Slashdot Mirror
Moore's Law Disputed
Kumiorava writes "Transistors can be packed to same chip two times more in every 18 months. This Moore's law has been repeated already over 30 years. Computers become faster, IT economy grows, but Moore's law doesn't apply. That has been proven by researcher Ilkka Tuomi. You can read the research from First Monday article The Lives and Death of Moore's Law." 'tho, to be fair, it seems to me that Moore's Law has lasted a lot longer then the throng of people who keep predicting its death.
My guess is that the reports of the death of Moore's Law will turn out to be greatly exaggerated.
Pathman, Free (as in GPL) 3D Pac Man
First the 2nd law of thermodynamics fails, then Moore's Law... When will things start fulling upward?
It will stop, right? I mean, if the marathon record gets 10 minutes shorter every few years, for example, that doesn't necessarily mean that 100 years from now we'll be running a 20 minute marathon.
Aren't there limits to materials and stuff like that, or do we come up with Infinite Probability Drives, Dimensional Transfunctioners, Flux Capacitors, Heisenberg Compensators, Ludicrous Speeds....
It was never a law (as in operating principle of existence). It was merely a trend in manufacturing. Keen observers could probably make note of similar trends in other industries. I.e. gas mileage of cars, etc.
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
Let me introduce the Slashdot law. This law is inversely proportional to the decline of Moore's law.
Already taking over 60 seconds to load up..
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Lisa, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics.
Sorry, couldnt help myself
The oft quoted 'Moore's Law' as some have said before, is not in fact a law at all, but instead a theory proposed by Moore based on the economic and technological trends of his time. He by no means meant to imply that this measurement be used as a benchmark of the technology industry. The fact that is is not only known, but hotly debated in the industry shows not the accuracy of the 'law', but instead the success of the marketing campaigns based off that quote. To be quite realistic, some manufacturers have pushed out technology that has not been completely tested in order to compete in the marketing game of Moore's Law, and thus we have cheap, unreliable PC's. (Don't get me wrong, this is only one of many reasons for this effect!)
</RANT>
You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
Moore's Law has never really been a hard and fast law. It's more of a rule of thumb... I've read a few books that mention it, and some of them even disagree on the time period in which the double takes place. Some say a year, while some say 18 months. I've also seen articles which claim as a part of "Moore's Law" that the prices also cut in half.
Defying Moore's Law isn't like defying gravity. We know that at some point, miniturization will no longer be possible. It's hard to double the number of transistors in one space when they're on the atomic level. Do you think we could do that in 18 months?
The number of people incorrectly predicting its demise will double every 18 months.
Every 18 months, computer software will be made to take twice the processing power for the same task.
Another factor is the great disparity between actual processing power (often measured in FLOPS etc) and the number of transistors on a chip. For a while, transistors numbers were doubling every 12 months, but computing power was only doubling every 24 months. Why? The need for pipelining and data management meant more and more of the chip had to be dedicated to pre- and post-processing of the actual calculation, along with intelligent caching and the related works of predictive streams.
An alternative approach has been to build specialized hardware to put all those transistors to use, at the expense of turning your general purpose computer into a very special purpose machine. This has been used, sometimes to great effect, in for example N-body calculations (GRAPE 1-6), yielding 50 or more TFlops of performance for the general computer cost of a 500 GFlop machine. It provides yet another example of the misappropriation of Moore's law.
The idea of the paper is to show that Moore's law can't be used to predict trends in economics.
So
a) "Moore's law" shows us the effect of demand vs. supply
b) It does not mean that the demand (or demanded quantity) would increase infinitely
c) You can not call it a law because the variations have been too big (first it was one year, then two, now 18 months) and as the formula is that of exponential growth, those variations mean huge differences at the number of transistors over a period of, say, five years.
In short, this article looks at the economics (as in macroeconomics) side of Moore's law. It doesn't claim that you couldn't pack more transistors or whatever on a microchip.
You could also claim that Moore's law might actually hinder economic development as Intel wants to obey the law. What results is that we are actually saying that "wow, Intel is keeping up with the R&D forecasts stated in their company strategy". Yipee.
Okay, a shitty explanation but please read the paper and look at the idea behind it before saying it's total bullshit.
However big, fast and/or powerful your computer is Adobe Photoshop will always take an age to start up.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
The guy isn't a person saying that Moore's law is doomed, he clearly points out that it doesn't exist in the first place. The claims of transistor counts doubling every 18 month, and processing power doubling 18 month, and the like are all historical inaccuracies, that Moore himself didn't claim. He also uses numbers to show that Moore's law has in fact NOT been valid.
It is also shown that Moore's law is often used as an reason by people who don't know better, and those who don't bother to verify their facts. The main point of the article though is that any Moore's law is not the driving force in the IT industry. It all comes to supply and demand. Unlike slashdotters, who seem to like pulling figures out of their ass, this guy actually has real and valid numbers which prove his point.
Before you make rediculous comments, please, RTFA.
and finally, that SlashDot will post a story about that innovation.
Twice. In a 24 hour period.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Did anyone actually read the damn article?
It's about how the entire concept of Moore's Law is vague and has been applied to all sorts of other things exhibiting exponential growth, even though Moore was not referring to them. And specifically Moore never gave the time frame of "18 months." He said "1 year" one time, then later said "2 years." And if you look at the data, the transistor count of chips doubles roughly every 26 months, not 18. The point of the article is that Moore's Law is more of a hazy myth than anything else.
For a second I thought that the headline read "Murphy's Law Disputed". I was going to argue it bitterly.
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
Goddamn cut and paste from the spell checker--mod the above post down. Anyone else been having problems with ctrl-c, ctrl-p, and Phoenix?
Godwin's law fails!
USENET authorities are disturbed by the failure of a law that some thought to be a lynchpin of internet discussion: Godwin's Law. Simply stated, "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." Beginning last week observers began to notice something was wrong. Says one 'lurker', "I came across this thread on abortion, you see. I started reading--and that's when I noticed something strange. Every post in the thread simply got better and better as each participant read the other's arguments and replied calmly. It was then when it hit me--no Nazi references anywhere. I went back to read it again, and I was sure--Godwin's Law has been broken."
The violation of Godwin's law is hailed by some as a doomsday scenario for USENET. "These threads will just keep going and going forever! There is nothing to stop them. Eventually it'll all just reach critical mass and collapse in on itself," says a popular USENET troll. Others don't see it as cataclysmic, put painful all the same. "World War II is a large part of the world's history--I don't want to see that forgotten," reads one post to alt.military.history.
It looks like about 3 people so far, but some read it more carefully than others. Please everybody who is reading this: read this article article because it is very important. Again, though, even people who have read the article (or skimmed it) appear not to have gotten the full message. So Junks Jerzey writes:
It's much worse than that, actually. When he really pulls the gloves off and looks at the hard data over the entire 43-year history of the industry, he finds *no* simple doubling time for almost any measure of interest that has been claimed to be Moore's Law or any folk version of it. Even for transistor counts. What you can sometimes sort of show is iffy exponential fits to the data for 5-10 year periods. Strikingly, though, the doubling rates for several of the measures the author investigates have *slowed*. Improvements do keep on happening, but the pace of the improvement is not as consistent or rapid as you might have expected.
Now the big deal about this is simple. Anybody who tries to project that our problems will be solved when X doubles in Y months is really walking on thin ice. It is also important because chip technology has often been held up as some special and amazing business whose success should be inspirational to us all, since it improves so fast. Clearly, improvements in raw components have been rapid (although not as rapid as you might expect), but the Big Changes caused by technology are rarely tightly coupled to the speed of improvement in underlying technology. Hey, the *big* change of the last decade is that your grandma now probably has email. I'm not sure it makes sense to calculate how many transistors that took.
Babar
No. Wrong. Sorry, try reading the *whole* article again. The BIG major point of the article, which he point out at the very beginning, by the way, is just this:
Moore's Law has never really existed in any form that is consistent or interesting to us.
It isn't "just" that the doubling times was fudged (although when you're talking about a presumably exponential process a little fudge goes a *long* way). The above bold point really breaks up into three major claims:
Seriously, it *is* a really big deal when an idea as big and as potentially important as Moore's Law turns out to have little or no substance. It is always a rude awakening when you find out that a growth process that appears to be exponential has hit some limit. It may be worse in some ways to find out that not only were you not looking at some coherent or unitary process, but that none of the obvious possibilities really ever seemed to show an exponential growth curve for more than 5 years or so.
I don't think you read this very carefully. I don't think the author cares at all about fundamental phenomena, just whether there is any testable content to various formulations of Moore's Law, and if there is something you can test, do the empirical data fit the law. Very, very embarassingly, (in my opinion) nobody much bothered to do this before, and the actual data lend very little support to any statement more concrete than "technology has improved significantly and rapidly since the invention of the IC".
Babar
Moore's Law has never really existed in any form that is consistent or interesting to us.
Right...but since nothing else was ever claimed for Moore's law by anyone with intelligence, I hardly see the point. Yes, I read the article. Yes, what you say is right. Moore's law has never been strictly correct. I'm kind of surprised you thought otherwise.
Hell, it's never been a law, in that there is no fundamental, scientific *reason* for there to be *any* link between the number of transistors on a chip, processing power, or whatever, and time. Intel *could* have ratcheted up the doubling times if they wanted, say in response to competition. Like what's happened in the last ~4 years thanks to AMD. That alone should have made it obvious that Moore's law is bunk.
Very, very embarassingly, (in my opinion) nobody much bothered to do this before, and the actual data lend very little support to any statement more concrete than "technology has improved significantly and rapidly since the invention of the IC".
To me, that's like saying it's embarassing that no one has ever done a test to prove that concrete is harder than styrofoam. No one bothered because it's so trivially obvious. The only people who considered Moore's law to be anything but a marketing construct over the last 30+ years are journalists, most of whom have no tech training.
It is always a rude awakening when you find out that a growth process that appears to be exponential has hit some limit.
Now, *that* wasn't in the article. He just proved that Moore's law never really had a point. He gives *no* technical reason why whatever validity it has now will cease to be. Nothing regarding power consumption/loss, tunnelling across junctions, etc. In fact, I saw nothing technical in the "article" whatever. Partially, that's fitting, since Moore's "law" isn't technical. But for the claim it has some technical, fundamental limit, such proof is needed.
So I'll stay with my original point - this article used 10 pages to prove the mundane. Also,what most people will assume the article proved wasn't in the article at all.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat