3 ms·

Depends who you ask. Until we clearly go a reasonable amount of time in which it proves false we should assume that any momentary hold ups/falterings are just t

• ZenoArrow 10y ago
  I didn't see anything in the first HPC Wire article about Moore's law not being dead. All they really said was that HPC was a useful tool to continue improving processor performance: "Without supercomputers, we wouldn’t be able to understand what it takes to continue the march of Moore’s Law, and without this understanding, we wouldn’t be able to create more powerful supercomputers. This symbiosis is at the heart of the relationship between Moore’s Law and HPC." As for the second HPC Wire article, this sums it up fairly well: "What you see is that the performance per core has taken a dramatic hit around 2005-2006, but it was compensated by our ability to put more and more cores on a single chip" Increasing the number of cores on a CPU is not the same as keeping Moore's Law. We could keep doubling transistor count every two years if we could keep doubling the silicon wafer size at the same time. Moore's Law only really makes sense if you consider it as doubling the number of transistors within the same wafer size.