4 ms·
I hate that you're getting downvoted for this. The original paper[1] isn't even 4 pages long, yet most haven't bothered to read it. If they would, they'd see he
by kylebyproxy 6y ago
I hate that you're getting downvoted for this. The original paper[1] isn't even 4 pages long, yet most haven't bothered to read it. If they would, they'd see he was speaking about fabrication costs. In particular, it's this passage that got distorted by media:
"The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year (see graph on next page). Certainly over the short term this rate can be expected to continue, if not to increase. Over the longer term, the rate of increase is a bit more uncertain, although there is no reason to believe it will not remain nearly constant for at least 10 years. That means by 1975, the number of components per integrated circuit for minimum cost will be 65,000."
Somehow what became known as "Moore's Law" excluded any reference to costs. For a similar distortion, see the "Turing Test".
[1]: https://newsroom.intel.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2018/05/moores-law-electronics.pdf https://newsroom.intel.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2018/...
- Symmetry 6y agoThat's not really true. Moore's 1965 paper was the first reference to periodic doubling in ICs but nobody called it "Moore's Law" then. Moore put out a few other papers then at the conference where Dennard gave his famous presentation on scaling laws someone coined the phrase "Moore's Law" in an interview and in that interview and in usage since then it was always ambiguous exactly which doubling it referred to because until the breakdown of Dennard scaling all good things doubled together.