You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

DanArmak comments on The Onrushing Wave - Less Wrong Discussion

-1 Post author: Douglas_Reay 18 January 2014 01:10PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (32)

Comments (32)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: DanArmak 19 January 2014 09:43:17PM 2 points [-]

In terms of raw speed, Moore's Law has broken down for at least six or eight years. Chips have continued to advance in terms of transistors per area and other metrics, but their clock speed now is roughly what it was in 2005

Moore's Law is precisely about transistors per area, not about clock speed. So it hasn't broken down.

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 20 January 2014 12:46:36AM 1 point [-]

Moore's original formulation referred to transistors per area per dollar, yes. However, the same exponential growth has been seen in, for example, memory per dollar, storage per dollar, CPU cycles per second per dollar, and several others; and the phrase "Moore's Law" has come to encompass these other doublings as well.

Comment author: DanArmak 20 January 2014 08:56:53AM 0 points [-]

If it's about all of these things, it doesn't seem very useful to say it's broken down if it only stops working in one of these areas and continues in the others.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit