3 ms·
I think what they mean is lack of coordination between software and hardware manufacturers + unwillingness of intel/amd etc to license their IP to dell etc. Wha
by jonplackett 6y ago
I think what they mean is lack of coordination between software and hardware manufacturers + unwillingness of intel/amd etc to license their IP to dell etc. What is untrue about that?
On Moore's law, yes it's about transistors on a chip, but I think the point they're making is that Moore's law created a situation where you couldn't ramp up frequency anymore because the transistors are so small.
- lern_too_spel 6y ago> What is untrue about that? The fact that they don't need to license technology. They can bring more functionality into the package that they sell to Dell, etc. like they have already done. > but I think the point they're making is that Moore's law created a situation where you couldn't ramp up frequency anymore because the transistors are so small. That is not the point they are making. Clock frequencies have not changed since the deep-pipelined P4, but transistor count has continued to climb. Here is what the author, who clearly does not know what he is talking about, said about that: "increasing the clock frequency is next to impossible. That is the whole 'End of Moore’s Law' that people have been harping on for over a decade now."