128-bit Prosessors

[limegorilla]

Can anyone tell me why these are not used by larger SuperComputers? I understand that 64-bit can use (up to) 16 Exabytes - which is 16,000,000,000GB. Just IMAGINE HOW MANY CHROME TABS  

However, with modern computers topping out (for consumers) at around 16GB/32GB I can understand that "we don't need it yet" so at least for consumers it is impossible without the use of Chrome to saturate 16EB but why not SuperComputers?

 

To those who say we will never need it, well think back to when 32-bit was a thing (Wasn't born then but looked it up) - no one thought that 64-bit would be needed, but judging by current levels of production, we would start using 128-bit computers by 2030. That's not long. Think about it, we could all have phones / laptops / computers that were basically a dumb terminal, connected to a massive supercomputer where the actual computer was held. That would be pretty cool

[tikker]

I think it's mostly, because there is not real application for them yet; even on supercomputers. It would just be too expensive at the moment.

Also I don't get your last statement about everything being connected to a central supercomputer. Going from 32-bit to 64-bit or 64-bit to 128-bit doesn't make things magically faster to handle such a load.

[WereCatf]

6 minutes ago, limegorilla said:

Can anyone tell me why these are not used by larger SuperComputers? I understand that 64-bit can use (up to) 16 Exabytes - which is 16,000,000,000GB. Just IMAGINE HOW MANY CHROME TABS  

However, with modern computers topping out (for consumers) at around 16GB/32GB I can understand that "we don't need it yet" so at least for consumers it is impossible without the use of Chrome to saturate 16EB but why not SuperComputers?

 

To those who say we will never need it, well think back to when 32-bit was a thing (Wasn't born then but looked it up) - no one thought that 64-bit would be needed, but judging by current levels of production, we would start using 128-bit computers by 2030. That's not long. Think about it, we could all have phones / laptops / computers that were basically a dumb terminal, connected to a massive supercomputer where the actual computer was held. That would be pretty cool

There's much more to computing than just the amount of memory a system has. 128-bit CPUs just wouldn't provide any real advantage over 64-bit ones as supercomputing-related tasks rarely do integer-maths -- they mostly do a huge amount of floating-point maths and we can already do even 512bit floating-point maths on desktop CPUs. Similarly, many supercomputer-systems use specialized hardware (e.g. NVIDIA offers Quadros and such) to speed up the afore-mentioned floating-point stuff even further. Just slapping on more and more and more RAM won't magically make any of this stuff run any faster.

[Spotty]

10 minutes ago, limegorilla said:

However, with modern computers topping out (for consumers) at around 16GB/32GB I can understand that "we don't need it yet" so at least for consumers it is impossible without the use of Chrome to saturate 16EB but why not SuperComputers?

16 exabytes of RAM at current prices would cost approximately $250 billion US (based on current prices of 64GB memory modules [$1000 per 64GB stick]).
You would be better off spending that $250B on researching and developing a future technology that makes RAM obsolete.

 

[asus killer]

linus as answered it

 

 

[limegorilla]

11 hours ago, tikker said:

I think it's mostly, because there is not real application for them yet; even on supercomputers. It would just be too expensive at the moment.

Also I don't get your last statement about everything being connected to a central supercomputer. Going from 32-bit to 64-bit or 64-bit to 128-bit doesn't make things magically faster to handle such a load.

What I mean is essentially turning every device we use on a daily basis - Phones, Laptops, Desktops, Wearables - and instead of having their hardware crammed inside, having them powered by a supercomputer which can intelligently allocate recorces based on how much you need. Just a thought I had.

 

10 hours ago, Spotty said:

16 exabytes of RAM at current prices would cost approximately $250 billion US (based on current prices of 64GB memory modules [$1000 per 64GB stick]).
You would be better off spending that $250B on researching and developing a future technology that makes RAM obsolete.

 

Anyone got a spare 250?

10 hours ago, asus killer said:

linus as answered it

 

Thanks for linking this!

[su /bin/bash]

2030 will have supercomputer with productivity of 100 Exaflops or more. It will have a dozens of Exabyte of RAM and thousand of Exabyte disk space. Undoubtedly, supercomputers of this class will necessarily have 128 bit processors.

[ZcanKal]

7 minutes ago, su /bin/bash said:

2030 will have supercomputer with productivity of 100 Exaflops or more. It will have a dozens of Exabyte of RAM and thousand of Exabyte disk space. Undoubtedly, supercomputers of this class will necessarily have 128 bit processors.

that's 12 years away though. (oh that kinda hurts, actually)

[su /bin/bash]

23 hours ago, ZcanKal said:

that's 12 years away though. (oh that kinda hurts, actually)

Yes time is enough to make 128 bit CPU if its development start right now.