Talk:Moore's law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Moore's law was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 26, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
August 23, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted
December 7, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Delisted good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Computing / Hardware (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Computer science (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Electrical engineering (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electrical engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Business (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Transhumanism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Moore's law is part of WikiProject Transhumanism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide Transhumanism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

The picture in the top right corner only goes to 2011[edit]

this image

Shouldn't the picture be updated soon? Why not update in on a yearly basis? Why not make a script to update it automatically, even more often? Zanthius (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting idea. Is there a source of data that would support automatic updates? You could ask the author of the image where he got data and see if he can easily update. I'd like to see other improvements, too, like something that makes it easy to see a doubling every two years; I can't tell from the line whether it's on that slope, or a fit to the data. Also the styling in the title would be better if it conformed to MOS:CAPS and MOS:DASH. Dicklyon (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
The microprocessor chronology here on wikipedia lists this data for least eight newer cpu's, dated 2012-2014.
I tried unsuccessfully to update the hard disk drive chart a little further down in this article with 2014 popular models sold at Newegg (in GB): 300 500 1000 2000 3000 4000. Any suggestions? 71.128.35.13 (talk) 03:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This whole article, but this graph in particular, is so lacking in any mathematical rigour as to beggar belief. There's not even the equation for Moore's law: f(x)=2^(x/2) which this graph patently does not follow. It might be called a best fit logarithmic line, but there's not even any sourcing to show if the data are correct.Myersdtm (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)--Myersdtm (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The graph has a two-year doubling time, verified by (LN(2) / LN((1.2E9 transistors / 2000 transistors)^(1 / (2010 – 1971)))). As for sourcing, the microprocessor chronology and transistor count articles have references that could be used in this graph.
Even so, I agree that the graph and the article lack rigor. The graph is not updated after 2011; there's no indication that these transistors were minimum cost,[1] nor that these MPUs were produced in high volume; transistor count may not represent performance; and “dark silicon” presently limits thermally the number of usable transistors.[2][3] 71.128.35.13 (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
There is a reason the graph stops there, the data after 2010 no longer supports Moore's law. MvH (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)MvH

I produced this graph and in light of the discussion here will update it. I used the microprocessor list from Transistor count as a source for the current image. Does anyone have a suggestion as to what raw data I should use for the update? As far as the line on the graph goes, the slope is that of the trasistor count doubling every two years, which is consistant with the definition of Moore's Law in this article's introduction. I felt it was better to include the Moore's Law line rather than that of the best fit to the data, which would constitue original research. The only variable in that case is the position of the line on the graph: its intercept rather than its slope. I chose to position it as if it was a best fit to the data to facilitate a rough visual comparison. Do let me know if anyone has an other idea about how to position it. This discussion may be more appropriate on the talk page of the image as it is also used on the Transistor count article. However, probably more people will see the discussion if it is here. -- Wgsimon (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest u position the line at the 1975 date and transistor count when Moore restated his observation and so label it so as to avoid misunderstanding (something like "Doubling of transistor count from Moore's 1975 observation"). For consistency u should continue to use transistor count from microprocessors. You might want to consider adding transistor counts from Flash Memory as a second set of data points starting circa 2000. Finding reliable sources for the additional data shouldn't be hard, you'll probably have to make a choice between several apparently reliable sources so be careful :-) Tom94022 (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Updating post 2011 with Transistor count and/or Microprocessor chronology raw data would be a step forward. The slope (two year doubling time) and position seem reasonable. Changing the 1971 start date when MPUs originated or the title of the graph to conform to a particular prediction (1965, 1975 or 1979) isn't warranted. The focus ought to stay on MPUs: adding flash memory, DRAM or GPU data would complicate the graph. 71.128.35.13 (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed) 71.128.35.13 (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"Moore's law" for ARM faster?[edit]

With Apple A8 at 2 billion transistors, I saw that CPU speed is 50x the original iPhone (note, not since original ARM). Isn't the speed growing faster than for say Intel (I know the "law" is about transistors). Even counting transistors desktop Haswell is about the same (2 billion?) and if ARM used fewer than Intel in the past and same or similar now (or relatively now higher fractiopn) then also applies for transistors. comp.arch (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"predicted that growth will slow at the end of 2013"[edit]

i tagged this with "when", and i'm sorry if that's wrong, but i don't know how else to draw attention to the fact that it seems wrong to use a sentence wording with "will" at this point of the sentence. shouldn't it be a quote instead? writing "would" seems to go against the guidelines of not using timesensitive language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.185.2 (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

major enabling factors and future trends -- update[edit]

section "Major enabling factors and future trends", bullet point #5:

it states that in 2012, the minimum size of features is 22nm.

Would be best to mention that in 2014, chips built with 14nm features now exist. http://www.chipworks.com/en/technical-competitive-analysis/resources/blog/intels-14-nm-parts-are-finally-here/ What Intel calls "14 nm" is not 14 nm. Is the old processing. Intel managed to make more transistors with the old processing, by tweaking it. It complies with Moore's law, but is not a smaller (14 nm) size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.59.44.223 (talk) 14:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

i'd add it myself, but I'm not sure how — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerewa (talkcontribs) 18:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Double every year?[edit]

The article says "... the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years. The observation is named after Gordon E. Moore, co-founder of the Intel Corporation, who described the trend in his 1965 paper." His 1965 paper predicts doubling time of ONE year. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

As noted in the History section Moore in 1975 restated his observation to doubling approximately every two years which remains to this date the conventional definition. It is the conventional definition that is appropriate for the lede. I suppose we should take the 1965 date out of the lede Tom94022 (talk) 06:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Moore's law was formulated in 1965, and revised in 1975. The correct date is 1965.71.128.35.13 (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Moore's Law as we know it today was both stated and named in 1975, not 1965 and this is clearly described in the History section. Moore's 1965 observation of exponential growth at the rate of doubling each year was to the best of my knowledge never known as "Moore's Law" and therefore does not belong in the lede since in is time inapposite. I suppose if someone can find a 1965 usage of the term "Moore's Law" then the 1965 date should go into the lede Tom94022 (talk) 05:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Moore's law was formulated in 1965, and revised in 1975. Gordon Moore wrote an entire chapter of of a book documenting the 1965 origin date, under the title "Moore's law at 40." As a matter of fact, Moore wrote this in 2006.[1] 71.128.35.13 (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)71.128.35.13 (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Moore, Gordon (2006). "Chapter 7: Moore's law at 40". In Brock, David. Understanding Moore’s Law: Four Decades of Innovation (PDF). Chemical Heritage Foundation. pp. 67–84. ISBN 0-941901-41-6. Retrieved March 15, 2015. Following a paper that I wrote in 1965 and a speech that I gave in 1975, the term “Moore’s law” was coined as a name for a type of prediction that I had made. 
Thanks for the book reference, it too states Moore's Law as a term of the art was not formulated until 1975 at which time the associated rate was then and now doubling every two years. Since we now have two references that clearly establish this I am reverting original state before yr first revision. I believe that in accordance with WP:BRD guideline the page should remain in this original state until discussion herein results in a consensus. Tom94022 (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
According to Intel Corp., "1965: Moore’s Law is born when Gordon Moore predicts that the number of transistors on a chip will double roughly every year (a decade later, revised to every 2 years)"[1]-71.128.35.13 (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
A 2011 press release is not sufficient to establish that Moore's Law existed as a term of the art earlier than the first mention in 1975. Accordingly I am again reverting. U really need to discuss and gain consensus before reverting again. Tom94022 (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Over 6 Decades of Continued Transistor Shrinkage, Innovation" (Press release). Santa Clara, California: Intel Corporation. Intel Corporation. 2011-05-01. Retrieved 2015-03-15. 1965: Moore’s Law is born when Gordon Moore predicts that the number of transistors on a chip will double roughly every year (a decade later, revised to every 2 years) 
Reliable references support 50 years and 1965, but not 40 years and 1975. Here are just a few: Intel CEO Brian Krzanich (2014): "Moore's Law will reach its 50th anniversary next year"[http://forwardthinking.pcmag.com/none/329835-intel-sees-path-to-extend-moore-s-law-to-7nm
Forbes magazine (March 2015): 50 years ago next month ... an "idea that would later become known as Moore’s Law." [4]
Technical paper titled "Fifty Years of Moore’s Law" [5]-71.128.35.13 (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
None of which predate 1975. Tom94022 (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Not everyone in the world needs to adhere to the same rigid definition of what is "Moore's Law" or of when it began. Even if that phrase was not used until 1975, it describes a phenomenon that was (at least roughly) described by Moore a decade earlier, and any term such as "Smith's Law" is almost never expressed using that precise phrase until long after the publication by the "Smith" who described the concept that will later bear the name. (Obviously, naming something after yourself when you first publish it would require some bravado or a strong sense of humor.) Whether the doubling period is one year, two years, or 18 months is a relatively minor quibble. So is the question of whether it strictly refers to the density of transistors per square cm, the data processing speed, data storage capacity, or some other measure of the capability of technology. To many people, and probably to most people, "Moore's Law" is merely the idea that technology progress is relentless and rapid, regardless of whether some curve has an exponential shape or not. Moreover, some people might reference the date at which the phenomenon started occurring rather that the date when someone noticed it, described it, and suggested that it might continue to happen. Moore himself commented about the broadness and vagueness of the definition in practice, and so have others. The Wikipedia article should (and to a large extent already does) acknowledge that the concept known as "Moore's Law" is not a single precise string of words that was given to mankind as etchings on stone tablets that emerged from a burning bush at a single point in time. To me, it seems really strange to see someone want to remove a citation to a book chapter about Moore's Law that was written by Moore himself. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually I pretty much agree with everything u say, which is why IMO the specifics when and what Moore said doesn't belong in the lede. The deletion of the citation was only a consequence of its location, it like most of what the IP is adding belongs in the history section. Tom94022 (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, the lede does not have the general definition u like but instead starts out by giving the generally accepted and current version of ML with regard to complexity (doubling of transistors every two years) and then under the current version confuses the issue with the 1965 observation. Tom94022 (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I see. I was misinterpreting the removal of the citations as a desire to keep them out of the article entirely. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree entirely with your comment, BarrelProof. The article now discusses doubling times correctly and the 50 years of Moore's law (since 1965), supported by reliable references.71.128.35.13 (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
If we must split hairs, I think it's important to note that Moore's law describes an historical trend that began with the invention of the integrated circuit in 1958 and has continued ever since. The trend began in 1958, the trend was first described in 1965 (by Moore), and this description was given a name in 1975. So we have three different start dates: the start of the trend, the first description, the naming of the description.
The term "Moore's law" could refer to the trend (starting in 1958), or the description of the trend (first published in 1965). I don't think the 1975 date is relevant at all -- this is the birthdate of the name of the description of the trend. Naming the description of a trend is not a particularly interesting act, thus this is not a significant date. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
This article looks through the narrow lens of Moore's law, a 1965 forecast which was revised and christened a decade later. As you say, 1975 is not a significant date. As Note 1 of this article observes, "The trend begins with the invention of the integrated circuit in 1958." Ray Kurzweil says the broader technological trends started earlier than 1958, and are broader than integrated circuits.— 71.128.35.13 (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The first sentance of the lede states:

"Moore's law" is the observation that, over the history of computing hardware, the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years.

If this sentance is correct, then there is no dispute that Moore formulated this observation in 1975. If this is incorrect and Moore's Law is more generally about exponential growth of semiconductor technology then the next best date is 1958 when the exponential trend began and the lede's lead sentence needs to be changed. There is really no justification for 1965 other than it was 50 years ago. Tom94022 (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Finally, we are talking about lede content, not the article. IMO both 1958 and 1965 belong in the history section and not the lede. Tom94022 (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps we should just say

"Moore's law" is the observation that, over the history of computing hardware, the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit has doubled every one or two years.

I any case, I don't think most people use the term "Moore's law" as precisely as you are. The exact rate is not as important as the exponential trend, and I think that we shouldn't exclude the vast improvements that occurred during the 60s on a technicality. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Moore's law is an observation, not a formulation or a trend. It was revised in 1975. Most sources, including the transistor chart in the lede, support "doubles approximately every two years."— 71.128.35.13 (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Moore made many observations and associated forecast with many values ascribed to a law of Moore but I think we agaree that Moore's Law == "doubling every two years" Actually Moore's observations in 1965 and 1975 and associated forecasts were not doubling every two years and I think it wasn't until 1979 that doubling every two years became the "Law" (see The Lives and Death of Moore's Law. Again IMO all of this is interesting historical material that belongs in the History Section and not in the lede. Tom94022 (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
This is what Moore said in 1975

... the rate of increase of complexity can te expected to change slope in the next few years as shown in figure 5. The new slope might approximate a doubling every two years, rather than every year, by the end of the decade.

Moore, 1975 IEEE Electron Device Meeting
So Moore's 1975 observation is that complexity has been and doubling every year and will continue at that rate until about 1980 at which point the rate will decrease to doubling every two years. Again interesting history belonging in the History Section. At this point I think we should take most specific dates out of the lede, perhaps only something about ML describing exponential growth in semiconductor complexity since 1959 generally accepted to be doubling every two years since at least the late 1970s Tom94022 (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

My personal understanding is that Moore's Law is the notion that technical progress (esp. for transistor counts for ICs) is approximately exponential. The phenomenon started before 1960 and was the subject of a publication by Moore in 1965. Following that publication, people have observed that it applies in various areas and have refined their estimates of the rate of the exponential growth. The estimates of the doubling period since the mid 1970s have been in the range of 18 months to 2 years, and after about 1980 it has seemed like the two-year estimate (an estimate published by Moore in 1975) has been a good one. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

This is my understanding, too. The late-1970s interpretation is unsupported WP:OR and ambiguous. The article's transistor chart starts in 1971.— 71.128.35.13 (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Based upon these two understandings, the first sentence is incorrect.
Moore's Law comprises both observations AND predictions; Moore's Law according to Moore is shown in Figure 8 of the 2006 MOORE’S LAW AT FORTY and is a piece wise linear graph on a semilog plot having a slope doubling every year from ~1962 until 1980 and then doubling every two years from 1980 until ~2002. Actual industry data in Figure 9 shows Moore's prediction of a kink at 1980 was wrong, the kink had already occured circa 1973. Again interesting historical material but not for the lede.
Actually I now think paraphrasing Moore's own words about his law may make the most sense in the lede, something like:

Following a paper written by Intel's Gordon Moore in 1965[1] and his speech in 1975,[2] the term "Moore's Law" was coined as a name for his prediction of exponential growth in semiconductor complexity. His 1975 speech paper predicted a doubling in complexity every two years which has proven to be accurate, in part ... Over time the term has been used much more broadly, refering to almost any phenomenon related to the semiconductor that exhibits exponential growth.[3]

...

Tom94022 (talk) 07:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ suitable reference
  2. ^ suitable reference
  3. ^ MOORE’S LAW AT FORTY
This focuses wrongly on the coining of Moore's law, not the observation itself. It's over-complicated, makes little sense, and oxymoronic considering that "coining" already subsumes "naming."— 71.128.35.13 (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
It is pretty much Moore's own summary language looking back at 40 years of Moore's Law but I do agree that it could be improved by removing the minor redundancy. It accurately summarizes the current statement of Moore's Law unlike the current lede which glosses over Moore's inaccurate forecast of 1975. It replaces the first sentance which at least three editors and Moore agree is wrong. What's wrong about that? Tom94022 (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article is accurate. The proposed change is complicated, and makes little sense. It would be wrong to shift the focus away from the observation itself, to the coining of Moore's law.— 71.128.35.13 (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
While u are entitled to your POV and opinions, I think we as editors should defer to Moore's 2006 view of Moore's Law. The current first sentance is inaccurate according to the Moore article, among others, in that:
  • ML is a predcition based upon a set of observations
  • In fact from 1959 to about 1973 complexity doubled annualy, not every two years as stated.
Furthermore, 1965 is just a date when Moore predicted annual doubling until 1975, as it turns out a correct prediction but not the current prediction and not nearly as relevent in the lede as 1959 (the date at which exponential growth started (according to Moore 1965) or 1973 when doubling every two years actually began (according to Moore) or 1975 when Moore predicted doubling every two years beginning circa 1980. Actually the focus should be on the prediction itself, that is doubling every two years made in 1975. It is actually your insistance on confusing the lede with the earlier 1965 prediction that complicates the lede. Tom94022 (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The proposed changes are unsupported.

  • This is the 50th anniversary of the birth of Moore's law in 1965.[6]
  • "It was an observation and a projection," Moore said in 2015.[7]
  • "A decade later, he [Moore] revised what had become known as Moore’s law: The number of transistors on a chip would double every two years," according to Dean Takahashi writing in the Seattle Times.[8]
  • References support the historical validity of Moore's law, and the first chart in this article shows a two year doubling time during 1971-2011.— 71.128.35.13 (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Does no one like this language "doubling every one or two years"? It succinctly and clearly describes both versions. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Moore wasn't comfortable with just splitting the difference, and calling it 1.5 years: "The period is often quoted as 18 months because of Intel executive David House, who predicted that chip performance would double every 18 months (being a combination of the effect of more transistors and their being faster). Despite a popular misconception, Moore is adamant that he did not predict a doubling "every 18 months." Rather, David House, an Intel colleague, had factored in the increasing performance of transistors to conclude that integrated circuits would double in performance every 18 months." He clearly said one year, and revised it to two years. 71.128.35.13 (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

MansourJE (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Moore's law confounded the electronic world[edit]

Computers were in the size of a refrigerator not this much compact and efficient. Gordon Moore the smart engineer predicted that based on the industry on industry developments semiconductors get to new models every two years. Read more on the following link:

http://phys.org/news/2015-04-silicon-valley-years-law.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=splt-item&utm_campaign=daily-nwletter

MansourJE (talk) 08:43 29 April 2015 (UTC)