Why don't we have already 128bit or 256bit computers?

Screen capped
See ya in 2045 for that meal fag

You guys obviously didn't live through the 80's. Wait until VR/Augmented reality starts hitting maturity and everyone records every fucking detail of their lives in 3D reality. Those exa/petabyte numbers will see reality.

Attached: BG-640.jpg (638x479, 77K)

Can you at least provide a guess? What do you think could possibly use that much memory? Especially on a consumer machine... You'll note that certain things stop improving after a while. We haven't seen a large increase in vehicle fuel economy in decades, for example. It's entirely possible that our current computers resemble the ones we'll be using for centuries...

Fully rendered 3D video motion. We only see in 2D now... go ahead and cube your picture folder. I just did... I've 163 gb just in family photos... That's 4.3x10^33.

The circuits such as multipliers would get way too big, plus why would you even want 128bit?

one of the dumbest things i've ever seen on Jow Forums and probably the top #1 dumbest this year

I'll let you explain to us the memory requirement for realistic non-rendered digitization of 3D space since you're such a fucking expert.
I'll wait.

Lmao

We haven't had the need to so far, we don't even make full use of 64bit addressing yet

Immediately what I thought of.

That's not how it works
more like
pow(sqrt(folder.size), 3)

Actually most of 3D space is air so compression might be high

Large videos can already be loaded from the disk in chunks as needed. 128-bit addressing is pretty much irrelevant to that task.

Maybe octtrees

kek

>64 bit was necessary
48 bit addressing was enough. And 32 bit accumulators are still plenty.

what does cubing your picture folder have to do with 3d space? i'll give you a hint: your pictures are 2D

Look, the point here is that >64bit addressable will be needed at some point, and one of the primary ways I see that demand blowing up is the need to render real space in 3D. That's the only thing I can imagine that would require that much memory... b/c going from 2D to 3D definition completely blows up memory requirements. Remember; this isn't rendering a 3D box that looks like a computer on your desk, which takes a lot less memory; it would be a 3D rendering of exactly the computer on your desk.

Here's the logic:
> HQ photo from modern consumer-grade digital SLR ~5MB in .JPG format (so already compressed from a raw format)
> Assume consumer would want similar level of definition across space. I'm not sure how to even define that, so let's start by imagining the digital render of a cube 5mb X 5mb x 5mb
> 1.25e20... which is past exabyte and straight into zetabyte territory
> That's already compressed in 2D
> That's just 1 render

That figure's already based on 2D compression... I can't wrap my head around what 3D compression would look like but you're right, it would be substantial.

Feel free to debate any of the above or why it's retarded.

"Muh 128bit processors"

it isn't even a relevant question. as said, it was needed because large parts of the CPU were being limited by 32bit adress spaces and buses. However new CPU's dont even implement 64bit adress spaces. RAM, for example, uses 46bit adresses because there is no CPU that uses more. And even if that does happen, they'll just implement the full 64bits.

And we already have a few native instructions that handle 128bit registers and operations in single cycles. Intel implemented native 512AVX instructions. AMD used 4 128bit AVX instructions that supposedly are as fast as intel's native one while being more power efficient.

Again. its all there. x64-86 is just a name with less and less resemblance to whats going on in your CPU.

We do.
SSE was 128bit.
AVX/AVX2 is 256bit.
AVX512 is 512bit.

*I meant 48bit adresses. see

>64 bit was necessary because 32 bit systems could not address as much memory as we started to require (anything above 4GB).
Wrong, PAE existed and worked fine.

Except that post was completely wrong.
We didn't need 64bit for address space concerns at all, since PAE existed.

That's only for tard windows users. Linux and Mac allowed for 16gb or more

You store your videos in your RAM?

>and worked fine

Yes, it did.

There would be only disadvantages

Fuck, got it.
> 18 megapixel camera
> 4200x4200 --> 1.8e7 bytes uncompressed
> 3D--> 4200^3 --> 7.6e10 uncompressed

So about 76gb for same "image," whatever that would mean for this format.

Weren't the PS2 and GCN 128-bit consoles?

kek

In the same vein that the Pentium 3 is a 128bit processor, yes.

To do a photorealistic render the memory space required would be substantially higher than what's required to render a photo. I'm already over my skis trying to estimate what that would even look like but it would be something like 3 orders of magnitude higher than what's needed for a photo.

Not all "bits" are for memory addressing

Nice type conversion, too bad you got it all wrong
1.25e20 cubed bytes are 125 cubed megabytes

>Pentium 3 is a 128bit processor
Okay, I heard about the Pentium 3 rounding errors, but come on, this is getting ridiculous...

But how would you view a 3 dimensional picture? Would it be like a hologram? I mean if it's on screen that kind of defeats the purpose.

Also as the previous user said, most of the space would be air so most pixels would have an alpha value of 100 so compression would be effective and relatively easy.
Unless it's a 3d hologram of a human body. That would be a nightmare to render and store.

That's the point, the P3 is as much a 128bit processor as the PS2's CPU or a PPC750 in Gamecube.

>But how would you view a 3 dimensional picture?
On two screens.

>But how would you view a 3 dimensional picture?
with your eyes, nigger

J'ai mal au ventre

aka 17 billion GiB
brainlets thinking they are clever

>there's no way we'll ever need 2^64 bytes of memory (16 exabytes)
But that's like two chrome tabs worth of RAM.