this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2023
40 points (97.6% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35260 readers
1529 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

exactly the same as 64 bit computing, except pointers now take up twice as much ram, and therefore you need mire baseline momory throuput/ more cache, for pretty much no practical benefit. Because we aren't close to fully using up a 64-bit address space .

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Our modern 64 bit processors do use 128 bits for certain vector operations though, don't they? So there is another aspect apart from address space.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Yes, up to 512 bits since Skylake. But there are very few real-world tasks that can make use of such wide data paths. One example is media processing, where a 512-bit register could be used to pack 8 64-bit operands and act on all of them simultaneously, because there is usually a steady stream of data to be process using similar operations. In other tasks, where processing patters can't make use of such batched approaches, the extra bits would essentially be wasted.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It wouldn't be much different. Was it noticeably different when you went from a 32 bit to 64 bit computer?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For me it was, actually. Maybe because I was late to the party so people stopped developing shit for 32 bits, and when I did the transition was like "Finally, I can install shit" also my computer was newer and the OS worked better.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

So your PC was old (thus the new one faster) and its HW no longer supported by some software developers (because it was outdated and not enough users were on it anymore). The same can hold true if you have a 5 year old PC now. You didn't notice this due to going 64bit, you noticed it due to going away from a heavily outdated system.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The big shortcoming of 32 bit hardware was that it limits the amount of RAM in the computer to 4 GB. 64 bit is not inherently faster (for most things) but it enables up to 16 exabytes of RAM, an incomprehensible amount. Going to 128 bit would only be helpful if 16 exabytes wasn't enough.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Slightly off topic, but the number of bits doesn’t necessarily describe the size of memory. For example most eight bit processors had 16bit data busses and address registers.

Some processors that were 32 bits internally have 24bit memory addressing.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Similar to a modern 64 bit computer, my computer actually has a 512 bit wide ALU for SIMD, basically it lets you do the same operation on multiple numbers simultaneously.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We have 128 bit stuff in some places where it's advantageous, but in most cases there's not really a need. 64 bits already provides a maximum integer value of (+/-)9,223,372,036,854,775,807. Double it if you don't need negatives and drop the sign. There's little need in most cases for a bigger number, and cases that do either get 128 bit hardware, or can be handled by big number libraries.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The question is, how it would look like? Not whether it is practical or not

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It’s hard to picture “128bit computing” in a general sense as ever being a thing. It’s just so far beyond anything we can realistically use now, plus would be inefficient/wasteful on most ordinary tasks.

Put this together with the physical limits to Moore’s law and current approaches to at least mobile computing ……

I picture more use of multi-core, specialty core, system on a chip. Some loads, like video, benefit from wide lanes, huge bandwidth, addresses many things at once, and we have video cores with architectures more suited for that. Most loads can be done with a standard compute core, and it is unnecessary, maybe counterproductive to move up to 128bit. If we want efficiency cores, like some mobile already have, 128bit is wrong/bad/inefficient. We’ll certainly have more AI cores, but I have no idea what they need

If you can forgive the Apple-ness and take thos as a general trend, I can see this, only more so

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2023/06/apple-introduces-m2-ultra/

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

not even an apple thing isn't this just how SOCs work in general? definitely something intel and amd should be doing though (if they aren't already i dont honestly know) especially with hardware decoders and ML cores and whatnot

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Yes, this is how SoC can work. I think it is a great description about one specific company emphasizing a balance of different cores to do different jobs, rather than trying to make many general cores attempting to do everything. However, don’t get distracted by all the marketing language or that this is a company that people love to hate

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

In fact, your computer is already capable of processing more than 64 bits at once using SIMD instructions. Many applications or things you don't suspect may or are already using them, including games.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] EarlTurlet 7 points 1 year ago

Contrary to some misconceptions, these SIMD capabilities did not amount to the processor being "128-bit", as neither the memory addresses nor the integers themselves were 128-bit, only the shared SIMD/integer registers. For comparison, 128-bit wide registers and SIMD instructions had been present in the 32-bit x86 architecture since 1999, with the introduction of SSE. However the internal data paths were 128bit wide, and its processors were capable of operating on 4x32bit quantities in parallel in single registers.

Source

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I would guess they think a PS2 is an example of 128 bit computing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

The PS2 had full 128 bits DMA bus, and full 128 bits registers. IIRC Dreamcast too.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I came here to leave a snarky comment but then I read this thread. Now I feel sad and really confused.