3 ms·

It seems in the article there is a discussion that uses two different definitions for Moore's Law - number of transistors per "space" (and by proxy, size of eac

It seems in the article there is a discussion that uses two different definitions for Moore's Law - number of transistors per "space" (and by proxy, size of each transistor) and overall computing power per "space." When Mr. Moore put his law out there 50+ years ago, perhaps the concept of number/size of transistors was effectively a proxy for computing power, or perhaps even more true, no one saw a difference, or cared to see a difference between the two. Since Mr. Moore is still around, I would love to have his feedback about this- I guess, like Woody Allen's character pulling in Marshall McLuhan in Annie Hall. Enough of the aside, though: since 1965, much has been learned on the hardware and software sides, industries have grown and shrunk, and we are now able to have debates that - at least somewhat - bifurcate the issue of size/density of hardware from the issue of the somewhat more intangible computing power.

Zardoz84 10y ago
Moore was talking explicit about transistors, not computing power.
- LittleSpider 10y ago
  Agreed that he said that in his 1965 paper; research indicates he was asked what would happen in the semiconductor industry (which I see as "the hardware side." He was Director of R&D at Fairchild at the time). Per several areas I have read, it was after Mr. Moore reviewed his thoughts in 1975 that David House made reference to an 18-month doubling of performance of circuits. This leads to my question about proxy regarding what the thoughts were (or weren't) 10+ years earlier. Was there any awareness, in 1965, of a difference between transistor count and operating performance, or did this awareness come about later on as industries matured? I tend to think that without any history to define a difference, they would have been viewed as one and the same in 1965. I theorize that at that time Mr. Moore - as a young, 35-36 year old, Director of semiconductor R&D and quite intelligent, undoubtedly - focused on the question as solely about circuits, and not necessarily taking a wider view in his article about overall performance (however performance would have been defined at the time, if it was considered as anything different from transistor size/count/density) when he was asked to write an article about future projections in the semiconductor industry.

Zardoz84 10y ago

Moore was talking explicit about transistors, not computing power.

LittleSpider 10y ago
Agreed that he said that in his 1965 paper; research indicates he was asked what would happen in the semiconductor industry (which I see as "the hardware side." He was Director of R&D at Fairchild at the time). Per several areas I have read, it was after Mr. Moore reviewed his thoughts in 1975 that David House made reference to an 18-month doubling of performance of circuits. This leads to my question about proxy regarding what the thoughts were (or weren't) 10+ years earlier. Was there any awareness, in 1965, of a difference between transistor count and operating performance, or did this awareness come about later on as industries matured? I tend to think that without any history to define a difference, they would have been viewed as one and the same in 1965. I theorize that at that time Mr. Moore - as a young, 35-36 year old, Director of semiconductor R&D and quite intelligent, undoubtedly - focused on the question as solely about circuits, and not necessarily taking a wider view in his article about overall performance (however performance would have been defined at the time, if it was considered as anything different from transistor size/count/density) when he was asked to write an article about future projections in the semiconductor industry.