Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 87

Thread: Microsoft mulling 128-bit versions of Windows 8, Windows 9

  1. #1
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    France
    Posts
    1,210

    Talking Microsoft mulling 128-bit versions of Windows 8, Windows 9

    Microsoft is working on 128-bit architecture compatibility with the Windows 8 and Windows 9 kernels. Consequently, the company is also forming relationships with major partners, including Intel, AMD, HP, and IBM.
    http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/new...-windows-9.ars
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  2. #2
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,462
    Wait ... what? x64 has been around for YEARS and still is left out by most developers. Where's the need for 128 Bit?
    Notice any grammar or spelling mistakes? Feel free to correct me! Thanks

  3. #3
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    France
    Posts
    1,210
    Quote Originally Posted by FischOderAal View Post
    Wait ... what? x64 has been around for YEARS and still is left out by most developers. Where's the need for 128 Bit?
    agreed
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  4. #4
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,128
    What was the main purpose of x64? Extended address space for servers which required more than 4 GB of RAM. Now what, 64-bits can store more addresses than there are bytes of RAM manufactured to this day.

  5. #5
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Thessaloniki, Greece
    Posts
    1,307
    I'm guessing they were talking about AVX and the author got confused
    Seems we made our greatest error when we named it at the start
    for though we called it "Human Nature" - it was cancer of the heart
    CPU: AMD X3 720BE@ 3,4Ghz
    Cooler: Xigmatek S1283(Terrible mounting system for AM2/3)
    Motherboard: Gigabyte 790FXT-UD5P(F4) RAM: 2x 2GB OCZ DDR3 1600Mhz Gold 8-8-8-24
    GPU:HD5850 1GB
    PSU: Seasonic M12D 750W Case: Coolermaster HAF932(aka Dusty )

  6. #6
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    705
    They probably don't wanna revamp the kernel for a VERY VERY LONG time...

    To hit the 64-bit limit in a desktop, you'd probably have to shrink down to sub-atomic sizes...
    Main Machine:
    AMD FX8350 @ stock --- 16 GB DDR3 @ 1333 MHz --- Asus M5A99FX Pro R2.0 --- 2.0 TB Seagate

    Miscellaneous Workstations for Code-Testing:
    Intel Core i7 4770K @ 4.0 GHz --- 32 GB DDR3 @ 1866 MHz --- Asus Z87-Plus --- 1.5 TB (boot) --- 4 x 1 TB + 4 x 2 TB (swap)

  7. #7
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    over the rainbow
    Posts
    964
    128bit is pure BS! There jus no need at all, no use at all. 64bit is enough for the next 100 yrs.

  8. #8
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,663
    We are supposed to be enthusiasts. Our only response should be , "Good. I want this ASAP." We rarely use all the features and power of our systems, but we have it on tap just in case.

    Hooray for 128-bit CPUs. I can't wait for AMD's Phenom IV X16 x128 desktop CPUs. I love overkill.
    Core i7 2600K@4.6Ghz| 16GB G.Skill@2133Mhz 9-11-10-28-38 1.65v| ASUS P8Z77-V PRO | Corsair 750i PSU | ASUS GTX 980 OC | Xonar DSX | Samsung 840 Pro 128GB |A bunch of HDDs and terabytes | Oculus Rift w/ touch | ASUS 24" 144Hz G-sync monitor

    Quote Originally Posted by phelan1777 View Post
    Hail fellow warrior albeit a surat Mercenary. I Hail to you from the Clans, Ghost Bear that is (Yes freebirth we still do and shall always view mercenaries with great disdain!) I have long been an honorable warrior of the mighty Warden Clan Ghost Bear the honorable Bekker surname. I salute your tenacity to show your freebirth sibkin their ignorance!

  9. #9
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,565
    Quote Originally Posted by w0mbat View Post
    128bit is pure BS! There jus no need at all, no use at all. 64bit is enough for the next 100 yrs.
    Its never really a good idea to guess how long technology will last for. Anyways as Mechromancer said, only old non tech enthusiasts scoff at the thought of overkill technology. Once you catch yourself thinking along the lines of "things are fine the way they are" punch yourself in the face, your loosing your edge in this field.

    They may be figuring that it may be best to change now before x64 is really adopted by software manufacturers to avoid another rocky switch over in the future.

    Either way their next version better ditch x86 altogether, preferably supporting a new DX version that only can be ran on that OS. Normally I don't like that tactic but it would be worth it in this case, all games made for that new DX version will then be 64 bit, since there wouldn't be the option for a 32 bit OS being able to run it.
    Last edited by Zaskar; 10-07-2009 at 12:07 PM.
    EVGA X58 Classified
    Intel i7 965
    Corsair Dominator 1600mhz 3x2gb
    Nvidia GTX 295

  10. #10
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    2,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Mechromancer View Post
    We are supposed to be enthusiasts. Our only response should be , "Good. I want this ASAP." We rarely use all the features and power of our systems, but we have it on tap just in case.

    Hooray for 128-bit CPUs. I can't wait for AMD's Phenom IV X16 x128 desktop CPUs. I love overkill.

  11. #11
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    France
    Posts
    9,060
    I'd appreciate if they got rid of x86 version instead.
    Donate to XS forums
    Quote Originally Posted by jayhall0315 View Post
    If you are really extreme, you never let informed facts or the scientific method hold you back from your journey to the wrong answer.

  12. #12
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,128
    Quote Originally Posted by Zaskar View Post
    Its never really a good idea to guess how long technology will last for. Anyways as Mechromancer said, only old non tech enthusiasts scoff at the thought of overkill technology. Once you catch yourself thinking along the lines of "things are fine the way they are" punch yourself in the face, your loosing your edge in this field.

    They may be figuring that it may be best to change now before x64 is really adopted by software manufacturers to avoid another rocky switch over in the future.

    Either way their next version better ditch x32 altogether, preferably supporting a new DX version that only can be ran on that OS. Normally I don't like that tactic but it would be worth it in this case, all games made for that new DX version will then be 64 bit, since there wouldn't be the option for a 32 bit OS being able to run it.
    And what's the benefit going from 32-bit binaries to 64-bit binaries in games?

  13. #13
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    France
    Posts
    9,060
    Quote Originally Posted by Calmatory View Post
    And what's the benefit going from 32-bit binaries to 64-bit binaries in games?
    x64 is faster and we saw it done for Far Cry back in the day.
    Donate to XS forums
    Quote Originally Posted by jayhall0315 View Post
    If you are really extreme, you never let informed facts or the scientific method hold you back from your journey to the wrong answer.

  14. #14
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,565
    Quote Originally Posted by Calmatory View Post
    And what's the benefit going from 32-bit binaries to 64-bit binaries in games?
    You really don't think some games wouldn't benefit from access to more total memory?

    Quote Originally Posted by zalbard View Post
    I'd appreciate if they got rid of x86 version instead.
    Bah you know what I meant :P Stupid inconstant naming scheme, technically its x86-32 and x86-64 :P
    EVGA X58 Classified
    Intel i7 965
    Corsair Dominator 1600mhz 3x2gb
    Nvidia GTX 295

  15. #15
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,128
    Operations with 64-bit variables are way slower than operations with 32-bit variables. Dropping the support for 32-bits, yet not utilizing 64-bit variables is far from being considered good practice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zaskar View Post
    You really don't think some games wouldn't benefit from access to more total memory?
    In future yes of course. And I know that is what you meant. But I also believe that you think that going 64-bit binary is somehow magically better overall speed wise.

    The only thing which changes is native 64-bit registers and variable arithmetric, and bigger address space. No "double the bits, must be faster" magic there.

    In games, especially the ones people here in XS play(max settings, 2560*1600 @ uberAAx64 and hyperAFx128), few percent of potential max performance by CPU in special cases will have absolutely no effect on anything. GPU bound all the time. FarCry: http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/...=113771,00.jpg

    EDIT: Of course IF the whole software is written FROM SCRATCH and utilizes the added registers and register space in fully 64-bit environment. That will not be the case though, as console ports of the games will be limiting it big time. But 32-bit support should be dropped by the OS though. ..should have with Vista already.
    Last edited by Calmatory; 10-07-2009 at 12:25 PM.

  16. #16
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    7,750
    im on the drop 32bit bandwagon. win7 x86 was our biggest letdown

  17. #17
    Xtreme Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Stuttgart, Germany
    Posts
    929
    i call bs .. is it apr 1 already?

  18. #18
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,565
    Years ago it use to be that when you have a map with an extremely long view range where you have areas where you look over virtual miles of detailed terrain, more system memory helped out immensely. Is video card onboard memory what handles that in its entirety nowadays? If not then being able to access more memory then a 32 bit OS can allocate to a single application (if its a 64 bit game) should help allot.
    EVGA X58 Classified
    Intel i7 965
    Corsair Dominator 1600mhz 3x2gb
    Nvidia GTX 295

  19. #19
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    2,476
    LOL you nerds can battle it out till your blue in the face but you got to remember marketing is marketing. My OS is 128bit, best of the best, this technology is futureproof lol.
    i3 2100, MSI H61M-E33. 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws.
    MSI GTX 460 Twin Frozr II. 1TB Caviar Blue.
    Corsair HX 620, CM 690, Win 7 Ultimate 64bit.

  20. #20
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    752
    As someone said though... a 64 bit os can theoretically address 17 billion gigabytes... do we really need more than that? at least yet :P

  21. #21
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    339
    It's all well and good saying how 128-bit will be brilliant etc., but does anyone know why we need this?

    If I told you I had a graphics card with eight times as much VRAM as anything on the market, would you be impressed? Probably not, because in spite of the 'ooh bigger numbers', there just isn't the need for it at the minute, and you'd be far better working on something else (more power GPU etc.).

  22. #22
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    3,554
    Quote Originally Posted by w0mbat View Post
    128bit is pure BS! There jus no need at all, no use at all. 64bit is enough for the next 100 yrs.

    and we'll never need more than 640k of ram either

    My Free-DC Stats
    You use IRC and Crunch in Xs WCG team? Join #xs.wcg @ Quakenet

  23. #23
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    752
    We'll need more than 17 billion gb of ram some day

    but not today....

    theres a reason its called exponential increases...

  24. #24
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Spain, EU
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR View Post
    I'm guessing they were talking about AVX and the author got confused
    That's exactly what at thing in the first moment.... typo? joke?.

    But, if you read the article, they're really talking about IA-128.
    P6T DELUXE V2 / I7 920 D0 @ 4.2GHZ Corsair H50 / TRIDENT 2GHZ CL8 / INTEL X25-M / ASUS EAH5850 / HX620W

  25. #25
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,030
    It makes sense...

    Frequency wall seems to have been reached, then they were adding cores, then they were increasing bandwidth (without great overall results), after that they switch from X64 to X128, later on to X256, later on we won't be using silicon anymore to make Processors, and so on and so...
    Are we there yet?

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •