Why is there still no 128bit CPU and OS? If sheeple fall for 240hz, 4k etc. they would surely fall for that too

Why is there still no 128bit CPU and OS? If sheeple fall for 240hz, 4k etc. they would surely fall for that too.
After all, more is better.

Attached: zsdss5.png (1563x2200, 1.41M)

C

U

Nobody, NOBODY in this time and age would benefit for a 128bit processor when we have not even scraped the limits of 64bit

N

in addition at such scales you'll be using multiple machines

We already have 128 bit CPUs and software support for it.
Even 512 bit.

Just because the memory bus is 64 bit doesn't mean shit. Pretty sure AVX instructions even have 1024 bit length.

N

True that, but I think OP was referring to the fact that such technologies are not used daily by normies (smartphones, PCs, consoles etc)

Let us reach the limit of 64bit.

Intel CPUs can already do AVX512. That's 512 bits!

Also the 64bit address space hasn't reached it's limit yet!

Instructions being >64bits doesn't mean the processor needs to be more than 64bits you brainlet.

Nobody claimed otherwise. We don't need 64+ bits for memory or address pace, but internally the CPU can have different instructions that work at waiting bit lengths, everything from 8 to 1024.
Use a bit length of proportionate scales where it's actually beneficial. So, we do have 512 and even 1024 bit CPUs and have had them for years.

Consoles and PCs sure use, specially the /v/toddler consumer, since multimedia instructions are all 128+ bits in length and that's what games use, heavily.

>So, we do have 512 and even 1024 bit CPUs and have had them for years
The CPUs are still 64 bits tho.

No, their memory buses and memory address spaces are. They run instructions bigger than 64 bits.

Yes they do, but the CPU running 1024 bits instructions doesn't magically makes it a 1024bits CPU, it's still a 64bit operating with 1024bit instructions.
But that's just semantic.

Because we aren't even using all of the 64-bits of address space we already have. There is no need to upgrade CPUs in that regard for a very long time, if ever.
We already have shit like 128-bit integer operations on special registers. But even then, most software doesn't need it.

Does any current CPU even support the full 64bit memory range?
Perhaps highly specialised ones, but not general ones.

Didn't ps2 had fully 128bit coprocessors? Vpus or something.

Y

>But that's just semantic.
I guess so. The original 68000 was called a 32 bit CPU internally even though it only had a 24 bit address and 16 bit memory bus.

A 64bit CPU can theoretically work with 2,097,152 TiB of memory. I think in some fuckhuge workspace is required such memory but I dunno.

It did, exactly like modern CPUs, see: x86 had the same instructions several years before the PS2 came out though, the CPU itself still have 32 and 64 bit parts though.

I know, but that's theory - most CPUs can't actually handle more than 56bit for addresses afaik

>only 2 exbibytes

I thought it was 48, but I could easily be misremembering it too.

Summit(#1 supercompurer) has ~3PB of ram. I think ~1/800 of theorethical limit is actually pretty close to require >64b addressation in a foreseeable future.

Megucunny.

>Why is there still no 128bit CPU
RISC-V

Have you ever seen anyone come even close to 16 exybyte of RAM?
Probably not. Then why make all pointers take twice as much space?

Operations that can handle 128 bit numbers have existed for years. AVX 512 supports up to 512 bit instructions.