Go Back   nV News Forums > Software Forums > Microsoft Windows 7

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-11-09, 09:50 AM   #13
Rakeesh
 
Rakeesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sonoran Desert
Posts: 6,869
Default Re: Windows 8 and 9 may support 128-bit architecture

Quote:
Originally Posted by AthlonXP1800 View Post
Not sure about Intel's Sandy Bridge and AMD already created 128bit CPU instruction set in bulldozer since R&D started in 2007.
I still don't fully understand why 128-bit is necessary in the general computing space though. 64-bit is pretty easy to understand because now mainstream (e.g. everyday use for everyday consumers) software is starting to run into memory limitations that, while 32-bit can handle it with a few kernel tricks, it does so very inefficiently (and more prone to bugs as well.) And IMO it's good that AMD started that migration when they did (in spite of several intel fanboys criticizing them for it) because that gave us the time we needed to migrate now that the limits of 32-bit are being hit in the consumer space right now.

128-bit though doesn't make any sense right now. We're nowhere near hitting the limits of 64-bit in the consumer space; not even remotely close. Hell 64-bit addressing is way more than enough for today's hard drives even. Even if we doubled the capacity of hard disks every year for the next 20 years (2 TB ^ 20 years = 1EB, compared with the 16EB limit of 64-bit,) we still wouldn't reach the limits of 64-bit addressing. And that is just hard disks, volatile memory (where CPU bit depth would really make a difference) would be much smaller.
Rakeesh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-09, 12:50 PM   #14
Vorgus
Registered User
 
Vorgus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 107
Default Re: Windows 8 and 9 may support 128-bit architecture

It's not just bits of storage, bits of ram. It's data path width. Cpus are hitting speed limits, so now they are spawning more cores, 2, 4 6, 12... making the data paths wider will help a single crunch more data without a clock increase. Some things just don't gain much by dividing across cores.
Vorgus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-09, 01:39 PM   #15
Rakeesh
 
Rakeesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sonoran Desert
Posts: 6,869
Default Re: Windows 8 and 9 may support 128-bit architecture

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorgus View Post
It's not just bits of storage, bits of ram. It's data path width. Cpus are hitting speed limits, so now they are spawning more cores, 2, 4 6, 12... making the data paths wider will help a single crunch more data without a clock increase. Some things just don't gain much by dividing across cores.
You have to think about it this way: What everyday data types are we going to deal with on a regular basis that need more than 64-bits?

The only ones I can think of already do just fine with already existing GPUs. In fact the GPUs can process this information in ways that the CPU can't and probably shouldn't. Not only that but since the GPU is basically its own subsystem, we can upgrade that component independently of the rest of the system, even when its core architecture changes massively, which effectively makes owning and upgrading computers cheaper. The same can't be said for the CPU.
Rakeesh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-09, 01:57 PM   #16
Redeemed
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 17,982
Default Re: Windows 8 and 9 may support 128-bit architecture

Yeah... I'm torn on this. I can see the advantage of 128-bit when when dealing with demanding single-threaded apps if they're natively 128-bit but... I just don't see that being a common situation that any body would be in. I mean, if it's programed to take advantage of 128-bit, then it'll probably be multi-threaded to take advantage of multiple cores/ hyper-threading.

And as wolf said, GPUs can do this already extremely well. I'm just not seeing the need for a 128 bit CPU.
Redeemed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-09, 01:54 AM   #17
Atomizer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 379
Default Re: Windows 8 and 9 may support 128-bit architecture

The only reason I could see a use for 128bit is more precision, not really as a speedup, and mainly for floating point stuff, which is now better done on the GPU anyway.
I mean, 63 bits can store values upto 9,223,372,036,854,775,807, thats 7 exabytes, or, 8191 petabytes, or, 8,388,607terabytes, etc, in terms of RAM/HDD space, I cant imagine anything for a long time needing that much, especially considering thats using only 63 bits, not the full 64bits, for 64bit unsigned values it would be pretty much double that amount.
As far as im aware, the largest single HDD is 2TB right now, lets say in 5 years we have 10TB drives, youd still need over 100 drives to make 1pb, and the only way youd actually need to address upto 1pb would be having them all in a raid, otherwise if they arent in a raid you only need to address 10tb, and then the drive partition that you're accessing.

So honestly the only practical use, right now, for 128bit, is higher floating point precision for scientific stuff
Atomizer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-09, 02:19 AM   #18
Redeemed
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 17,982
Default Re: Windows 8 and 9 may support 128-bit architecture

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomizer View Post
The only reason I could see a use for 128bit is more precision, not really as a speedup, and mainly for floating point stuff, which is now better done on the GPU anyway.
I mean, 63 bits can store values upto 9,223,372,036,854,775,807, thats 7 exabytes, or, 8191 petabytes, or, 8,388,607terabytes, etc, in terms of RAM/HDD space, I cant imagine anything for a long time needing that much, especially considering thats using only 63 bits, not the full 64bits, for 64bit unsigned values it would be pretty much double that amount.
As far as im aware, the largest single HDD is 2TB right now, lets say in 5 years we have 10TB drives, youd still need over 100 drives to make 1pb, and the only way youd actually need to address upto 1pb would be having them all in a raid, otherwise if they arent in a raid you only need to address 10tb, and then the drive partition that you're accessing.

So honestly the only practical use, right now, for 128bit, is higher floating point precision for scientific stuff
Which you yourself just said would be better done on GPUs. And with both AMD and nVidia pushing GPGPU in one form or another... I still cannot see any practical application for a 128 bit CPU.

Unless, of course, GPGPU of any form is a lot farther off than any of us realize. Then as you mentioned the 128-bit CPU could come in handy in a few, incredibly rare, scenarios.
Redeemed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-09, 01:01 PM   #19
Vorgus
Registered User
 
Vorgus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 107
Default Re: Windows 8 and 9 may support 128-bit architecture

The only thing that really seems to be giving 64-bit a push right now is more then 4Gb of ram support in the OS. Else 32-bit is still fine for most. And the only reason we need more ram is sloppy bloated code.
Vorgus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-09, 08:19 PM   #20
Atomizer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 379
Default Re: Windows 8 and 9 may support 128-bit architecture

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redeemed View Post
Which you yourself just said would be better done on GPUs. And with both AMD and nVidia pushing GPGPU in one form or another... I still cannot see any practical application for a 128 bit CPU.

Unless, of course, GPGPU of any form is a lot farther off than any of us realize. Then as you mentioned the 128-bit CPU could come in handy in a few, incredibly rare, scenarios.
Yep, thats my main point, though honestly, until we start getting machines(usually servers with loads of ram), with hundreds of petabytes of ram, I dont see the jump to 128bit CPUs being needed.
As Vorgus said just above me, the jump to 64bit mainly came because we were starting to approach the 4gb limit with 32bit, HDDs were already many times larger then 4gb, but its because of the way newer filesystems split the drive into addressable sectors.
Atomizer is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 10-19-09, 11:54 AM   #21
Badboy_12345
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,362
Default Re: Windows 8 and 9 may support 128-bit architecture

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaWolf_HK View Post
There's still more migration that needs to be done first. Breaking 32-bit support would just break too many things right now. With windows 7, Microsoft is aggressively pushing both IHV's and ISV's to make all of their products either 64-bit, or 64-bit compatible. As soon as the majority of them are on board, it will be safe to drop it.
But thats easy... have old ****? DONT UPGRADE
Does XP and Vista automatically stop working when a new windows os is out?

If they want their old **** to work then they can as they did before on their current os.

Windows 7 should have been 64bit only
Badboy_12345 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-09, 02:27 AM   #22
Atomizer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 379
Default Re: Windows 8 and 9 may support 128-bit architecture

I think the main reason for 32bit still existing in Win7, is because the netbook CPUs are 32bit? Cant remember where I read that or if its true, but if thats the case then I can understand why a 32bit version of Win7 exists
Atomizer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-09, 11:31 AM   #23
Rakeesh
 
Rakeesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sonoran Desert
Posts: 6,869
Default Re: Windows 8 and 9 may support 128-bit architecture

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorgus View Post
The only thing that really seems to be giving 64-bit a push right now is more then 4Gb of ram support in the OS. Else 32-bit is still fine for most. And the only reason we need more ram is sloppy bloated code.
Not really. 64-bit actually does make a lot of sense for many things right now, particularly in gaming where a lot of games now need a lot of high precision vector calculations done even for non graphics or physics related things. Furthermore it doesn't matter how bloated or non-bloated the engine code is, in the end you are still going to deal with very large resources (e.g. textures, sounds, and the like) that will require larger memory pools as games become more detailed.

And that is completely ignoring the IT space where you regularly deal with large amounts of data that can't somehow be reduced by merely writing more efficient code (though it cab help, but ultimately you need better hardware.)
Rakeesh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-09, 11:40 AM   #24
Rakeesh
 
Rakeesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sonoran Desert
Posts: 6,869
Default Re: Windows 8 and 9 may support 128-bit architecture

Quote:
Originally Posted by Badboy_12345 View Post
But thats easy... have old ****? DONT UPGRADE
Does XP and Vista automatically stop working when a new windows os is out?

If they want their old **** to work then they can as they did before on their current os.

Windows 7 should have been 64bit only
Well the nice thing about the current approach is that they are pushing everybody to 64-bit on the manufacturer side right now, but the consumer is allowed the choice of staying 32-bit if they desire. And that, in my mind, means the next version of windows should be good as far as eliminating the 32-bit only kernel.
Rakeesh is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.