3 ms·
This is all rationalizing whatever you were trying to say about performance stalling. People only talk about 'the intent' when they realize they have been regu
by BubRoss 7y ago
This is all rationalizing whatever you were trying to say about performance stalling. People only talk about 'the intent' when they realize they have been regurgitating news headlines and haven't looked any deeper. The point is that performance hasn't stalled at all just because clock rates aren't going up. Faster clocks are diminishing returns in performance due to memory latency. Transistor density was the point and performance is still increasing due to transistor density, even if you don't know how to use multiple cores.
- ncmncm 7y agoIt is an objective fact that performance increases are much, much smaller than 20 years ago. It is easy to see why, and why continuing (for now) shrinkage of transistors is failing to deliver as much as before. You are welcome to die on your "Moore's Law is about feature size and nothing else" hill, but you will have sparse company there.
- BubRoss 7y ago"Moore's law is the observation that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit doubles about every two years. " https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law It doesn't matter how forcefully you repeat yourself without backing it up. Also performance has increased with transistor density with more cores.
- ncmncm 7y agoI see that you are convinced that Gordon Moore was an idiot who cared only for counting transistors, and had no interest in how they are used. I also see that you have confused "much smaller increase", which is observed by everyone, with "no increase", which literally no one has said.
- BubRoss 7y agoI quoted Moore's Law and linked you the actual history, you have some reading to do.
- ncmncm 7y agoI read it in the '80s. And understood it. You could, too, with some thought. It's not too late.
- BubRoss 7y agoDon't you think maybe you should take a step back when you repeat the same things over and over, never back them up and have multiple people link you different Wikipedia articles to correct you?
- ncmncm 7y agoNow you are multiple people? Anybody can read Wikipedia, but evidently not everybody can understand what it says.
- BubRoss 7y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21926724 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21926724 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennard_scaling https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennard_scaling https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effec... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking
- ncmncm 7y agoAnd anybody can link to Wikipedia, but very evidently need not understand what it says.