We do, depending on how you count it.
There’s two major widths in a processor. The data register width and the address bus width, but even that is not the whole story. If you go back to a processor like the 68000, the classic 16-bit processor, it has:
- 32-bit data registers
- 16- bit ALU
- 16-bit data bus
- 32-bit address registers
- 24-bit address bus
Some people called it a 16/32 bit processor, but really it was the 16-bit ALU that classified it as 16-bits.
If you look at a Zen 4 core it has:
- 64-bit data registers
- 512-bit AVX data registers
- 6 x 64-bit integer ALUs
- 4 x 256-bit AVX ALUs
- 2 x 128-bit data bus to DDR5 (dual edge 64-bit)
- ~40-bits of addressable physical RAM
So, what do you want to call this processor?
64-bit (integer width), 128-bit (physical data bus width), 256-bit (widest ALU) or 512-bit (widest register width)? Do you want to multiply those numbers up by the number of ALUs in a core? …by the number of cores on a piece of silicon?
Me, I’d say Zen4 was a 256-bit core, but you could argue any of the above numbers.
Basically, it’s a measurement that lost all meaning so people stopped using it.
I would say that you make a decent argument that the ALU has the strongest claim to the “bitness” of a CPU. In that way, we are already beyond 64 bit.
For me though, what really defines a CPU is the software that runs natively. The Zen4 runs software written for the AMD64 family of processors. That is, it runs 64 bit software. This software will not run on the “32 bit” x86 processors that came before it ( like the K5, K6, and original Athlon ). If AMD released the AMD128 instruction set, it would not run on the Zen4 even though it may technically be enough hardware to do so.
The Motorola 68000 only had a 16 but ALU but was able to run the same 32 bit software that ran in later Motorola processors that were truly 32 bit. Software written for the 68000 was essentially still native on processors sold as late as 2014 ( 35 years after the 68000 was released ). This was not some kid of compatibility mode, these processors were still using the same 32 bit ISA.
The Linux kernel that runs on the Zen4 will also run on 64 bit machines made 20 years ago as they also support the amd64 / x86-64 ISA.
Where the article is correct is that there does not seem to be much push to move on from 64 bit software. The Zen4 supports instructions to perform higher-bit operations but they are optional. Most applications do not rely on them, including the operating system. For the most part, the Zen4 runs the same software as the Opteron ( released in 2003 ). The same pre-compiled Linux distro will run on both.
At less than a tenth the size, this is actually a better explanation than the article. Already correcting the fact that we do at the very beginning.
If you absolutely had to put a bit width on the Zen 4, the 2x128 bit data bus is probably the best single measure totaling 256 bit IMO.
Even then, at what point do you measure it? DDR interface is likely very much narrower than the interfaces between cache levels. Where does the core end and the memory begin?
Yes you are 100% right, and I did consider level 3 cache as a better measure, because that allows communication between cores without the need to go through RAM, and cache generally has a high hit rate. But this number was surprisingly difficult to find, so I settled on the data bus.
Anyways it would be absolutely fair to call it 256bit by more than one measure. But for sure it isn’t just 64 bit, because it has 512 bit instructions, so the instruction set isn’t limited to 64 bit. Even if someone was stubborn enough to claim the general instruction set is 64 bit, it has the ability to decode and execute 2 simultaneous 64 bit instructions per core, making at least 128 bit by any measure.
I gave up trying to figure out what the “bitness” of CPUs were around the time the Atari Jaguar came out and people described it as 64 bit because it had 32 bit graphics chip plus a 32 bit sound chip.
It’s been mostly marketing bollocks since forever.
I’m surprised some marketing genius at the intel/amd hasnt started using the bigger numbers
I expect the engineers are telling the marketing people “No! You can’t do that. You’ll scare everyone that it’s incompatible.”
I see it as the number of possible instructions.
As in, 8 bit 8085 had 28 possible instructions, 32 bit ones had 232 and already had enough possible combinations that we couldn’t come up with enough functions to fill the provided space.
So “instruction encoding length”.
I don’t think that works though. For something like RISC-V, RV64 has a maximum 32-bit instruction encoding. For x86-64 those original 8-bit intructions still exist, and take up a huge part of the encoding space, cutting the number of n-bit instructions to more like 2^(n-7)
RV64 has a maximum 32-bit instruction encoding
I kinda expected that to happen, since there’s already enough to fit all required functions. So yeah, even this is not a good enough criteria for bit rating.
those original 8-bit intructions still exist, and take up a huge part of the encoding space, cutting the number of n-bit instructions to more like 2^(n-7)
err… they are still instructions, right? And they are implemented. I don’t see why you would negate that from the number of instructions.
Is this a question?
We haven’t even come close to exhausting 64-bit addresses yet. If you think the bit number makes things faster, it’s technically the opposite.
It’s a link to an article I found interesting. It basically details why we’re still using 64-bit CPUs, just as you mentioned.
We don’t even have true 64-bit addressing yet. x86-64 uses only 48 bits of a 64 bit address and 64-bit ARM can use anything between 40 and 52 depending on the specific configuration.
Yeah, 64 bit handles almost all use cases we have. Sometimes we want double the precision (a double) or length (a long), but we can do that without being 128-bit. It’s harder to do half. Sure, it’d be slightly faster for some things, but it’s not significant.
And you can get 128-bit data to the CPU, so those things can be fast if we need them to be.
Is this a question?
For the people who don’t know the answer? Yes.
Not everything you see is intended for your consumption. Let people enjoy learning things.
I totally agree. I know a teacher who who likes to say:
“I believe there really is no such thing as a dumb question. As long as it’s an honest question (not rhetorical or sarcastic), then it’s a genuine request for more information. So even if it’s coming from a place of extreme ignorance, asking a question is an attempt to learn something, and the effort should be applauded.”
We used to drive bicycles when we were children. Then we started driving cars. Bicycles have two wheels, cars have four. Eight wheels seems to be the logical next step, why don’t we drive eight-wheel vehicles?
Funny how we are moving back to bicycles, as cars aren’t scalable solution.
See here’s where this analogy is perfect. Sometimes a bicycle is the best solution, just like how sometimes a microcontroller is the best solution. You use the tool you need for the job, and American product design is creating way too many “smart” products just like how American town planning demands too many cars. Bring back the microcontroller! Bring back the bike!
32 bit CPU’s having difficulty accessing greater than 4gb of memory was exclusively a windows problem.
You still had a 4GB memory limit for processes, as well as a total memory limit of 64GB. Especially the first one was a problem for Java apps before AMD introduced 64bit extensions and a reason to use Sun servers for that.
Yeah I acknowledged the shortcomings in a different comment.
It was a duct take solution for sure.
Your other posts didn’t reply to your claim that it is a Windows only problem. Linux did and some distros (Raspberry Pi) have the same limitations as Windows 95.
32 bit Windows XP got PAE in 2001, two years after Linux. 64 bit Windows came out in 2005.
Interesting! Do you have a link to a write up about this? I don’t know anything about the windows memory manager
Only slightly related, but here’s the compiler flag to disable an arbitrary 2GB limit on x86 programs.
Finding the reason for its existence from a credible source isn’t as easy, however. If you’re fine with an explanation from StackOverflow, you can infer that it’s there because some programs treat pointers as signed integers and die horribly when anything above 7FFFFFFF gets returned by the allocator.
It’s a silly flag to use as it only works when running 32-bit Windows applications on 64-bit Windows, and if you’re compiling from source, you should also have the option to just build a 64-bit binary in the first place. It made a degree of sense years ago when people actually used 32-bit Windows sometimes (which was usually just down to OEMs installing the wrong version on prebuilt PCs could have supported 64-bit) if you really wanted to only have one binary or you consumed a precompiled third party library and had to match its architecture.
Intel PAE if the answer, but it still came with other issues, so 64 was still the better answer.
Also the entire article comes down to simple math.
Bits is the number of digits.
So like a 4 digit number maxes out at 9999 but an 8 digit number maxes out at 99 999 999
So when you double the number of digits, the max size available is exponential. 10^4 bigger in this case. It just sounds small because you’re showing that the exponent doubles.
10^4 is WAY smaller than 10^8
It was actually 3gb because operating systems have to reserve parts of the memory address space for other things. It’s more difficult for all 32bit operating systems to address above 4gb just most implemented additional complexity much earlier because Linux runs on large servers and stuff. Windows actually had a way to switch over to support it in some versions too. Probably the NT kernels that where also running on servers.
A quick skim of the Wikipedia seems like a good starting point for understanding the old problem.
Wow they just…disabled all RAM over 3 GB because some drivers had hard coded some mapped memory? Jfc
The comments on this one really surprised me. I thought the kinds of people who hang out on XDA-developers were developers. I assumed that developers had a much better understanding of computer architecture than the people commenting (who of course may not be representative of all readers).
I also get the idea that the writer is being vague not to simplify but because they genuinely don’t know the details, which feels even worse.
I think it’s a D-tier article. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was half gpt. It could have been summarized in a single paragraph, but was clearly being drawn out to make screen real-estate for the ads.
