Computer Chess Club Archives




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

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 21:13:05 02/28/03

Go up one level in this thread

On February 28, 2003 at 19:30:21, Torstein Hall wrote:

>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.
The pentium pro 200 was released in late 1995 if I recall correctly.  I
received mine in 1996 and used it in Jakarta at the WMCCC event that year.

200mhz to 3000ghz today.  15x faster.  8 years.  log2 (15) is less than 4,
which turns into roughly a doubling every two years, depending on where we
are at the end of 2003.  It was originally 18 months.  But look back maybe
3 years and it seems to be a bit less.  And based on current "roadmaps" it
seems to be somewhat less for the next two years as well.

The engineers claim they are really _struggling_ at .08, and that going beyond
that is a _real_ challenge.  They might go to x-rays for a shorter wavelength,
perhaps, but then they still have to deal with making oxide layers insanely
narrow where you can count the atoms across a single path with your fingers and

>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 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.