Page 2 of 2
Posted: 2005-06-09 03:08am
by Master of Ossus
Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:Praxis wrote:Wasn't the N64 a 64-bit graphics chip, not CPU?
IIRC it was. Neverthelss, why CPU always falling behind graphic chip in terms of bits?
It's hugely easier for a GPU to turn in parallel performance since it only has to worry about doing graphics. A CPU will have a much more difficult time processing lots of information simultaneously because it has to be ready for virtually anything.
Posted: 2005-06-09 03:19am
by Xon
Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:Praxis wrote:Wasn't the N64 a 64-bit graphics chip, not CPU?
IIRC it was. Neverthelss, why CPU always falling behind graphic chip in terms of bits?
Because they arent needed.
Also there is a significant difference between the native access size (aka the wide of the bus in bits connecting the CPU to the memory) and the ability to process instructions which use 64bit(rather +32bits) addresssing.
A 64bit processor is a processor which handles instructions which have 64bit addresses and can do 64bit operations natively.
Posted: 2005-06-09 09:41am
by Ace Pace
Not only no need, but backwards compability, game's need to have the widest user base as possible, that means working on commen hardware, which means 32-bit.