🚀 go-pugleaf

headroom@passport.ca wrote:
: 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.


hmmm. this thread looks like a waste of time. yep it is a waste of time.
Took me a minute there to switch banks. My brain only has a 32 bit 
address bus. 

-- 
Matthew Carlson <carlson@rahul.net>