Reply to post: Re: Exponential growth has happened before

The huge flaw in Moore’s Law? It's NOT a law after all

IanDs

Re: Exponential growth has happened before

As pointed out, it was actually saying that the number of devices which could be integrated *at minimum cost* doubled every [x years], not the number which could be integrated. It held all the way up to 28nm and then stopped; even though in 14nm you can get twice as many devices on a chip, the chip cost is more than twice as high.

There's no technical brick wall stopping processes going to 10nm and 7nm (and maybe 5nm or below), but there seems to be an economic one. So in the original sense of Moore's law, it's already dead -- or at least, sleeping until something comes along to drastically drop the cost of advanced processes.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon