Has Moore's Law finally hit the wall?
Summary: Used to be you could buy a new computer every 3 years and get 2x the performance. Not anymore. Performance has hit a wall. What's this mean for you?
Used to be you could buy a new computer every 3 years and get 2x the performance. Not anymore. Performance has hit a wall - or at least a steep hill. What's this mean for the industry?
Moore's law Moore's Law says that the number of transistors on a chip will double every 18 to 24 months. But Moore's Law has been simplified to mean a doubling of performance every 18 to 24 months.
Not anymore.
Transistors ≠ performance. Yes, clock speeds have improved from the 1 MHz 6502 processor in the original Apple II to over 3 GHz today. But clock speeds have leveled out: in a third of a nanosecond light moves about 4 inches or 10 cm - and electricity is slower than light.
Another big piece of improved performance has come from wider data paths. Chips now move data in 64 and 128-bit chunks, rather than the 6502's 8-bit bytes. Not much more growth there, either.
We've thrown transistors at performance issues: more and wider registers; bigger caches; deeper pipelines; intelligent branch prediction; smarter I/O management; and thousands of other enhancements.
More RAM? We've also been adding ever-larger on-chip caches that improve performance. SSDs further improve I/O through lower latency, an area we're still learning about.
Multicore We can't make processors go faster. We can't process more data per clock cycle. So how do we put twice as many transistors to work?
Stuffing more processors on a chip. And right now many of the brightest minds in computer science are struggling with the problem of getting usable work out of 8, 12 or 16 core CPUs.
Dual and quad core processors work pretty well because multitasking runs a lot of background threads. Those threads can use multiple cores and improve performance.
But outside video, image, voice and scientific apps, most personal apps - don't need multicore architectures. Humans aren't good multi-taskers.
The wall We've hit a wall. We can still double the number of transistors. We can still double disk drive capacity. We can build faster interconnects, such as QuickPath, Light Peak and 10 Gb Ethernet. And SSDs also help performance.
But the easy wins are over. Going forward performance gains will be measured in single digit percents each year.
Implications Information technology is driven by consumers, not the enterprise. What happens when a new PC is only 20% faster than your fully paid for three-year-old PC?
If it is a notebook, it can be smaller, lighter, more stylish and more rugged. But the desktop?
Future model differentiation will have to move on. Here's where:
- Power. The server space is making greater power efficiency a differentiator. Mobile's been pushing this for 15 years. You'll see more.
- Integration. Open up in iPad or a MacBook Air and you see a tiny PC board, a few chips and a huge set of batteries. Battery life makes products convenient.
- Functionality. Integrating multiple applications, each with their own dedicated core, may enable consumer devices to collapse multistep workflows into a single devices. Capture, voice-edit, compress and upload video from a single candy bar sized device?
- Cost. The first low-res digital cameras cost hundreds of dollars and now they're almost free. Huge market among the billions who live on less than $2500 a year.
The Storage Bits take Moore's Law driven market growth isn't over. We can use our still growing technical capabilities to refine what we already do.
But the days of newer=faster are over. It's newer=better: less power; smaller; cheaper; and - in cases like SSDs - overall system performance will improve too.
The good news for storage is that data production will continue to grow. Always on, always available consumer data systems will create ever more demand for storage.
In the enterprise this will affect storage architectures as well. When you can't scale up, you have to scale out. Decomposable storage architectures will come to the fore.
Comments welcome, of course. The Apple ]['s motherboard style was the same as today's MacBook Air: a few chips on a PC board. Friends were always startled to see empty my Apple ]['s case was.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
RE: Moore's Wall
The wall for electronics in general...
I have worked on photonics for over 20 years
Digital computing requires bi-static devices to make and store ones and zeros. Devices or junctions with two stable states are inherently non-linear like most semi-conductor materials. The big problem with photonics and optical photons is that these give extremely linear physics. Non-linear optics exist, but take tremendous instantaneous power levels to be manifest. Also, you cannot store a photon (zero mass boson particle). It has to move to exist.
The use of photonics for computing requires a wholly different approach to what computing means. Many specialized optical "computing" architectures have been proposed and built (I was involved with 3 different architectures) but none of these would ever be "programmed" by a general purpose computing language.
The next step in computing will be a quantum jump (no pun intended) over our current notions regarding what a "computer" is or does.
Technology isn't there yet to store photons...
RE: Moore's Wall
Actually, it doesn't. There's nothing that says a digital computer can't function with multiple states.There's nothing that strictly requires these states to be 'stable' either...statistically based systems are conceivable.
Second, we don't know HOW to store photons, but 'storing them' may not be necessary. We store LOTS of photonic information without storing the photons, merely the information about their states. Magnetic storage doesn't store electrons., it stores an energy state induced in another substance.
And merely because they must move to exist doesn't mean they can't be stored--storage can be dynamic. Even stored electrons don't stop moving!
"The next step in computing will be a quantum jump (no pun intended) over our current notions regarding what a "computer" is or does."
Probably true for 'the majority of people," but then, the majority of people have no real concept of what a computer 'does' anyway. Most of the world, to most people is a set of black boxes which do certain things when you do certain things to them.
A GP computer is like no other device we've created--it's uses are open-ended.
Basically, it manipulates information. Data storage is another concept, which, while related, is not strictly part of a computer.
While the technology required to continue the acceleration we've experienced may well require a major leap and a change in technology, the end result may be invisible to the users. There's a thousand ways to implement a NAND gate, but the electronic digital computer doesn't care which you use.
Storing photons amd "statistically based systems"
I couldn't agree moore .. i mean more
RE: Moore's Wall
Shift in focus.
So, I believe, the industry simply started Moore's law in another direction, shrining existing technology into smaller, lighter and more efficient forms. With even the weakest desktop today good for gaming and the most modest laptops today able to handle pretty much anything a user wants to do, heck, even smartphones offering a complete computer experience, the need to be uber fast is not what it once was. Let's face it, hardware finally caught up with the incredibly inefficient (and easy, powerful) programming languages we use today, lol.
TripleII
RE: Moore's Wall
As you state, manufacturing process improvements will continue to reduce power and provide higher integration (such as graphics integration with the regular processor ? which also provides performance and power improvements). Moore?s Law and House?s Law (for performance) are observations of human ingenuity and I expect them to continue. There are interesting products on the horizon but, yes, it's not just GHz any more. :)
Bigger die...
RE: Moore's Wall
RE: Moore's Wall
RE: Moore's Wall
Energy efficiency is becoming an increasingly important factor in buying decisions of businesses and individuals. Server farms are leading the call for energy efficiency but it effecting decisions across the board. It affected the CPU and hard disk in my latest desktop and greatly affected my video card choice. I also have the quietest computer I ever had and that is a nice bonus.
Software EFFICIENCY?
I DON'T NEED OR USE 90% OF WHAT IT CONTINUOUSLY DOES on a daily basis yet Windows Embeded is a nich market. We are getting to the "1973 gas shortage" of computing power. We have to learn to do more with less. (... and YES, Linux, OS-X and Unix are in the same boat. Does anybody program in machine language any more?)
No, and for good reason
With today's complex CPU it is near impossible for developers to optimize code to run a quickly as an optimize compiler from the manufacturer for all but the simPliest tasks.
For someone who started out on assembler this is a good thing.
Maybe you'd like to nominate the features you'd like dropped from a modern OS like mac OS x?
RE: Moore's Wall
Why don't we just drop Mac OSX? (just kidding...couldn't resist) :)
Today's automobiles did not become more effecient by dropping features!
In fact today's automobiles have even more features unheard of in the 70's. The point is that software (especially OSes) need to become MORE EFFECIENT in using CPU resources. With ever more powerfull and faster CPUs this has not been a priority til now.
Bloatware sucks up all available power
I have a nine year old PC that can boot up and open a Word document faster than my slick new multi-core with 8 times the memory. The SOC implementation of that entire system (including disk storage!) would cost less than $50 today in volume.
Microsoft is the biggest culprit in software inefficiency, but they are not by any means alone in that failing. Windows 7 loads up drivers, libraries, and runs programs for thousands of "features" that I will never use. The wasted time and resources boggles the mind.
Win 7, etc
Precisely why I made a reference to Windows Embedded that uses ONLY the resources specified. Unix and Linux can also be configured to delete unneeded stuff. I have no experience with OS-X.
Of course I realize that this is not for the average home PC.