Samsung: our next-gen smartphones will have 64-bit chips, too

By on September 12, 2013, 1:45 PM
apple, samsung, 64-bit, a7

Apple is set to launch the first 64-bit mobile processor when the iPhone 5S hits the market September 20. While the immediate performance gains this will bring are debatable -- despite Cupertino’s marketing hyperbole -- Samsung doesn’t intend to stand idle as its arch rival gets the upper hand on the spec sheets.

Speaking to the Korea Times, the company’s mobile business chief JK Shin confirmed that their next generation smartphones will have 64-bit chips too. There was no specific time frame for the move except for noting that such devices would arrive "not in the shortest time.” Not that Samsung lacks the expertise for the task; after all, their semiconductor business is going strong and they’ve touted some advances of their own such as Heterogeneous Multi-Processing, which allows all eight cores in the Exynos 5 SoC to operate simultaneously.

Samsung could use the ARMv8 64-bit architecture that ARM has been promoting for a while -- the same Apple based its design off. But as things stand right now a 64 bit processor would be worthless to them without proper support on the operating system level. No current version of Android is 64 bit, and while it's assumed that Google will eventually make this happen, it likely won’t be available until some time next year.

Apple on the other hand has already reworked iOS 7 and all its native applications to run on the 64-bit A7 chip. During Tuesday’s event, the company promised the benefits would be “huge” as it explained the A7 is up to twice as fast as its predecessor in both CPU and GPU tasks, but in reality the two aren’t necessarily linked to each other -- at least not as Apple would have you believe. Looking at the move to 64-bit computing on the desktop, 64-bit designs don't automatically improve performance for most tasks, and can even have drawbacks.

The biggest benefit comes from the capability to accommodate more than 4GB of RAM, and currently no ARM-based smartphone comes close to that. The move is more about Apple laying the groundwork for the future, but it'll be a while before we enjoy all the benefits. I guess you could say the same thing about quad- and octa-core processors in mobile devices. That said, in the realm of smartphone marketing bigger numbers are always better, so it wouldn’t be surprising to see everyone racing to get 64-bit chips on their phones too.




User Comments: 47

Got something to say? Post a comment
1 person liked this | JC713 JC713 said:

There is no rush for 64bit because no phone will use more than 2GB with current OSes. Maybe as we get 4K smartphones we will need more than 2GB of RAM.

3 people like this | EEatGDL said:

They were just pushing flagship phones with 2GB and now they want to use 64-bit, for what exactly? Will Android become a new Windows that eats up to 2GB of RAM alone? Will we have Crysis 3 on Android or what? I'm more worried about it than glad -will they start just using RAM for nonsense and soon outdate all those devices with less RAM?

[Disclaimer: I'm not asking or expecting for Crysis 3 on Android, and I'm aware of the technical issues to overcome like recompiling using different APIs and instruction set between PC and mobile devices]

VitalyT VitalyT said:

No Samsung, you ain't got it, so, just suck it in!

Guest said:

You people only think 64 bit is used for just memory?

Quit thinking you're smart...

Skidmarksdeluxe Skidmarksdeluxe said:

The way Apple were touting the new 5S with 64 bit processing before the specs were officially released I was expecting something along the lines of an Ivy Bridge-E processor only a lot more powerful.

VitalyT VitalyT said:

The way Apple were touting the new 5S with 64 bit processing before the specs were officially released I was expecting something along the lines of an Ivy Bridge-E processor only a lot more powerful.

No you didn't... And it confuses Guest accounts even more, they switch into thinking mode, and end up splashing their brain matter all over the board...

Guest said:

No, 64-bit is not just to support more than 4Gb of RAM. 64-bit architecture is a huge benefit whenever you work with large numbers or large chunks of data, because you can process twice as much in one CPU cycle instead of two. As a real life example of large numbers in life, take file size - these days it has to be stored in a 64-bit integer, to support files larger than 4Gb. And such examples are many. Large numbers are often used in databases (which are very often used by mobile applications, even without you realising that) for primary keys, and a 64-bit CPU would speed up lookup operations considerably. Also Apple increased number of registers, which allows for even greater optimisation. Of course, benefits of any hardware only appear when software supports it, but since Apple is responsible for the hardware, the OS AND the development tools, the benefits will be noticeable very soon. They have already reworked the OS and its core apps for 64-bit CPU, so it will all work faster by itself. I think it will not take a long time for developers to update their Xcode and re-compile their apps to support 64-bit, it's all they have to do, the compiler will optimise their code to use the new hardware capabilities for the best speed.

2 people like this | TheBigFatClown said:

There is no rush for 64bit because no phone will use more than 2GB with current OSes. Maybe as we get 4K smartphones we will need more than 2GB of RAM.

Let me ask what you would prefer to arrive on the scene first. The problem, or the solution to the problem? As some of the TechSpot staff would probably say it, "There is no practical need for this technology". You used word "rush" instead of "need" but the mindset is similar.

Do you want there to be a rush for it? Do you want to pay exorbitant prices for technology that is in high demand.Technology arriving on the scene in advance of a rush for it(or a high demand) will always allow the technology to mature and the cost to come down.

I'll probably be demonized again by some superhero trolling these forums speaking for those without a voice but my take on all of these technologies is let them come, let them come.

"Nobody Will Ever Need More Than 640k RAM!" -- Bill Gates, 1981"

I am not 100% sure about this but isn't Windows 8 Pro a 64-bit OS...doesn't it work on cellphone?

The fact alone that a technology exists sometimes is enough to increase the demand for it as well. In other words, "build it and they will come".

Guest said:

Win 8 PRO does not run on cellphones. ARM chips cannot run WIN 8 pro.

TheBigFatClown said:

Win 8 PRO does not run on cellphones. ARM chips cannot run WIN 8 pro.

Okay, so there is no great demand for this technology at the moment but as I stated previously I believe that solutions arriving before the problem will be a win-win for the consumer. I would love to see 1TB blu-ray disc platters but they aren't here yet. May never be. So, because of this, they charge outrageous prices for BDXL discs and they are only 100/128GB. This is not a good situation for the consumer.

windmill007 said:

64 bit rules. All other phones are out of date and behind the times.

EEatGDL said:

Of course "we people" know you can calculate bigger numbers, more precision, etc. What the h*ck would you be doing in a smartphone? Managing databases? ARM 64-bit for servers is fine, but for a smartphone? Come on. I'm not even sure those chips have FPU that can take advantage of the much needed higher floating point precision [more accurate decimals].

As the article states: supporting 64-bit environment doesn't guarantee performance, but it does guarantee more memory usage -just think about memory consumed by pointers and the incalculable amount of pointers apps may use and all at the same time; they would simply use double the amount of memory in all those declared pointers [not double the total memory used by the app].

backo said:

I think the 64-bit is an overkill. I do not see any actual benefit at the moment. But as always Apple knows best - their users will have the fastest 64-bit smartphone :-) others will just have live with their useless HD displays.

1 person liked this | OneSpeed said:

No Samsung, you ain't got it, so, just suck it in!

Uhm, that's ok. Samsung will continue making CPU's for Apple, and when/if the market really needs 64 bit computing on the phones, Samsung and everyone else will have one. Until then, keep coming back to the posts and look for 64 bits of angry birds.

insect said:

Considering this is the only technical specification that is better than most other flagship smartphones on the market, Apple hardware engineers still lose... but their marketing/fan-boys/general public ignorance will win the day for them.

Samsung finally started winning the war when they stopped marketing specifications and start marketing gimics/peer-pressure type ads. Even so, they do actually have and have always had better specs than iPhones.

Guest said:

Waiting for 128 bit, come on, bring it on.

2 people like this | Lionvibez said:

No, 64-bit is not just to support more than 4Gb of RAM. 64-bit architecture is a huge benefit whenever you work with large numbers or large chunks of data, because you can process twice as much in one CPU cycle instead of two. As a real life example of large numbers in life, take file size - these days it has to be stored in a 64-bit integer, to support files larger than 4Gb. And such examples are many. Large numbers are often used in databases (which are very often used by mobile applications, even without you realising that) for primary keys, and a 64-bit CPU would speed up lookup operations considerably. Also Apple increased number of registers, which allows for even greater optimisation. Of course, benefits of any hardware only appear when software supports it, but since Apple is responsible for the hardware, the OS AND the development tools, the benefits will be noticeable very soon. They have already reworked the OS and its core apps for 64-bit CPU, so it will all work faster by itself. I think it will not take a long time for developers to update their Xcode and re-compile their apps to support 64-bit, it's all they have to do, the compiler will optimise their code to use the new hardware capabilities for the best speed.

Hey guest thats all great on a desktop computer.

But who the hell is working on 4GB+ files and large data sets on a 4 inch Iphone?

64bit on cell phone will be the same as it was when it came out on computers at the start there will only be small benefit and as time goes on it will increase but its not going to make your phone 100% faster no matter what the marketing slides show you.

Stop drinking apple juice dude.

JC713 JC713 said:

You people only think 64 bit is used for just memory?

Quit thinking you're smart...

I was just talking about memory because it was the first thing that came to my mind when I heard/read "64bit". It doesnt mean I does mean I do not know what other advantages it offers. Think before you comment.

JC713 JC713 said:

Technology arriving on the scene in advance of a rush for it(or a high demand) will always allow the technology to mature and the cost to come down.

Well said man. I completely agree.

backo said:

Hey guest thats all great on a desktop computer.

But who the hell is working on 4GB+ files and large data sets on a 4 inch Iphone?

64bit on cell phone will be the same as it was when it came out on computers at the start there will only be small benefit and as time goes on it will increase but its not going to make your phone 100% faster no matter what the marketing slides show you.

Stop drinking apple juice dude.

Hey I work with 4 GB files on my phone all the time all 4, 8 or 16 of them and can't wait to start working with 5 GB files... well all 3, 6 or 12 of them :-D

Guest said:

64bit phones.... most useless feature yet. Heck more than 90% of PC games aren't even using the 64bit architecture. I also have no idea why a phone user would need over 4gb of ram. Heck none of them even know what 64bit is in the first place.

1 person liked this | MrBungle said:

"Nobody Will Ever Need More Than 640k RAM!" -- Bill Gates, 1981"

Gates never said that, it's an internet rumor that has no basis in reality.

Lionvibez said:

Hey I work with 4 GB files on my phone all the time all 4, 8 or 16 of them and can't wait to start working with 5 GB files... well all 3, 6 or 12 of them :-D

And may I ask what phone you have and its current storage capacity including any SD cards?

TheBigFatClown said:

"Nobody Will Ever Need More Than 640k RAM!" -- Bill Gates, 1981"

Gates never said that, it's an internet rumor that has no basis in reality.

Okay. +1 for you. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't but I see this kind of statement made by other people all the time. So, there is something to be learned from it. Just because you don't need it today doesn't mean you won't need it tomorrow. Yet people continue to make the same statements about technology. I think some people can't look any further than 2 weeks into the future.

OneSpeed said:

Hey guest thats all great on a desktop computer.

But who the hell is working on 4GB+ files and large data sets on a 4 inch Iphone?

64bit on cell phone will be the same as it was when it came out on computers at the start there will only be small benefit and as time goes on it will increase but its not going to make your phone 100% faster no matter what the marketing slides show you.

Stop drinking apple juice dude.

Hey I work with 4 GB files on my phone all the time all 4, 8 or 16 of them and can't wait to start working with 5 GB files... well all 3, 6 or 12 of them :-D

What applet you running that requires 64bit? Didn't know it took an iPhone to need 64bit processing to play music.

St1ckM4n St1ckM4n said:

Apple shoved a 64-bit CPU in there because they have no other 'big leaps' cards left to play. They have cornered themselves in their own market.

- Screen size: the move to 4 inches was completely against company ethos and personal belief of Jobs - unless they all lied. The screen size won't change any time soon on their devices, because it is linked to:

- Resolution: The almighty Retina screen, there is none better! Or, so we are led to believe. While Samsung/HTC and everyone else didn't treat their customers like dummies, they continued to improve aspects of the device which are tangible and still have room for improvement. Unfortunately, Apple cannot increase their resolution easily. It is heavily linked to screen size and even more critically their app dev program. AFAIK Apple has no custom resolution/screen scaling. If res changes, the entire dev community is screwed.

Basically, shoving a 64bit chip in there was the cheapest, quickest and easiest way to give the iPhone a 'bump'.

1 person liked this | Darth Shiv Darth Shiv said:

There is no rush for 64bit because no phone will use more than 2GB with current OSes. Maybe as we get 4K smartphones we will need more than 2GB of RAM.

Let me ask what you would prefer to arrive on the scene first. The problem, or the solution to the problem? As some of the TechSpot staff would probably say it, "There is no practical need for this technology". You used word "rush" instead of "need" but the mindset is similar.

Do you want there to be a rush for it? Do you want to pay exorbitant prices for technology that is in high demand.Technology arriving on the scene in advance of a rush for it(or a high demand) will always allow the technology to mature and the cost to come down.

I'll probably be demonized again by some superhero trolling these forums speaking for those without a voice but my take on all of these technologies is let them come, let them come.

"Nobody Will Ever Need More Than 640k RAM!" -- Bill Gates, 1981"

I am not 100% sure about this but isn't Windows 8 Pro a 64-bit OS...doesn't it work on cellphone?

The fact alone that a technology exists sometimes is enough to increase the demand for it as well. In other words, "build it and they will come".

Yes sadly our Government is using the same "Nobody Will Ever Need More Than 640k RAM!" argument for our internet. Australia ranked 48th in world internet speeds. The Govt wants to supply a "guaranteed" 25mbit down and 4-6mbit up in 3-6 years for almost $30 billion.

The previous plan which is essentially now going to be scrapped was to rollout FTTP to all premises that have access to ADSL2+ currently (possibly more than that).

p51d007 said:

Same debate when the switch was made from x32 to x64 in the PC world. 99% of users have no idea, so it won't make a difference to them anyway.

Geforcepat Geforcepat said:

I figured somebody was gonna come out and say me too sometime this week. and looky here

TheBigFatClown said:

Of course "we people" know you can calculate bigger numbers, more precision, etc. What the h*ck would you be doing in a smartphone? Managing databases? ARM 64-bit for servers is fine, but for a smartphone? Come on. I'm not even sure those chips have FPU that can take advantage of the much needed higher floating point precision [more accurate decimals].

As the article states: supporting 64-bit environment doesn't guarantee performance, but it does guarantee more memory usage -just think about memory consumed by pointers and the incalculable amount of pointers apps may use and all at the same time; they would simply use double the amount of memory in all those declared pointers [not double the total memory used by the app].

Did you make this same argument when the world shifted from 16-bit to 32-bit? It doesn't sound very plausible to me.

EEatGDL said:

Did you make this same argument when the world shifted from 16-bit to 32-bit? It doesn't sound very plausible to me.

When the world did that shift I was too young to make this argument. I don't know what half of what I wrote you're referring to, I think you're talking about the second half, because on the first half I didn't state anything.

Back then when we had 16-bit processors, Intel was already "cheating" using 20-bit for addressing and the integer number limit was easily reachable (signed or unsigned) by daily countability and calculations among with other things. Let me illustrate my argument: let's say a program has 1000 pointers (variables that store the address of other variable or a function), by the simple architecture fact, the same program will allocate 2000, 4000 and 8000 bytes for 16, 32, and 64 bits respectively for just pointers.

Anyway, two technical points about Android: it doesn't have swapping due to the limited write cycles of the flash memory it uses, so its way to make room for more programs that require RAM when it's full is simply killing "old and no longer used apps to free resources"; the second thing is that you only have the illusion of multitasking, you can't actually see several apps at a time and simply shift focus by finger-pointing on the apps you're watching on screen [from all the apps you would see at once on screen]. So we can only focus in one app at a time and it simply kills non-essential processes; what app would use that much RAM alone?

If you compare a program compiled in x86-32 and x64 you won't see double the performance; only the slight gains provided for arithmetic operations with long (64-bit) variables that the program may execute or BigInteger (as big as you need the integers to be technically without limit, imagine adding two 512-bit variables) variables that the program may use through an API in several object-oriented programming languages.

TheBigFatClown said:

When the world did that shift I was too young to make this argument. I don't know what half of what I wrote you're referring to, I think you're talking about the second half, because on the first half I didn't state anything.

Back then when we had 16-bit processors, Intel was already "cheating" using 20-bit for addressing and the integer number limit was easily reachable (signed or unsigned) by daily countability and calculations among with other things. Let me illustrate my argument: let's say a program has 1000 pointers (variables that store the address of other variable or a function), by the simple architecture fact, the same program will allocate 2000, 4000 and 8000 bytes for 16, 32, and 64 bits respectively for just pointers.

Anyway, two technical points about Android: it doesn't have swapping due to the limited write cycles of the flash memory it uses, so its way to make room for more programs that require RAM when it's full is simply killing "old and no longer used apps to free resources"; the second thing is that you only have the illusion of multitasking, you can't actually see several apps at a time and simply shift focus by finger-pointing on the apps you're watching on screen [from all the apps you would see at once on screen]. So we can only focus in one app at a time and it simply kills non-essential processes; what app would use that much RAM alone?

If you compare a program compiled in x86-32 and x64 you won't see double the performance; only the slight gains provided for arithmetic operations with long (64-bit) variables that the program may execute or BigInteger (as big as you need the integers to be technically without limit, imagine adding two 512-bit variables) variables that the program may use through an API in several object-oriented programming languages.

Sounds like a good case against Google putting out a 64-bit phone since they use Android. And anybody else who uses Android. But it doesn't sound like this is inherently a problem with 64-bit devices. Only issues with the operating system that might drive them.

You have made the general point clear about the cost of memory each pointer requires as the memory address space increases exponentially. It's not a linear progression. When you double the size of a pointer you get way more than double the memory address space. So, from my point view, it seems you get more bang for you buck.

Guest said:

When are the 64 bit apps coming??? As an apple user, I can hardly wait. BTW, what app on a phone would use 64 bits? Anyone? Will we have those apps before android comes out with 64 bits of computing power? Do I really need it now?

EEatGDL said:

So, from my point view, it seems you get more bang for you buck.

I'm not saying 64-bit itself is a problem; but there's no use for that other than marketing, they're totally forgetting the main purpose of those embedded systems, they want to see them like full computers when they're actually not that -that's why for servers is great, but for a smartphone? And maybe you got the idea wrong, let's stick to the same example: imagine we have 10,000 bytes (10 KiB) of memory, and we have nothing in memory but 1,000 pointers (nothing useful but for illustrating) so while the 16-bit processor would set the pointer size to 2 bytes, those pointers would consume 2/10 KiB while in the 64-bit processor 8/10 KiB would be used for that sole purpose; so you actually get less for your buck.

It is very hard to calculate the amount of pointers needed by running applications and system, but you would find more memory consumption in the same scenario between 32-bit and 64-bit.

OneSpeed said:

I think I'll wait to see what, if any, apps are 64 bits before I jump onto that bandwagon. I mean, c'mon.

TheBigFatClown said:

I'm not saying 64-bit itself is a problem; but there's no use for that other than marketing, they're totally forgetting the main purpose of those embedded systems, they want to see them like full computers when they're actually not that -that's why for servers is great, but for a smartphone? And maybe you got the idea wrong, let's stick to the same example: imagine we have 10,000 bytes (10 KiB) of memory, and we have nothing in memory but 1,000 pointers (nothing useful but for illustrating) so while the 16-bit processor would set the pointer size to 2 bytes, those pointers would consume 2/10 KiB while in the 64-bit processor 8/10 KiB would be used for that sole purpose; so you actually get less for your buck.

It is very hard to calculate the amount of pointers needed by running applications and system, but you would find more memory consumption in the same scenario between 32-bit and 64-bit.

I must be missing something. If you use double the memory pointer references moving from 32-bit to 64-bit, so what? The memory address space has way more than doubled. So your still way ahead of the game in terms of how much "more" free memory address space you have using a 64-bit memory address space.

EEatGDL said:

I must be missing something. If you use double the memory pointer references moving from 32-bit to 64-bit, so what? The memory address space has way more than doubled. So your still way ahead of the game in terms of how much "more" free memory address space you have using a 64-bit memory address space.

Yes of course; but smartphones haven't got near 3GB yet; they are still launching 2GB flagships.

OneSpeed said:

I'm not saying 64-bit itself is a problem; but there's no use for that other than marketing, they're totally forgetting the main purpose of those embedded systems, they want to see them like full computers when they're actually not that -that's why for servers is great, but for a smartphone? And maybe you got the idea wrong, let's stick to the same example: imagine we have 10,000 bytes (10 KiB) of memory, and we have nothing in memory but 1,000 pointers (nothing useful but for illustrating) so while the 16-bit processor would set the pointer size to 2 bytes, those pointers would consume 2/10 KiB while in the 64-bit processor 8/10 KiB would be used for that sole purpose; so you actually get less for your buck.

It is very hard to calculate the amount of pointers needed by running applications and system, but you would find more memory consumption in the same scenario between 32-bit and 64-bit.

I must be missing something. If you use double the memory pointer references moving from 32-bit to 64-bit, so what? The memory address space has way more than doubled. So your still way ahead of the game in terms of how much "more" free memory address space you have using a 64-bit memory address space.

OK, 64 bit CPU on iPhone 5 which has 1 GB RAM (Androids have 2 GB RAM on 32 bit), and no micro sd (Samsung Galaxy S4 has micro sd). Now how much better off are you with freed up memory address space? Flawed logic with 64 bit on a 1 GB RAM phone. If you want more RAM memory, you are better off with an Android, and not the iPhone 5.

1 person liked this | TheBigFatClown said:

OK, 64 bit CPU on iPhone 5 which has 1 GB RAM (Androids have 2 GB RAM on 32 bit), and no micro sd (Samsung Galaxy S4 has micro sd). Now how much better off are you with freed up memory address space? Flawed logic with 64 bit on a 1 GB RAM phone. If you want more RAM memory, you are better off with an Android, and not the iPhone 5.

Aha, I think I see where everybody is coming from. Your saying that 64-bit is of little value when you have little memory on the device. Yes, I would have no problem agreeing to that. It wouldn't even make sense to use 64-bit memory address space until the device you are using it on has, lets say, double the memory space of what can be achieved with 32-bit memory address space. Maximum 32-bit memory address space is 4GB. So, any cellphone/tablet that touts a minimum memory configuration of at least 8 GB would reap the benefits of 64-bit memory address space. Any cellphone/tablet with less than 8GB of memory would be silly. Can we all agree on that?

OneSpeed said:

OK, 64 bit CPU on iPhone 5 which has 1 GB RAM (Androids have 2 GB RAM on 32 bit), and no micro sd (Samsung Galaxy S4 has micro sd). Now how much better off are you with freed up memory address space? Flawed logic with 64 bit on a 1 GB RAM phone. If you want more RAM memory, you are better off with an Android, and not the iPhone 5.

Aha, I think I see where everybody is coming from. Your saying that 64-bit is of little value when you have little memory on the device. Yes, I would have no problem agreeing to that. It wouldn't even make sense to use 64-bit memory address space until the device you are using it on has, lets say, double the memory space of what can be achieved with 32-bit memory address space. Maximum 32-bit memory address space is 4GB. So, any cellphone/tablet that touts a minimum memory configuration of at least 8 GB would reap the benefits of 64-bit memory address space. Any cellphone/tablet with less than 8GB of memory would be silly. Can we all agree on that?

Peace. I would agree with that, but would say at minimum " more than 4 GB of RAM.

Railman said:

These new chips could lead to a future 64bit Raspberry Pi!

EEatGDL said:

Aha, I think I see where everybody is coming from. Your saying that 64-bit is of little value when you have little memory on the device. Yes, I would have no problem agreeing to that. It wouldn't even make sense to use 64-bit memory address space until the device you are using it on has, lets say, double the memory space of what can be achieved with 32-bit memory address space. Maximum 32-bit memory address space is 4GB. So, any cellphone/tablet that touts a minimum memory configuration of at least 8 GB would reap the benefits of 64-bit memory address space. Any cellphone/tablet with less than 8GB of memory would be silly. Can we all agree on that?

I agree on that, that's why I'm saying "right now" is pointless. They're launching with 2GB still not making use of them and to make good use of it, they'll have to at least triple that and who would develop to consume so much in so little time? It would be like having 4GB on a 64-bit computer, when you can actually make a better use of it byte per byte on a 32-bit computer [even if it detects ~3.25GB]; if you're using a 64-bit PC, go at least for 6GB and make sure you can efficiently use multi-core that can process all that data in the worst case scenario.

Lionvibez said:

Aha, I think I see where everybody is coming from. Your saying that 64-bit is of little value when you have little memory on the device. Yes, I would have no problem agreeing to that. It wouldn't even make sense to use 64-bit memory address space until the device you are using it on has, lets say, double the memory space of what can be achieved with 32-bit memory address space. Maximum 32-bit memory address space is 4GB. So, any cellphone/tablet that touts a minimum memory configuration of at least 8 GB would reap the benefits of 64-bit memory address space. Any cellphone/tablet with less than 8GB of memory would be silly. Can we all agree on that?

+1

Agreed!

OneSpeed said:

These new chips could lead to a future 64bit Raspberry Pi!

64 bit computing power on your smartwatch :p

Guest said:

[link]

regarding 640k RAM quote.

Alecks Alecks said:

I would just like to point out that Android, being Linux-based, can still use the x32 ABI, which was designed specifically with mobile devices in mind. The benefits of 64bit while using less memory.

backo said:

And may I ask what phone you have and its current storage capacity including any SD cards?

One by Sarcasm Phones... that was exactly my point... I do not see any real world necessity for 64-bit on a mobile.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.