# (nerd stuff)Does Moore's law accurately predict tech. advancement?



## bowlingpins (Oct 18, 2008)

Growing up, I remember hearing how processor speeds double every so many years (the exact number is ??). Has it been true all these years?

I suppose it has not because this article* on technological singularity mentions that Moore's law has failed but it leaves it at that and does not explain how!
Anyone know more?
Also, what other technologies does the Moore's law apply to?

*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity


----------



## mountain5 (May 22, 2008)

There are a few definitions of Moore's Law floating out there...I think the original quote related to density of circuits on a CPU, but people apply it to things like clock speed.

In the past few years, processor clock speeds have stayed pretty much constant, so it doesn't really apply to clock speed anymore. But multi-core processors are mainstream now, so some people say it now applies to multi-core, i.e. circuit density and total processing capacity double, if not the clock speed.

I don't put very much stock in singularity theories...I think trying to describe the process of technology as if it's a law of physics is a mistake. I think 2009 technology will seem very primitive in 2100, but I don't forsee any massive shift in civilization while human beings still squander so much of their own personal potential.


----------



## bowlingpins (Oct 18, 2008)

I have read that the miniaturization of circuits (to fit more on a CPU) has a physical limit. Is this where we are at in terms of clock speed? Are we close to the theoretical upper limit?


----------



## Qolselanu (Feb 15, 2006)

bowlingpins said:


> I have read that the miniaturization of circuits (to fit more on a CPU) has a physical limit. Is this where we are at in terms of clock speed? Are we close to the theoretical upper limit?


There is a point where a smaller circuit fabrication causes some a unique problem called quantum tunneling. I have no idea what that is though hehe.

Of course there is always the often massive heat penalty when pushing the MHZ numbers for more performance. Anyone with a Pentium 4 Prescott will know what I'm going on about.


----------



## bowlingpins (Oct 18, 2008)

Qolselanu said:


> There is a point where a smaller circuit fabrication causes some a unique problem called quantum tunneling. I have no idea what that is though hehe.
> 
> Of course there is always the often massive heat penalty when pushing the MHZ numbers for more performance. Anyone with a Pentium 4 Prescott will know what I'm going on about.


So we are not able to make faster processors because we lack cooling tech.? (doesn't sound like that challenging of a problem but I am not in engineering) 
Or is it that using multiple processors is a more efficient/cost effective/practical way to get higher speeds?


----------



## Qolselanu (Feb 15, 2006)

bowlingpins said:


> So we are not able to make faster processors because we lack cooling tech.? (doesn't sound like that challenging of a problem but I am not in engineering)
> Or is it that using multiple processors is a more efficient/cost effective/practical way to get higher speeds?


As far as I know, heat is not as much a problem as quantum tunneling (whatever it is). And yes, it is easier to get more performance having multi-core CPUs rather than pushing the Mhz and having to deal with high amounts of heat.


----------



## jab_au (Oct 9, 2006)

I believe one of the problems that we are fast approaching is to do with electrons and their effect on the metal circuits.

An interesting link about this:
Current density and CPUs - Physical Effects of Electrons and Metal


----------

