this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2024
276 points (94.5% liked)

Technology

59569 readers
3825 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] kerrigan778@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Uh, the PlayStation 2 would like a word?

[–] magic_lobster_party@kbin.run 6 points 5 months ago

Not true 128 bit. It has 128 bit SIMD capabilities, but that’s about it. Probably mostly because of marketing reasons to show how much better it is than N64 (which also is “64 bit” for marketing reasons).

In that case, we’re having 512 bit computers now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVX-512

[–] unreachable@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago (8 children)

so i guess the next bit after 64 cpu is qu-bit, quantum bit

[–] magic_lobster_party@kbin.run 3 points 5 months ago

Probably not in consumer grade products in any foreseeable future.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] hades@lemm.ee 3 points 5 months ago
[–] Mio@feddit.nu 3 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Would it be a downside? Slower? Very costly?

[–] magic_lobster_party@kbin.run 6 points 5 months ago

More complexity with barely any (practical) benefits for consumers.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago (4 children)

Okay, so why can't we just not use exponentially growing values? Like 96 bit (64 + 36). I'd the something intrinsic about the size increases that they HAVE to be exponential? Why not linear scaling? 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56, 64, 72, 80, etc.

[–] SorteKanin@feddit.dk 7 points 5 months ago

Because CPU registers are all powers of 2, i.e. exponential in this fashion. And it's also just the same reason - 64 is high enough, why go to 96 or 80 or something?

[–] friend_of_satan@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

In binary, when you add one more numeric place, things double. Not doubling would be like having two digit decimal numbers but only allowing people to count to 50.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›