Gordon Moore: Moore's Law is Dead 379
Golygydd Max writes "Moore's Law will not hold forever, claims Gordon Moore.
In a Techworld article, he points out the limitations of the law, in particular, the limitations as we approach the size of atoms.
He helpfully explains, however, that the law will hold for a few years yet." Still, sticking around for forty years is pretty impressive.
Title? (Score:5, Funny)
He helpfully explains, however, that the law will hold for a few years yet.
Re:Title? (Score:5, Funny)
CART MASTER: Bring out your dead!
GORDON MOORE: Here's one.
CART MASTER: Ninepence.
MOORE'S LAW: I'm not dead!
CART MASTER: What?
GORDON MOORE: Nothing. Here's your ninepence.
MOORE'S LAW: I'm not dead!
CART MASTER: 'Ere. He says he's not dead!
GORDON MOORE: Yes, he is.
MOORE'S LAW: I'm not!
CART MASTER: He isn't?
GORDON MOORE: Well, he will be soon. He's very ill.
MOORE'S LAW: I'm getting better!
GORDON MOORE: No, you're not. You'll be stone dead in a moment.
CART MASTER: Oh, I can't take him like that. It's against regulations.
MOORE'S LAW: I don't want to go on the cart!
GORDON MOORE: Oh, don't be such a baby.
CART MASTER: I can't take him.
MOORE'S LAW: I feel fine!
GORDON MOORE: Well, do us a favour.
CART MASTER: I can't.
GORDON MOORE: Well, can you hang around a couple of minutes? He won't be long.
CART MASTER: No, I've got to go to the Bernoulli's. They've lost nine laws today.
GORDON MOORE: Well, when's your next round?
CART MASTER: Thursday.
MOORE'S LAW: I think I'll go for a walk.
GORDON MOORE: You're not fooling anyone, you know. Look. Isn't there something you can do?
MOORE'S LAW: [singing] I feel happy. I feel happy. [whop]
GORDON MOORE: Ah, thanks very much.
CART MASTER: Not at all. See you on Thursday.
GORDON MOORE: Right. All right.
lame filter lame filter lame filter lame filter lame filter lame filter lame filter lame filter lame filter lame filter lame filter lame filter lame filter lame filter lame filter lame filter lame filter
Re:Fox News take on the subject... (Score:4, Funny)
Smith reported that {Moore's Law} had died. At least
initially, he did not cite sources.
By 1:30 p.m., Fox reporter Greg Palkot in Rome was
sending signals of caution, saying the report had not
been confirmed and the network was checking into it.
"The exact time of death, I think, is not something that
matters so much at this moment for we will be reliving
{Moore's Law} for many days and weeks and even years
and decades and centuries to come," Smith said.
Oh sure mr. smarty pants! (Score:5, Funny)
I'll tell ya, the nerve of some people, sheesh.
Re:Oh sure mr. smarty pants! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh sure mr. smarty pants! (Score:3, Funny)
Overheard on a street corner in Europe in the 1600's:
Re:Oh sure mr. smarty pants! (Score:3, Funny)
You moron! He is the one who wame up with the law. I can prove it, 'cause I have the original magazine lying around here somewhere. If you don't believe me, give me your address and I'll send it to you to check yourself. Tssk!
Re:Oh sure mr. smarty pants! (Score:3, Interesting)
You are aware that Intel is currently paying serious money for a copy of the mag Moore made his prediction in (since they lost theirs)?
Other laws, however... (Score:5, Funny)
(Probably going to get modded down by nazi mods)
Re:Other laws, however... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Other laws, however... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, but by your parenthesized comment, you yourself met the conditions of Godwin's law-- and more importantly, by meeting it in your own comment, you met the second condition!
Great job, I like such a self-encapsulated prophecy :)
Re:Other laws, however... (Score:5, Funny)
It's along the lines of "washing your car to make it rain doesn't work", or to put it more succinctly:
Silverman's Paradox: If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.
Re:Other laws, however... (Score:3, Interesting)
(mod me down if you want)
Re:Other laws, however... (Score:5, Funny)
(Don't you DARE mod me down)
Is Intel using this (Score:5, Interesting)
"we have reached the limits so don't expect innovation!"
Re:Is Intel using this (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately... (Score:2)
That's what happens a lot of the time
Re:Is Intel using this (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right, it's going to lead to other innovations: we'll might start seeing expansion in a "wider" direction becoming more common than "faster" chips. (128-bit architectures, with the next step to 256 bit machines, etc.) And/or engineers will focus on different problems, perhaps something like coming up with innovative ways to dissipate on-die heat. Things like this usually lead to other breakthroughs, too. For example, the more efficiently you can get rid of heat, the more layers you could stack on the chip. Technically, the transistor density wouldn't increase, but the transistor count on a single chip could be multiplied by orders of magnitude.
Re:Is Intel using this (Score:2)
Re:Is Intel using this (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Is Intel using this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is Intel using this (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Is Intel using this (Score:4, Informative)
That said CPU power isn't just a measure of transistor density anymore (it was at least in Intel propoganda for a while), as you can see with the dual core and 64 bit developments. There's still plenty of juice left to be squeazed out of the current design before it's squeazed out.
Let's fake it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let's fake it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Transistor density leads directly to higher speeds and lower power consumption. Transistor count can help with computational speed by offering more on-chip functionality (you pointed out the good example of multiple cores) but it does not improve the clock speed. And a higher transistor count also directly increases power consumption.
Re:Is Intel using this (Score:2)
So that's why they always wanted to get their hands on the original text [wikipedia.org].
(So they could destroy it).
Re:Is Intel using this (Score:2, Funny)
some Craig Barrett comments... (Score:3, Interesting)
Interestingly, I was just reading an article [com.com] this morning in which Intel CEO Craig Barrett addresses this. He talks about developing tiny sensors for use in the medical industry and how that will cause a push for ever smaller chips. Quote:
Moore's Law is Dying (Score:5, Insightful)
+Pete
Re:Moore's Law is Dying (Score:2, Insightful)
-Jeff
Re:Moore's Law is Dying (Score:2)
Not necessarily. (Score:3, Insightful)
Silicon is usually etched as a single-sided, flat medium. Of course, the wafer has two sides (doubling the usable surface area, if you can get rid of the extra heat fast enough), and space is three-dimensional, which means that transistors don't need to take real-estate on the wafer itself.
Finally, and t
Re:Not necessarily. (Score:3, Informative)
1 - An N-state transistor takes roughly N units of space and N units of power in exchange for log(N) bits of data. The natural number (e) is the theoritical ideal number of states for a transistor, and anything above that is less than ideal.
2 - Computational power is limited by surface area, not volume. The thicker transistors are packed, the more heat is made, and the slower they have to run.
3 - Exponentials grow really, really fast. Moore's law in particular also has a very high
Trumping the CEO! (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, well, it's been pronounced dead more often than BSD on Slashdot, so it actually means very little. Even coming from Gordon Moore.
Re:Trumping the CEO! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Trumping the CEO! (Score:3, Insightful)
First, Moore's Law is about transistor density. If you use these nano-crossbar thingies instead of transistors, Moore's Law no longer applies. Second, even if you allow that crossbar nano-whatsits are the equivalent of transistors in terms of Moore's Law, it still can't extend out to "near infinity", as there is an easily calculable finite li
On another note (Score:4, Funny)
Re:On another note (Score:2, Funny)
Re:On another note (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, wait. We already have! :-)
end date... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:end date... (Score:2)
Moore's law was never a scientific law, more an engineering/business law, which are almost always merely extrapolations of current trends. In this case Moore's law was as much a prediction as a guide for growing the business.
This techworld article.. (Score:5, Funny)
it may well buy a couple gallons of gas
maybe or maybe not (Score:3, Insightful)
more information. (Score:5, Informative)
Moore's law is inherently transistor-bound (Score:5, Interesting)
It depends on the interpretation (Score:4, Insightful)
Having said the above however, exponential growth always ends when it bumps into physical barriers. Otherwise the planet would be covered a thousand feet deep in dead flies (who as we all know reproduce exponentially when the environment permits.)
Everyonce in a while (Score:2)
<sarcasm>Oh wait... THIS time its different?</sarcasm>
Or... (Score:2, Funny)
It's not dead (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's not dead (Score:2)
Re:It's not dead (Score:2)
I'm on the cutting edge, eh?
Moore and the Future (Score:5, Funny)
Here's are some thoughts from me:
Moore's law is correct ... (Score:2, Funny)
And it will last 40 more... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And it will last 40 more... (Score:2)
The best strategy, making features smaller, is close to tapped out. We're already on plan B, multi-core. Why would we expect plan B to be mathematically similar ot plan A, given that it is fundamentally different?
Re:And it will last 40 more... (Score:2)
I disagree, the computational power of a single computer will not likely continue to increase at the same rate.
The problem limiting the number of cores in a single die becomes twofold: heat dissipation and data transfer. Even if we move to huge numbers of processors, we still have the same issues.
Semiconductors must be run at a fairly low temperature to avoid errors. Additional gates and current generates additional heat. Heat dissipation is limited by heat transfer, which is related to surface area. Un
Perhaps dead with silicone (Score:4, Funny)
oops I mean silicon (Score:2)
OOPS, I guess you can tell where my mind is this morning.
Re:oops I mean silicon (Score:2)
where are the stickers? (Score:2, Informative)
Dodge (Score:2)
Just TRY to count the number of CPUs you've used since waking up this morning...don't forget the IR remote, your optical mouse, and your toaster...
Not bad... (Score:2)
--
It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take Hofstadter's Law into account.
Hofstadter's Law
Not a "Law" at all (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not a "Law" at all (Score:2, Interesting)
Moore confirms it... (Score:2)
...Moore's law is dying !
However, there's a huge difference between being dead now (as the title claims) and dying in a few years (as the summary claims). Which one is correct ?
Moore's Law is [NOT] Dead (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess "Moores Law will hold for a few years" isn't as much of an attention grabber, but at least it's honest.
Moore's Law is Dead... (Score:2)
To paraphrase Frank Zappa (Score:2)
not a Law! (Score:2, Interesting)
The chip makers have deliberately held their product releases to this rate so that they can continually improve and show growth for Wall Street.
It's a good strategy -- got people to upgrade more often for many years -- only now are they reaching the point where a cheapo home PC has enough horsies to do everything the typical clueless user might with to -- I'm still using 4-year old boxes and doing
Ever wonder if it's a limitation? (Score:3, Interesting)
Then there is conspiracy theory view of it all: Intel and AMD are colluding to stay within the bounds of Moore's law to make sure all of us by new PC's that will be outdated in 6 months rather than put out 16GHz machines tomorrow.
Kurzweil has an interesting take on this (Score:2)
"There are more than enough new computing technologies now being researched, including three-dimensional silicon chips, optical computing, crystalline computing, DNA computing, and quantum computing, to keep the law of accelerating returns as applied to computation going for a long time
Rant for the day... (Score:5, Interesting)
Gee wiz, I'm so dumb (Score:3, Informative)
I know the poet's version of the law, that the number of transistors doubles every year, but why do people make such a fuss about it other than the fact that it's a nice little prediction? That is: Ok, we've observed this dynamic; does it have any practical implications whatsoever?
Moore's Law vs. Eric's Law (Score:2)
Jeez (Score:2)
Bring out your dead... (Score:3, Funny)
[a man puts Moore's Law on the cart]
Large Man with Dead Moore's Law: Here's one.
The Dead Collector: That'll be ninepence.
The Dead Moore's Law That Claims It Isn't: I'm not dead.
The Dead Collector: What?
Large Man with Dead Moore's Law: Nothing. There's your ninepence.
The Dead Moore's Law That Claims It Isn't: I'm not dead.
The Dead Collector: 'Ere, he says he's not dead.
Large Man with Dead Moore's Law: Yes he is.
The Dead Moore's Law That Claims It Isn't: I'm not.
The Dead Collector: He isn't.
Large Man with Dead Moore's Law: Well, he will be soon, he's very ill.
The Dead Moore's Law That Claims It Isn't: I'm getting better.
Large Man with Dead Moore's Law: No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment.
The Dead Collector: Well, I can't take him like that. It's against regulations.
The Dead Moore's Law That Claims It Isn't: I don't want to go on the cart.
Large Man with Dead Moore's Law: Oh, don't be such a baby.
The Dead Collector: I can't take him.
The Dead Moore's Law That Claims It Isn't: I feel fine.
Large Man with Dead Moore's Law: Oh, do me a favor.
The Dead Collector: I can't.
Large Man with Dead Moore's Law: Well, can you hang around for a couple of minutes? He won't be long.
The Dead Collector: I promised I'd be at the Robinsons'. They've lost nine today.
Large Man with Dead Moore's Law: Well, when's your next round?
The Dead Collector: Thursday.
The Dead Moore's Law That Claims It Isn't: I think I'll go for a walk.
Large Man with Dead Moore's Law: You're not fooling anyone, you know. Isn't there anything you could do?
The Dead Moore's Law That Claims It Isn't: I feel happy. I feel happy.
[the Dead Collector glances up and down the street furtively, then silences the Law with his a whack of his club]
Large Man with Dead Moore's Law: Ah, thank you very much.
The Dead Collector: Not at all. See you on Thursday.
Large Man with Dead Moore's Law: Right.
The blurring line between software and hardware (Score:4, Interesting)
Quantum computing is neat in theory, but has made not significant progress in the number of qbits manipulatable in years. Granted there are new ways to make qbits, but nothing can seem to get 7 to 10 to date. Hopefully there will be a breakthrough, but you can't just command one. There is no scaling technology for Quantum Computers yet.
I predict biological approaches will similarly run into intractably hard roadblocks on the way to usefulness, with the possible exception of practical biological to electronic interfaces to aid the disabled and in the more distant future meld with the machine so to speak.
All is not lost however, multicore is of course where the industry is going for now, but expect more specialization in silicon for well-defined tasks. Graphics processors will get more powerful as algorithms improve and are more efficiently implemented with the transistors available. Any application that becomes mainstream will get its own processing unit of some sort. Granted this make for less flexibility in expanding the capabilities of existing machines, but software has been getting a free ride off the speed scaling in chips for years. In the future the line between programming and chip designing will blur as the two must work in concert to achieve the desired performance in whatever domain is desired.
Imagine a compiler that doesn't just compile code but tapes out the coprocessor need to run it.
Moore's law has been dead for a while now (Score:3, Funny)
The size of atoms are not a limitation. (Score:3, Insightful)
There are many different bottlenecks in a system besides the main CPU and even for the CPU there are sub-atomic particles that can make a difference. For example photons have many possible quantum states which span through dimensions we don't even understand yet.
I believe that the law that he is speaking of fails in the Newtonian physics arena but there is a lot more to information processing. Look at a human brain for example. Do you think that the human brain is slower then the speed of a CPU in 3 years from now?
Ever thought that maybe Moore has something to do with why CPUs don't get faster quicker? The industry is clocked at the speed defined by Moore's law. Overclockers have proved again and again that Moore's law is not really a law but a rule of thumb.
Re:The size of atoms are not a limitation. (Score:3, Informative)
Moores law is about transistor density, not speed.
In other news (Score:4, Funny)
Of course Moore's Law is dead (Score:3, Funny)
Cheating (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:40 years is impressive? (Score:3, Funny)
It can be done now (Score:2, Insightful)
It can be met right now using clusters. The technology is here now. The problem is that we can't even make a machine as intelligent as a honey bee (only about 1 million neurons), what good would a system with a hundred billion neurons be other than to sit and vegetate?
Re:It can be done now (Score:3, Informative)
The best thing we can do is throw random "computing equivalent" numbers and check if we're there right now
And these random numbers are modified every other morning...
Re:It can be done now (Score:4, Funny)
But think how fast it could vegetate!
The real strength of computers is that they can make mistakes so much faster than we puny, limited humans. A vegetative system system with a hundred billion neurons would obviously be superior to us puny humans because it could make human-scale mistakes unimaginably quickly, as it sat there, quietly vegetating ... inert.
Right! A vegetative system system with a hundred billion neurons would obviously be superior to us puny humans because it could sit there and do nothing, and do it very fast indeed.
Re: It can be done now (Score:5, Funny)
I guess nothing. Remove the feeding tube.
Re:40 years is impressive? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:40 years is impressive? (Score:5, Funny)
I think you underestimate the rate at which human brainpower is decreasing... ;-)
Re:40 years is impressive? (Score:5, Informative)
I agree, 40 years is actually pretty short. Most common math was proven hundreds to thousands of years ago. A good portion of physics was known a few hundred years ago. A good portion of chemistry has been around for about 150 years.
What is impressive: he predicted the growth would follow the trend it did, in an area that hadn't really been well-established.
Which leads to a second dilemna: since Moore was heavily involved in the industry that the law describes growth in, did Moore's law follow the natural growth, or the growth match Moore's law because industry decided to follow the law?
Re:40 years is impressive? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:40 years is impressive? (Score:5, Insightful)
However, most common math does not involve some physical matter that shrinks exponentially. It's really the exponential part that is impressive. Exponential growth over a couple of year is not such a big deal, but 40 years is huge. The 1965's chip had 60 devices (transistors + resistors) and today's chip have 1,700,000,000 transistors... if that's not impressive growth, I don't know what is.
Re:40 years is impressive? (Score:5, Interesting)
Very few speculations hold for so long.
By the way, I assume your account name is pronounced "fish".
Re:40 years is impressive? (Score:3, Interesting)
By the way, I assume your account name is pronounced "fish".
Ghoti probably assumed that, too. He's in good company: this mistake is usually attributed to George Bernard Shaw, though he seems not to have been directly responsible [alt-usage-english.org].
The problem is that ``ghoti'' violates several rules of English orthography [wikipedia.org]. The explanation for ghoti is: "gh" as in "cough", "o" as in "women", "ti" as in "nation". Unfortunately for the
Re:40 years is impressive? (Score:3, Insightful)
But few if any of those involve exponential improvement.
Re:40 years is impressive? (Score:3, Informative)
Moore's original law was more insightful at the time, if more narrow, than the current one.
Re:The Moore's Law story of the day (Score:2)
Re:forever? (Score:5, Funny)
Krazy Glue and anyone on the phone with Symantec.
Re:Law? (Score:3, Insightful)
In theory of science, a theory is a hypothesis that has been been strengthened through many experiments, and never been falsified. The concept of law doesn't exist in the theory of science. It's just an unfortunate fact of history that some well-established simple-to-state theories have been known as "laws".
In everyday language, a law is something drafted by legislators, and used in courts. A theory is either (a:) a