• Gizmodo
  • bestmodo
  • lifehacker
  • kotaku
  • Profile logout login

#mooreslaw

Gizmodo

Share Cancel
   
Upload an image | Add an image URL
×

logging in
  • FAQ. Include # before tag:
  • #tips,
  • #dealzmodo,
  • #rumors,
  • #broken,
  • #iphoneapps,
  • #apple,
  • etc.

New York, 5:30 AM
Wed Nov 25
64 posts in the last 24 hours

FR | IT | DE | SP | JP | AU | BR

Gizmodo Team

Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com

Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter

Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter

Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter

Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter

Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Rosa Golijan
Email | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Email

Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner

Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Kyle VanHemert
Email

Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email

Heroes and Friends

Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com

SUBSCRIBE TO Gizmodo RSS

New: Breaking news and daily top stories via email
9515 Subscribers
Gizmodo
  • posts about #mooreslaw more →

    Moore's Law Might Actually Last Another 75 Years

    Gadgets of Our Future Will Continue To Get Smaller and Faster Thanks To Nanowires

    Intel's Barrett on Paranoia, the Core Craze and the End of Gigahertz

    Scientist's Flying Plasmonic Lens Could Make Chips Ten Times Denser

    Moore's Law Revitalized by 12-Nanometer Chip-Fabbing Invention

    Moore's Law is a Farce, Says Intel Video

    Intel Chips 1971 to 2007, Plus a Timeline of the Transistor's 60 Years

    Gizmodo's Video Salute to Moore's Law

    Moore's Law Rescuscitated by New Intel Chip Tech
  • Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.
    Dsmvwl  Admin  Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×
    Image of incubushead incubushead
    10/14/09

    In reply to Moore's Law Might Actually Last Another 75 Years
    We're near the limit of Moore's law now on single processing cores. As we shrink the transistors below the 29 nanometer process, quantum mechanics start to show up in the macro universe that make reliable computing difficult. We are kind of cheating Moore's law now with multi-core CPUs, and if we accept that this adheres to his law, then there really is no limit to the number of cores you can stick together.

    i remember reading a few days ago that NVidia announced a 512 core chip for high end super computing. Jinkies!
     Reply
    fuchikoma promoted this comment Edited by incubushead at 10/14/09 10:00 AM incubushead was starred incubushead was unstarred
    Image of KelseyRacknagular KelseyRacknagular
    10/14/09

    In reply to Moore's Law Might Actually Last Another 75 Years
    That is NOT Moore's law.

    Moore's law is that the number of transistors will double--NOT that speed will double.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law
     Reply
    dagamer34 promoted this comment KelseyRacknagular was starred KelseyRacknagular was unstarred
    Image of dagamer34 dagamer34
    10/14/09

    @KelseyRacknagular:

    Yep, Moore's law does NOT REFER TO SPEED.
     Reply
    dagamer34 was starred dagamer34 was unstarred
    Image of HAZman27 HAZman27
    10/14/09

    In reply to Moore's Law Might Actually Last Another 75 Years
    This is assuming that we have not hit the singularity by this point, at which time computers will be designing themselves and will be able to exceed all our expectations ^_^
     Reply
    HAZman27 was starred HAZman27 was unstarred
    Image of DJ Bushido DJ Bushido
    10/14/09

    @HAZman27: that's what i'm talking about!! i wanna wake up and have a news brief that a super computer took it upon itself to cure the world's resource challenges and nobody has to go to work anymore, just go to www.god.com and ask for whatever you like and wait for delivery by the nanny on the jetsons!
     Reply
    Skunky promoted this comment DJ Bushido was starred DJ Bushido was unstarred
    Image of Skunky Skunky
    10/14/09

    @DJ Bushido: The computer is your friend.

    [en.wikipedia.org]
     Reply
    Skunky was starred Skunky was unstarred
    Image of HJTravels HJTravels
    10/14/09

    In reply to Moore's Law Might Actually Last Another 75 Years
    Electrons are still the size of electrons and you need a certain space for each electron to move. We'll run into a limit with conventional chips withing 10 years. Unless we develop somethign other then just making then smaller. Which I'm sure we will. No computer can be too fast.
     Reply
    reddingofish promoted this comment HJTravels was starred HJTravels was unstarred
    Image of reddingofish reddingofish
    10/14/09

    @HJTravels: The guys at the LHC will figure out how to spit electrons into smaller bits so they will fit into smaller transistors.
     Reply
    reddingofish was starred reddingofish was unstarred
    Image of jepzilla jepzilla
    10/14/09

    @HJTravels: The key is not to use electrons at all. Optical computing solves a lot of problems.
     Reply
    jepzilla was starred jepzilla was unstarred
    Image of valanchan valanchan
    10/14/09

    In reply to Moore's Law Might Actually Last Another 75 Years
    The cheapest types of computer already fulfills most peoples needs. The power of computers will be meaningless in a few years as broadband becomes more accessible.
     Reply
    JCWhitless promoted this comment valanchan was starred valanchan was unstarred
    Image of JC Whitless JC Whitless
    10/14/09

    @valanchan: Sadly, I think the processors will still have to improve as companies build websites with all sorts of interactive content and media that will bring older computers to their knees.

    I know of a company that just launched an all new retail website, and it flat out requires 2gb of ram, broadband or better, nearly a dual processor to shop on it.

    Makes me chuckle that they just made it so a quarter of their customers can't shop anymore.
     Reply
    JC Whitless was starred JC Whitless was unstarred
    Image of JC Whitless JC Whitless
    10/14/09

    In reply to Moore's Law Might Actually Last Another 75 Years
    So Moore's law just doubled? Somehow I'm not surprised by this. I bet the next time it gets doubled will be half the time it took to double this time around.
     Reply
    JC Whitless was starred JC Whitless was unstarred
    Image of Andy Mayhew Andy Mayhew
    10/14/09

    In reply to Moore's Law Might Actually Last Another 75 Years
    "Moore's Law" has nothing to do with processor speed. It was a statement regarding the number of transistors in a processor doubling about every two years, which is not the same as doubling speed or processing power. [www.intel.com]

    At least Intel get's the statement of the law correct if no one else does.
     Reply
    Slack3r78 approved this comment Andy Mayhew was starred Andy Mayhew was unstarred
    Image of Slack3r78 Slack3r78
    10/14/09

    @Andy Mayhew: Thanks for this. A lot of people get Moore's Law wrong because processing power has happened to correlate with transistor density over the years, but the two are not the same thing.
     Reply
    Slack3r78 was starred Slack3r78 was unstarred
    Image of diegomartorano diegomartorano
    10/14/09

    In reply to Moore's Law Might Actually Last Another 75 Years
    What about quantum computing?
     Reply
    jepzilla promoted this comment diegomartorano was starred diegomartorano was unstarred
    Image of jepzilla jepzilla
    10/14/09

    @diegomartorano: Given that the operation the result is based on is a quantum operation, I think they've got that covered. :-)
     Reply
    jepzilla was starred jepzilla was unstarred
    Image of jepzilla jepzilla
    10/14/09

    In reply to Moore's Law Might Actually Last Another 75 Years
    Well this is for reversible computing (since it's based on quantum operations), whereas modern computing is based on non-reversible circuits. Reversible computing isn't more or less powerful than non-reversible in computational terms (i.e., they're all turing complete), but it is different. It'd be very tricky to implement modern computer languages and such on a reversible computer. The upper bound is certainly lower in non-reversible computing, although how much lower I'm not sure... generally you take a hit with non-reversible logic since it runs a lot hotter.
     Reply
    jepzilla was starred jepzilla was unstarred
    Image of FritzLaurel FritzLaurel
    09/01/09

    In reply to Gadgets of Our Future Will Continue To Get Smaller and Faster Thanks To Nanowires
    "...getting shrinking..." I know it has nothing to do with the article and we all make mistake, but I LOVE this. Please don't change it! (But if you do, might I suggest "getting shrinkier..."
     Reply
    Joanna Stern promoted this comment FritzLaurel was starred FritzLaurel was unstarred
    Image of Joanna Stern Joanna Stern
    09/01/09

    @FritzLaurel: Glad you enjoyed the typo, but had to change.
     Reply
    Joanna Stern was starred Joanna Stern was unstarred
    Image of spannu spannu
    09/01/09

    In reply to Gadgets of Our Future Will Continue To Get Smaller and Faster Thanks To Nanowires
    Moore's Law only describes the number of components per integrated circuit of a given size (or the chip complexity). Vertical designs and alternate components to transistors should easily be able to uphold the trend for many years to come.
     Reply
    spannu was starred spannu was unstarred
    Image of DeusExMach wonders what the hell happened to his star. DeusExMach wonders what the hell happened to his star.
    09/01/09

    @spannu: also: 18 months, and has more to do with the economics involved than the physical capability.
     Reply
    DeusExMach wonders what the hell happened to his star. was starred DeusExMach wonders what the hell happened to his star. was unstarred
    Image of strider_mt2k strider_mt2k
    01/16/09

    In reply to Intel's Barrett on Paranoia, the Core Craze and the End of Gigahertz
    Indeed, good read!
     Reply
    strider_mt2k was starred strider_mt2k was unstarred
    Image of Nemesisesq Got Banned Nemesisesq Got Banned
    01/16/09

    In reply to Intel's Barrett on Paranoia, the Core Craze and the End of Gigahertz
    YES I GOT A STAR!!!!!! W0o0o0o0o0t
     Reply
    Nemesisesq Got Banned was starred Nemesisesq Got Banned was unstarred
    Image of Jrsy Devil's Advocate® Jrsy Devil's Advocate®
    01/16/09

    @Nemesisesq:


     Reply
    Jrsy Devil's Advocate® was starred Jrsy Devil's Advocate® was unstarred
    Image of Justin Evidon Justin Evidon
    01/16/09

    In reply to Intel's Barrett on Paranoia, the Core Craze and the End of Gigahertz
    Major props on the article. And serious props to the photographer of the cover article - perfect mix of ambient and flash lighting.
     Reply
    Justin Evidon was starred Justin Evidon was unstarred
    Image of matt buchanan matt buchanan
    01/16/09

    @Justin Evidon: That would be me. I actually stole the light from a TV camera crew that was filming him at the time.
     Reply
    matt buchanan was starred matt buchanan was unstarred
    Image of Hello Mister Walrus Hello Mister Walrus
    01/16/09

    In reply to Intel's Barrett on Paranoia, the Core Craze and the End of Gigahertz
    Wow, what a Maverick.
     Reply
    Hello Mister Walrus was starred Hello Mister Walrus was unstarred
    Image of IN THE FACE! IN THE FACE!
    01/16/09

    @Hello Mister Walrus: So does maverick still mean douche-bag, or not?
     Reply
    IN THE FACE! was starred IN THE FACE! was unstarred
    Image of d_r_e d_r_e
    01/16/09

    @Hello Mister Walrus:


    Please don't say that word.

     Reply
    d_r_e was starred d_r_e was unstarred
    Image of vicsells vicsells
    01/16/09

    @Hello Mister Walrus: until mccain i think everyone thought of maverick as a good thing. I guess when you apply it to some old dude everyone starts thinking being a maverick is a bad thing.


    look at Mel Gibson in the movie Maverick! now he was cool!

     Reply
    vicsells was starred vicsells was unstarred
    Image of Hello Mister Walrus Hello Mister Walrus
    01/16/09

    @vicsells: Until McCain I associated Maverick with Top Gun, and Wing Commander 5 to a certain extent.
     Reply
    Hello Mister Walrus was starred Hello Mister Walrus was unstarred
    Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

Login

Enter your username and password.

Please enter a username.
Please enter your password.
logging in
Login via Facebook | Sign Up | Forgot Password?

Reset Password

Please enter your email address to have your password reset.

Please enter your email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
requesting password reset

Register

Registering will give you a user profile and the ability to add other users as friends. To become a commenter, however, you need to audition.

Want to know more? Consult the Comment FAQ and legal terms.

Please enter a username.
Please enter a password.
Please confirm your password.
Passwords are not identical.
Please enter a valid email address.
registration sent, waiting for reply

Submit Your Comment

You don't need to login to comment. Just enter your email address below.

See how your address will be displayed in the Comment FAQ.

Please enter a valid email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
logging in

Login with your Facebook or Gizmodo account.

Sign up here.



  • Archives
  • About
  • Advertising
  • Legal
  • Help
  • Report a Bug
  • FAQ
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.