The Glade 4.0

Wired: How long will Moore's Law hold?

Moore:
It'll go for at least a few more generations of technology. Then, in about a decade, we're going to see a distinct slowing in the rate at which the doubling occurs. I haven't tried to estimate what the rate will be, but it might be half as fast - three years instead of eighteen months.

So what does he think will happen in the next 40 years?

"I'm through with making predictions," he chuckles. "Get it right once and quit."

Moore reiterated, however, that there really are fundamental limits to his law, regardless of materials. Indeed, while he admitted to being “perpetually amazed” at how technologists have been pushing those limits out ahead of us, Moore said the end times are near. So when can you expect the law that has driven you to replace your computer every 2-3 years to be obsolete? You’ve got ten-to-15 years, according to Moore. You heard it from the man himself.

CPU manufactures aren't chasing faster chips as much as they're chasing multiple core designs these days.

Processor IPS Instructions / clock cycle Year Source
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 49,161 MIPS at 2.66 GHz 18.5[ 2006 [11]
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770 59,455 MIPS at 3.2 GHz 18.6 2008 [13]
Intel Core i7 Extreme 965EE 76,383 MIPS at 3.2 GHz 23.9 2008 [14]
Intel Core i7 Extreme Edition i980EE 147,600 MIPS at 3.3 GHz 44.7 2010 [17]

This still leads to faster processing.

Not faster, just more.

If you can perform 147 billion operations per second instead of 49 billion, then that is faster.

If you had a team of 8 people working on a house as opposed to 2, wouldn't you say the team of 8 would complete it faster?

If you only had one hammer, what's the difference?

The determing factor is, is the task capable of being performed in parallel or serially?

The answer is, more is more, and faster is faster, and there's a difference between the two.

If a woman can make a baby in 9 months, then 9 women should be able to make a baby in one month.

Seems to me that is more, not faster. If you were performing 49billion in half a second, that would be faster. Performing more stuff in the same amount of time isn't faster, just more efficient, right?

If you're traveling at 55mph, that isn't faster than 35mph, it's just more efficient, right? In order to really go faster, you'd have to travel 35 miles in half an hour.

Do you understand, now?

If you're traveling at 55mph, that isn't faster than 35mph, it's just more efficient, right? In order to really go faster, you'd have to travel 35 miles in half an hour.

Do you understand, now?

The megahertz myth, or less commonly the gigahertz myth, refers to the misconception of only using clock rate to compare the performance of different microprocessors. While clock rates are a valid way of comparing the performance of different speeds of the same model and type of processor, other factors such as pipeline depth and instruction sets can greatly affect the performance when considering different processors. For example, one processor may take one clock cycle to add two numbers and another clock cycle to multiply by a third number, whereas another processor may do the same calculation in one clock cycle. Comparisons between different types of processors are difficult because performance varies depending on the type of task. A benchmark is a more thorough way of measuring and comparing computer performance.

Moore's law is about transistor counts.

And cost. Nobody ever remembers the cost factor.

Which is where the speed of a processor comes in. Faster clock rates require greater levels of power and greater environmental costs.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.