rad0 wrote: [snip] > --science depends upon freedom, freedom IS capitalism > excuse me? What was Sputnik, dynamite, and the nuclear bomb? The latter of which was all but entirely developed by scientists in socialist Germany. There is no correlation between capitalism and scientific advancement, or science and freedom for that matter. Leonardo Di Vinci did not live in a free-market system, to name but one. Not to mention the many scientists who did live in (relatively) free-market systems, but actively promoted more regulated economic models. Furthermore, I think this leads to the possible explanation of "Moore's Faltering." As rad0 points out: > --don't forget that the nasdaq has essentially crashed > (5000 to 800, now 1500 or so) As Moore's Law does not consider external phenomena, it's bound to fail sooner rather than later. I think it's simply dumb luck that it has been applicable this long, if indeed it has ceased being true. It may be that it is only evident when comparing consumer Intel processors to consumer Intel processors, while as a whole processors have continued to follow Moore's Law. I have no evidence or knowledge to support one or the other of these hypothesese. On another economic hand, I wonder, how does the 3GHz P4 from a year ago compare price wise to the 3.2GHz P4 of today? And where does the Athlon 64 sit in all this performance wise? It may be, that with AMD's gaining market share the focus of Intel was moved off of research for the first time since the creation of the Pentium. Free-market competition necessitates that Intel (and AMD for that matter) focus on other than science, since their only purpose is to make money, not fast processors. -Ian > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Russell McMahon" > > To: "PIC List" > Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 4:58 PM > Subject: [EE] Moore's law failing ? > > >> Moore's law informally predicts that "microprocessor" processing power >> will double every 18 months. (Originally it was 12 months and related >> to transistors in an IC but it was extended long ago to the currently >> accepted meaning.) For many years people have been saying that it >> can't last, but Moore's law just kept on being true. Each 3 years you >> could expect a 4 times increase in processing power. The same figures >> *roughly* also applied to disk capacity, RAM size on a typical system >> and CD rom speed fwiw. However, >> >> A year ago if I'd bough the latest and greatest PC it would have had a >> Pentium IV with a 3 GHZ processor. This Christmas if you want the >> latest and greatest it may be a Pentium IV with a 3.3 GHz processor. 3 >> GHz is still so close to the leading edge that it's hardly worthwhile. >> The Pentium IV 4 GHZ which was originally to be introduced late 2004, >> and then early 2005 has been cancelled. The Pentium IV 3.6 GHz will be >> introduced sometime on 2005. Instead of the 4 GHz part they are going >> to introduce their "dual core" processor. >> >> Now the new "Prescott" processor does have an 800 MHz FSB as opposed >> to the 400 or ?533? MHz of previous models so there will be some extra >> speed there, but not a vast amount. But overall the advances seem to >> have stumbled. Dual core is NOT an advance along the Moore's law curve >> - it's desperate (albeit possibly effectual) cheating. And the >> competition do not seem to be taking the opportunity to leapfrog over >> Intel and take the lead in processor speed. Something fundamental >> seems to have happened. There was nothing sacrosanct about Moore's >> law. There was no reason that it had to work and no reason why we >> should be disturbed when it doesn't anymore. After all it was just an >> observation that seemed to fit the facts without any known basis. Just >> like Quantum Mechanics is :-) >> >> >> >> Russell McMahon >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive >> View/change your membership options at >> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > > > _______________________________________________ > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist _______________________________________________ http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist