LWN.net Logo

"machines are still getting faster"

"machines are still getting faster"

Posted Jan 15, 2009 22:05 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341)
In reply to: "machines are still getting faster" by dennisdjensen
Parent article: Python slithers into Wesnoth

Nitpicking: Moore's law ended in 2003 when the curve broke.

I think you may be confused about Moore's law: it's not about clock-speed, rather it's about transistor counts. I'm reasonably sure Moore's law still applies. It's being expressed in increasing number of functional units/chip rather than clock cycles..


(Log in to post comments)

"machines are still getting faster"

Posted Jan 17, 2009 18:39 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

So true. Another way of looking at it (instead of doubling the number of transistors every 18 months) is how big each transistor is; the size should divide by 2 every 3 years. How has it worked out in practice? Most companies have now built 45 nm fabs, from 65 nm; the 90 nm process of 6 years ago is quite outdated. Notice that it took 6 years instead of the predicted three; it seems that there was a noticeable bump at 65 nm, and the jump from 90 nm took 3 years instead of 1.5.

There is still plenty of room at the bottom. According to wikipedia, we are still 6 to 13 years away from the 11 nm process; and that could lead to even smaller nanoelectronics processes, where transistors are packed even more tightly. I predict that the wrist computers of 2030 will be cleverer than your average HAL of 2001, and that hearing aids will run a flavor of Debian in their 128 cores.

Copyright © 2012, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds