How do you explain 64-bit processors to people in laymens terms?

[Vee]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Viditor
An absolutely superb bit of writing Vee!!

:wine:

You impress easily. It was an exercise is overblown grandstanding that in no way addressed the OP.

A bit insulting I think. And why was this statement posted at all? What's the purpose? Which is why I feel comfortable to do something I don't think I have ever done before.

Originally posted by: HardWarrior
The previous version of PC processors manipulated data in 32-bit chucks. Now they see things in 64-bit units. Of coure you'll have to explain what a bit is, but that isn't hard to understand.

I can well see that posting without really contributing anything, or posting "answers" without knowledge, results in 3737 posts since 2004. The big question is why you think your post in any way addressed the OP's question?

 

[Vee]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Nice dissertation, but I doubt a layman would get past, "An ancient custom refered/refers to computer and CPU architectures' n-bit property by the length of their registers."

Very good point. I did mention I liked Zephyrprime's answer

However let me try again:

Current 32-bit software can normally not use more than 1.7-1.8 GB of memory.
64-bit software can much more easily and efficiently, than any 32-bit software, use large amounts of memory.

The primary reason why that is so, is that a memory address that is 64 bit long is so much more powerful in addressing a location in memory than a 32 bit address is.

In order to run 64-bit software we need a new 64-bit processor that is able to execute instructions that use 64 bits for addressing.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Vee

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Nice dissertation, but I doubt a layman would get past, "An ancient custom refered/refers to computer and CPU architectures' n-bit property by the length of their registers."

Very good point. I did mention I liked Zephyrprime's answer

However let me try again:

Current 32-bit software can normally not use more than 1.7-1.8 GB of memory.
64-bit software can much more easily and efficiently, than any 32-bit software, use large amounts of memory.

The primary reason why that is so, is that a memory address that is 64 bit long is so much more powerful in addressing a location in memory than a 32 bit address is.

In order to run 64-bit software we need a new 64-bit processor that is able to execute instructions that use 64 bits for addressing.

:thumbsup:

Thanks for taking the time to write all that for the rest of us though.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Vee
A bit insulting I think. And why was this statement posted at all? What's the purpose? Which is why I feel comfortable to do something I don't think I have ever done before.

You insult easily, and frankly that isn't a surprise.

Originally posted by: HardWarrior
The previous version of PC processors manipulated data in 32-bit chucks. Now they see things in 64-bit units. Of coure you'll have to explain what a bit is, but that isn't hard to understand.

I can well see that posting without really contributing anything, or posting "answers" without knowledge, results in 3737 posts since 2004. The big question is why you think your post in any way addressed the OP's question?

How do you explain 64-bit processors to people in laymens

The operable word being "laymen." Your long-winded excursion into your own exceedingly brittle ego missed this point entirely.

Nice dissertation, but I doubt a layman would get past, "An ancient custom refered/refers to computer and CPU architectures' n-bit property by the length of their registers."

DeKat FTW!

 

[Maximilian]

I just tell them one of two things to save myself time:

1. I dont know

2. Dont worry about it, it just means its faster

 

[Vee]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

You insult easily, and frankly that isn't a surprise.

.....

The operable word being "laymen." Your long-winded excursion into your own exceedingly brittle ego missed this point entirely.

You post a couple of new comments about my person. I see that. I don't see any real content.
Is it supposed to answer me why you think you should have posted at all?
"Laymen" or not, they are poorly served by a misleading answer.

 

[Maximilian]

Hes just saying that although however accurate and factual that big scree was, joe average still wouldnt get it

Viditor's explanation was pretty good, its kinda accurate and dumbed down enough. Ill definately use that analogy if somone asks me whats the deal with 64 bit.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Vee

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

You insult easily, and frankly that isn't a surprise.

.....

The operable word being "laymen." Your long-winded excursion into your own exceedingly brittle ego missed this point entirely.

You post a couple of new comments about my person. I see that. I don't see any real content.
Is it supposed to answer me why you think you should have posted at all?
"Laymen" or not, they are poorly served by a misleading answer.

Again, Mr. Brain, read the thread title. You weren't asked how to make a bit, just for a simple explanation of a fairly pedestrian principle. As for your "person", this is internet, not your house. If you can't stand challenges to your supposed brilliance you should burn your computer and go hide under your bed.

 

[Bobthelost]

Nice post Vee,

To everyone else: It's not here to furfill the OP's request for a laymans explanation, it's here to correct all of us (me included) who didn't understand it all correctly.

So the short version is that it lets you use more RAM and makes it easier to use too.

 

[HardWarrior]

Just what these forums need, another butt-kisser who doesn't understand what on-topic means and that it's a RULE.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Just what these forums need, another butt-kisser who doesn't understand what on-topic means and that it's a RULE.

Hahahaha

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: Vee
This is pretty depressing. :disgust:

...

Though I might well imagine there would have been a lot of very tiresome arguments with some people that persist in clinging to highly misleading, irrelevant and utterly meaningless associations with the bit width of "general purpose registers".

LOL, that was a good one. Thanks. Just to illustrate your point, the speculative ROB/RS on banias onwards has 128-bit renameable fields in all entries to accomodate SIMD uops, but that does not make it banias/dothan 64-bit machines. And yet, jumping to merom, which is 64-bit, those structures did not change whatsoever. Freebie, from a OOO pov... other than the programmer visible regs, which aren't *that* big.

 

[Bobthelost]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Just what these forums need, another butt-kisser who doesn't understand what on-topic means and that it's a RULE.

I see, so you'd rather that vee just said:

"It means you can use more RAM"

An answer that was gained in the first five posts or so, rather than correcting some erronious information given out by others? (Possibly including you depending on interpretation, Probably after re reading your post)

Why flame or start getting abusive when there is no need?

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Just what these forums need, another butt-kisser who doesn't understand what on-topic means and that it's a RULE.

As opposed to one who doesn't even understand the question...
Vee's post was excellent and corrected MANY misconceptions. It was extremely beneficial to many of the posters here!

I suggest that if you want to criticize, you should also have something intelligent to contribute or at the very least a reasonable question...
People that just trash others because they don't know enough to contribute are just noise.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Soviet
Hes just saying that although however accurate and factual that big scree was, joe average still wouldnt get it

Viditor's explanation was pretty good, its kinda accurate and dumbed down enough. Ill definately use that analogy if somone asks me whats the deal with 64 bit.

Thanks Soviet.

Part of one of my jobs is to explain technology to CEOs, so I have a little experience there...
But I wouldn't have a hope in Hell of suucceeding without posts like Vee's! Not only does it clarify everything for ME, but it helps in developing good analogies for explaining it to THEM. Her post turned on a real lightbulb for me, and I can now understand/explain to others much more clearly...

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: Soviet
Hes just saying that although however accurate and factual that big scree was, joe average still wouldnt get it

Viditor's explanation was pretty good, its kinda accurate and dumbed down enough. Ill definately use that analogy if somone asks me whats the deal with 64 bit.

You can't be a layman and understand processor bittiness. You gotta educate yourself beyond the level of a layman to understand that.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Originally posted by: Soviet
Hes just saying that although however accurate and factual that big scree was, joe average still wouldnt get it

Viditor's explanation was pretty good, its kinda accurate and dumbed down enough. Ill definately use that analogy if somone asks me whats the deal with 64 bit.

You can't be a layman and understand processor bittiness. You gotta educate yourself beyond the level of a layman to understand that.

A fair point...I think what Soviet means is that he wants a good visualization to pass on.