Slashdot Mirror
HP Answers The Question: Moore's Law Is Ending. Now What? (hpe.com)
Long-time Slashdot reader Paul Fernhout writes:
R. Stanley Williams, of Hewlett Packard Labs, wrote a report exploring the end of Moore's Law, saying it "could be the best thing that has happened in computing since the beginning of Moore's law. Confronting the end of an epoch should enable a new era of creativity by encouraging computer scientists to invent biologically inspired devices, circuits, and architectures implemented using recently emerging technologies." This idea is also looked at in a broader shorter article by Curt Hopkins also with HP Labs.
Williams argues that "The effort to scale silicon CMOS overwhelmingly dominated the intellectual and financial capital investments of industry, government, and academia, starving investigations across broad segments of computer science and locking in one dominant model for computers, the von Neumann architecture." And Hopkins points to three alternatives already being developed at Hewlett Packard Enterprise -- neuromorphic computing, photonic computing, and Memory-Driven Computing. "All three technologies have been successfully tested in prototype devices, but MDC is at center stage."
Williams argues that "The effort to scale silicon CMOS overwhelmingly dominated the intellectual and financial capital investments of industry, government, and academia, starving investigations across broad segments of computer science and locking in one dominant model for computers, the von Neumann architecture." And Hopkins points to three alternatives already being developed at Hewlett Packard Enterprise -- neuromorphic computing, photonic computing, and Memory-Driven Computing. "All three technologies have been successfully tested in prototype devices, but MDC is at center stage."
Yes, I know "Moore's Law" isn't a law but an observation.
When I RTFA, it seems the author is looking at different technologies to continue growth of computing capability for a given unit of space. I also get the impression that Mr. Williams is looking to fund projects that he has an eye on by saying that Si based chips will soon no longer be economically improved and VC/Investment Money should be looking at alternative technologies rather than continued shrinking of Si chip features.
Unfortunately, I don't see a fundamental shift in what Mr. Williams is looking for the resulting devices to do. I would think that if he was really planning on dealing with the end of Moore's Law, he would be looking at new paradigms in how to perform the required tasks, not new ways of doing the same things we do now.
Regardless, the physical end of our ability to grow the number of devices on a slab of Si has been forecasted for more than forty years now - Don't forget that as the devices have gotten smaller in size, the overall wafer and chip size has grown as have yields which mean a continuing drop in cost per Si capacitor/transistor along with an increase in capability per chip. I would be hesitant to invest in technologies that depend on the end of Si chips' trend of becoming increasingly cheaper with increased capabilities over the next few years.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Sounds like HP is about to make an itanic breakthrough
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Moore's law might not directly hold true with multi-core x86's, but we now live in a world of differentiated processor power. ARM's specialized for hd streaming, or gaming, or AI, or Autonomous cars, or sensors for a wearable. You can buy an $80 tablet that will stream HD better then a nice 4 year old laptop. The reason is engineers are now focused on low cost processors for specific purposes. See Intel's purchase of Nervana for how Moore's law has forked.
It's also hitting a wall for 2 reasons:
- As shrinks get closer & closer to atomic scales, they become more difficult, and therefore, more expensive. As a result, despite other trends like larger diameter wafers, process shrinks no longer result in cost savings, which is the only reason (other than capacity) that one would wanna do those in the first place
- Unlike past years, where applications would grow in complexity to quickly overwhelm CPUs at the time, multiprocessing has completely changed the game. Although programming using multithreading & multiprocessing techniques have been around for a while, there ain't too many applications that can overwhelm multiple cores. That is a good part of the reason that Intel & AMD have slowed down in their CPU sales: not too many people have to replace laptops that they've had for years. When that gravy train is drying up, there ain't much of a case to spend billions in process shrinks.