• just_another_person@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    Is this a question?

    We haven’t even come close to exhausting 64-bit addresses yet. If you think the bit number makes things faster, it’s technically the opposite.

    • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      Is this a question?

      For the people who don’t know the answer? Yes.

      Not everything you see is intended for your consumption. Let people enjoy learning things.

    • jwr1@kbin.earthOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      It’s a link to an article I found interesting. It basically details why we’re still using 64-bit CPUs, just as you mentioned.

    • Technus@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      We don’t even have true 64-bit addressing yet. x86-64 uses only 48 bits of a 64 bit address and 64-bit ARM can use anything between 40 and 52 depending on the specific configuration.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      Yeah, 64 bit handles almost all use cases we have. Sometimes we want double the precision (a double) or length (a long), but we can do that without being 128-bit. It’s harder to do half. Sure, it’d be slightly faster for some things, but it’s not significant.

      • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 days ago

        There’s plenty of instructions for processing integers and fp numbers from 8 bits to 512 bits with a single instruction and register. There’s been a lot of work in packed math instructions for neural network inference.