Slashdot Mirror
DARPA Looks Beyond Moore's Law
ddtstudio writes "DARPA (the folks who brought you the Internet) is, according to eWeek, looking more than ten years down the road when, they say, chip makers are going to have to have totally new chip fabrication technologies. Quantum gates? Indium Phosphide? Let's keep in mind that Moore's Law was more an observation than a predictive law of nature, despite how people treat it that way."
First they want to get around privacy laws, now they want to break Moore's law...these guys have no bounds!
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
It's just a wild guess. It has absolutely nothing to do with physics, which is the real laws we all live by. It has much more to do with human laws such as patents and copyrights that limit progress.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
This diamond article in Wired 'http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond. html' seems to indicate that Moore's law is sustainable for much more than ten more years.
Besides, I've been hearing about the death of Moore's Law for the last ten years.
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
Every 18 months, someone will develop a new law to compute the rate at which the estimate of the rate at which the number of transistors on semiconductor chips will double will halve.
There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
An educated observation, which is why it basically works.
Please note that the observation was well enough educated that it includes the fact that its validity will be limited in time frame and that before it becomes completely obsolete the multiplying factor will change, as it already has a couple of times.
In order to understand Moore's Law one must read his entire essay, not just have some vague idea of one portion of it.
Just as being able to quote "E=mc^2" in no way implies you have the slightest understanding of the Special Theory of Relativity.
KFG
But also thousands or hundreds of thousands of times smaller than going outside the package; which would make it ideal for multi-processors, array processors, or large local caches.
They made an announcement about it less than a year ago. They don't say if they'll be doing anything special about heat problems, though.
Thank Goodness someone has finally said something about it, even if it was just in passing. The bonus is that it is on the front page of Slashdot.
t m
"Moore's Law" is no more a "law" in the sense of physics (or anything else for that matter), than any other basic observation made by a scientist or physicist.
Oddly, you'd have a hard time believing it wasn't a Law of Nature by the apocalyptic cries from the technology industry when "Moore's Law" falls behind - spouting that something *has* to be done immediately for Moore's Law to continue, lest the nuclear reaction in the Sun cease. Or something.
At the time it was coined by the *press* in 1965, only a small fraction of what we now know was known about the physics of integrated circuits and semiconductors at the time. So, looking back it's easy to see that the exponential trend in density would continue as long as the knowledge and abilility to manipluate materials increased exponentially.
Yes, it is rather surprising that Moore's observation has held true as long as it has. And this isn't to say that the growth trend won't continue, but it will certainly level off for periods while materials or manufacturing research comes up with some new knowledge to advance the industry.
As the article indicates, things are likely headed for a plateau, possibly toward the end of this decade or start of the next. And at that point, Moore's observation will simply no longer be true or appropriate.
Let the cries of armageddon begin as "Moore's Law" is finally recognized as an observation that will eventually be outlived.
For a little "Moore" background, see http://www.intel.com/research/silicon/mooreslaw.h
For example, 90% of desktop CPU use could get by without floating point math
Well, except for games.
And anything that uses 3D.
And audio/video playback and work.
And image editing.
And some spreadsheets.
What's that leave, web surfing and word processing? No, even the web surfing is going to use the FPU as soon as you hit a Flash or Java applet.
Since diamonds have a much higher thermal conductivity (ie they can take the heat), they'd make better chips than silicon if only they were more affordable. Industrial diamonds are expected to make the whole industry's prices fall drastically by increasing supply and breaking the De Beers cartel .
More about the De Beers cartel:
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3
Everything2 link
Personally I think these are awesome feats of engineering, and a way to give your significant other a stone without feeling morally, and literally, bankrupt.
---
WARNING:Slashdot karma not redeemable in the afterlife.
Think about this: Why is video graphics hardware so much faster than CPU's? You might say that it is because the video card is specifically designed for one task... however, these days, that isn't really true. Modern video cards allow you to write small -- but arbitrary -- programs which are run on every vertex or every pixel as they are being rendered. They aren't quite as flexible as the CPU, but they are getting close; the newest cards allow for branching and control flow, and they are only getting more flexible. So, why are they so much faster? There are a lot of reasons, but a big one is that they can do lots of things at the same time. The card can easily process many vertices or pixels in parallel.
Now, getting back to C... A program in C is supposed to be executed in order. A good compiler can break that rule in some cases, but it is harder than you would think. Take this simple example:
This is just a piece of C code which takes a list of numbers and produces another list by adding one to each number.
Now, even with current, mostly-serial CPU's, the fastest way to perform this loop is to process several numbers at once, so that the CPU can work on incrementing some of the numbers while it waits for the next ones to load from RAM. For highly-parallel CPU's (such as many currenty in development), you would even more so want to work on several numbers simultaneously.
Unfortunately, because of the way C is designed, the compiler can not apply such optimizations! The problem is, the compiler does not know if the "out" list overlaps with the "in" list. If it does, then the compiler has to do the assignments one-at-a-time to insure proper execution. Imagine the following code that calls the function, for example:
Of course, using the function in such a way would not be very useful, but the compiler has to allow for it. This problem is called "aliasing".
ISO C99 provides for a "restrict" keyword which can help prevent this problem, but few people understand it, even fewer use it, and those who do use it usually don't use it everywhere (using it everywhere would be too much work). It's not a very good solution anyway -- more of a "hack" if you ask me.
Anyway, to sum it up, C generally requires the CPU to do things in sequence. As a result, CPU manufacturers are forced to make CPU's that do one thing at a time really, really fast, rather than lots of things at the same time. And, so, since it is so much harder to design a fast CPU, we end up with slower CPU's... and we hit the limits of "Moore's Law" far earlier than we should.
In contrast, functional languages (such as ML, Haskell, Ocaml, and, to a lesser extent, LISP), due to the way they work, have no concept of "aliasing". And, despite what many experienced C programmers would expect, functional languages can be amazingly fast, despite being rather high-level. Functional languages are simply easier to optimize. Unfortunately, experienced C/C++/Java/whatever programmers tend to balk at functional languages at first, as learning them can be like learning to program all over again...
So, yeah. I recommend you guy