5 ms·

This is what the end of Moore's law looks like. You spend $12 billion in annual R&D (a total that's risen substantially over the past decade) and then someone

This is what the end of Moore's law looks like. You spend $12 billion in annual R&D (a total that's risen substantially over the past decade) and then someone accuses you of "not trying" because your chips aren't that much better than last year's models. 10 years from now, I expect that the death of Moore's law will have permeated much further into our cultural consciousness. Skeptics cried wolf for years, and they were wrong, but this time the wolf has finally arrived.

drewrv 10y ago
It was always a mistake to call it a law in the first place. People treat it like it's gravity or something.
- delecti 10y ago
  I always interpret it as more along the lines of "Murphy's Law." It was a curiously persistent trend more than a precise mathematical construct.
trhway 10y ago
>This is what the end of Moore's law looks like. >You spend $12 billion in annual R&D (a total that's risen substantially over the past decade) and then someone accuses you of "not trying" because your chips aren't that much better than last year's models. it isn't the end of Moore's law. The things are in full accordance with the law - Intel does pack several times more transistors (and resulting cores) than several years ago into the same silicon area. What Intel accused of is using its de-facto monopoly - instead of selling you the new chip made with increased number of cores on the same silicon area, they cut that silicon area into more (due to Moore's law) smaller chips with the same number of cores and sell them at the same per core price point thus making it look like Moore's law isn't there anymore. Imagine if in 2000 the price per MHz was the same as in 1998. Back then the presence of competition (AMD mostly) prevented that from happening. Once/if AMD gets their game back on, the Moore's law will again become visible to consumer.

drewrv 10y ago

It was always a mistake to call it a law in the first place. People treat it like it's gravity or something.

delecti 10y ago
I always interpret it as more along the lines of "Murphy's Law." It was a curiously persistent trend more than a precise mathematical construct.

trhway 10y ago

>This is what the end of Moore's law looks like. >You spend $12 billion in annual R&D (a total that's risen substantially over the past decade) and then someone accuses you of "not trying" because your chips aren't that much better than last year's models. it isn't the end of Moore's law. The things are in full accordance with the law - Intel does pack several times more transistors (and resulting cores) than several years ago into the same silicon area. What Intel accused of is using its de-facto monopoly - instead of selling you the new chip made with increased number of cores on the same silicon area, they cut that silicon area into more (due to Moore's law) smaller chips with the same number of cores and sell them at the same per core price point thus making it look like Moore's law isn't there anymore. Imagine if in 2000 the price per MHz was the same as in 1998. Back then the presence of competition (AMD mostly) prevented that from happening. Once/if AMD gets their game back on, the Moore's law will again become visible to consumer.