The 128-Bit Myth That Never Came True

Comments · 47

• AT

  @atomicskull6405 · 9 days ago

  256-bit and wider data busses are also common in CPUs and GPUs but that's just for data throughput.

  3

• MM

  @mmalyshev · 7 days ago

  Sadly, most consumer hardware is technically still 36 bit limited (again due to memory restrictions)

• GN

  @gn3441 · 10 days ago

  "As memory got cheaper."

  7

• ML

  @mladenmatosevic4591 · 9 days ago

  16-bit colour encoding for each pixel is sufficient for photo-realistic picture. If we calculate GPS position in 40 bits we can have  precision of 1cm. 64 bit is enough for nearly every engineering, science or business calculation. Mind you, we can still use 128 or 256 bit numbers in programs in same fashion as old 16-bit 8086 handled 32 and 64 bit numbers. Finally, after fighting 64kB data size limit on early PCs and 4GB at 32 bit few years ago, we are now at ease for few more decades.

• BO

  @BobDiaz123 · 9 days ago

  The important question is,  would the extra transistors needed to create a 128 bit word, offer more processing power than just using them to produce a second core?   Both offer an improvement,  which offers the highest improvement?

  2

• SH

  @shlomomarkman6374 · 9 days ago

  The gradual move to 64 bit had practical reasons. 32 bits can access 4GB of RAM and the OEMs were prudent enough to switch from 32 bits before computing approached that wall.<br>There is just no reason to do 128 bit computing

• TI

  @timchambers5242 · 9 days ago

  Intel/AMD x86-64 variable length instructions (incl prefixes, immediate/displacement) means the instructions can be upto 15 bytes (120b long). SIMD/Matrix maths can be 512b long for Intel/AMD. ARM supports longer data arrays only via looping with the SIMD engine effectively executing multiple internal instructions (despite code having 1 instruction).

• DO

  @DonaldTubbs · 9 days ago

  How do BogoMIPS apply here, or to quantum computing?

• FY

  @fyrstormer · 9 days ago

  Thanks to the decision not to make 128 bit the next standard for general purpose computers, we are still able to use computers more than 15 years old for modern tasks. It was a good decision.

  1

• GR

  @gregorymorse8423 · 9 days ago

  128 bit was never predicted by anyone who developed low level libraries or OS software which could need it. &nbsp;There are niche cases in crypto or simulations that might benefit. &nbsp;But given the circuits still scale quadratically it is not surprising 64 bit was very much a challenge and where scaling by software took over. &nbsp;This practical word size limit has countless engineering reasons behind it. &nbsp;Specialty hardware could still implement 128bits. &nbsp;Ive done it on an FPGA even. &nbsp;But general purpose hardware is unlikely with even the current state of the art fabrication tech

  1

• BE

  @Beefster09 · 9 days ago

  18 quintillion is big enough for nearly every serious practical and impractical use case. Only encryption uses bigger numbers, and those are fine on the slow path.

  2

• PR

  @prasannaraochandra · 9 days ago

  CPUs and GPUs did become 128 and even 256 bits. Look at the bus sizes, SIMD instructions. It&apos;s just that 32 bit and 64 bit operations are too useful to relegate to and edge case.