http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/ Engadget Comments for http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/Oct 20th 2009 6:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/Oct 20th 2009 8:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/Oct 20th 2009 11:53PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/Oct 20th 2009 11:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/Oct 21st 2009 10:58AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/
It acts as a product life-cycle goal and not the defacto rule of performance. If a company like intel or IBM expects to remain viable then that company would have to find a way to double the performance of it's products every 18 months. Otherwise a competitors product would likely over take them until. For that reason it's more of an self-fulfilling prophecy then a law.]]>Oct 21st 2009 6:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/Oct 20th 2009 6:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/Oct 20th 2009 6:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/Oct 20th 2009 6:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/Oct 20th 2009 6:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/
Hey! I resemble that remark!]]>Oct 20th 2009 6:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/And I think the timeframe mentioned for the end of moore's law takes all possible advancements into account, coupled with the simple laws of nature, and doesn't seem unreasonable
]]>Oct 21st 2009 3:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/Oct 20th 2009 6:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/Oct 20th 2009 6:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/Oct 20th 2009 6:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/Oct 20th 2009 6:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/Oct 20th 2009 6:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/Oct 20th 2009 6:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/Oct 20th 2009 7:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/A: that's not true, electrons, protons and (obviously) neutrons are all matter as well.
B: why are you limiting things to matter?

Like I said before, 75 to 80 years is a REALLY long time. Long enough, in fact, that you're going to have to take into account massive amounts of scientific theory that nobody has even thought of yet.]]>Oct 20th 2009 7:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/
Photons]]>Oct 20th 2009 7:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/
Cardassians]]>Oct 20th 2009 9:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/Is it the "in" thing to do?]]>Oct 20th 2009 9:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/Oct 21st 2009 12:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/Oct 21st 2009 12:38AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/Oct 21st 2009 1:25AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/Oct 21st 2009 1:06PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/Oct 21st 2009 1:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/
What about innovations like: multiple cores, on-chip memory controllers, branch prediction, pipeline efficiency, order-of-operation procedures, neural network engines, distributed computation, quantum computing, etc..?

Don't underestimate human ingenuity]]>Oct 21st 2009 6:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/Oct 20th 2009 6:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/
Processor speeds haven't really gone up. They just add more cores and up the front side bus.

The reality is that most computer users don't need much more speed. They need applications that can make good use of the existing speed and the multiple core architecture.
]]>Oct 20th 2009 6:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/Oct 20th 2009 8:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/
The fact is, the more speed we get, the more things that can, and will eventually be done... and then even those users that you claim don't need more speed will find themselves using that extra speed because of new applications that just weren't possible before.]]>Oct 20th 2009 8:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/Oct 20th 2009 6:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/
"Levitin and Toffoli present an equation for the minimum sliver of time it takes for [the most basic task a quantum computer could carry out]
to occur. This establishes the speed limit for all possible computers."

That's just 0 --> 1 inside a quantum computer. There's no limit on how many of those operations can be carried out in parallel, thus computers are free to become self-aware and murder us all.]]>Oct 20th 2009 6:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/
(Can quantum go any faster than quantum or are their levels of speed in quantum computing?)]]>Oct 20th 2009 6:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/Oct 20th 2009 6:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/Oct 20th 2009 6:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/Oct 20th 2009 6:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/Oct 20th 2009 6:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moores_Law

Read up on this link, Moore's Law has nothing to do cars, flying or lasers.]]>Oct 20th 2009 6:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/Well, there's kinda two moore's law's... there's the literal one (about how fast density of transistors on chips goes up), and then there's the one about how fast the power of computing goes up. They're related, but most people really mean the latter when they talk about moore's law ... even though only the former is correct. And, in the greater scope of things, the common/less-correct definition is the one that really matters. That's the one that's about how our society evolves as our technology evolves. The other one (the more correct one) is merely about one particular form of technology (a form of technology that we'll hopefully out-grow ... though, if petroleum based fuels are any indication, we may hang on to it for a lot longer than is necessary/healthy).

Anyway... my point is: if you go with the more common (and less correct) version of moore's law ... yes, at some point we'll reach a point where semi-conductor transistors wont be able to shrink any further, and semi-conductor chip density will stop increasing. At that point, the strict version of moore's law is over ... but the common version of moore's law is not necessarily over.

If we find a new basis for computing (optical logic based computing, holographic computing, quantum computing, magnetic computing, etc.), then we may find that, with a slight adjustment (jink up or jink down and/or increase or decrease in the exact steepness of the curve) we'll still be on an exponentially increasing curve in computing power.
]]>Oct 20th 2009 6:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/
The i7 was actually developed 5 years ago. They are only releasing it now because there wasn't any competition to Intel chips during the time
]]>Oct 20th 2009 6:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/Oct 20th 2009 8:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/Oct 20th 2009 11:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/Oct 20th 2009 6:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.uncarvedblog.com/files/page1_blog_entry4_2.png :D]]>Oct 20th 2009 7:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/Oct 20th 2009 7:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/I hope you understand the consequences of your actions. ]]>Oct 20th 2009 7:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/20/physicists-calculate-the-end-of-moores-law-clearly-dont-belie/
If intel wanted to triple performance in 18 months, they could, just spend more money on the problem. But, they've found that 2x/18mo is good enough.

And as a response to the individual above who said that 'most users dont need more speed', I'll agree with that - for home users - however, go ask a national lab how much they need to do what they want and they'll tell you 1000x more than we have now.]]>Oct 20th 2009 7:16PM