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