> [...] number of improvements for novel workloads by [...] (e.g. encryption-at-rest, signature validation) [...] Sure, but that's not helping the general case

> [...] number of improvements for novel workloads by [...] (e.g. encryption-at-rest, signature validation) [...] Sure, but that's not helping the general case. Only specific types of workloads. You could argue that adding lots of special-purpose hardware doesn't hurt from a transistor count (we have plenty) or power perspective (turn them off when not needed), but it can make layout tricky and reduce clock speed (which slows down everything else). > [...] cache invalidation and internal bus contention [...] NUMA Sure, but the context from spamizbad was specifically single-core performance. (I probably opened up a can of worms by mentioning hypertheading). The problem is many real-world workloads that add business value are not embarrassingly parallel problems. If it worked like that, Thinking Machines would have swept the court since the 1980's (they had NUMA like you are describing). The point is that, since about 2005-2010ish, single-thread performance has mostly stalled. Intel CPUs can issue slightly more instructions per clock. AMD has a slightly better branch predictor. But performance growth has mostly been the result of adding more cores (Except Apple's M1 has some magic). The things I previously mentioned gave big IPC gains on a diverse set of real workloads. Some innovations, like pipelining and multi-issue were responsible for 2x-4x IPC each. Pipelining, in particular, was a trick that also helped clock speeds. All those innovations happened between the late 1980's and early 2000's. So an observer during that time might have just assumed that similar innovations would keep coming. But they haven't. A Pentium III has probably around 15x IPC compared to an i386 (maybe 60x if you include SIMD), in addition to a 40x higher clock speed (some of which came from adding more transistors). How can you add transistors (say 2x or 3x) to a CPU to double performance on diverse, real-world problems that don't parallelize well? My point is, I don't think anyone knows, so it is irrelevant whether there is a physical limit to transistor shrinkage. We don't even know what to do with the transistors we have, so who cares if we can't have more?