3 ms·

In a sense Moore's law is already over. It's not only about transistor density, there's an economic side too: the original paper talk about the density of the l

by yaantc 12y ago

In a sense Moore's law is already over. It's not only about transistor density, there's an economic side too: the original paper talk about the density of the least cost process. So the law ends either when we can't increase the density, or when we can't do it without raising the cost. Now look what Samsung says (from http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1326369 http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1326369): "The cost per transistor has increased in 14nm FinFETs and will continue to do so, Low said". Now I know Intel has a different take on this, but a few months ago a JP Morgan report said that Intel cast wast TSMC selling price... They have more margin to reduce costs. And that's only the marginal cost of transistors. The NRE costs to design a new chip (design & tests, masks) are increasing with each new process nodes. For massive volume players (Intel, Apple, Qualcomm...) that's acceptable. For low to mid volume players these NRE costs must be factored in, and they penalize new nodes. A lot of smaller players stop way before the latest 14/16FF. 40nm is common, and 28 will see a lot of people stop there (the last node with no double patterning). For an interesting analysis of the cost factors in semiconductors, here's a nice blog: https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/4522-moore%92s-law-dead-long-live-moore%92s-law-%96-part-1-a.html https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/4522-moore%92s-law-de... BTW, the "least cost" part is very important. The cost of developing and putting in production each new process node is increasing. But as long as the cost per transistor (with NRE amortized ;) goes down, the accessible market is increasing and can bear the increasing cost. When costs start to increase, you need a reason to pay more for the newer node. That's performance (whether speed, power efficiency or a mix). And not everybody will accept to pay for better, some are ok with the "old" nodes. So the market base is not increasing, it's reducing. At some point it won't bear the massive R&D needed. This is not a nice though for all the experts involved in this expensive game.

minthd 12y ago
Sure there are many problems in moore's law, and it's definetly slowing(not sure yet about stopping, because maybe euv lithography will work, or maybe monolithic 3d will - quallcomm is said to sells such chips in 2016, or maybe something else). Also there are interesting innovations in the higher levels - how to build much smaller SRAM cells, the use of memristors, etc - which could still support a declining cost for electronics. But i don't agree that the market base is declining.Two major factors in the market base($$) are - the value of uses of computing, and how much of that value chip manufacturers extract.And there are some really killer apps with plenty of value in the future(virtual reality, AI in all it's forms, new large data sets to work with, emerging markets, etc). Also chip makers in many markets get a small share of the created value, and might get more. As for the problem of small/large players and design costs - the solution is platforms, whether GPU/FPGA/CPU or more exotic programmable platform like specialized computer vision chips, or whether it's using chip where some of the layers are already created(and standard) and just creating the rest(like easic is selling) ,which can lead to great design cost reduction and relatively good efficiency. So in general i tend to agree with some guy from darpa who said that we're near the end of moore's law, but we might still be able to get a total of 50x improvement from a combination of things.
- marcosdumay 12y ago
  > Two major factors in the market base($$) are - the value of uses of computing, and how much of that value chip manufacturers extract. You are defining the market as the entire market for chips, while the GP is talking about the market for next generation chips only. Your definition is useless for a company deciding if they invest in R&D for improving their chips or not. The GP definition is the one Moore's law depends upon.
  - minthd 12y ago
    For most of the markets i've defined lower transistor costs and lower power are critical factors and assuming the next generation provides both, they must improve their chips to compete.

by yaantc 12y ago

minthd 12y ago

Sure there are many problems in moore's law, and it's definetly slowing(not sure yet about stopping, because maybe euv lithography will work, or maybe monolithic 3d will - quallcomm is said to sells such chips in 2016, or maybe something else). Also there are interesting innovations in the higher levels - how to build much smaller SRAM cells, the use of memristors, etc - which could still support a declining cost for electronics. But i don't agree that the market base is declining.Two major factors in the market base($$) are - the value of uses of computing, and how much of that value chip manufacturers extract.And there are some really killer apps with plenty of value in the future(virtual reality, AI in all it's forms, new large data sets to work with, emerging markets, etc). Also chip makers in many markets get a small share of the created value, and might get more. As for the problem of small/large players and design costs - the solution is platforms, whether GPU/FPGA/CPU or more exotic programmable platform like specialized computer vision chips, or whether it's using chip where some of the layers are already created(and standard) and just creating the rest(like easic is selling) ,which can lead to great design cost reduction and relatively good efficiency. So in general i tend to agree with some guy from darpa who said that we're near the end of moore's law, but we might still be able to get a total of 50x improvement from a combination of things.

marcosdumay 12y ago
> Two major factors in the market base($$) are - the value of uses of computing, and how much of that value chip manufacturers extract. You are defining the market as the entire market for chips, while the GP is talking about the market for next generation chips only. Your definition is useless for a company deciding if they invest in R&D for improving their chips or not. The GP definition is the one Moore's law depends upon.
- minthd 12y ago
  For most of the markets i've defined lower transistor costs and lower power are critical factors and assuming the next generation provides both, they must improve their chips to compete.