I was thinking about this as well, and it doesn't seem like an easy problem to solve. Subjectively, we know that the reason 2017 processors cost 2x as much as

I was thinking about this as well, and it doesn't seem like an easy problem to solve. Subjectively, we know that the reason 2017 processors cost 2x as much as a 2016 processor, is because of improvements in process technology and architectural design. There might be incremental improvements in the manufacturing process, but not enough to say that "manufacturing capabilities have doubled compared to last year". The obvious solution here would be to compare the price of a 2017 processor in 2017, to the price of a 2016 processor in 2016. But that would give hopelessly cynical answers in other circumstances. For instance, consider a factory for paperclips that produced 10M units in 2016, and due to various improvements, 20M units in 2017. The paperclips in both years are mostly identical to one another. But for various market reasons, the price of each paperclip has fallen by 50%. Possibly due to the enlarged supply from factories all over the country doubling their production. In such a situation, if you rated the factory's output using the alternative metric suggested above, you would think that the factory hasn't made any improvements at all in the last year. When in reality, it has doubled its production capabilities and efficiency. There just doesn't seem to be a purely quantitative to compare the manufacturing capabilities of factories that produce qualitatively different products year over year. This seems to make moot any single metric that rates aggregative manufacturing capabilities across multiple years.