I like the source material from the article, I don't support the conclusion at all. The exponential increase in computing power is about that power relative to

I like the source material from the article, I don't support the conclusion at all. The exponential increase in computing power is about that power relative to cost, while the article cites Wright's Law but yet doesn't graph cost per transistor. Moore's Law and Dennard Scaling are related (smaller things can switch faster), the period where we had an exponential in both was pretty sweet (the 90s). > To put it bluntly, for many tasks computing power is no longer growing exponentially. ? Latency, bandwidth? Computing power is still scaling exponentially relative to cost. I see zero evidence of the cost of compute as a bottle neck to anything we are currently trying to achieve. We are currently settled into a local maximum in the bottom of big minimum but we are getting out. Even that chart of "50 years of microprocessor trend data" has so many economic and political assumptions built that "I can't even". We don't actually need _faster_ computers, we need cheaper computers and faster networks. You can't have the discussion around computational efficiency and scaling properties of parallel computers without discussing Amdahl's Law and Gustafson's Law The article should have been titled, "Exponential Curves Yo!" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustafson%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustafson%27s_law https://web.archive.org/web/20070927040654/http://www.scl.ameslab.gov/Publications/Gus/AmdahlsLaw/Amdahls.html https://web.archive.org/web/20070927040654/http://www.scl.am...