128 bit cpu

>128 bit cpu

will it ever happen?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=mlRWqqWay7c
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/370
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>3d
kill youself and go back to kikebook normie nigger reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

you have 60 days to explain how its benefits would outweigh the costs

get cracking

give me one reason it needs to.

vr gaming

LE GIBS ME REASUNS MEMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE KEK JEJ LEL REEEEEE XDDDDDDDDDDDDD

aliens who program their spaceships and AI components would probably need a 128bit cpu

>muh arrival

>lets blow tons a money on something pointless

>cpu

>or lets spend tons of money on something that will increase performance
:^)

>increase performance
lol

128 bit atomics

Thank for the (You) kouhai i was just shitposting

We've had them for a while, along with 256 and 512 bit see MMX (and later) instructions

well I get some (You)'s in return so thanks ;)

Theres no benefit in speed. Only precision of floats.
64bit is well within range of consumer use. Thats why we didnt move on. Theres literally no reason to.

If 64bit is so perfect then why didn't we just use it from the start? Hurf durf fucking idiots

128 bit CPU would be twice as fast as 64 bit, idiot

youtube.com/watch?v=mlRWqqWay7c

>Theres literally no reason to.
this is a sad thought. why to get up in the morning, then. Theres literally no reason to.

>128 bit cpu
>will it ever happen?

We could make more sometime, if we need them.

Probably not in a general purpose CPU. There's no point.

64-bit doesn't magically make your programs way faster. The reason why 64-bit mattered in the x86 world was for a couple of reasons:

1. 64-bit chips operate on 64-bit integers natively, and the size of the native integer type is important when you're dealing with memory addresses. 32-bit integers can only address 4 gigabytes of RAM, while 64-bit can in theory address 16 exibytes of RAM. In practice, limitations of current x64 CPU's limit that amount to around 256 terabytes.
2. You can do arithmetic on on 64-bit integer types quicker. If you're dealing with lots of 64-bit integers in your programs, that's a plus, but most software written for x86 didn't use 64-bit integers if they didn't have to, so it took a while for programs to catch up, plus they had to be recompiled anyway.
3. You can pass 64-bit floating point numbers back and forth between memory slightly quicker. The x86's FPU operated with 80 bits of precision internally, so the calculations themselves were no faster.
4. 64-bit gave programs access to WAY more general purpose registers at the same time, as part of the upgrade. Compilers can take advantage of those extra registers to make programs faster.
5. 64-bit means that you can make assumptions about the existence of certain CPU instructions that you couldn't with x86. Compilers can take advantage of these extra instructions to make programs faster.

Of these five improvements, only the first was the one that actually mattered to upgrading users. Only #2 and #3 could be considered direct performance improvements from the "bitness" of the CPU, and the gains were relatively small. #4 and #5 could have been done without any change to the "bitness" of the CPU.

So...128-bit CPU's. We don't need anywhere NEAR that much RAM yet, and 128-bit integers and floating point numbers are incredibly rare in practice. So probably not, and even if it did it wouldn't really matter.

>will it ever happen?

Probably not in our lifetimes, nor in the lifetimes of our grandchildren.

The 64-bit address space is 16 EiB, which is a billion times more RAM than a 16 GiB computer holds.

Assuming that computer RAM size doubles every 5 years, then it would take about 150 years to reach 16 EiB. (30 doublings is one billion.)

There's a small possibility that you might have a grandchild who's still alive 150 years from now, but it's not likely.

You've also got to wonder how long we'll need to keep doubling our RAM capacity every 5 years. Right now we're in a huge expansion phase, but it's not clear that it needs to keep going at the current pace. For example, CPU clock speeds hit a brick wall about 10 years ago, and now they're set to double only once every 20 years, at best. And yet, that hasn't hurt computing much. Once we get to 10K monitors, we'll be pretty much done with our need to keep increasing the resolution, because of the limits of our retinas. The same thing might happen with RAM size -- we might get to a similar "plateau" phase where most people finally have far more RAM than they could ever use, and the size doublings are only needed every 10 or 20 years -- which could easily extend the life of 64-bit CPUs for yet another 100 years beyond the original 150 year projection.

What about bandwidth tho? Sure we're not using 128bit that often, but it would mean you can run more 64bit stuff parallel right? More bus space to fill with datas!

Are there really people who think that increasing the bit width somehow increases performance by any considerable amount?
Fucking off yourself you retard.

I don't think they will be made or if they are, there will be limited runs of them. Quantum computing is more realistic than a 128-bit CPU.

The only way that happens is is address start to become proto headers, with metadata. Sort of like Rec 2020 12 bit color and IPv6.

No you fucking retard

If your CPU is a dual core CPU then you're technically using 128-bit.
(64x2, each core has 64-bits, 128-bits multi).
My CPU has a technical 512-bit.

Breaking a 128-bit word back down into 64-bit words to work on them either costs you processor cycles or specialized silicon that will increase cost, heat and power consumption.

>My CPU is technically 512-bit

even 128bit cpu isn't enough

there are an estimated 10^80 atoms in the universe

a 128 bit cpu can count to about 3.4^38
you would need a 512 bit cpu to be useful.
even with a 512bit cpu, an atom can only be represented by a single byte

Modern x86 CPUs have this; it's called SIMD.

It is possible for CPU to be useful even if it does not attempt to emulate the universe.

Now that we have a huge 64bit address space, why aren't we mapping entire disk drives into the address space? It should be possible with SSDs, not sure about HDDs.
Why are we still using interfaces like ATA?

No lol.

You have basically thought up of SSE2 a decade and a half after the instruction set was first released on the Pentium 4. The registers are 128-bits wide and can operate on 2 64-bit types at once.

Is there a matching 128-bit bus to go with it? I'm not sure, but the #1 issue with an idea like yours would be space - these chips are fucking tiny and space is at a premium, so any decisions about what goes on the chip and where has to make sense from a size AND performance point of view.

It's kind of like saying we should abandon DNS with IPv6.

Why do we need as many addresses as there are atoms in the universe?

>why aren't we mapping entire disk drives into the address space
Because we are already used to the way it works now.
Because disks are block devices and mapping them to memory is not going to come for free.
Because almost no one needs direct access to disk; everything is done through filesystem.
Because mmap exist and allows you to do that when you feel the need for it while still keeping the benefits the centralized filesystem provides.

DNS can be useful for security, but I see no reason not to map storage devices directly into the address space.

Can you think of a single reason to do that though?

Also how the fuck is DNS useful for security?

Wait I got mixed up with NAT, did you mean NAT? otherwise your post doesn't make sense.

Simpler interface (just memory access), simpler driver.
Better performance?

Who knows m8. With the whole moore law coming to an end. Deelopers might move onto fancier controller/buses. Which might mean fancy headers. Might as well use what you have until you are back to practically 32.

No. it won't happen.

>otherwise your post doesn't make sense.
Your post makes just as little sense as his (and unlike you he made it nonsensical on purpose).

>Simpler interface (just memory access), simpler driver.
So we just rewrite all drivers we have and we're good to go, right? Easy!

>Better performance?
I can't tell if you're baiting. We just change the interface and somehow we get better performance doing the actual thing. Fascinating.

Whatever, it was just an idea. I just wanted to see what experts on the subject thought about it.

I know it doesn't make sense. How do you think programs address storage today?

Pro tip: they interact with a file system.

IPv6 practically does NAT natively anyway, since there is an innate private/public dichotomy.

One day someone will get the bright idea to do session management within IPv6, and then IPv6 will beomce the new TCP/UDP port. Then we will have to come up with IPv8. It can happen to anyone.

Trump literally got elected president of the US.

Theres plenty of benefit to getting up in the morning. None for 128bit.

>Pro tip: they interact with a file system.
Your fucking point? I never said to get rid of filesystems. I just suggested replacing ATA/whatever with direct memory access since the address space is large enough to fit entire storage devices now.
The filesystems would still be there.

Direct memory access is not fairy dust. You still need to connect to the other device somehow. ATA and direct memory access are not mutually exclusive. You need to stop posting for a moment and think really hard about what you are proposing.

maybe once we get actual 64 bit processors OP
the address bus only allows for 52 bit physical addresses and 48 bit virtual addresses

That seems kind of stupid, should be the other way around.

why? a single process can address up to 48 bits while the entire OS can address up to 52 bits

Seems kind of pointless. I feel 52 bits virtual addresses would be more useful than 52 bits physical addresses.

the virtual memory needs to be addressable in the physical memory, you can't have an address that is outside what's actually possible to be physically backed, it'd be inaccessible by the processor

just install windows 7 x64 twice to get 128bit, are you fucking new here?

Then make both either 52 bits or 48 bits. I don't get why physical addresses need to be 52 bits while virtual addresses are 48 bits.

Only reason I can think of for 128-bit is faster code that uses arbitrary size integers, and Intel's introducing a new extension to accelerate these use-cases anyway.

It's so a single process can allocate up to 48 bits worth of RAM (256 tb)
With a 52 bit physical backing, you can have 4 PiB of ram total, meaning you can have 16 processes running 256 tb of ram each

Sounds stupid. Just give each process full access to RAM. I see zero downsides to that.

development time & cost, it's cheaper to do this and will be good enough for the next few years

Does the distinction actually matter for any modern computer? I'm pretty sure nothing out for any x86_64 platform even approaches that amount of RAM, and that once we do the buses will just be expanded to accommodate and that will be that.

It already has, there's just no benefit to consumers.

The Dreamcast and PlayStation 2 both had 128-bit CPUs.

If we ever need more than 16 exabytes of RAM, then yeah. 128-bit RISC-V is already a thing. Nobody's put it to silicon though because there's literally no need.

No it hasn't. There is no such thing as a 128-bit general purpose CPU.

There are CPU's with 128-bit registers, but there is no architecture that uses native 128-bit integers because there's no reason to.

servers are getting pretty insane amounts of ram nowadays, especially memcached boxes. it's currently a lot, but in 5-10 years who knows, for the foreseeable future it's enough

The primary CPU in the Dreamcast was a Hitachi SH-4, which was actually just 32-bit. The primary CPU in the PS2 was a MIPS R5900, a 64-bit chip.

>mfw the PSP had a 64-bit CPU in 2004 while the first phone to have one didn't come out until 2013

/r/askscience/comments/2ke0o5/we_have_32_and_64bit_cpus_why_not_a_128bit_cpu/

I have one OP. My dad bought it for me for xmas

Its awesome.

Porn is always the answer... porn...

Porn doesn't benefit from 128bit CPUs.

No, because you don't need more than 2 TiB of RAM.

Well technically it uses compressed image formats which run fast due to 128b+ SIMD decompression instructions (which i know it's not the same but...)

A tl:dr version of why we dont have 128 bit cpus and why nobody is working on one is simple
>we dont need it

The big thing is that it can adress a bunch more shit. But its tens of thousands of times more than what we use now.
Think 20 years back with things like early pentium processors. They could support up to 3.4gb of ram but most systems had 16-48mb of ram

64 bit can do 16 exb and the average user only needs 4-8gb

Why move to 128 bit now?
Even when 64 bit cpu's were new people were still mainly using under 2gb of ram
There are still new 32 bit cpus because some people dont even need that, 3.4gb is enough

Nothing anyone does now or will do for probably quite a long time will ever need 128 bit processor

Not for hundreds of years, no.

>not for hundreds of years
meanwhile a few decades ago 128K ram was considered a huge amount

IBM already holds the patent

Really?

"Announced in October 2011,[7] ARMv8-A (often called ARMv8 while the ARMv8-R is also available) represents a fundamental change to the ARM architecture. It adds an optional 64-bit architecture"

>what is bit slicing
already happened

Except if you watch porn you're probably also on windows which means 95% of your software is 32bit which means no SIMD instructions are being used because the program cannot assume the presence of them.

>3.4gb is enough
You mean 4GB.

Never heard of Itanium, right?
You must be underage

>too smart to wait for the singularity

go to bed Terry

64-bit ARM may have existed since 2011 but the iPhone 5s was the first phone with a 64-bit CPU and it came out in 2013.

There's no need for a phone CPU to be 64 bit just yet, and the iphone doesn't even have more than 4 GBs of RAM, I think only a few android phones have 6GBs of RAM

I'm not saying it's necessary, I'm just pointing out that the
PSP beat phones to 64-bit by almost a decade. Also the original PSP had 32MiB RAM and later models had 64MiB.

128 bit CPUs have existed for more than 45 years.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/370

>le 64 bit if for more ram meme
windows sure cucked everyone good

The advantage of 64 bit processors isn't just for addressing more memory.

We would need to start building bigger chips and that would decrease performance. We cant pack transistors any tighter on silicon

if you want identity mapped memory, install templeos :^)

>If we have address changers it's same amount of ram.

There are plenty of disadvantages with this

>If your CPU is a dual core CPU then you're technically using 128-bit.
>(64x2, each core has 64-bits, 128-bits multi).
>My CPU has a technical 512-bit.
Quite of the year right there

>assume
cpuid

what applications are you currently working with that utilize integer values exceeding 64 bits enough that the additional load/store instructions required stack up noticeably?

none of that shit is going to be handled by the CPU when GPUs do it far better
even in the case of graphical calculations that require a shit ton of accuracy to the point of overflowing a 64-bit register, floating point units, SIMD units, whatever else have long since incorporated registers as large as 512 bits to handle it

there is none, you're just adding a bunch of extra empty space that will rarely be utilized to the point of a meaningful benefit

>PS2 had a 128bit CPU
>Could actually keep up with the PS3 and could run GT4 at 1080i whereas GT5 ran at 1280x1080p and didnt have fog or decent realtime reflections and alot of other effects due to the CPU being a pile of garage
is the Cell the worst CPU ever made?