Slashdot Mirror
Gordon Moore: Moore's Law is Dead
Golygydd Max writes "Moore's Law will not hold forever, claims Gordon Moore.
In a Techworld article, he points out the limitations of the law, in particular, the limitations as we approach the size of atoms.
He helpfully explains, however, that the law will hold for a few years yet." Still, sticking around for forty years is pretty impressive.
Don't you mean: Gordon Moore: Moore's Law is still alive
He helpfully explains, however, that the law will hold for a few years yet.
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
Who is the Gordon fellow? He thinks he is soooo smart that he can comment on the already tried and true Moore's Law.
I'll tell ya, the nerve of some people, sheesh.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
still reign supreme. Godwin's, in particular.
(Probably going to get modded down by nazi mods)
Never confuse volume with power.
as an excuse for a lack of innovation?
"we have reached the limits so don't expect innovation!"
You know, seems to me that as long as I can remember using computers, people have been saying Moore's law can't hold out forever. And, while, I guess, logically, that has to be true, it seems to be out-living most of these predictions. A lot like Apple and FreeBSD :-)
+Pete
Score:-1, Funny
Oh, well, it's been pronounced dead more often than BSD on Slashdot, so it actually means very little. Even coming from Gordon Moore.
John
Meanwhile I suspect that the number of articles saying Moore's law can't go on forever will double every month on /. starting now.
The "law" will be stretched to include multiprocessing and a multitude of other imporperly attributed leaps in technology... (this helps to solidify how much BS is so called science)
it may well buy a couple gallons of gas
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
People are clever. They figure out ways to do things that seem impossible. While the physical laws of the atom will be a barrier, I have faith that we will work around them (so to speak). Perhaps getting atoms to do multiple things at once (who knows). But don't bet against a breakthough with economic gain at steak.
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
I wish I could mod the Wikipedia article up.
...and therein lies its true flaw. As the law stipulates doubling transistor counts, as soon as processors are primarily developed with non-transistor based technologies, be they optical or quantum derived, Moore's Law is essentially defunct.
I guess Ray Kurzeil's predictions that computers will have the same power as the human brain by 2020 will not be met...
I think what is more surprising is how Moore's Law continues to accurately predict the ever increasing number of Slashdot articles on the subject of Moore's Law!
It's only mostly dead.
Here's are some thoughts from me:
Iran captures three CIA agents
Until Murphy's law probes the oposite. ;-)
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Maybe not the computational power of a chip, but the computational power of the machine will continue to double. Intel and AMD will release 2,4,8,16 core chips that will double the computational power available in a single machine.
.. but there are lots of other technologies, esp quantum... where once established you can doubble the calculation capacity every 18 months without very much dificulty.
"This textbook contains material on Moore's Law. Moore's Law is a theory, not a fact, regarding the scaling of computer processing power. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
I agree, 40 years is actually pretty short. Most common math was proven hundreds to thousands of years ago. A good portion of physics was known a few hundred years ago. A good portion of chemistry has been around for about 150 years.
What is impressive: he predicted the growth would follow the trend it did, in an area that hadn't really been well-established.
Which leads to a second dilemna: since Moore was heavily involved in the industry that the law describes growth in, did Moore's law follow the natural growth, or the growth match Moore's law because industry decided to follow the law?
Well, it's impressive for a "law" which is not in any fundamental sense a law, but a speculation about future progress.
Very few speculations hold for so long.
By the way, I assume your account name is pronounced "fish".
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"Moore's Law" is a theory about innovation, not a law in any way. Sure it's fun to call it a law, but it has no basis in physical phenomena, and it's breakable-- Moore himself says it should run out. Scientific laws don't expire.
Many people have used Moore's Law to loosely talk about computer power doubling every x months. Interpreted that way, Moore's law could survive quite a while longer.
Having said the above however, exponential growth always ends when it bumps into physical barriers. Otherwise the planet would be covered a thousand feet deep in dead flies (who as we all know reproduce exponentially when the environment permits.)
I guess Ray Kurzeil's predictions that computers will have the same power as the human brain by 2020 will not be met...
It can be met right now using clusters. The technology is here now. The problem is that we can't even make a machine as intelligent as a honey bee (only about 1 million neurons), what good would a system with a hundred billion neurons be other than to sit and vegetate?
But few if any of those involve exponential improvement.
Modern computers already match us in terms of raw power. However, our operating system is *way* cooler, and we get better peripherals :)
No comment.
If you can double the density of your transistors anymoore, you still can fake it, by doubling the number of cores every year, as Intel and AMD will do. Another thendy trick is to add units for hardware threads... But, if you can figure out how make several layers of cores, the density will double every year again, mixing DVD technology and CPU manufacturers projects, this is the commercial version of moore's law...
Will anything hold forever?
Krazy Glue and anyone on the phone with Symantec.
I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. - Q
Moore's "Law" is a Marketing Axiom, not a law of nature or even a good approximation of technical development.
The chip makers have deliberately held their product releases to this rate so that they can continually improve and show growth for Wall Street.
It's a good strategy -- got people to upgrade more often for many years -- only now are they reaching the point where a cheapo home PC has enough horsies to do everything the typical clueless user might with to -- I'm still using 4-year old boxes and doing fine for most everything.
I wonder if Moore's law is a self-imposed limitation whereby people don't think outside of the box and therefore maintain a steady progress.
Then there is conspiracy theory view of it all: Intel and AMD are colluding to stay within the bounds of Moore's law to make sure all of us by new PC's that will be outdated in 6 months rather than put out 16GHz machines tomorrow.
---- The geek shall inherit the Earth.
Perhaps Moore's law really is beginning to run up against its limits, as you will see if you read enough electronics magazines, but what I really don't "get" is this: The Intel processor can do amazing things, but look at the Motorola processors, like the G4s in those Macs... They're faster at floating point and at a variety of other uses. Their instruction set is quite different. There are many other significant differences between the Intel and Motorola processors. And as we know from software, the way an algorithm is made up, or the way it is implemented, can drastically affect the performance. I think processors follow quite the same rules. Maybe it's time, while we're running up against the limits of Moore's law, to examine what software needs to do nowadays, and then design a processor from the ground up that will fulfill each function in the most efficient way possible. And while we're at it, let's go back to the good ol' days of making the software efficient, too. You'd be amazed the kinds of ridiculous things todays' computers can do, but the software is just too darn inefficient.
I know the poet's version of the law, that the number of transistors doubles every year, but why do people make such a fuss about it other than the fact that it's a nice little prediction? That is: Ok, we've observed this dynamic; does it have any practical implications whatsoever?
It occurs to me that following Moore's law as an "industry standard," so to speak, would be a good profit source--as a chip manufacturer, you don't want to put forth your absolute best product prematurely and then developmentally stagnate for the next ten years; you need to pace yourself and drop your products gradually, at gradually increasing quality levels. Moore's law would be a useful measuring stick against which to consistently increase quality without going in too much too fast.
However, most common math does not involve some physical matter that shrinks exponentially. It's really the exponential part that is impressive. Exponential growth over a couple of year is not such a big deal, but 40 years is huge. The 1965's chip had 60 devices (transistors + resistors) and today's chip have 1,700,000,000 transistors... if that's not impressive growth, I don't know what is.
After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
- The Tao of Programming
The Dead Collector: Bring out yer dead.
[a man puts Moore's Law on the cart]
Large Man with Dead Moore's Law: Here's one.
The Dead Collector: That'll be ninepence.
The Dead Moore's Law That Claims It Isn't: I'm not dead.
The Dead Collector: What?
Large Man with Dead Moore's Law: Nothing. There's your ninepence.
The Dead Moore's Law That Claims It Isn't: I'm not dead.
The Dead Collector: 'Ere, he says he's not dead.
Large Man with Dead Moore's Law: Yes he is.
The Dead Moore's Law That Claims It Isn't: I'm not.
The Dead Collector: He isn't.
Large Man with Dead Moore's Law: Well, he will be soon, he's very ill.
The Dead Moore's Law That Claims It Isn't: I'm getting better.
Large Man with Dead Moore's Law: No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment.
The Dead Collector: Well, I can't take him like that. It's against regulations.
The Dead Moore's Law That Claims It Isn't: I don't want to go on the cart.
Large Man with Dead Moore's Law: Oh, don't be such a baby.
The Dead Collector: I can't take him.
The Dead Moore's Law That Claims It Isn't: I feel fine.
Large Man with Dead Moore's Law: Oh, do me a favor.
The Dead Collector: I can't.
Large Man with Dead Moore's Law: Well, can you hang around for a couple of minutes? He won't be long.
The Dead Collector: I promised I'd be at the Robinsons'. They've lost nine today.
Large Man with Dead Moore's Law: Well, when's your next round?
The Dead Collector: Thursday.
The Dead Moore's Law That Claims It Isn't: I think I'll go for a walk.
Large Man with Dead Moore's Law: You're not fooling anyone, you know. Isn't there anything you could do?
The Dead Moore's Law That Claims It Isn't: I feel happy. I feel happy.
[the Dead Collector glances up and down the street furtively, then silences the Law with his a whack of his club]
Large Man with Dead Moore's Law: Ah, thank you very much.
The Dead Collector: Not at all. See you on Thursday.
Large Man with Dead Moore's Law: Right.
Mid-Eastern Pennsylvania Gaming Convention
Quantum computing is neat in theory, but has made not significant progress in the number of qbits manipulatable in years. Granted there are new ways to make qbits, but nothing can seem to get 7 to 10 to date. Hopefully there will be a breakthrough, but you can't just command one. There is no scaling technology for Quantum Computers yet.
I predict biological approaches will similarly run into intractably hard roadblocks on the way to usefulness, with the possible exception of practical biological to electronic interfaces to aid the disabled and in the more distant future meld with the machine so to speak.
All is not lost however, multicore is of course where the industry is going for now, but expect more specialization in silicon for well-defined tasks. Graphics processors will get more powerful as algorithms improve and are more efficiently implemented with the transistors available. Any application that becomes mainstream will get its own processing unit of some sort. Granted this make for less flexibility in expanding the capabilities of existing machines, but software has been getting a free ride off the speed scaling in chips for years. In the future the line between programming and chip designing will blur as the two must work in concert to achieve the desired performance in whatever domain is desired.
Imagine a compiler that doesn't just compile code but tapes out the coprocessor need to run it.
Letter To Iran
Silicon is usually etched as a single-sided, flat medium. Of course, the wafer has two sides (doubling the usable surface area, if you can get rid of the extra heat fast enough), and space is three-dimensional, which means that transistors don't need to take real-estate on the wafer itself.
Finally, and this is what would eliminate the upper limit problem, you'd need an N-state transistor. In other words, one that could handle N-state discrete signals, rather than binary signals. Then, you can fold as many binary transistors as you like into a single physical device.
Of course, Intel being Intel, the sun will have long since faded into a white dwarf, long before we see any of these - or any other technology for saving Moore's Law over the long term - put into practice.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
it's just noone puled the feeding tube yet.
You can't handle the truth.
By the way, I assume your account name is pronounced "fish".
Ghoti probably assumed that, too. He's in good company: this mistake is usually attributed to George Bernard Shaw, though he seems not to have been directly responsible.
The problem is that ``ghoti'' violates several rules of English orthography. The explanation for ghoti is: "gh" as in "cough", "o" as in "women", "ti" as in "nation". Unfortunately for the ``ghoti spells fish'' theory, gh==f works at the end of a word, but never[1] at the beginning, o==i is unique[1] to the spelling of women, and while ti==sh works near the end of a word, it is always[1] followed by ``on'', to make tion==shun.
English spelling isn't nearly the mess it's made out to be. It's complicated by the fact that there are two sets of rules (one for the words with Anglo-Saxon/Scadinavian roots, another for the words with Latin/romance roots), and by the fact that many words which we think of as English are actually foreign words which retain their foreign spellings[2]. Still, there are rules, and they _are_ generally followed. Yes, every rule has exceptions, but they are usually few in number, relative to the number of words which follow the rule. More importantly, the exceptions are usually common words, whose spelling you will memorize quite naturally, because you write them so often.
There is a book called The ABC's and All Their Tricks by M. Bishop which does a wonderful job of laying out and explaining the rules and exceptions of English spelling. You can read my brief review of it at my homeschooling books page.
[1] Exceptions to ``never'', ``unique'' and ``always'' are welcomed.
[2] Retaining the foreign spellings of the foreign words is a blasted nuisance, but it does seem a little more cosmopolitan and accommodating and tolerant than the German habit of changing the spelling to match their conventions (but I admire the ease of spelling German), or the French habit of coining neologisms to avoid loan-words.
See what I've been reading.
As other posters have noted, Moore's law is about transistors. Kurzweil in his book uses a much more liberal extension of the law which allows him to look at technological development from the stone age through to speculations about the far future. Obviously they didn't have transistors in the stone age. They didn't even have tubes.
Loose lips lose spit.
Why is the size of atoms a limitation to the computational speed?
There are many different bottlenecks in a system besides the main CPU and even for the CPU there are sub-atomic particles that can make a difference. For example photons have many possible quantum states which span through dimensions we don't even understand yet.
I believe that the law that he is speaking of fails in the Newtonian physics arena but there is a lot more to information processing. Look at a human brain for example. Do you think that the human brain is slower then the speed of a CPU in 3 years from now?
Ever thought that maybe Moore has something to do with why CPUs don't get faster quicker? The industry is clocked at the speed defined by Moore's law. Overclockers have proved again and again that Moore's law is not really a law but a rule of thumb.
I think you underestimate the rate at which human brainpower is decreasing... ;-)
A marriage is always made up of two people who are prepared to swear that only the other one snores.
In The Emotional Machine Kurzweil showed Moore's law being more widely applicable than originally predicted. Historical analysis demonstrates its applicability to machine growth in general, even pre-transistor and pre-Moore's law. It's a function of an evolutionary process.
When Moore first proposed Moore's law, it had nothing to do with processing power. He was making a pretty ambitious prediction about transistor density on ICs. Then Moore's law was about memory density, then later about processor speed, then finally about "computing power".
Moore's original law was more insightful at the time, if more narrow, than the current one.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Intel quietly rescinds its $10,000 offer for an original copy of Moore's Law.
-- Boycott Shell
Heck, we have laws in this country that were passed less than a year ago that have been broken already LOL.... I remember when I was a kid, someone printed in the local newspaper some "old obscure" laws of our town still on the books. One was that during the week of the fair, you had to walk your vehicle (horse and buggy) across the railroad tracks. Well, me and my buddies figured if it was a law, we sure didn't want to break it. We got a couple long pieces of rope, tied it to the front bumper of my moms car (back then cars had these heavy things on the front and rear of the cars called bumpers). When we were making the circle around town, everytime we came to the railroad tracks, we'd put the car in neutral, jump out and pull the car across the railroad tracks. It was pretty funny the 3 times we did it....but on the fourth the cops showed up and asked us what the H*LL we were doing. We told him walking our vehicle across the tracks like the law says. Needless to say, he didn't see the humor in that....
Of course Moore's Law is dead. And I predict that in 18 months it will be twice as dead.
Moore's law has stuck around for forty years in the same way that my pet hampster lived for ten years. It died but got replaced by something similar with the same name and nobody noticed.
Interestingly, I was just reading an article this morning in which Intel CEO Craig Barrett addresses this. He talks about developing tiny sensors for use in the medical industry and how that will cause a push for ever smaller chips. Quote:
Although manufacturers will have to develop new technologies to maintain the pace of development, Moore's Law won't die anytime soon. Intel has already produced prototype transistors based on the next five generations of manufacturing processes, which means that the chip industry can count on at least another decade of shrinking and adding transistors.
"That kind of guarantees you another five generations," [Barrett] said. "There is no fundamental limit there."
Sig cancelled due to lack of interest
Moore's law has become a law of marketing rather than computer science, and as such it will never be broken, even if it means the definition of "transistor", "chip", "month" or even "double" has to be changed.
But at 1:23 p.m., Fox News Channel anchor Shepard
Smith reported that {Moore's Law} had died. At least
initially, he did not cite sources.
By 1:30 p.m., Fox reporter Greg Palkot in Rome was
sending signals of caution, saying the report had not
been confirmed and the network was checking into it.
"The exact time of death, I think, is not something that
matters so much at this moment for we will be reliving
{Moore's Law} for many days and weeks and even years
and decades and centuries to come," Smith said.
In theory of science, a theory is a hypothesis that has been been strengthened through many experiments, and never been falsified. The concept of law doesn't exist in the theory of science. It's just an unfortunate fact of history that some well-established simple-to-state theories have been known as "laws".
In everyday language, a law is something drafted by legislators, and used in courts. A theory is either (a:) a rough guess, or (b:) something that scientists come up with to explain things that would be hard to understand without them.
Thus, yes, perhaps Moore's law should be called Moore's theory, since theory meets both everyday language standards and scientific language standards better. But that isn't restricted to Moore's law. E.g. Newton's laws should also be called Newton's theories if you follow this argument.
On the other hand, it's hard to change things that works. When someone speaks of Newton's laws or Moore's law, the listener know exactly which law(s) the speaker intended. If you keep renaming stuff, it hinders understanding. So, in response to your question, I would say NO.
Enough of the linguistic perspective. What you probably wanted to say, was that Moore's law is not a scientific theory we can put the same faith in, as e.g. Newton's laws. That could be true. If that's the case, then it would be better to rename Moore's law to something like e.g. Moore's observation.