5 ms·

I think its quite known now that its industry jargon, but when did they start doing that as I presume it wasn't always the case.

km3r 4y ago
I don't think it was any one time, just a slow drift away from Moore's law physically while the marketing department followed it strictly (as well as defined the nodes before the processes were actually developed, so they were going off best guess).
nsxwolf 4y ago
I still read about claims that Moore's law is ending due to quantum tunneling because the transistors are getting too tiny.
- jrockway 4y ago
  What is Moore's law up to these days? I feel like that, as a user, nothing got faster for about a decade between 2010 and 2020 (not quite right, more like 2012-2018). Instead everyone was like "oh it requires less air conditioners in a data center!" or "uh we're out of ideas, have 32 cores". OK, but I need more FPS from my game. I have a great air conditioner. That seems to have changed in the last couple years, though. AMD and Apple seem to have gotten serious. (I know, Moore's law is about transistor count, and I guess adding more cores technically increases the transistor count. But as a software engineer, I need my chips to get 2x faster every 18 months, or I'll have to start using a profiler or something!)
  - Symmetry 4y ago
    It used to be that when you shrank a transitor you would be able increase clock speeds by default thanks to something called Dennard scaling. That stopped happening in the mid 2000s. Price per transistor, transistor density, and energy efficiency are all continuing to get better exponentially but new semiconductor plants are also going up in price exponentially so more and more companies are dropping out of the race. You can look at the Wikichip page to see how much attrition there's been. https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/technology_node https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/technology_node
  - ahartmetz 4y ago
    Hey, performance tuning is fun! You should try it.
  - imtringued 4y ago
    I upgraded from Ivy Bridge to a Ryzen 2700, the difference is extreme. One of those could barely encode a 1080p stream in real time the other one can encode at least eight and probably 16 but I never needed that many.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- _hypx 4y ago
  With finFETs the transistors are not physically getting smaller anymore. Instead, by making taller and taller finFETs, you can squeeze the transistors closer without actually having smaller transistors. By some definitions, you can say Moore’s Law is already over, or at least no long operates via the traditional methods.
audunw 4y ago
When they changed from planar transistors to more 3D-like transistors like FinFET, I believe. I'm pretty sure 55nm and probably 28nm still has minimum pitch of that size. Problem was that people had certain expectation that a "45nm" process could fit more transistors than "90nm" one. Would be kind of awkward to name it like "22nm++++" and you have no idea roughly how much better it was than the old planar "22nm" process.
Symmetry 4y ago
Up until 45nm the name of a process node was twice the length of a transistor's gate. At that point it stopped being technologically feasible to reduce the gate length but companies were able to find other ways, such as fin FETs, to pack ever more transistors in with each node without having to reduce the transistor length.
- kayson 4y ago
  This is not correct. First, process node names were the same as the minimum transistor gate length, not 2X. Second, at least down to 28nm, this relationship held true. It may have also been the case for 22nm. It all went out the window with finfet processes.
sethjr5rtfgh 4y ago
It's "quite known" if you already know it. I didn't.
amelius 4y ago
I suspect it started when engineers stopped making the important decisions and people with merely a business background took over.

km3r 4y ago

I don't think it was any one time, just a slow drift away from Moore's law physically while the marketing department followed it strictly (as well as defined the nodes before the processes were actually developed, so they were going off best guess).

nsxwolf 4y ago

I still read about claims that Moore's law is ending due to quantum tunneling because the transistors are getting too tiny.

jrockway 4y ago
What is Moore's law up to these days? I feel like that, as a user, nothing got faster for about a decade between 2010 and 2020 (not quite right, more like 2012-2018). Instead everyone was like "oh it requires less air conditioners in a data center!" or "uh we're out of ideas, have 32 cores". OK, but I need more FPS from my game. I have a great air conditioner. That seems to have changed in the last couple years, though. AMD and Apple seem to have gotten serious. (I know, Moore's law is about transistor count, and I guess adding more cores technically increases the transistor count. But as a software engineer, I need my chips to get 2x faster every 18 months, or I'll have to start using a profiler or something!)
- Symmetry 4y ago
  It used to be that when you shrank a transitor you would be able increase clock speeds by default thanks to something called Dennard scaling. That stopped happening in the mid 2000s. Price per transistor, transistor density, and energy efficiency are all continuing to get better exponentially but new semiconductor plants are also going up in price exponentially so more and more companies are dropping out of the race. You can look at the Wikichip page to see how much attrition there's been. https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/technology_node https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/technology_node
- ahartmetz 4y ago
  Hey, performance tuning is fun! You should try it.
- imtringued 4y ago
  I upgraded from Ivy Bridge to a Ryzen 2700, the difference is extreme. One of those could barely encode a 1080p stream in real time the other one can encode at least eight and probably 16 but I never needed that many.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
_hypx 4y ago
With finFETs the transistors are not physically getting smaller anymore. Instead, by making taller and taller finFETs, you can squeeze the transistors closer without actually having smaller transistors. By some definitions, you can say Moore’s Law is already over, or at least no long operates via the traditional methods.

audunw 4y ago

When they changed from planar transistors to more 3D-like transistors like FinFET, I believe. I'm pretty sure 55nm and probably 28nm still has minimum pitch of that size. Problem was that people had certain expectation that a "45nm" process could fit more transistors than "90nm" one. Would be kind of awkward to name it like "22nm++++" and you have no idea roughly how much better it was than the old planar "22nm" process.

Symmetry 4y ago

Up until 45nm the name of a process node was twice the length of a transistor's gate. At that point it stopped being technologically feasible to reduce the gate length but companies were able to find other ways, such as fin FETs, to pack ever more transistors in with each node without having to reduce the transistor length.

kayson 4y ago
This is not correct. First, process node names were the same as the minimum transistor gate length, not 2X. Second, at least down to 28nm, this relationship held true. It may have also been the case for 22nm. It all went out the window with finfet processes.

sethjr5rtfgh 4y ago

It's "quite known" if you already know it. I didn't.

amelius 4y ago

I suspect it started when engineers stopped making the important decisions and people with merely a business background took over.