🚀 go-pugleaf

In <458mrk$enl@inferno.mpx.com.au>, msmith@jolt.mpx.com.au (Michael Smith) writes:
>Ian Watson (watson@cs.man.ac.uk) wrote:

>It sounds as though everyone is agreeing with each other.  We can't have 
>that in this news group.  Allow me to supply an opposing point of view.
>
>There are two reasons for increasing your bus size.
>	1.  To address more memory
>	2.  To increase throughput (bandwidth).
>
>Very few people (who I know anyway) buy 64 bit machines to address more 
>than 4GB of memory.  They do it to get faster throughput.  The extra 
>address space is simply a side-effect.  While increasing your bus from 32 
>to 64 bits may increase your address space by an enormous amount, it only 
>increases the throughput by a factor of 2.  I can easily imagine users 
>(in the next few years) wanting 128 bit graphics cards, disk controllers 
>and network interface cards and thus wanting a 128 bit bus.
>
>There!  That should start an argument.

   No -- I don't think so -- you're confusing data and address bus widths.
Address bus width has nothing to do with bandwidth to memory, and everything
to do with how much of it you can have.