[OT] End-user uses for x86-64 (was: Why are still not at 64 bits)

[Thomas Charron]

On 2/17/07, Jim Kuzdrall <gnhlug at intrel.com> wrote:
> >   That's not really true.  16-bit machines are *very* limited.  There
> > is not a whole lot you can do in 64 kilobytes of RAM (all you can
> > directly address with a 16-bit address word).
>     Not quite so.  As a programmer of embedded systems, I would point
> out that sales of microprocessors with address spaces of 16-bits (or
> less) exceed those of the larger machines by orders of magnitude.

  Definatly true.  There is a whole lot you can do in a limited
bitspace.  And there are ways to get around the 16-bit address words
fairly easily.

>     The reference to the automobile engine cylinder count in another
> post is a good one.  Four, six, and eight cylinder engines each
> continue to be commonly used.  The Lotus has a 12 or 16 cylinder
> engine, I know of no other.
>     By analogy, does the 64-bit machine run on 8-cylinders or
> 12-cylinders?

  Hehe, I'd say 16-cylinder.  But it doesn't really compare to
processors at all.  Generally, engines with more cylinders produce
less power per cylinder, but it balances out.  :-P

-- 
-- Thomas