Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: 64bit micros
Message-ID: <4800@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 18-Dec-84 12:11:05 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.4800
Posted: Tue Dec 18 12:11:05 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Dec-84 12:11:05 EST
References: <218@harvard.ARPA>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 14

Remember that architectural width and memory-access width are not
necessarily the same.  The 11/70, for example, has a 16-bit architecture
but a 32-bit memory path.  Requirements for greater memory bandwidth
are a fairly weak argument for a change in *architecture*.

I tend to agree with the contention made by the folks who started this
debate:  the pressures that pushed us from 16 to 32 bits do not operate
nearly as strongly to push from 32 to 64.  16 just plain isn't enough
for a decent address (it is often, although not always, sufficient for
the data).  32 will last us a fair while, perhaps a long while, before
it becomes seriously constraining.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry