Should Moore's Law Apply Elsewhere (Technology Doubling Every 2 Years) In Science and Technology?, page
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 11-1-2012 @ 01:41 AM by Arbitrageur
reply to post by samstone11


I could afford gas even at $100 a gallon if Moores Law applied to cars:

www-users.cselabs.umn.edu...
cars would get 100,000 mpg and it would be cheaper to buy a Rolls Royce than to park it.


The mileage sounds good, but I don't know if it's practical to buy a new Rolls instead of parking it



reply posted on 11-1-2012 @ 07:15 AM by scottlpool2003
reply to post by C0bzz



Also, Moores Law has been predicted to be coming to an end. I can't remember exactly, but it was something to do with how they make the processors, there's only so much they can shrink the transistors. But with the ever more closeness of other chips such as silicon for example, who knows...

news.cnet.com...


reply posted on 11-1-2012 @ 11:14 AM by Arbitrageur
Originally posted by scottlpool2003
reply to
post by C0bzz



Also, Moores Law has been predicted to be coming to an end. I can't remember exactly, but it was something to do with how they make the processors, there's only so much they can shrink the transistors. But with the ever more closeness of other chips such as silicon for example, who knows...

news.cnet.com...
I think the answer to that is mixed. But another answer is, notice how a "speed limit" seems to have been reached about the time CPUs went to multiple cores? They kept getting faster and faster until they hit around 3 Ghz and now I haven't seen much over 5Ghz.

So the way around this in hardware is to add more cores, but there's at least a temporary problem with this. Some of the software I use can't use more than one core for CPU intensive tasks. So Moore's law has hit a brick wall for me in that application until and if the software maker revises the software to use multiple cores.

I don't think Moore's Law can go on forever, but it's actually outlasted previous predictions of its demise.


reply posted on 11-1-2012 @ 02:11 PM by samstone11
reply to post by scottlpool2003


Understood and agreed. I was just looking around at other concepts, theories, science, technology, etc to see if we should have evolved a bit faster. Wanting to see if we are behind or ahead of the curve in certain areas of interest to my comrades here at ATS.


reply posted on 11-1-2012 @ 02:15 PM by samstone11
reply to post by Arbitrageur


You are certainly correct that we have to hit a wall somewhere. I have friends in deep, deep, deep research and development for quantum entanglement. If we ever truly harness that in a productive manner speed and number of chips, etc, become an afterthought, would you agree?
Pages:     ^^TOP^^