5 ms·
>I thought it was the case that Moore's "Law" hasn't held up since ~2012. I thought it was before that, like 1999. I pretty sure I had an Intel Pentium III 2 G
by VT_Drew 10y ago
>I thought it was the case that Moore's "Law" hasn't held up since ~2012.
I thought it was before that, like 1999. I pretty sure I had an Intel Pentium III 2 GHz processor in 99. The computer I am using to type this comment is 2.5 GHz. More's law is long dead, we aren't going to see 12 GHz machines in the next 6 years.
- km3k 10y agoMoore's Law has nothing to do with clock speed.
- zerohp 10y agoAside from the obvious problems in your comparison. Moore's Law says nothing about frequency. The "rule" that changed around 2006 was Dennard scaling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennard_scaling#Breakdown_of_Dennard_scaling_around_2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennard_scaling#Breakdown_of_D...
- grkvlt 10y agoAnd the 2.5GHz chip you are using now n years later has (very) approximately 2^n more transistors - think about the increase in the number of cores, the large number of different execution units, the increased width of the data busses, that vast amount of on-die cache and so on. These all increase the transistor count, but feature size is also getting smaller, allowing the total transistor density to increase in line with Moore's law.