3 ms·

Nice set of caveats you've got there. ;) Let's check back in ten years, see how things are going.

jacquesm 9y ago
> Let's check back in ten years, see how things are going. I'd have written the same thing 10 years ago and you would have written the same thing back then too. So, another 10 years then? What will happen on the chip level is more cores, not faster cores, possibly larger caches.
- aptwebapps 9y ago
  No, ten years ago I wasn't so optimistic. There are a bunch of things that can and will happen to move things along incrementally but what I think, based on no real evidence, is that there will be one or more major breakthroughs at some point that will likely be computation-assisted and we will get back to something similar to Moore's Law. Edit: typo
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    I'm super curious in what area you feel these breakthroughs will be. Tunnel effects are real and very hard to reduce, even at lower temperatures. The band-gap can't get much smaller, supply voltages are about as low as we know how to get away with. There are solutions in terms of exotic materials with even more exotic fabrication methods. I linked to a nice video the other day, see if that interests you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGFhc8R_uO4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGFhc8R_uO4 That's the state of the art per 2012, not much has changed since then, though there has been some incremental improvement and optimization as well as larger dies for more cores.
    - pegasus 9y ago
      3D circuits/chips is one possibility. There are others that are being researched. Then there are the unknown unknowns...
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        > 3D circuits/chips is one possibility. Yes, but we've been aware of that one for decades, it just isn't going to happen for anything other than maybe (and that's a small maybe) for memory. Removing the heat is hard enough with 3D heat infrastructure and 2D chips. Removing the heat from 3D chips is not possible at a level where the interior of the chip is above permissible values unless you clock the whole thing down to where there are no gains. > There are others that are being researched. Yes, but nothing that looks even close to ready to mainstream. > Then there are the unknown unknowns... They've been 'unknown' for a long time now. Really, this is as far as I can see more hope than reason.
        pkolaczk 9y ago
        Human brain is 3D and has no problems with TDP and cooling while being extremely fast at parallel processing of data like images or sound to the point that the fastest supercomputers ever built still can't compete.
    - aptwebapps 9y ago
      Your logic is useless against my feelings. ;) Seriously, I really don't have a solid argument here, it's just a fuzzy idea.
- cestith 9y ago
  Luckily for Moore he didn't say anything about clock speeds. He spoke of the number of transistors per area in a plane doubling every year. He didn't specify silicon. He didn't specify photolithography. He also said "at least for the next decade" in 1965. In 1975 he revised it to every two years. In 2015 Gordon Moore himself said "I see Moore's law dying here in the next decade or so." So let's let poor Gordon off the hook. He's being attributed things he never actually said.
nickpsecurity 9y ago
Things are already going bad for anyone who believes in Moore's Law. Intel themselves have switched focus to getting more out of silicon because they don't believe in magic speed boosts for the future. Part of why they bought a FPGA company. Also why AMD's Semi-Custom business was booming. Even large customers are realizing you gotta do something other than a process shrink.

> Let's check back in ten years, see how things are going. I'd have written the same thing 10 years ago and you would have written the same thing back then too. So, another 10 years then? What will happen on the chip level is more cores, not faster cores, possibly larger caches.

aptwebapps 9y ago
No, ten years ago I wasn't so optimistic. There are a bunch of things that can and will happen to move things along incrementally but what I think, based on no real evidence, is that there will be one or more major breakthroughs at some point that will likely be computation-assisted and we will get back to something similar to Moore's Law. Edit: typo
- jacquesm 9y ago
  I'm super curious in what area you feel these breakthroughs will be. Tunnel effects are real and very hard to reduce, even at lower temperatures. The band-gap can't get much smaller, supply voltages are about as low as we know how to get away with. There are solutions in terms of exotic materials with even more exotic fabrication methods. I linked to a nice video the other day, see if that interests you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGFhc8R_uO4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGFhc8R_uO4 That's the state of the art per 2012, not much has changed since then, though there has been some incremental improvement and optimization as well as larger dies for more cores.
  - pegasus 9y ago
    3D circuits/chips is one possibility. There are others that are being researched. Then there are the unknown unknowns...
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      > 3D circuits/chips is one possibility. Yes, but we've been aware of that one for decades, it just isn't going to happen for anything other than maybe (and that's a small maybe) for memory. Removing the heat is hard enough with 3D heat infrastructure and 2D chips. Removing the heat from 3D chips is not possible at a level where the interior of the chip is above permissible values unless you clock the whole thing down to where there are no gains. > There are others that are being researched. Yes, but nothing that looks even close to ready to mainstream. > Then there are the unknown unknowns... They've been 'unknown' for a long time now. Really, this is as far as I can see more hope than reason.
      - pkolaczk 9y ago
        Human brain is 3D and has no problems with TDP and cooling while being extremely fast at parallel processing of data like images or sound to the point that the fastest supercomputers ever built still can't compete.
  - aptwebapps 9y ago
    Your logic is useless against my feelings. ;) Seriously, I really don't have a solid argument here, it's just a fuzzy idea.
cestith 9y ago
Luckily for Moore he didn't say anything about clock speeds. He spoke of the number of transistors per area in a plane doubling every year. He didn't specify silicon. He didn't specify photolithography. He also said "at least for the next decade" in 1965. In 1975 he revised it to every two years. In 2015 Gordon Moore himself said "I see Moore's law dying here in the next decade or so." So let's let poor Gordon off the hook. He's being attributed things he never actually said.

nickpsecurity 9y ago

Things are already going bad for anyone who believes in Moore's Law. Intel themselves have switched focus to getting more out of silicon because they don't believe in magic speed boosts for the future. Part of why they bought a FPGA company. Also why AMD's Semi-Custom business was booming. Even large customers are realizing you gotta do something other than a process shrink.