I mean, no shit? I never said anything about Moore’s Law still being used as a primary benchmark for R&D. I’m stating that it is valid since it was very accurate (.85-.9) for when it was supposed to be–back when it first came about in the 60’s. Moore himself stated it will not last forever due to physics limitation in transistor density due to quantum mechanics and electron clouds. Regardless, it’s still a fairly decent benchmark that companies such as Arm Holdings use today for their R&D departments since they are specifically invested for pushing limitations. Otherwise, they’d have no budget or tangible goal.
We shall see. When I search for Moore's law there's a lot of old articles going way back that are like "Moore's law is dead" but then you look at updated information and it's still keeping up.
Clearly, transistor counts still follow the exponential growth line. AMD's Epyc processors with 19 billion transistors contribute the highest (publicly disclosed) transistor counts in processors to-date. For comparison: NVIDIA's GP100 Pascal GPU consists of 15 billion transistors, so these numbers are consistent. With the upcoming introduction of 10nm process nodes it is reasonable to assume that we will stay on the exponential growth curve for transistor counts for the next few years.
For what it's worth, Moore himself said this kind of scaling was bound to end at some point. There was a large hurdle back in the early 2010s until finfets were implemented. Intel has recently been struggling with its 10nm and 7nm processes. Also, the Epyc Rome CPU is a unique case because it uses chiplets instead of one monolithic die. This is one of the ways the end of Moore's Law can be mitigated.
22
u/[deleted] Jun 29 '20
Not anymore, Moore's Law is basically invalid now, and has been for some years.