I think it would take a lot longer than 5 years, even if node shrinking stopped dead. You can always add more functionality to SoCs (eg better video decoding),

I think it would take a lot longer than 5 years, even if node shrinking stopped dead. You can always add more functionality to SoCs (eg better video decoding), tweak current cores (Intel gets more performance out of processor redesigns than node shrinks), and optimize your current node (power usage typically drops, and yield increases with time on the same node). You would also get way more focus on GPGPU computing, with initiates like Intel's QuickSync. Lots of performance/watt to gain there, if there's no alternative. Plus people making the hardware and software of phones and laptops need to sell units too, so they'll pick up some of the slack. Not every iPhone is a significant upgrade in terms of performance. And lastly, a whole bunch of chips are being bought for reasons other than the old one is too slow; people are getting multiple computers, more gadgets, and in developing countries people are getting their first computers. Devices are becoming disposable. Laptops die and get replaced, even though even a Pentium M stacks up relatively well these days. 20+ years, though, you may have a point. I have no idea what that would look like. Though with depreciation on fabs slowing way down, even if sales were lower, the margins would look pretty damn good with today's prices. Plus each node shrink wouldn't be a potential disaster; the fab companies still around may even be more financially stable.