3 ms·

It applied to transistor density and it’s over. Its completely and utterly true and it’s agreed upon by experts. https://cap.csail.mit.edu/death-moores-law-wha

It applied to transistor density and it’s over. Its completely and utterly true and it’s agreed upon by experts. https://cap.csail.mit.edu/death-moores-law-what-it-means-and-what-might-fill-gap-going-forward#:~:text=THE%20REALITY%3A%20MOORE'S%20LAW%20IS%20OVER&text=Although%20miniaturization%20is%20still%20happening,two%20years%20has%20been%20broken https://cap.csail.mit.edu/death-moores-law-what-it-means-and.... I’m not making this stuff up.

ben_w 2y ago
The original formulation was "The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year", which stopped being true almost immediately and very soon got mixed up with "performance doubles every 18 months". Dennard scaling is long dead, as is the clock frequency race; but features are still slowly getting smaller (your own link says so), as is energy consumption per operation. The latter, J/op, is the critical issue for big data centres. Brains are obviously better than transistors at this, and IIRC by that measure transistors are still getting roughly twice as good every 2.6 years.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  > but features are still slowly getting smaller (your own link says so) From the link: "Although miniaturization is still happening, the Moore’s Law standard of doubling the components on a semiconductor chip every two years has been broken" I'm not saying things aren't getting smaller. I'm saying moores law is broken.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    > I'm not saying things aren't getting smaller. I'm saying moores law is broken. And I'm saying that Moore's original statement was already broken by 1975. And that the whole phrase means loads of different things that Moore never actually said, and the one of those which matters here is still true.
    - ninetyninenine 2y ago
      > If you ask MIT Professor Charles Leiserson, Moore’s Law has been over since at least 2016. That’s from the link. I largely agree. Colloquially it’s over after 2016. Any other interpretation is too pedantic imo.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        How is anything other than joules per operation relevant in the context of this thread? That's the only variant that matters here. (Well, dollars per operation, but assuming energy costs are fixed…)
        ninetyninenine 2y ago
        The context is improvement in general.

ben_w 2y ago

The original formulation was "The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year", which stopped being true almost immediately and very soon got mixed up with "performance doubles every 18 months". Dennard scaling is long dead, as is the clock frequency race; but features are still slowly getting smaller (your own link says so), as is energy consumption per operation. The latter, J/op, is the critical issue for big data centres. Brains are obviously better than transistors at this, and IIRC by that measure transistors are still getting roughly twice as good every 2.6 years.

ninetyninenine 2y ago
> but features are still slowly getting smaller (your own link says so) From the link: "Although miniaturization is still happening, the Moore’s Law standard of doubling the components on a semiconductor chip every two years has been broken" I'm not saying things aren't getting smaller. I'm saying moores law is broken.
- ben_w 2y ago
  > I'm not saying things aren't getting smaller. I'm saying moores law is broken. And I'm saying that Moore's original statement was already broken by 1975. And that the whole phrase means loads of different things that Moore never actually said, and the one of those which matters here is still true.
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    > If you ask MIT Professor Charles Leiserson, Moore’s Law has been over since at least 2016. That’s from the link. I largely agree. Colloquially it’s over after 2016. Any other interpretation is too pedantic imo.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      How is anything other than joules per operation relevant in the context of this thread? That's the only variant that matters here. (Well, dollars per operation, but assuming energy costs are fixed…)
      - ninetyninenine 2y ago
        The context is improvement in general.