Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Introducing "No-Moore's Law" It is well outpaced the last years!

Author: Torstein Hall

Date: 16:30:21 02/28/03

Go up one level in this thread

On February 27, 2003 at 16:43:45, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On February 27, 2003 at 15:57:04, Brian Richardson wrote:
>>As I recall, 5 years ago folks were saying only another 10-12 years for Moore's
>>Law they are still saying another 10 years or so.  I agree that
>>at some point physics will dictate limitations, but then there is more
>>parallelism.  Sun just outlined plans for running 4 threads on each of 4 cores
>>on a single chip in the 3-5 year time frame.  That would be roughly 16x.  Both
>>Intel and IBM have similar plans to extend on-chip parallelism.
>>Bottom Line:  Just as coding for 64 bits will become the norm soon, so will
>>coding for parallel searching with multiple threads.
>If you look back over the past 5 years, I've said that a hundred times.
>"Moore's law"
>is definitely fading fast.

That statement do not sum correctly if I remember right. Is it not 5, 6 or 7
years ago a 200MHZ Pentium Pro was really hot? At the moment Intel is fast
moving beyond 3Ghz. Thats a hefty 15 times clock speedup in the period, not
counting paralelism etc. etc.

So if this is right Moores law is breaking, the speedup seen from a consumers
point of view is much higher!


 But a "pseudo-moore's law" dealing only with
>has a hope for quite a bit longer, but in the realm of parallel programming.  N
>cpus on
>a chip has been done already.  SMT is a different take on the same thing.  A
>single chip
>with N cpus and M threads makes complete sense, although that will only extend
>limit a few years, because you can't keep adding cpus without making the cpu die
>requirement smaller.  And that is what is coming to an end...

This page took 0.01 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.