Well, no one is going to go to 128 bits any time soon.
There is no reason to. Actually there is really no need for 64 bits
on the home desktop.
I'd tend to strongly disagree with this statement. As soon as you get
beyond about 2GB of memory in a desktop system you start running into
some real problems on a 32-bit system. Yes, you can get around them
with dirty hacks, but switching to 64-bit is the *proper* solution.
It is neat, tidy and it works well with less complexity, both on the
hardware side and especially on the software side.
2GB of memory isn't really all that much these days. The current
standard is 1GB for desktops (has been for almost a year), and that
number doubles roughly every 18 to 24 months. So by 2005, 64-bit
desktops will be rather badly needed, and by 2007 it will be rather
critical.
So when do you implement it? Ideally about 3-5 years ago! Software
is always a ways behind the hardware, so you need a fair bit of time
to get the ball rolling. AMD's introduction of 64-bit desktop chips
last year is, IMO, really rather late. Intel's plan to introduce
64-bit workstation/server chips this year is VERY late, though they
are fortunate that AMD has done a lot of the leg-work for them.
Intel's plan to only release 64-bit desktop processors in 2007 is
simply stupid if you ask me!
In the server (think big servers, ie nasdaq, banking
etc) world, 64 bits is badly needed and itanium (ia64) fills that bill very
nicely. x86-64 wont change that. The only reason x86-64 is even being
worked on is because it sits well with the marketing folks.
You can buy an Opteron system for $3000 and get a machine that will
outperform a $12,000 Itanium system for many applications while using
less power but otherwise having all of them same reliability features.
Which system do you think most companies will chose?
Also don't forget the workstation market, many people need 4GB+
*TODAY*, but the limits of 32-bit software make it completely useless
to have more than 3GB of memory. These people have had to go for
really expensive but comparatively slow Unix machines, simply for the
large memory access. There are tons of workstation users that are
ecstatic about the Opteron.
I am willing to bet that you will NEVER see AMD or Intel
produce a mainstream 128 bit processor (at the most, maybe a "contracted
for" specialty cpu for some kind of gov scientific use) in your lifetime.
You are probably correct, or at the very least any 128-bit processors
are unlikely to resemble any chips we know today. Of course, I don't
think ANYONE would believe back in 1978 when the 8086 was introduced
that we would still be producing new 8086 compatible chips 26 years
later, but here we are!
FWIW 64-bits would presumably start to become a limiting factor
somewhere between 2045 and 2075 if memory capacity continues to
increase at anything like the exponential rate we've seen over the
past 20 years. I certainly hope to still be kicking around in 2045
and maybe even until 2075 if medical science keeps it up.
As for bugs, surely you dont suggest that AMD is bug free?
Both companies work very hard to produce bug free chips, but
with the current chip complexity (in both camps) that is nearly
impossible.
Certainly all chips have bugs. For the last while AMD has had
noticeably fewer bugs than Intel if one simply counts the "errata"
sheets, though as I've mentioned previously in this newsgroup, that
could be either because AMD makes less buggy chips or simply that
Intel documents their chips better. Either way these bugs are almost
always rather inconsequential.
Especially if the guy making
