Are Cheap Laptops a Roadblock for Moore's Law?

Timothy Harrington writes "Cnet.co.uk wonders if the $100 laptop could spell the end of Moore's Law: 'Moore's law is great for making tech faster, and for making slower, existing tech cheaper, but when consumers realize their personal lust for faster hardware makes almost zero financial sense, and hurts the environment with greater demands for power, will they start to demand cheaper, more efficient 'third-world' computers that are just as effective?" Will ridiculously cheap laptops wean consumers off ridiculously fast components?"

Comments

I doubt it...

[Nimsoft]

I really don't think this is going to make a huge impact. Companies will always want to sell their latest, greatest hardware, and there will always be plenty of people ready to spend their money on the next best thing, that's how the technology industry works!

Re:I doubt it...

[Nos.]

True, but I think something like the $100 computer will have more of an effect in the laptop market as opposed to the desktop market. Generally (and a lot of /. ers are the exception) laptops are bought more for portability than for raw power. Whereas the desktop market has the more serious gamers as well as software developers that want more power. Granted, there are exceptions on both sides, but I would think the laptop market would be affected more by cheap hardware.

Re:I doubt it...

[Anonymous Coward]

But as the Wii shows, doing something *besides* "make it faster, higher resolution" can make a big impact too.

Of course it won't halt moore's law

[moderatorrater]

Moore's Law dictates that in 18 months, you should be able to get a significantly more powerful laptop for $100. Even with ridiculously cheap computers out there, there will always be a core that wants power.

Besides, if cost were the biggest issue in computing, than Linux would be the ubiquitous desktop.

Re:Of course it won't halt moore's law

[MoxFulder]

Exactly. What a frickin' retarded argument... since when has the low end of computing actually dragged down the high end?

We may have unprecedented demand for low-power 200 MHz ARM processors these days, but we also have unprecedented demand for quad-core 2 GHz beasts in 1U rack-mount servers, so we can stuff more and more of them into vast underground data centers. Moore's law applies equally to the low end and the high end. Today we can put a powerful computer in a $500 iPhone, maybe tomorrow we can put it in a $50 iWatch. There's absolutely no economic reason for Moore's Law not to continue unabated.

Re:Of course it won't halt moore's law

[Sandbags]

Please quote the law properly: http://foldoc.org/?query=Moore's+Law

It's every 24 months, not 18, and it has nothing to do with power or speed. CPU speed has increased at significantly higher pace than Moore's law. Moore's law views the number of transistor junctions in an IC, nothing more. The size, power consumption, MIPS, and other values have had significantly different curves, most at higher paces than the law, and not in direct comparison to transistor count. CPU power (in watts) over all is relatively the same as where it started in the 80s, and is currently reducing even as Moore's law increases. http://www.eng.tulane.edu/Tef/Slides/Tulane-Moore' s%20Law%20Sept02.ppt

Also, Moore's law clearly states that the number of transistors doubles "as costs remain the same." This means if we can have a $100 laptop today, in 2 years it will still cost $100 (or more accurately the portion of the $100 cost represented by the CPU will be the same), but the CPU will have 2X the number of transistors. It may be faster, maybe not. It may use more or less wattage. This is determined by transistor spacing, impedance layers (SoI, etc), volts, and clock frequency, not Moore's law. The articles premise is simply a logical fallacy.

One more thing: Moore's law does not apply to EVERY processor, only the leading generation vs. the predecessor. There's no reason to believe the notebook will use the current processor generation, and in fact likely it will not. This has no impact at all on the validity of the law as other processors will exist that follow the law. They may simply decide that instead of the build cost for the notebook being $90 to sell at $100, that they'll use previous generation hardware using more modern manufacturing processes, and reduce the build cost to $60-80, and still likely make it faster or better somehow in the process.

Were I a betting man, I'd put money on the $100 laptop not only having a faster chip with more transistors, but that it will use less watts, have a higher resolution display, faster or stronger wireless antenna, more storage, and more ports when we look at it in 2 years. Of course, part of the design of the machine, and it's low cost, is the intent of model line longevity. We don't expect to have a new one of these every 2-4 months like the retail PC industry does. Likely, this will be re-engineered at most once per year.

Re:Of course it won't halt moore's law

[timeOday]

There will always be businesses who need the fastest, highest powered hardware available.

Actually, I think things can change and have changed. From the late 80s to about 2000, the average computer price remained seemed to remain pretty steady at around $2500. Then, about the time computers got "fast enough" (about 400 MHz), the average selling price of computers plummeted. In addition to average price, people are also upgrading less often now. This shows there is not constant perpetual demand for the latest and greatest. How much more advanced would computers be now if it were still common to drop $700 on the CPU alone? There's no way to know, but certainly more advanced than they are today. Of course we still call the best of whatever is available "high end" by definition, but that doesn't mean it's high end compared to what would now be available if money were still flowing like it did.

Re:Of course it won't halt moore's law

[suv4x4]

Exactly. What a frickin' retarded argument...

Since this is the norm when discussing Moore's "law", I'd rather see one of those mythical non-retarded arguments regarding it. There are none.

Not fast enough yet...

[langelgjm]

Personally, until encoding video is as fast as encoding audio is now, I for one welcome faster machines.

somebody doesn't understand Moore's Law

[rainmayun]

Moore's Law says nothing about speed. It does say something about the density of transistors on an integrated circuit. How your engineers choose to take advantage of that is up to your business drivers.

Here's a thought - maybe those $100 laptops become cheaper, or more capable over time.

Re:somebody doesn't understand Moore's Law

[edittard]

Moore's Law says nothing about speed.

... and even if it did, it isn't what makes it increase as TFS implies.

Moore's Law is the *enabler* for cheap laptops

[Eco-Mono]

Now, I'm not so sure that the writer of the article actually knows what Moore's Law is. It doesn't have to do with CPU speed; it has to do with how many transistors we can cram onto a silicon wafer. And as that compression increases, the same amount of CPU power gets smaller and more energy-efficient. In other words, we aren't looking at the "end of Moore's Law"... we're looking at that progression being put to use in the way the market wants - that is, making computers cheaper and smaller, since they're already as fast as we need them to be.

Contradictory Summary?

[R2.0]

The summary states:" 'Moore's law is great for making tech faster, and for making slower, existing tech cheaper,"

And then asks: but when consumers realize their personal lust for faster hardware makes almost zero financial sense, and hurts the environment with greater demands for power, will they start to demand cheaper, more efficient 'third-world' computers that are just as effective?"

So Moore's law is good for going smaller/faster/cheaper, but the demand for s/f/c will spell the end of Moore's law?

More strength

[mcrbids]

With OLPC, there will be more computers out there than ever before. Many of these laptops will be used to create wealth, some of which will be used to buy "normal" laptops that are faster. This, in turn, will push the upper end of chip development towards faster and cheaper.

Put another way: There are BAZILLIONS of cheap, ARM-based CPUs out there running everything from microwaves to kiddie toys. Have they put an end to Moore's law?

What actually MIGHT put an end to Moore's law is the actual quantum limits to computation. And we *will* hit those limits if we don't blow ourselves up first. But that's a ways off, and we may find some way past those limits as well. (EG: using other, N-dimensional space or something exotic that we can't even imagine yet)

This isn't thermodynamics

[Chairboy]

It's not a LAW-law, it was a prediction. It was an observation coupled with smart insight into the nature of the semi-conductor business, and deviations aren't news, the fact that his prediction has so consistently worked over the past decades is the real story.

Will it hold up forever? Probably not, it could speed up or slow down by an order of magnitude as semi-conductor technology is replaced by The Next Big Thing (Optics? Quantum? Duotronics?), and our measurement criteria might have to change with it.

So again, the real story is that Moore's observation has held up so spectacularly so long. Lulls in performance increases are natural. But how does it plot over time?

Re:This isn't thermodynamics

[Aladrin]

You DO realize that all scientific 'laws' are just observations turned into a hypothesis that have withstood the test of time?

From dictionary.com: "A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the specified conditions are met: the law of gravity."

The law of gravity has never yet been broken, but that doesn't mean it won't be. It's the same for Moore's Law.

While I'm sure it was called a 'law' initially as a jest (ala Murphy's law) it has held up amazingly, and is close to deserving the name.

External pressures

[fantomas]

People may want to buy more ecologically sound, low powered, cheaper machines, but they are subject to external pressures.

Apart from the small percentage of hackers/enthusiasts who play with computers because they like computers, the majority of people use computers to achieve goals - be it to write their work documents, play games, edit photos etc. They will buy the machines that can run the software to do these jobs.

I can't see the big software players reducing the power requirements of their software as it upgrades. Microsoft Office 2015, Photoshop v.27, and World of Warcraft 2015 are going to need more rather than less power and people will be forced to buy more powerful machines.

Of course not.

[Timothy Brownawell]

Moore's law is about transistors per area and cost per transistor. Cheap laptops have nothing to do with that.

But for the question that was *meant*, rather than what was asked... still no. There are some applications that can use basically unlimited computing power (and now, unlimited computing power with minimal electrical power), and everyone else benefits from developments geared towards those areas.

Re:Moore's Law Intact

[theaceoffire]

^_^ If people buy $500 shoes, people will buy overpriced, non-logical hardware. O.o I just try to accept that.

Re:Gamers will always make Moore's Law Relevant

[trolltalk.com]

And we all need suckers like him to buy the latest overpriced, overhyped hardware, so that we can wait a couple of years and buy the next generation for 1/10 the cost.

The "early adopters" get what they want - which is mostly "I want it now!" , and the rest of us get what we want, which is improved hardware cheaper by waiting a bit.

Look at the people who paid $500 for a 15" LCD screen with crap specs, when you can now buy a 20" for $150.00.

Same thing with video cards - they paid $500 for a card with a quarter-gig of ram - those cards are now under $100.00

Let them keep spending - the benefits trickle down to the rest of us because we're patient.

Of course

[wcbarksdale]

In much the same way that Americans have given up their SUVs en masse for tiny European two-seaters.

Moore's Law Expanded

[Anti_Climax]

Several comments are stating that Moore's Law is about transistor density not processor speed. This is correct but I feel I should add something very important.

"The number of transistors on an integrated circuit for minimum component cost doubles every 24 months"

Weather you keep the original 2 years or drop to 18 months, we're specifically referencing low cost components, which would map directly to the hardware they're trying to put in a $100 laptop.

So in short, no, a cheap laptop just helps to confirm Moore's Law, not derail it.

NO! See desktop precident

[dazedNconfuzed]

25 years ago I had a $100 desktop computer: a Sinclair ZX80.
That did not pose a roadblock for Moore's Law re: desktops, so why would it be the same for something comparable a quarter-century later?
All the price does is establish a bare useful^D^D^Dable minimum; Moore's Law just means that 25 years from now you'll be able to do on a $100 laptop then what you really want to do on it today - which still won't be useful then.

Consumers

[s31523]

The $100 laptop is not geared toward anyone that is reading slashdot. It is for poor countries, or even poor inner city areas, with people that have no access to computers or the internet. Demand for cutting edge speed and technology won't subside at all. Not to mention, even the poor kids in third world countries will outgrow their $100 laptop in a month anyway and will want the coolest gadget out there... FUD. Pure FUD.

On the Misuse of Terms

[keithjr]

As many posters have so commented, it is clear that the use of the term Moore's Law was not appropriate. What the article seems to be attempting to purport was that the drive for low-end, inexpensive hardware is going to have a negative effect on the high-end market, and therefor lead to a decline in innovation and technological progression.

The former clause above may be true, but that is still up for debate. As stated, there still exists a very thriving market in the enterprise, media production, and gaming areas for high-end PCs.

The latter derivation is silly to the point of rediculousness. The technology and computer industries will always innovate. Low-end hardware will inovate along with it as the industry must flex to fit whatever the consumer demands.

In the end, if consumers finally realize that they do not NEED a $1000 system to accomplish day-to-day work with their PC, reasonable hardware at low prices will become more ubiquitous, power consumption will fall, better computers will become available for lower income families, and the market will continue to thrive as it responds to this new demand.

Re:No...

[MontyApollo]

640K...

The 286 processor was called a "supercomputer on the desktop", way too much power than what the average user will ever need.

It's not just the alienware crowd, once your average user gets a taste of what can be done with more power they will jump on the bandwagon too.

As somebody here mentioned in another post, video encoding and editing requires quite a bit of power, and this may become more mainstream with cheaper and cheaper camcorders. The personal computer is constantly expanding beyond the glorified word processor and their will always be new applications that come along that require more power, and it is kind of short sighted to believe that future apps will be nothing more than improved versions of only what exists today.

Re:Gamers will always make Moore's Law Relevant

[trolltalk.com]

The difference is that if you upgrade your card every 2 years, you still have your old one. If you upgrade all your hardware in the same fashion, you end up with both a new machine AND a backup machine that's 2 years old, and still has a lot of life left in it.

In the case of video cards, think dual (or more) displays as one use for a second, older card. I'm running dual at the office, and triple at home.

Re:Moore's Law Intact

[afidel]

A spreadsheet is only sufficient if you are a company of 2 people, anything bigger and you need some sort of accounting package. Once you get to a certain size you need tools like SAP/JD Edwards/Peoplesoft etc. You also tend to want good communications so you need to run communications servers, and probably some sort of communications software on the clients, etc. Just because a mom and pop can get along with a slow file server and some workstations running 98 and OpenOffice doesn't mean a large organization can run effectively that way.

Re:No...

[Shotgun]

Unfortunately, most people are first and foremost just consumers. They don't want to edit video. They just want to watch it.

Very few people want to actually *DO* anything anymore, other than be entertained.

Re:What a pointless article.

[Fordiman]

Yeah. All the demand for cheaper stuff means is that Moore's law will apply on the per-dollar level as well as the bleeding edge level - which it is implied to do anyway.

It's about the software.

[fyngyrz]

As processors have gotten faster, a certain set of developers have migrated to slower and slower languages to create applications; others are guilty of using less care to optimize for speed for the same reason. Operating systems too; Vista is a good example of an OS that is, frankly, a real pig.

As machines get faster, they can do things like run an application in an interpreted environment and still not seem too sluggish. The press has (correctly) pointed out that the current trend towards multiple cores instead of faster single cores will require a re-thinking of how to make apps take advantage of the power inherent in this type of enhanced CPU than one took towards a CPU that was simply quicker and more efficient on the same old code.

Should a relatively slow machine become widespread and be seen as a viable market for an application, developers may see an incentive to move to faster mechanisms. Perhaps we'll see a bit of refocus on pure C applications. Of course, products that are already small and fast are a natural fit for this type of thing.

Re:What a pointless article.

[Anonymous Coward]

And it's not really a 'law' in the scientific sense, it's a prediction. I wish people would:

1. Stop calling it 'Moore's Law'.
2. Stop panicking when a good reason for the 'law' to be invalidated shows up.

Sheesh, who really gives a shit anyway. Moore's Law is not driving the processor industry, there are plenty of other incentives for continual product improvement.

Re:Moore's Law in Dynamic Equilibrium?

[shmlco]

The whole argument is stupid. Really cheap computers are powered by chips that would have been top-of-the-line four or five years ago. It's the advancement of the power curve that made the chips powering those systems cheap--and possible--in the first place.

Re:Moore's Law in Dynamic Equilibrium?

[geekboy642]

Techniques used to increase the density of transistors on a chip can also be used to more cheaply or easily make a low-powered chip for your ultra-portable laptop. It also improves the life of whatever battery technology is embedded in your electronic thing.

Moore's law doesn't only mean good things for megahertz-obsessed gamers.

No.

[chrome]

Real news a bit slow today?