Today's Phones Really Don't Need 64-bit Yet, Says Qualcomm

[southernshark]

I'm going to side with the better to go ahead and so it crowd. Needed... No... But go ahead, put it in and scale accordingly. Waiting just adds delays down the pipe and ultimately slows progress.

 

[Achoo22]

Maximum addressable RAM aside, 64-bit machines potentially have twice as many general purpose 32-bit registers available (depending on architecture, some don't give easy access to lo/hi dwords). It should be plain as day to anyone who has ever programmed in assembly or lower-level languages that the potential for speedup from bypassing memory loads could be very dramatic in tightly nested code loops.

 

[nuvon]

"Joe nate" I guess your computer only has 4GB of ram then....and please tell me you will never upgrade to more than 4gb for another decade.

 

[southernshark]

I'm going to side with the better to go ahead and so it crowd. Needed... No... But go ahead, put it in and scale accordingly. Waiting just adds delays down the pipe and ultimately slows progress.

 

[John Bauer]

I'm going to side with the better to go ahead and so it crowd. Needed... No... But go ahead, put it in and scale accordingly. Waiting just adds delays down the pipe and ultimately slows progress.

Could not have said it any better. If the technology exists, why not use it? So what if we don't "NEED" it? Why would you intentionally avoid the technology?

I always get reminded of the Time Warner CEO saying "People don't want faster internet, they don't need it" That drove me NUTS

 

[okibrian]

When 64 bit was first used in home PCs we really didn't 'need' it, but it opened a door. Should we not open any more doors? Then you say, "Qualcomm is working on its own 64-bit chip as well" which makes me think they are just upset that they are late to the game.

 

[back_by_demand]

I only needed to have more than 4gb of ram in a PC when I started editing raw HD video, so when any phone is used for that let me know

 

[Jonjolt]

There are benefits beyond the increased memory addressing using 64-bit. If your only argument is phones don't even have 4GB of memory please move along.

 

[marcolorenzo]

Apple iHicks will not believe any of this. Try talking sense to someone who believes in religion. No amount of proof or facts will ever make them feel differently.

I wasn't aware that science and technology had proven the absence of a God or completely debunked spirituality. Care to share with us the source of your discovery? But with a name like "AndroidIsKing", I wouldn't be surprised if you're a little "religious" yourself, maybe you just worship a different deity.

I admit that I don't belong to any religious order and actually own a couple of Android devices but I just find close-mindedness amusing.

 

[mobrocket]

Maybe Apple should focus more on having iOS catch up to android on usable features than on a 64bit cpu

 

[hannibal]

There's no real reason to have a 64-bit chip in a smartphone right now.

No way Sherlock! Yeas there is no any good reason to have 64-bit cpu in phones at this moment, but... it allows to start developing programs to 64-bit phones now, so that they are ready when there is a reason to have 64-bit CPU in phones, and that day may not be so far ahead as some may think. Some of those new memory technologies can gram a guite a lot memory on very small space. In 3-4 four years there definitely are going to be phones with more than 4Gb of memory and some flagship models even before that. 64-bit CPU are allso nesessary so that desktop and mobile operation systems can become nearer to each other.
(Is it a good thing or not, is another subject to debate about...)

Another thing is that ARM prosessors are allso used in small servers and there 64-bit CPU is needed allready, and in time they will go to phones allso. First as an marketing trick, later because it is just wice thing to do.

 

[PyjamasCat]

No way Sherlock! Yeas there is no any good reason to have 64-bit cpu in phones at this moment, but... it allows to start developing programs to 64-bit phones now, so that they are ready when there is a reason to have 64-bit CPU in phones, and that day may not be so far ahead as some may think. Some of those new memory technologies can gram a guite a lot memory on very small space. In 3-4 four years there definitely are going to be phones with more than 4Gb of memory and some flagship models even before that. 64-bit CPU are allso nesessary so that desktop and mobile operation systems can become nearer to each other.
(Is it a good thing or not, is another subject to debate about...)

Another thing is that ARM prosessors are allso used in small servers and there 64-bit CPU is needed allready, and in time they will go to phones allso. First as an marketing trick, later because it is just wice thing to do.

^Exactly. I don't understand why people think these little advances should come all ready to go. It doesn't often work like that and hasn't for most things for a while. I know this isn't a major step, but it still has it's benefits.

 

[Camikazi]

joe nate
Well, anyone who knows about 32-bit and 64-bit processors knows it's a gimmick that isn't needed until you need to make more than 4gb of ram accessible. As much as I might want to blame apple for the gimmick, sadly, I know that it sells. There's quite a few 16-32gb RAM computers on the market when 99% of the users who buy them have no imaginable way to even use more than 20-40% of the ram in the computer and has absolutely no benefit to performance at all. Big numbers sell because people don't understand computers.

Most people with 16GB or more ram are power users. You don't find your granny or a random student with a 16GB or more.

Myself and 2 others I know have 16GB and more, and we defiantly use it.
Never met an average consumer with a machine with 16GB or more. Have you?

I have and no they don't use workstations. I don't think you have been looking around since if you did you can easily find desktops with 16GB of RAM. On NewEgg alone, when searching for desktops, you can find 86 with 16 or more GB of RAM and the cheapest starts at less than $500.

 

[John Bauer]

joe nate
Well, anyone who knows about 32-bit and 64-bit processors knows it's a gimmick that isn't needed until you need to make more than 4gb of ram accessible. As much as I might want to blame apple for the gimmick, sadly, I know that it sells. There's quite a few 16-32gb RAM computers on the market when 99% of the users who buy them have no imaginable way to even use more than 20-40% of the ram in the computer and has absolutely no benefit to performance at all. Big numbers sell because people don't understand computers.

Most people with 16GB or more ram are power users. You don't find your granny or a random student with a 16GB or more.

Myself and 2 others I know have 16GB and more, and we defiantly use it.
Never met an average consumer with a machine with 16GB or more. Have you?

I have and no they don't use workstations. I don't think you have been looking around since if you did you can easily find desktops with 16GB of RAM. On NewEgg alone, when searching for desktops, you can find 86 with 16 or more GB of RAM and the cheapest starts at less than $500.

Just for the record, I found 3 desktops on Newegg that had 16gb of ram and costed less than $500

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883220341

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883220342

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883258020R

 

[okibrian]

When 64 bit was first used in home PCs we really didn't 'need' it, but it opened a door. Should we not open any more doors? Then you say, "Qualcomm is working on its own 64-bit chip as well" which makes me think they are just upset that they are late to the game.

 

[spentshells]

64 cpu in your phone, such a waste, just like a quad core, it's a battery drain at best.

 

[John Bauer]

64 cpu in your phone, such a waste, just like a quad core, it's a battery drain at best.

That's one thing that probably is in need of an innovation the very most, the stupid battery.

And I mean ALL batteries.

 

[InvalidError]

That's one thing that probably is in need of an innovation the very most, the stupid battery.

And I mean ALL batteries.

Improving battery capacity is much easier said than done.

One key issue with pushing energy densities higher than they already are is stability: the more energy you pack in a small volume, the more difficult it becomes to prevent catastrophic failures. Another problem is that increasing the electrodes' effective area requires using materials with finer structures and those finer structures tend to break as they get stressed by ion implantation so their improved capacity and charge/discharge current often comes at the expense of fewer or shallower charge/discharge cycles.

After Sony's spontaneous combustion lithium cell fiasco from many years ago, most manufacturers are approaching "improved" batteries far more cautiously.

Slow progress on battery technology is not from lack of trying. Technology simply reached the practical safe maximum for currently known materials and techniques.

 

[John Bauer]

That's one thing that probably is in need of an innovation the very most, the stupid battery.

And I mean ALL batteries.

Improving battery capacity is much easier said than done.

One key issue with pushing energy densities higher than they already are is stability: the more energy you pack in a small volume, the more difficult it becomes to prevent catastrophic failures. Another problem is that increasing the electrodes' effective area requires using materials with finer structures and those finer structures tend to break as they get stressed by ion implantation so their improved capacity and charge/discharge current often comes at the expense of fewer or shallower charge/discharge cycles.

After Sony's spontaneous combustion lithium cell fiasco from many years ago, most manufacturers are approaching "improved" batteries far more cautiously.

Slow progress on battery technology is not from lack of trying. Technology simply reached the practical safe maximum for currently known materials and techniques.

I guess you missed the point of "batteries are in need of innovation" We need to come up with a whole new process to store energy.

And I never said it would be easy, for the record. People are trying, as a matter of fact they've mentioned it on Tom's.

 

[stevejnb]

I guess you missed the point of "batteries are in need of innovation" We need to come up with a whole new process to store energy.

And I never said it would be easy, for the record. People are trying, as a matter of fact they've mentioned it on Tom's.

"We need" is a relative term. There are people in the military saying "we need something new to replace the firearms - some sort of laser beem or electro gun or something"... But that is a centuries old technology - ironically, a lot younger than the battery - which has basically been refined and refined and refined and the guns now are close to as good as they're likely to get. This does not in any way mean a newer technology to replace it is coming any time soon though and however much they think they may need a firearm replacement, they aren't likely to get it - and they will truck on with the firearm.

So this notion of "we need a new technology to do this better!" is a total fallacy. We do NOT need newer and better batteries. The world will keep spinning. Someone may come out with some tech that obsoletes batteries tomorrow, or it may take decades or more. But the battery technology we have will do us just fine. If people can't innovate a new technology to replace an old one, they tend to be good at innovating new ways to use existing technology.

 

[InvalidError]

I guess you missed the point of "batteries are in need of innovation" We need to come up with a whole new process to store energy.

And I never said it would be easy, for the record. People are trying, as a matter of fact they've mentioned it on Tom's.

I did not miss the point; I merely stated the fact that there hasn't been any fundamental breakthroughs in battery and other energy storage technologies in well over a decade and there aren't any signs of fundamental breakthroughs making it to market in the foreseeable future either - at least none that would be safe, reliable and convenient enough to use in consumer devices.

The closest thing to a breakthrough in energy storage if you want a significant increase in off-grid autonomy is fuel cells but loading tablets and laptops with combustible and potentially explosive substances raises its own issues such as airport/airplane security: imagine a terrorist spraying people with fuel-grade methanol/ethanol in mid-flight and lighting it up. Same goes for microturbines.

Slow progress is to be expected when pushing against the limits of physics as we know it.

BTW, the LCD and CPU are the two biggest energy sinks in tablets and phones. LCD are horribly inefficient since 66% of the light is lost in subpixel color filters and another 50-100% of the light is lost through light polarization so LCDs waste more than 83% of the backlight's output. Replacing LCDs and backlight with OLEDs would reduce panel power by ~5X.

Even if you could fit a nuclear plant inside a phone, you still wouldn't want the phone to run at a searing hot 700C so on the CPU side, you would still want CPUs to continue using increasingly less power.

So if you use a 4X more efficient display with a 3X more efficient CPU, you end up with devices that last 4X as long on the same battery. And unlike batteries that take decades to improve, both OLEDs and more power-efficient CPUs are possible either now or in the very near future.