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

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? (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,[3] 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.[4][5] (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. (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed) (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Would an updated graph still show exponential improvement, or, did that basically stop around 2012? I've been looking at the fastest laptops available over the last 2 years, and there's hardly any speedup, let alone an exponential one. MvH (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)MvH
PS. For clarity, I'm referring to CPU speed. Obviously a machine with an SSD will feel much faster than one with a regular hard drive, even with the same CPU speed. MvH (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)MvH

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:

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

Thermodynamic limit[edit]

Could this be summarized briefly, with a link? The exposition is too long. (talk) 00:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

More than could it should be substantially reduced in size and complexity! Tom94022 (talk) 05:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

End of Moore's law: a reliable source[edit]

Here's a NYT article exploring the end of Moore's law. Perfect for us if someone wants to put it in:

Markoff, John (September 26, 2015). "Smaller, Faster, Cheaper, Over: The Future of Computer Chips". The New York Times. 

No time to do this myself ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Would like to add: the formulation in the article on Moore's law that "some" (referring to Lloyd) see the end of Moore's law in the far future is misleading. The arXiv version of his article states near the bottom of page 17 that Moore's law holding up till the computing capacities of the "ultimate laptop" are reached seems "highly unlikely". But perhaps one should let this misleading information stand, so that transhumanists can hang themselves. (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


I removed this paragraph from the middle of Moore's law § Other formulations and similar observations. It was a non sequitur there. I'm not sure where it belongs. ~Kvng (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Moore (2003) credits chemical mechanical planarization (chip smoothing) with increasing the connectivity of microprocessors from two or three metal layers in the early 1990s to seven in 2003.[1] This progressed to nine metal layers in 2007 and thirteen in 2014.[2][3][4] Connectivity improves performance, and relieves network congestion. Just as additional floors may not enlarge a building's footprint, nor is connectivity tallied in transistor count. Microprocessors rely more on communications (interconnect) than do DRAM chips, which have three or four metal layers.[5][6][7] Microprocessor prices in the late 1990s improved faster than DRAM prices.[8]


  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Moore_2003 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ James, Dick. "Intel’s 14-nm Parts are Finally Here!",, October 27, 2014. Retrieved on November 5, 2014.
  3. ^ Bohr, Mark (2009). "The New Era of Scaling in an SoC World" (PDF). UCSD. Intel. Retrieved 2014-06-04. 
  4. ^ Bohr, Mark (2012). "Silicon Technology Leadership for the Mobility Era" (PDF). Intel Corporation. Retrieved 2014-06-04. 
  5. ^ Saraswat, Krishna (2002). "Scaling of Interconnections (course notes)" (PDF). Stanford University. Retrieved 2014-06-04. Memories ... don’t need too many interconnects. Logic chips are more irregular and are dominated by communication requirements...generally have larger number of interconnects and thus need more levels of them. 
  6. ^ Bruce Jacob, Spencer Ng, David Wang. "Memory systems: cache, DRAM, disk". 2007. Section 8.10.2. "Comparison of DRAM-optimized process versus a logic-optimized process". Page 376. [1]
  7. ^ Young Choi. "Battle commences in 50nm DRAM arena". 2009. [2]
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference Aizcorbe01 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).