I’m sorry are we somehow assuming floating-point pointers, now, of course you need to convert there.

"floating-point pointers" is not a thing:

“casting” is a specific thing you do in C

No it's not:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_conversion

In computer science, type conversion,[1][2] type casting,[1][3] type coercion,[3] and type juggling[4][5] are different ways of changing an expression from one data type to another.

You don't even have a clue, you are just talking trash.

In assembly you don't generally talk about pointers, but address modes. Like register, immediate or memory (indirect).

Have you ever actually been programming any serious assembly? Because you sure don't sound like it.

Processors don’t typecast. Please stop talking.

Which is why it's such a pain, because you have to do it manually:
https://lemire.me/blog/2021/10/21/converting-binary-floating-point-numbers-to-integers/

the “X-bit” marker is essentially dead,

That was kind of the point, it's ridiculous to think a modern CPU hasn't evolved dramatically since the introduction of mainstream 64 bit in 2003.
It's still called 64 bit, but there are so many developments.

for most people, who just care about “IPC”

Exactly, and that is achieved by a modern core operating at about 256 bit internally, to achieve faster execution.

I'm not arguing it's wrong to call it 64 bit, because there is no "true" bit width to call it. So we might as well still call it 64 bit, because it describes the core instruction set. (not just pointers as was claimed by someone else) My point was just that it doesn't really describe the dramatic development of the CPU as a whole, and even the individual cores are more complex in hardware, despite the main instruction set remains the same.

It's a good thing nobody is suspecting he is suffering from cognitive decline or dementia, because this could make such suspicions worse. 😋

I'm just wondering how Trump thought it was relevant to his policies?

So it did when he declared he was in love with Kim Jong UN.

To be fair the Dimensity 9400 is a marvel, the 3nm process and all the technologies in a modern SOC contain more know how and research than sending people to the moon.
So in a way it's sort of equivalent to having your own personal moon rocket.

The cumulative level of expertise required to make a modern SOC is mind blowing. Just imagine aligning multiple masks with nanometer precision! Just a "simple" thing as the light source required is so sophisticated a single "lamp" cost about $300 million USD!! The quantum theory principles used to make the motion sensors, the massive design and logistics behind the development of the billions of logic gates.

IMO this modern SOC is the "biggest" world wonder humanity has created yet. Who would have imagined it would be so small?

OK that's a good point.

Everything you write is true, but the most important thing is that it's not supposed to be like that in a democracy. It all boils down to the system in USA being flawed.

Taiwan is not a member of Interpol, widely believed to be due to opposition from Beijing, which objects to its inclusion in international organizations whose members are normally countries.

Fuck China.

Because USA is a flawed democracy. No more explanation needed.

So you just made another one...

It means pointer width.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit_computing

64-bit integers, memory addresses, or other data units[a] are those that are 64 bits wide. Also, 64-bit central processing units (CPU) and arithmetic logic units (ALU) are those that are based on processor registers, address buses, or data buses of that size.

It also states Address bus, but as I mentioned before, that doesn't exist. So it boils down to instruction set as a whole requiring 64 bit processor registers and Databus.
Obviously 64 bits means registers are 64 bit, the addresses are therefore also 64 bit, otherwise it would require type casting every time you need to make calculations on them. But it's the ability to handle 64 bit registers in general that counts, not the address registers. which is merely a byproduct.

It means pointer width.

Where did you get that from? Because that's false, please show me dokumentation for that.
64 bit always meant the ability to handle 64 bit wide instructions, and because the architecture is 64 bit, the pointers INTERNALLY are 64 bit, but effectively they are only for instance 40 bit when accessing data.
Your claim about pointer width simply doesn't make any sense.
That the CPU should be called by a single aspect they can't actually handle!!! That's moronic.

You don’t even see it listed on spec sheets.

Doesn't mean it's any less important, it's just not a good marketing measure,because average people wouldn't understand it anyway, and it wouldn't be correct to measure by the Databus alone.
As I stated it's MORE complex today, not less, as the downvoters of my posts seem to refuse to acknowledge. The first Pentium had a 64 bit Databus for a 32 bit CPU. Exactly because data transfer is extremely important. The first Arm CPU was designed around as fast RAM access/management as possible, and it beat the 386 by several factors, with a tenth the transistors.

Go look at anything post-2000: 64 bit means that pointers take up 64 bits. 32 bits means that pointers take up 32 bits.

Although true, this is a very simplistic way to view it, and not relevant to the actual overall bitwith of the CPU, as I've tried to demonstrate, but people apparently refuse to acknowledge.
But bit width of the Databus is very important, and it was debated heavily weather it was even legal to market the M68008 Sinclair QL as a 32 bit computer, because it only had an 8 bit databus.

But as I stated other factors are equally important, and the decoder is way more important than the core instruction set, and modern higher end decoders operate at 256 bit or more, allowing them to decode multiple ( 4 ) instructions per cycle, again allowing each core to execute multiple instructions per clock, in 2 threads. Without that capability, each core would only be about a third as fast.
To claim that the instruction set determines bit wdth is simplistic, and also you yourself argued against it, because that would mean an i486 would be an 80 bit CPU. And obviously todays CPU's would be 512 bit, because they have 512 bit instructions.

Calling it 64 bit is exclusively meant to distinguish newer CPU's from older 32 bit CPUS, and we've done that since the 90's, claiming that new CPU architectures haven't increased in bit width for 30 years is simply naive and false, because they have in many more significant ways than the base instruction set.

Still I acknowledge that an AARCH64 or AMD64 or i64 CPU are generally called 64 bit, it was never the point to refute that. Only that it's a gross simplification of what modern CPU's have become, and that it's not technically correct.

Let me finish with a question:
With a multi-core CPU where each core is let's just say 64 bit, how many bits is the whole CPU package? Which is what we call the "CPU" today, when saying CPU we are not generally talking about the individual cores, because then it would have to be plural.

By your account a 386DX would be an 80-bit

And how do you figure that? The Intel 80386DX did NOT have any 80 bit instructions at all, the built in math co-processor came with i486. The only instructions on a 80386DX system that would be 80 bit would be to add a 80387 math co-processor.

But you obviously don't count by a few extended instructions, but by the architecture of the CPU as a whole. And in that regard, the Databus is a very significant part, that directly influence the speed and number of clocks of almost everything the CPU does.

we talk about the instruction set, so we talk about 32-bit vs 64-bit instructions. That’s how the terminology works.

I never denied that, what I denied was the ridiculous idea that Address bus was a meaningful measure. AMD64 is a 64 bit instruction set by definition, but a modern Ryzen CPU is so much more than just AMD64. And the same is true for the competition.
Originally an AMD64 CPU was single core single threaded. This is far from true today, so obviously since the CPU can handle multiple instructions on multiple cores, the "CPU Package" is also necessarily wider.

I have no idea what has gone wrong here? I'm not denying that a modern Intel or AMD or Arm CPU generally is called a 64 bit CPU.
I'm just stating that if they had to be measured by their actual capabilities, a modern Ryzen CPU for instance, is actually closer to being a 256 bit CPU, and that's per core!. In part due to technologies that make them able to execute several instructions in a single clock cycle, that operate on way wider busses than older CPU's, that encoded only a single thread per core.

But there can be absolutely no doubt that Address bus was NEVER used to determine the bit width of a CPU, that would simply be ridiculous, as it ONLY determines addressable RAM and nothing else.

All those chips you’re talking about were from >40 years ago. Times change.

Those easy to understand examples were only to show how claiming address bus can be a meaningful measure for the bit width of a CPU is ridiculous.

Also the AMD64 is only part of the instruction set of a modern Ryzen CPU, so although AMD64 definitely is a 64 bit instruction set, it only describes one part of the CPU. It also supports: x87, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4. 1, SSE4. 2, AES, CLMUL, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, CVT16/F16C, ABM, BMI1, BMI2, SHA.
Many of which have way wider instructions than 64 bit, AVX2 for instance supports 512 bit math.

yes they have, and that’s what the vast majority of people mean when they say a CPU is 32-bit or 64-bit

Nobody ever called the purely 8 bit Motorola M6800, MOSTech 6502, Zilog Z80, ot the Intel 8080 16 bit computers for having a 16 bit address bus. They were 8 bit instruction and data bus, and were called 8 bit chips. The purely 16 bit Intel 8086 wasn't called a 20 bit CPU for having a 20 bit Address bus, it was called a 16 bit CPU for having 16 bit instruction set and databus. Or the Motorola M68000 a 24 bit CPU for having a 24 bit adress bus, it was a 32 bit CPU for having a 32 bit instruction set.

I have no idea how you are upvoted, because your claim tha CPUs are called by their address bus bit length is decidedly false.
The most common is to use the DATA-bus or instruction set, and now also the instruction decoder and other things, because the complexity has evolved. But no 64 bit CPU has a 64 bit address bus, because that would be ridiculous.

Back in the day, it was mostly instruction set, then it became instruction set / DATA-bus. Today it's way way more complex, and we may call it x86-64, but that's the instruction set, the modern x86-64 CPU is not 64 bit anymore. They are hybrids of many bit widths.

Show me just ONE example of a CPU that was called by its address bus.

https://people.ece.ubc.ca/edc/379.jan2000/lectures/lec2.pdf

Tell me when 8086 and 8088 were called 20 bit CPU's!!

https://www.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/view/82483/MOTOROLA/MC6800.html

The 6800 was an 8 bit CPU with 16 bit Adress bus as was the 6502/6510.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_68000

The 68000 is here correctly called 16/32 because it'a a 16 bit DATAbus and 32 bit instruction set.
The Address bus is 24 bit, but never has a CPU been called 20 ot 24 bit because of their address bus, despite many 16 bit CPU's have had address busses of that length.
Incidentally, the MOS 6510 in the Commodore 64, had an extra 17th address bit, enabling it to use ROM and cartridges together with the 64 KB RAM. It would be absolutely ridiculous to call it either a 16 or 17 bit computer, and by no accepted standard would it be called that.

Yes, I absolutely thought Intel would make their own, and AMD would lose the fight.
But maybe Intel couldn't do that, because AMD had patented it already, and whatever Intel did, it could be called a copy of that.

Anyways it's great to see AMD finally is doing well and finally is profitable. I just never expected Intel to fail as badly as they are? So unless they fight their way to profitability again, we may be in the same boat again as we were when Intel was solo on X86?

But then again, maybe x86 is becoming obsolete, as Arm is getting ever more competitive.