just recompile and work, so long as the programmers haven't been stupid.
April 8, 2008 7:39:09 AM

You guys about covered it, but if anyone is worried about the next generation, we will see servers go to 128 bit processors and software (if they dont do some quantum kung fu move first) a hell of a long time before desktops.

I believe 32 bit software will become an emulated item some time in the future, with primary use of 64 bit processors being mainstream past 2010. We are in the transition phase right now, waiting for everyone else in the world to take a step forward.
April 8, 2008 9:13:20 AM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
I am jealous of your rig. Just one of your video cards would kick my video card's butt, but you have two...

Now you're making me feel quilty :( 
On a side note, I'm more than happy with my rig and it's taken me a long time to get it there. Several of the parts were 2nd hand, (2 of the 4HD's, and both GTXs :) ) so all is good!
I want a 9850BE for it, but I just can't work out if it's worth the hassle...
April 8, 2008 12:01:25 PM

MarkG said:
Hardly surprising when most of those tests are FPU-limited or GPU-limited... that's kind of like complaining that the top speed of your car doesn't increase when you replace a 1.2 liter four-cylinder engine with a 12 liter V-8, but keep the same gearbox and the same rev limit.


Maybe but it's the kind of apps that I run. What good is it going to do me if 64 bit runs a application faster that I'm never going to use?
!