4 ms·

Well, according to Wikipedia, 32 bit architectures started to come around in the 60s. We reached the 32-bit memory wall in some applications at earliest 1990.

Well, according to Wikipedia, 32 bit architectures started to come around in the 60s. We reached the 32-bit memory wall in some applications at earliest 1990. Thats 30 years to go between the first 32-bit archs and the "topping out of them." Then, you need to remember that this is an exponential change in address space, not a linear one. 2^64 is MUCH MUCH bigger than 2^32, you can't just think of it as "twice as much." In the 60s, they thought 4 billion bytes would be much more than they would ever need, but 32 bit's headroom was just 1000 times more than the biggest they used in that day (assuming 4MB, even though IBM's System/360 could access 8MB, which in that case the headroom would only be 500 times as much memory). 64 bit tops out at about 17.2 billion GB, and if we estimate that today's common RAM size is 2GB, the headroom we have for 64 bit is about 8.6 billion times what most computers have commonly today. That means that the headroom for 64 bit is 8.6 MILLION times the headroom that was in 32-bit. For some reason I think that it will take us much longer to fill up 64-bit than it did for us to use up 32-bit.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
mechanical_fish 17y ago
this is an exponential change in address space, not a linear one To be fair, Moore's Law describes an exponential change in usable address space that we're still living through. The numbers are kind of spooky. The stupidest statement of Moore's Law is "everything doubles in size, at constant cost, every 18 months." If we take that statement literally, and also assume that the reaching of the "32-bit memory wall" became a widespread phenomenon around, say, 2009 [1], a backwards extrapolation suggests that the RAM industry should have begun in 1961 with a single byte. This is frighteningly close to agreeing with actual history. [2] The implication is that another 32 bits only buys us another 48 years. After that we'll need a 128-bit address space in order to properly index our personal catalogues of everything ever. [3] Or, perhaps, at some point we will just get tired of making RAM. --- [1] This is when I first noticed it. Yeah, people with millions of dollars hit this wall in 1990. Must have been nice to be them. You will note a certain degree of slight-of-hand in my numerology here. ;) [2] Intel's first memory product was a 64-bit unit in 1969. In the fantasy modpunk universe where Moore's Law was operating during the Sixties, that would imply a starting point of a single bit in 1960. If we reject my narcissistic assertion that nobody important cared about the 32-bit memory wall until this year, and instead accept oomkiller's assertion that the 32-bit memory wall first appeared on the radar around 1990, that would push back the birthday of the first bit to around 1941. I give you Wikipedia: The [Zuse] Z3 (1941) was the first working machine featuring binary arithmetic, including floating point arithmetic and a measure of programmability. In 1998 the Z3 was proved to be Turing complete, therefore being the world's first operational computer. Cue the Twilight Zone theme. [3] We probably won't need that 256-bit address space in 100 years, since there are estimated to be only 2^266 atoms in the observable universe.
- likpok 17y ago
  Exponential growth is unsustainable. In a universe where the infinite does not exist (either big or small), we are strictly bounded by things. At some point Moore's law will show it's true colors (a logistic curve) and taper off.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

mechanical_fish 17y ago

this is an exponential change in address space, not a linear one To be fair, Moore's Law describes an exponential change in usable address space that we're still living through. The numbers are kind of spooky. The stupidest statement of Moore's Law is "everything doubles in size, at constant cost, every 18 months." If we take that statement literally, and also assume that the reaching of the "32-bit memory wall" became a widespread phenomenon around, say, 2009 [1], a backwards extrapolation suggests that the RAM industry should have begun in 1961 with a single byte. This is frighteningly close to agreeing with actual history. [2] The implication is that another 32 bits only buys us another 48 years. After that we'll need a 128-bit address space in order to properly index our personal catalogues of everything ever. [3] Or, perhaps, at some point we will just get tired of making RAM. --- [1] This is when I first noticed it. Yeah, people with millions of dollars hit this wall in 1990. Must have been nice to be them. You will note a certain degree of slight-of-hand in my numerology here. ;) [2] Intel's first memory product was a 64-bit unit in 1969. In the fantasy modpunk universe where Moore's Law was operating during the Sixties, that would imply a starting point of a single bit in 1960. If we reject my narcissistic assertion that nobody important cared about the 32-bit memory wall until this year, and instead accept oomkiller's assertion that the 32-bit memory wall first appeared on the radar around 1990, that would push back the birthday of the first bit to around 1941. I give you Wikipedia: The [Zuse] Z3 (1941) was the first working machine featuring binary arithmetic, including floating point arithmetic and a measure of programmability. In 1998 the Z3 was proved to be Turing complete, therefore being the world's first operational computer. Cue the Twilight Zone theme. [3] We probably won't need that 256-bit address space in 100 years, since there are estimated to be only 2^266 atoms in the observable universe.

likpok 17y ago
Exponential growth is unsustainable. In a universe where the infinite does not exist (either big or small), we are strictly bounded by things. At some point Moore's law will show it's true colors (a logistic curve) and taper off.