5 ms·

It depends how literally one wants to take the law. The "law" is doubling density every two years. So strictly speaking it is done because it has taken longer

by r3013 4y ago

It depends how literally one wants to take the law. The "law" is doubling density every two years. So strictly speaking it is done because it has taken longer than two years. But if you choose the looser interpretation and simple read it as, transistor density increases with time, then it's not dead. Probably the bigger deal is cost per transistor is actually going up with the new nodes. https://www.fabricatedknowledge.com/p/the-rising-tide-of-semiconductor?triedSigningIn=true https://www.fabricatedknowledge.com/p/the-rising-tide-of-sem... and https://www.eetimes.com/moores-law-dead-by-2022-expert-says/ https://www.eetimes.com/moores-law-dead-by-2022-expert-says/

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
Koomey’s Law is where it's at - performance per watt growth is slowing - but it's still doubling every ~2.6 years.
diydsp 4y ago
People often misinterpret this because they think Moore was only talking about technology. However the number of transistors is more interesting than the technology alone because it represents what people actually do with chips. e.g. GPUs added to CPUs, and later AI added to the M1. These additions may not have been much more dense technologically, but the needs and desires of users increase as well as the technology. The tech doesn't have to improve 2x to reach 2x, because peoples' needs for AI, games, etc. is also increasing. And that's more useful in anticipating and predicting markets than the mere tech process. So if you still think you're right, kindly post your citations. Here are mine: "Moore's law is a term used to refer to the observation made by Gordon Moore in 1965 that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit (IC) doubles about every two years. "[0] "Moore's law is the observation that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit (IC) doubles about every two years"[1] "Moore's Law refers to Gordon Moore's perception that the number of transistors on a microchip doubles every two years..."[2] [0] https://www.synopsys.com/glossary/what-is-moores-law.html https://www.synopsys.com/glossary/what-is-moores-law.html [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law [2] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mooreslaw.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mooreslaw.asp
- docfort 4y ago
  Perhaps the bigger deal here is the loss of Dennard scaling in the 2000s. This is due to heat density at any given point on the chip. After all, increased transistor density could lead you to using all those transistors, but the thermal conductivity of all the materials involved isn't changing much, so there's a natural limit to the electrically active transistor density. You're welcome to increase transistor density, so long as you keep the number of active transistors roughly constant (not quite true since smaller transistors produce less heat). You could keep transistor density fixed, but still double the number of transistors in a chip ... by using bigger chips. And that is naturally more expensive because they are more likely to be defective and require more sophisticated packaging. 3D stacking of smaller chips is another approach, since we usually only talk about the 2D area of a chip. This requires more advanced packaging, but substantially increases the likelihood of building a functional device. The loss of Dennard scaling makes it more interesting to investigate ASICs because CPUs won't necessarily eat your lunch in two years. And circuit cleverness is one contributor to Moore's Law that Moore talked about in his 1975 address. So Moore's Law is in some ways dead (number of instantaneously useful transistors is NOT doubling every two years) and other ways alive (useful work is improving rapidly so long as you can decompose your workload into leaning on the accelerators like YouTube did), depending on how you measure it.
- diydsp 4y ago
  Everyone downvoting, please post your disputatious citations.
  - ksec 4y ago
    Because even if you measure it by doubling the transistor and ignoring die size, aka density, the straight line graph is still broke.
  - sdvsa 4y ago
    The original paper clearly states one is supposed to keep the size of the piece of semiconductor and package constant. This is important for the cost argument which is featured predominately in the paper and is really the heart of the thing. https://hasler.ece.gatech.edu/Published_papers/Technology_overview/gordon_moore_1965_article.pdf https://hasler.ece.gatech.edu/Published_papers/Technology_ov...
_hypx 4y ago
Even for transistor density, it isn’t quite true. The transistors aren’t getting any smaller like they use to. A lot of growth now involves stacking transistors on top of each other. 3D transistors lets you pack more of them closer together. While this allows for further increases in transistor density, you can argue that it is no longer an exponential function anymore.
- wtallis 4y ago
  > A lot of growth now involves stacking transistors on top of each other. Approximately none of the growth thus far involves stacking transistors on top of each other, unless you count 3D NAND flash memory. FinFETs and upcoming GAAFETs are less planar than traditional transistor designs, but still don't get you two or more separate transistors stacked on top of each other. Actual 3D stacking of transistors on a single wafer is still nothing more than a hot topic for R&D, and stacking multiple dies full of transistors is pretty much only done with memory so far.
  - _hypx 4y ago
    Well I was counting on NAND flash. That's how are getting more transistors per chip with them. The memory cells have basically stopped shrinking in NAND and actually got bigger when we first started to stack them. FinFETs effectively lets us pack transistors closer. This is because much of the structure of a transistor is in a 3D fin that sticks out of the wafer. By making the fin taller, you can pack the transistors even closer. But it can be argued that by volume, transistors are basically the same size. GAAFETs lets us go even further with this idea.

by r3013 4y ago

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago

Koomey’s Law is where it's at - performance per watt growth is slowing - but it's still doubling every ~2.6 years.

diydsp 4y ago

People often misinterpret this because they think Moore was only talking about technology. However the number of transistors is more interesting than the technology alone because it represents what people actually do with chips. e.g. GPUs added to CPUs, and later AI added to the M1. These additions may not have been much more dense technologically, but the needs and desires of users increase as well as the technology. The tech doesn't have to improve 2x to reach 2x, because peoples' needs for AI, games, etc. is also increasing. And that's more useful in anticipating and predicting markets than the mere tech process. So if you still think you're right, kindly post your citations. Here are mine: "Moore's law is a term used to refer to the observation made by Gordon Moore in 1965 that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit (IC) doubles about every two years. "[0] "Moore's law is the observation that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit (IC) doubles about every two years"[1] "Moore's Law refers to Gordon Moore's perception that the number of transistors on a microchip doubles every two years..."[2] [0] https://www.synopsys.com/glossary/what-is-moores-law.html https://www.synopsys.com/glossary/what-is-moores-law.html [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law [2] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mooreslaw.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mooreslaw.asp

docfort 4y ago
Perhaps the bigger deal here is the loss of Dennard scaling in the 2000s. This is due to heat density at any given point on the chip. After all, increased transistor density could lead you to using all those transistors, but the thermal conductivity of all the materials involved isn't changing much, so there's a natural limit to the electrically active transistor density. You're welcome to increase transistor density, so long as you keep the number of active transistors roughly constant (not quite true since smaller transistors produce less heat). You could keep transistor density fixed, but still double the number of transistors in a chip ... by using bigger chips. And that is naturally more expensive because they are more likely to be defective and require more sophisticated packaging. 3D stacking of smaller chips is another approach, since we usually only talk about the 2D area of a chip. This requires more advanced packaging, but substantially increases the likelihood of building a functional device. The loss of Dennard scaling makes it more interesting to investigate ASICs because CPUs won't necessarily eat your lunch in two years. And circuit cleverness is one contributor to Moore's Law that Moore talked about in his 1975 address. So Moore's Law is in some ways dead (number of instantaneously useful transistors is NOT doubling every two years) and other ways alive (useful work is improving rapidly so long as you can decompose your workload into leaning on the accelerators like YouTube did), depending on how you measure it.
diydsp 4y ago
Everyone downvoting, please post your disputatious citations.
- ksec 4y ago
  Because even if you measure it by doubling the transistor and ignoring die size, aka density, the straight line graph is still broke.
- sdvsa 4y ago
  The original paper clearly states one is supposed to keep the size of the piece of semiconductor and package constant. This is important for the cost argument which is featured predominately in the paper and is really the heart of the thing. https://hasler.ece.gatech.edu/Published_papers/Technology_overview/gordon_moore_1965_article.pdf https://hasler.ece.gatech.edu/Published_papers/Technology_ov...

_hypx 4y ago

Even for transistor density, it isn’t quite true. The transistors aren’t getting any smaller like they use to. A lot of growth now involves stacking transistors on top of each other. 3D transistors lets you pack more of them closer together. While this allows for further increases in transistor density, you can argue that it is no longer an exponential function anymore.

wtallis 4y ago
> A lot of growth now involves stacking transistors on top of each other. Approximately none of the growth thus far involves stacking transistors on top of each other, unless you count 3D NAND flash memory. FinFETs and upcoming GAAFETs are less planar than traditional transistor designs, but still don't get you two or more separate transistors stacked on top of each other. Actual 3D stacking of transistors on a single wafer is still nothing more than a hot topic for R&D, and stacking multiple dies full of transistors is pretty much only done with memory so far.
- _hypx 4y ago
  Well I was counting on NAND flash. That's how are getting more transistors per chip with them. The memory cells have basically stopped shrinking in NAND and actually got bigger when we first started to stack them. FinFETs effectively lets us pack transistors closer. This is because much of the structure of a transistor is in a 3D fin that sticks out of the wafer. By making the fin taller, you can pack the transistors even closer. But it can be argued that by volume, transistors are basically the same size. GAAFETs lets us go even further with this idea.