3 ms·
I've been reading posts with equally daunting arguments since 1992 on Usenet. As the article points out, Moore's Law was principally about the number of featur
by ezekiel68 1y ago
I've been reading posts with equally daunting arguments since 1992 on Usenet.
As the article points out, Moore's Law was principally about the number of features. Today, the "Intel ISA" portion of one of their CPU cores is dwarfed by caches and vector & machine learning processing facilities devoted to that same core. Off-chip memory access and other I/O is still a huge factor for why we don't have 10 GHz processors yet. These days we are devoting silicon resources to slowing things down - due to previous performance designs that turned out to have flaws (SPECTRE, Meltdown, etc).
The features per nm just keep on a-coming.
- brookst 1y agoYeah I feel like this article should have (1990)
- rossdavidh 1y agoEvery obstacle he talks about does seem daunting, and yet I had the same reaction: "haven't we been hearing this for decades?" The most persuasive argument is the one that he puts in the beginning; at the current rate, we are fast approaching the point where there are no companies left who can afford a new fab.
- timewizard 1y ago> is still a huge factor for why we don't have 10 GHz processors yet You're on air cooled silicon. You were never going past 4GHz in this configuration. This was an understood limit well before we hit it.