• Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Posts: 12097 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > We appear to be on the same page on this design

    We both find it likely that "Denver" is supposed to be a 64-bit design, yes. You said you were of the opinion that this is what "the current buzz about this introduction" was about. I am not of this opinion. So that's where we're on different pages.

    > I think I've still managed to offend you.

    I don't feel offended. It's just that I still don't get your "buzz" statement and thus am trying to find out what it's all about.

    > Only a few that have followed current trends have posted any conjecture

    "Almost nobody" fits reality better I think.

    > instead of a "buzz" maybe its more like a murmur.

    According to my dictionary that's at least closer to what I think it is than "the current buzz" ;-)

    > it is obvious how other ISAs have evolved (even the PPC)

    Actually, PPC wasn't that late to the show. Timeline of going 64-bit *and* actually shipping corresponding silicon was as follows:

    1991: MIPS
    1992: Alpha*
    1994: PowerPC
    1995: SPARC
    1996: PA-RISC
    2000: z/Architecture*
    2001: Itanium*
    2002: SuperH
    2003: x86

    * never had a 32-bit predecessor/counterpart, i.e. has been 64-bit from the get-go

    https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7001&forum=3&start=301 (last link therein)

    > its not unlikely that Nvidia is developing their hardware along a similar line.

    Yes, but nVidia don't specify ARM ISA. ARM Ltd. does. So if "Denver" really is supposed to be a 64-bit ARM core/chip then this requires ARM Ltd. to at least have plans for something like an 'ARM64' ISA. That's what I believe is highly likely.

    > Why wouldn't it be obvious to the rest of us?

    I didn't say it wouldn't. I just expressed that I fail to see any alleged "buzz" regarding that matter.
  • »12.01.11 - 01:29