Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD)

AMD 215.65

+0.3%

Dec 29 3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: TGPTNDR who wrote (81219)	5/31/2002 7:33:16 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) of 275872

Historically, it's not quite that simple. Since the '60s, there have been 16, 32, 36, and 60 bit architectures that were all relatively successful. There have been 64 bit microprocessors available since I think the MIPS R4000 circa '90 or so. The 4-8-16-32 bit progression has mostly to do with what's feasible to build into a 1-chip microprocessor. For microprocessors, by the time 16 bit processorr where feasible, 16 bits for addressing was already too small; Gordon Bell acknowledged the 16 bit limitation as the primary problem of the PDP-11 right from the start, well before microprocessors came on the scene. Machines that can actually use >4gb of main memory are still pretty rare, though at current memory prices it's feasible to cross that barrier if you need it. Except you got to get out of the PC class to do it, in terms of physical addressability. Going past 64 bits, I just can't see it being worthwhile without some kind of totally new computing paradigm.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next