| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
"machines are still getting faster""machines are still getting faster"Posted Jan 17, 2009 18:39 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)In reply to: "machines are still getting faster" by paulj Parent article: Python slithers into Wesnoth 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 Most companies have now built 45 nm fabs, from 65 nm; the 90 nm process of 6 years ago is quite outdated.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.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||