Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cornell.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!vax135!cornell!hal From: hal@cornell.UUCP (Hal Perkins) Newsgroups: net.micro Subject: Re: 4 -> 8 -> 8/16 -> 16 -> 16/32 -> 32 What next, 64 bit micros ? Message-ID: <6989@cornell.UUCP> Date: Mon, 19-Mar-84 19:29:03 EST Article-I.D.: cornell.6989 Posted: Mon Mar 19 19:29:03 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 20-Mar-84 01:42:04 EST References: <974@vax2.fluke.UUCP> Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept. Lines: 17 There's really two issues here... First, is there any good reason for an 64-bit architecture as seen by the programmer? And second, is there any good reason for 64-bit datapaths on a chip? My own bias is that 32-bit integers and registers are wide enough for most anything--of course, this may just be because that's been good enough for most large machines for a long time, and my cultural blinders may prevent me from seeing a good reason for 64-bit general registers. :-) But 64-bit datapaths are a different story. It might be a useful way to build a high-performance chip (64 bits on or off the chip each cycle). There's a number of mainframes (like the big IBM machines) that have 64-bit implementations of 32-bit architectures. The issue of what the programmer sees is separate from (but related to) how the hardware designer implements it. Hal Perkins UUCP: {decvax|vax135|...}!cornell!hal Cornell Computer Science ARPA: hal@cornell BITNET: hal@crnlcs