Computers & Electronics

Are we in the violation of the Moore's law now?

  • Last Updated:
  • Jul 17th, 2021 2:53 am
[OP]
Deal Addict
May 5, 2008
1947 posts
646 upvotes

Are we in the violation of the Moore's law now?

Simply put, The Moore's Law states that computing power increases exponentially with time.

Meanwhile, I'm still using my laptops and desktops from more than a decade ago ... :) Such thing never happened before.. Since early 90-s I was always upgrading my hardware every few years...

Opinions, RFD gurus?
27 replies
Deal Fanatic
Jun 20, 2020
7306 posts
7995 upvotes
Toronto
Tichi wrote: Simply put, The Moore's Law states that computing power increases exponentially with time.
Moore’s law states that the number of transistors on a chip doubles every 24 months.

More precisely, the law is an empirical observation that the density of semiconductor integrated circuits one can most economically manufacture doubles about every 2 years. Thus, the cost of manufacturing a transistor drops by half about every 2 years. Some definitions use 18 months as the doubling period instead of 2 years.
[OP]
Deal Addict
May 5, 2008
1947 posts
646 upvotes
Dhanushan wrote: Moore’s law states that the number of transistors on a chip doubles every 24 months.

More precisely, the law is an empirical observation that the density of semiconductor integrated circuits one can most economically manufacture doubles about every 2 years. Thus, the cost of manufacturing a transistor drops by half about every 2 years. Some definitions use 18 months as the doubling period instead of 2 years.
It is the same thing... I said "simply put" :)

The natural limit for exponential growth is when transistors approach a size of an atom. Moore himself predicted it to happen at about these years ..now.. But transistors are not yet that small, has not happened yet. So, I'm curious why is there a slowdown... Besides, there are other breakthrough approaches on the horizon, like quantum computing.
Deal Addict
Sep 16, 2013
3241 posts
1992 upvotes
SW ON
Dhanushan wrote: Moore’s law states that the number of transistors on a chip doubles every 24 months.

More precisely, the law is an empirical observation
That's exactly what I thought when I read the OP. It was an empirical observation. I guess it became a stereotype. It's not a physics law that's expected to hold.
Sr. Member
Dec 6, 2020
559 posts
556 upvotes
Tichi wrote: Opinions, RFD gurus?
Intel performance gains have stagnated for many years, but this has happened at the same time that Intel has faced no meaningful competition and has suffered under leadership more interested in financialization rather than engineering. It's not clear how much of the apparent erosion of Moore's Law is due to hard limits in physics and/or engineering and how much is a product of commercial dysfunction.

Notably, once AMD-TSMC finished playing catchup with Intel, they've had no major problems beating the living daylights out of Intel's CPU designs and fab technology respectively. Whether Moore's Law continues at this point seems to depend much more on what AMD-TSMC is capable of than on what Intel can do. If AMD-TSMC's offerings stagnate, then it may well be the case that Moore's Law has reached its conclusion.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 8, 2014
22091 posts
8468 upvotes
Socially Distanced
What is the penalty for violation of this "law" Winking Face
I think this case needs to be adjudicated by the supreme court, as even the Notwithstanding Clause will be able to solve it Smiling Face With Open Mouth And Smiling Eyes

Seriously though, parallel processing (more threads) would allow it to continue, but its fortunately not needed. We have slowed Wirth's law in the PC world, but not in the cell phone world.
I enjoy saving my money, you should too.

BTW Intel once claimed years ago to have the successor to silicon in the works and in the testing phase, it was supposed to be amazing according to someone at Intel (CEO?) who claimed to be involved with it. Must have died a painful death.
In fact in Rand McNally they wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people
Deal Expert
User avatar
Oct 26, 2003
35647 posts
4475 upvotes
Winnipeg
we are in uncharted territory these days man
WTB amazon gc @90%
Deal Expert
Mar 23, 2009
19884 posts
6066 upvotes
Toronto
middleofnowhere wrote: Intel performance gains have stagnated for many years, but this has happened at the same time that Intel has faced no meaningful competition and has suffered under leadership more interested in financialization rather than engineering. It's not clear how much of the apparent erosion of Moore's Law is due to hard limits in physics and/or engineering and how much is a product of commercial dysfunction.

Notably, once AMD-TSMC finished playing catchup with Intel, they've had no major problems beating the living daylights out of Intel's CPU designs and fab technology respectively. Whether Moore's Law continues at this point seems to depend much more on what AMD-TSMC is capable of than on what Intel can do. If AMD-TSMC's offerings stagnate, then it may well be the case that Moore's Law has reached its conclusion.
It's funny now that we are in opposite world compared to a decade ago, but it's not just Intel vs AMD now. Ironically, these days AMD doesn't have the clout that Apple does. TSMC gives priority to Apple over AMD, mainly because Apple has much more money to throw at TSMC, which is why the first real world mainstream products on TSMC's new processes are actually Apple products, not AMD's.

So, if you want to look at technology progress and leadership, it's not really TSMC-AMD. It's TSMC-Apple.
Deal Fanatic
Mar 21, 2010
6083 posts
2947 upvotes
Toronto
I think it's not that raw power can't increase, it's that the requirements based on users' needs haven't increased that dramatically. When personal computing was a new thing, you had to keep upgrading because you were constantly maxing out what they could do just with everyday needs. Then, for a while, those everyday needs increased (modern gaming became mainstream, streaming, it became normal for people to edit their own photos, etc.) so we continued to upgrade. Now many of us are at the stage where we don't need more power. I couldn't even think of what additional things I would want to do with a computer that's twice as fast; if anything, many of us are downsizing and going to lower-powered Chromebooks, tablets or even phones which are 'good enough'. I'm sure the technology exists to continue to make a 'better' computer just as quickly, there just isn't that level of demand anymore from regular users.
Deal Fanatic
Dec 3, 2007
5744 posts
883 upvotes
Calgary
Tell us more about why did you violate Moore's ?
Deal Expert
Mar 23, 2009
19884 posts
6066 upvotes
Toronto
Manatus wrote: I think it's not that raw power can't increase, it's that the requirements based on users' needs haven't increased that dramatically. When personal computing was a new thing, you had to keep upgrading because you were constantly maxing out what they could do just with everyday needs. Then, for a while, those everyday needs increased (modern gaming became mainstream, streaming, it became normal for people to edit their own photos, etc.) so we continued to upgrade. Now many of us are at the stage where we don't need more power. I couldn't even think of what additional things I would want to do with a computer that's twice as fast; if anything, many of us are downsizing and going to lower-powered Chromebooks, tablets or even phones which are 'good enough'. I'm sure the technology exists to continue to make a 'better' computer just as quickly, there just isn't that level of demand anymore from regular users.
Software requirements grow into new performance tiers. If there is no viable mainstream higher performance tier, the software won't grow into it.
[OP]
Deal Addict
May 5, 2008
1947 posts
646 upvotes
mucat wrote: Tell us more about why did you violate Moore's ?
I dunno! That's what I'm wondering aboit?! Is it just me, or everybody around messed up Moore's (Okkk it is not a Law, it is just an empirical rule :) )
[OP]
Deal Addict
May 5, 2008
1947 posts
646 upvotes
middleofnowhere wrote: ... is a product of commercial dysfunction.

hmm.. interesting.. Humans screwed it up again? :)
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 29, 2018
1404 posts
972 upvotes
Vancouver
Moore's law is more marketing than anything else.
Can't Stop. Won't Stop. Game Stop
[OP]
Deal Addict
May 5, 2008
1947 posts
646 upvotes
kramer1 wrote: Moore's law is more marketing than anything else.
Marketing or not it held for many (five?) decades...
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 29, 2018
1404 posts
972 upvotes
Vancouver
More like they held back the top tech to make sure the performance jumps aren't too dramatic and they can keep making money in the future
Can't Stop. Won't Stop. Game Stop
Deal Expert
Mar 23, 2009
19884 posts
6066 upvotes
Toronto
kramer1 wrote: More like they held back the top tech to make sure the performance jumps aren't too dramatic and they can keep making money in the future
If you're talking about Intel, then no. Intel has fallen quite a bit behind.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 29, 2018
1404 posts
972 upvotes
Vancouver
EugW wrote: If you're talking about Intel, then no. Intel has fallen quite a bit behind.
Most CPU tech is recycled, and most generations normally have only incremental improvements. The reason Intel fell behind is they failed to launch a new Arch after the success of Centrino. The Core series are based on tech from Laptop CPUs. The Ryzen AFAIK was a complete rewrite of the AMD Microcode and a completely new architecture. Them integrating the memory controller is part of the reason also.

CPUs today spend most of their time waiting for the RAM to catchup, and so the mem controller helps quite a bit.

This is also done in GPUs. The 1070, 2070, 3070, are normally the 980, 1080 & 2080, just rebadged. Only the leader is the one using the new tech. I'm sure there are exceptions to this, but AMD/Nvidia have been doing this since a very very long time. Infact, AMD often repackages there old GPU designs to sell them again, as new cards.

For example an r9 290x will beat a RX460, by almost 50%, even though that card is based on an "older generation" and is 3 years older

PS: I could be wrong about some of the details, so don't hold me up to them, but in general this should be a pretty accurate overview
Can't Stop. Won't Stop. Game Stop
Sr. Member
Dec 6, 2020
559 posts
556 upvotes
kramer1 wrote: PS: I could be wrong about some of the details, so don't hold me up to them, but in general this should be a pretty accurate overview
Most of your CPU information is a good decade out of date. Intel's current technical problem is that their last process node development failed, leaving Intel stuck with fabs that are lagging behind their competitors' capabilities.

If you have 45 minutes to kill, these videos -- part 1, part 2 -- go into much more detail.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 8, 2014
22091 posts
8468 upvotes
Socially Distanced
Tichi wrote: (Okkk it is not a Law, it is just an empirical rule :) )
IIRC it was simply an observation by Moore.
It is actually better when you don't need to constantly upgrade, defeating planned obsolescence.

If only we could do the same with "durable" goods.
In fact in Rand McNally they wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people

Top