Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #41169
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.forth |
| Subject | Re: Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? |
| Date | 2015-08-07 13:21 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <mq2par$ouo$2@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <f8ed0791-5c0a-4f70-aadf-d743eabfad68@googlegroups.com> |
On 8/7/2015 12:44 PM, mfanyikazi@gmail.com wrote: > I was just wondering why many Forth CPU's are desinged to be 16 bit whereas a 64 bit CPU would be more practial in today's data processing needs. > > I think even when working with sensor data; a 64 bit Forth CPU would be more practical than a 16 bit CPU. Is it because Chuck Moore said so and people are afarid to go 64 bit , or is it a more technical thing like power consumption? I think if designed well with todays minuaturised memory circuits a 64 bit CPU could easily compete with a 16 bit CPU (speed , size , power consumption) and seriously out perform it. > > If I am missing something , please someone enlighten me. Yes, I expect you are missing a lot. What is "more practical" about a 64 bit processor than a 16 bit processor? -- Rick
Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? mfanyikazi@gmail.com - 2015-08-07 09:44 -0700
Re: Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-07 10:13 -0700
Re: Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 13:21 -0400
Re: Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? Jason Damisch <jasondamisch@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-07 10:24 -0700
Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 16:59 -0700
Re: Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 01:11 -0400
Re: Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-08-08 01:38 -0400
Re: Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? Raimond Dragomir <raimond.dragomir@gmail.com> - 2015-08-07 23:42 -0700
Re: Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? Coos Haak <chforth@hccnet.nl> - 2015-08-08 19:41 +0200
Re: Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2015-08-07 23:03 -1000
Re: Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? mhx@iae.nl - 2015-08-08 02:31 -0700
Re: Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? Gerry Jackson <gerry@jackson9000.fsnet.co.uk> - 2015-08-08 11:27 +0100
Re: Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2015-08-08 15:28 +0000
Re: Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? "Rod Pemberton" <boo@fasdfrewar.cdm> - 2015-08-09 03:24 -0400
Re: Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? mfanyikazi@gmail.com - 2015-08-09 01:59 -0700
Re: Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2015-08-09 15:15 -0400
Re: Which is more practical , 64 bit , 32 bit or 16 bit CPU for FORTH? Ilya Tarasov <ilya74.tarasov@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 13:55 -0700
csiph-web