3 ms·

People often misinterpret this because they think Moore was only talking about technology. However the number of transistors is more interesting than the techn

by 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...

by diydsp 4y ago

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...