2 ms·

The first 30 years of Moore's law showed a direct correlation between transistor density and clock speeds. Yes it's not Moore's fault that this correlation brok

by mark-r 10y ago

The first 30 years of Moore's law showed a direct correlation between transistor density and clock speeds. Yes it's not Moore's fault that this correlation broke down, but we can still mourn its passing. > On a single core, not over a whole processor, as can be seen by the fact that there are 22 and even 72 core processors available now. A worthwhile development, but not a panacea. I'd suggest you become familiar with Amdahl's law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law. There's also some give-and-take between core count and individual core performance. > This has nothing to do with Moore's law, it is a result of processor architecture. But Moore's law is an enabler of more sophisticated processor architecture.

CyberDildonics 10y ago
> but we can still mourn its passing Once again, there are still transistor density improvements. > A worthwhile development, but not a panacea. I'd suggest you become familiar with Amdahl's law I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you going back to saying computers aren't getting faster and then trying to say that moore's law is therefore dead when we've already established that it was never about speed? Also what is your point about Amdahl's law? I work with lock free concurrency all day every day and if you are trying to say that more cores doesn't mean more speed because of Amdahl's law, that is pretty shaky ground to say the least. For some reason people seem to assume that if the software they use isn't using multiple threads effectively that it must be impossible. This is FAR from the case. Most programmers don't know how to work with concurrency and most software is trapped in legacy architectures that make parallel computations become painful changes. > But Moore's law is an enabler of more sophisticated processor architecture. Again, this tangential and not even really true. AMD's CPU architectures suffered while their GPUs performance and manufacturing process has remained competitive.

by mark-r 10y ago

CyberDildonics 10y ago

> but we can still mourn its passing Once again, there are still transistor density improvements. > A worthwhile development, but not a panacea. I'd suggest you become familiar with Amdahl's law I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you going back to saying computers aren't getting faster and then trying to say that moore's law is therefore dead when we've already established that it was never about speed? Also what is your point about Amdahl's law? I work with lock free concurrency all day every day and if you are trying to say that more cores doesn't mean more speed because of Amdahl's law, that is pretty shaky ground to say the least. For some reason people seem to assume that if the software they use isn't using multiple threads effectively that it must be impossible. This is FAR from the case. Most programmers don't know how to work with concurrency and most software is trapped in legacy architectures that make parallel computations become painful changes. > But Moore's law is an enabler of more sophisticated processor architecture. Again, this tangential and not even really true. AMD's CPU architectures suffered while their GPUs performance and manufacturing process has remained competitive.