Talk:Long mode

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Physical size of 264 bytes[edit]

The article states that "For the time being, it is impractical to equip computers with sufficient memory to require a full 64 bits." This is something of an understatement. Assuming that current (as of 2014) DRAM densities can provide 2×512Mb on a single 12×9mm IC chip, this gives a density of about 9.5 Mbit/mm2 or about 1.2 MB/mm2. Thus 264 bytes would require about 14.8 million square meters of IC real estate (using current technology). Even assuming that we can increase memory densities another 10,000-fold within the next few decades, this would still require about 1,480 m2 of IC space. So I don't see any single CPU ever directly addressing this much total memory space, at least not within my lifetime. — Loadmaster (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but slice that 1,480 m2 of IC space into 1 m2 sheets and stack them on top of each other... Let's say that each layer is 2 mm thick – that results in a stack about 3 m high. I'm not saying that's actually going to happen, but from that perspective it might be doable; just remember the old mainframes, which had refrigerator-size boxes as their main components. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but those mainframes only had about 224 bytes of physical memory, which were originally in magnetic-core memory form (and which were 3-dimensional stacks of memory planes). But 264 bytes is a vastly larger amount of memory (12 orders of magnitude), and my point is that it is probably too large to actually be contained in a single physical memory unit, at least with IC technology in the foreseeable future. Yes, I expect that 3-dimensional circuits are eventually going to be used to solve the problems of quantum noise, but the reasons it has not yet been successful include the manufacturing cost, failure rates, and enormous heat dissipation problems. — Loadmaster (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to argue with you, :) but we should remember that many things looked way too big at some point in time – just as 640 KB looked more than enough, probably at some point in time we'll be over even 264 bytes of RAM. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 19:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Long mode. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because the stated reasons are not among those supported for speedy deletion. Jeh (talk) 09:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)