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

[Jon 'maddog' Hall]

On Sat, 2007-02-17 at 21:08 -0500, Thomas Charron wrote:
> On 2/17/07, Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 17:01:19 -0500
> > "Jon 'maddog' Hall" <maddog at li.org> wrote:
> > > I do not think a "128 bit address space" computer will ever exist, at
> > > least not in the silicon technologies that we are talking about.
> > Probably not for a while, but I'm 100% certain, there will be a 128-bit
> > address space computer somewhere down the line, but at the present
> > time, 64-bit address space is more than sufficient for most of the
> > biggest computers. It will be the governments that will want the
> > 128-bit address space. On the other hand, I seriously doubt desktop
> > computers will ever need anything near 64-bit addresses.
> 
>   People may giggle, but the PS2 Emotion processing chip is 128 bit.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_Engine
> 
>   It all comes down to funky fast math.
> 
Yes, but read it again.  It does not say anything about the address
space being 128 bits.  Just the registers, datapaths, etc.

I can understand having a 128 bit data register, to manipulate those
IPv6 addresses.  I can understand having a 128 bit datapath.  But 128
bit memory address.....

md