Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 21:16:36 02/28/03

Go up one level in this thread


On February 28, 2003 at 23:46:41, Matt Taylor wrote:

>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 speedups...now 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.
>>>>
>>>>Brian
>>>
>>>
>>>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!
>>
>>Torstein
>
>That's comparing apples to oranges. A 3 GHz Pentium 4 will be sorely outclassed
>by a 3 GHz Pentium Pro. As best I can estimate, a 3 GHz Pentium 4 is
>approximately equal in speed to a 2 GHz Pentium Pro.
>
>Moore's Law states that in 18 months, the number of transisters will double.
>This is commonly interpreted as, "In 18 months the speed will double." I've also
>heard it interpreted as, "In 18 months either the speed will double or the cost
>will be cut in half." In either case, Intel doesn't think Moore's Law has run
>out yet:
>http://www.intel.com/research/silicon/mooreslaw.htm
>http://www.intel.com/labs/features/eml02031.htm
>
>-Matt


While they might not totally agree about Moore's law, their "chart" really
stretches reality.  For example, compare the die size for some of the chips
they quote.  :)  transistors per die is not as interesting as transistors per
mm^2, or something similar.  :)



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.