Hacker News Reader

Comment by guelo | Hacker News Reader

I disagree, as far as transistor density it's not completely dead. Looking at the following logarithmic graph there's an inflection point around 2005, it slowed down but it still looks like we're on an exponential growth path.

https://ourworldindata.org/cdn-cgi/imagedelivery/qLq-8BTgXU8...

View on HN

It feels odd that that graph includes some CPUs with integrated GPUs, but otherwise only focuses on CPU transistor count. I wonder what a graph of 'biggest/mean/median retail CPU + dedicated GPU combo transistor count' would look like - presumably the graph would be a decent amount steeper?

I definitely think counting GPU as part of the compute package makes sense given how much of modern computing is now delegated to it outside of just rendering.

There's no cost on your graph, so you don't know what is the most economical package.

The fact that the width of the distribution became so much larger after that inflection is evidence against your point. Your graph points suggestively into Moore's law being dead.

(But we do know it died when fabs started making 3D transistors. No need to look at suggestions.)

Mores law is talking density on a silicon wafers. When you start stacking layers or using larger chips it no longer applies.

Which of the Moore's laws would that be? It seems people talk about Moore's law without actually specifying what the law says. Transistor per SQ mm? Transistor count in a chip overall? Transistors built in the world at all? General hand-wavy performance of compute?

You never know what the counterpart is saying when claiming it dead or alive and people seem to have _ wildly_ different concepts what it means.

The original quote seems to be: "The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year" - I think this held up pretty well.

Wikipedia says:

"Moore's law is the observation that the number of transistors in an integrated circuit (IC) doubles about every two years, with minimal increase in cost."

Notice nowhere any mention of area. It's more related to cost?

The original use was in terms of transistors in an integrated circuit doubling every year at identical cost. That rate was revised down by Moore multiple times.

So it doesn’t have a firm definition, but ever larger and more expensive chips isn’t what it was referring to.

“Moore’s Rule of Thumb” is a descriptor I read in a hard print magazine back when my phone had buttons and we all wore onions tied to our belts.

A critical insight for its time, but not quite a thermodynamic principle our great-grand kids will be able to verify on their fancy new modern phones that finally got buttons.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com