Talk:Bit-level parallelism

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

It would be good if someone who understands this topic well -- and I do not -- would explain why bit-level parallelism has run out of steam. Why not 128-bit or 256-bit processors? Is it just that the benefits of bit-level parallelism apply mainly to arithmetic, and 32- or 64-bit word sizes comfortably accommodate numbers within the range of most calculations? Or is there another reason?

Eodell (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Eodell There are 128-bit and 256, even 512-bit processors, but those are mathmatical registers. General purpose registers which can be used to point to memory addresses are still not exceeding 64-bit because we hardly have one tarabyte of memory for CPUs. Dannyniu (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]