Wright's Law is More Accurate Than Moore's Law

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guest

Guest
we need a 4d, 48 state, fullprogrammible cache micro processor, does memory have an effect on these laws?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Public flogging for all reporters who misquote Moore's law! followed by a little time in the stockade.
 

CaedenV

Splendid
lets keep in mind that 'moore's law' is not a law in that is was (in his own words) and 'off handed comment'.

Also, a 'law' that merely describes 'nature' (assuming it is nature and not just a self-imposed schedule) is not particularly valuable. a law or theory that explains such a schedule would be extremely useful and valuable.
 
First of all MOORE'S LAW was modified several years after the first version.

Secondly, what's the point of looking around in RETROSPECT for a "law" that provides the best prediction?

The best form of prediction is to use SEVERAL different forms of analysis for both the short and long term.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Moore's law is coming to an end. Unless you're a rabid Intel fanboy, at which point you may believe that it will literally continue forever. The gains going from 32nm to 22nm were meager at best, if they even get to 14nm, it may in fact be worse instead of better in all performance metrics, and may not even be economically viable, unless you're willing to pay $500 for a CPU that's slower that today's $200 CPUs and uses more power.

2.5d chip stacking on 22nm or 28nm will likely prove superior to 14nm transistors, unless you're self-esteem is directly tied to the process technology used on your CPU. Even then, that's not going to do much unless software can utilize 64 CPU cores stacked on top of each other, because thermal and electrical constraints aren't going away... That leaves GPU compute as the final frontier.
 
[citation][nom]spingineering[/nom]Moore's law is coming to an end. Unless you're a rabid Intel fanboy, at which point you may believe that it will literally continue forever. The gains going from 32nm to 22nm were meager at best, if they even get to 14nm, it may in fact be worse instead of better in all performance metrics, and may not even be economically viable, unless you're willing to pay $500 for a CPU that's slower that today's $200 CPUs and uses more power.2.5d chip stacking on 22nm or 28nm will likely prove superior to 14nm transistors, unless you're self-esteem is directly tied to the process technology used on your CPU. Even then, that's not going to do much unless software can utilize 64 CPU cores stacked on top of each other, because thermal and electrical constraints aren't going away... That leaves GPU compute as the final frontier.[/citation]

IB is significantly more power efficient than SB. It did exactly what it was supposed to do.
 

PreferLinux

Distinguished
Dec 7, 2010
1,023
0
19,460
65
Instead of Moore's prediction that the transistor count in a certain space doubles every 18 to 24 months...
That is totally wrong. Moore's Law states that the transistor count that can inexpensively be placed on an IC doubles every 18 to 24 months.
 

olaf

Distinguished
Oct 23, 2011
429
1
18,795
1
what does price have to do with the precition that transistor count doubles in X months ? it doest say why it just says it does, why must everything be about money ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS