2 ms·

> There's only one formulation of Moore's Law You can't dictate that to the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law#Other_formulations_and_similar_law

> There's only one formulation of Moore's Law You can't dictate that to the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law#Other_formulations_and_similar_laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law#Other_formulations_... > Clock speed is generally not a good indicator of a processor performance. I didn't say it was. But if all else is equal, the exact same architecture running at a doubled clock frequency will run exactly twice as fast as the original. You are arguing that not all else is usually equal, and although true, it's a different topic. The point is that the "free" doubling of speed that we used to get stopped some years back. Computation per watt is another important subject -- but it is s a different topic (and for that matter, is yet another formulation of Moore's Law). There are a thousand issues that are important to varying degrees when discussing architecture and performance, but there is no point acting like we don't know what people mean when they say "Moore's Law has failed". What they mean is quite clear.

p1esk 13y ago
I actually looked at the section of the Wikipedia article you linked to. It lists about a dozen of rules or laws similar to Moore's Law. In every case, it's made clear the rule is not Moore's Law. In fact, most of those rules have their own distinct names (Dennard's scaling, Butter's Law, Wirth's Law, etc). Read it carefully and you will see that throughout the article, it's maintained that Moore's Law has exactly one, well defined meaning. > there is no point acting like we don't know what people mean when they say "Moore's Law has failed". What they mean is quite clear. When I read "Moore's Law is dead", I thought the OP meant we can't shrink transistors any more. You can probably agree it is not the same as saying "clock speeds are not improving anymore". If someone says "Moore's Law" I will assume they mean "number of transistors on a chip doubles every 2 years or so". If they mean something else, such as "clock speed doubles every 2 years", then they use the term incorrectly. Moore's Law is alive and well, and if you talk to people who actually work on extending it, you should use the correct terminology.

p1esk 13y ago

I actually looked at the section of the Wikipedia article you linked to. It lists about a dozen of rules or laws similar to Moore's Law. In every case, it's made clear the rule is not Moore's Law. In fact, most of those rules have their own distinct names (Dennard's scaling, Butter's Law, Wirth's Law, etc). Read it carefully and you will see that throughout the article, it's maintained that Moore's Law has exactly one, well defined meaning. > there is no point acting like we don't know what people mean when they say "Moore's Law has failed". What they mean is quite clear. When I read "Moore's Law is dead", I thought the OP meant we can't shrink transistors any more. You can probably agree it is not the same as saying "clock speeds are not improving anymore". If someone says "Moore's Law" I will assume they mean "number of transistors on a chip doubles every 2 years or so". If they mean something else, such as "clock speed doubles every 2 years", then they use the term incorrectly. Moore's Law is alive and well, and if you talk to people who actually work on extending it, you should use the correct terminology.