Moore's law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - View original article

 
Jump to: navigation, search
Plot of CPU transistor counts against dates of introduction. Note the logarithmic vertical scale; the line corresponds to exponential growth with transistor count doubling every two years.
An Osborne Executive portable computer, from 1982 with a Zilog Z80 4MHz CPU, and a 2007 Apple iPhone with a 412MHz ARM11 CPU. The Executive weighs 100 times as much, has nearly 500 times as much volume, cost approximately 10 times as much (adjusted for inflation), and has about 1/100th the clock frequency of the smartphone.

Moore's law is the observation that, over the history of computing hardware, the number of transistors on integrated circuits doubles approximately every two years. The law is named after Intel co-founder Gordon E. Moore, who described the trend in his 1965 paper.[1][2][3] His prediction has proven to be accurate, in part because the law is now used in the semiconductor industry to guide long-term planning and to set targets for research and development.[4]

The capabilities of many digital electronic devices are strongly linked to Moore's law: processing speed, memory capacity, sensors and even the number and size of pixels in digital cameras.[5] All of these are improving at roughly exponential rates as well. This exponential improvement has dramatically enhanced the impact of digital electronics in nearly every segment of the world economy.[6] Moore's law describes a driving force of technological and social change in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.[7][8]

The period is often quoted as 18 months because of Intel executive David House, who predicted that chip performance would double every 18 months (being a combination of the effect of more transistors and their being faster).[9]

Although this trend has continued for more than half a century, Moore's law should be considered an observation or conjecture and not a physical or natural law. Sources in 2005 expected it to continue until at least 2015 or 2020.[note 1][11] However, the 2010 update to the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors predicts that growth will slow at the end of 2013,[12] when transistor counts and densities are to double only every three years.

History[edit]

Gordon Moore in 2004

The term "Moore's law" was coined around 1970 by the Caltech professor, VLSI pioneer, and entrepreneur Carver Mead in reference to a statement by Gordon E. Moore.[2][13] Predictions of similar increases in computer power had existed years prior. Alan Turing in his 1950 paper Computing Machinery and Intelligence had predicted that by the turn of the millennium, we would have computers with a storage capacity of about 109 bits.[14] Moore may have heard Douglas Engelbart, a co-inventor of today's mechanical computer mouse, discuss the projected downscaling of integrated circuit size in a 1960 lecture.[15] A New York Times article published August 31, 2009, credits Engelbart as having made the prediction in 1959.[16]

Moore's original statement that transistor counts had doubled every year can be found in his publication "Cramming more components onto integrated circuits", Electronics Magazine 19 April 1965. The paper noted that the number of components in integrated circuits had doubled every year from the invention of the integrated circuit in 1958 until 1965[17] and then concluded:

The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year. Certainly over the short term this rate can be expected to continue, if not to increase. Over the longer term, the rate of increase is a bit more uncertain, although there is no reason to believe it will not remain nearly constant for at least 10 years. That means by 1975, the number of components per integrated circuit for minimum cost will be 65,000. I believe that such a large circuit can be built on a single wafer.[1]

Moore slightly altered the formulation of the law over time, in retrospect bolstering the perceived accuracy of his law.[18] Most notably, in 1975, Moore altered his projection to a doubling every two years.[19][20] Despite popular misconception, he is adamant that he did not predict a doubling "every 18 months." However, David House, an Intel colleague, had factored in the increasing performance of transistors to conclude that integrated circuits would double in performance every 18 months.[note 2]

In April 2005, Intel offered US$10,000 to purchase a copy of the original Electronics Magazine issue in which Moore's article appeared.[22] An engineer living in the United Kingdom was the first to find a copy and offer it to Intel.[23]

Other formulations and similar laws[edit]

PC hard disk capacity (in GB). The plot is logarithmic, so the fitted line corresponds to exponential growth.

Several measures of digital technology are improving at exponential rates related to Moore's law, including the size, cost, density and speed of components. Moore himself wrote only about the density of components (or transistors) at minimum cost.

Transistors per integrated circuit. The most popular formulation is of the doubling of the number of transistors on integrated circuits every two years. At the end of the 1970s, Moore's law became known as the limit for the number of transistors on the most complex chips. The graph at the top shows this trend holds true today.

Density at minimum cost per transistor. This is the formulation given in Moore's 1965 paper.[1] It is not just about the density of transistors that can be achieved, but about the density of transistors at which the cost per transistor is the lowest.[24] As more transistors are put on a chip, the cost to make each transistor decreases, but the chance that the chip will not work due to a defect increases. In 1965, Moore examined the density of transistors at which cost is minimized, and observed that, as transistors were made smaller through advances in photolithography, this number would increase at "a rate of roughly a factor of two per year".[1] Current state-of-the-art photolithography tools use deep ultraviolet (DUV) light from excimer lasers with wavelengths of 248 and 193 nm — the dominant lithography technology today is thus also called "excimer laser lithography"[25][26] — which has enabled minimum feature sizes in chip manufacturing to shrink from 500 nanometers in 1990 to 45 nanometers and below in 2010. This trend is expected to continue into this decade for even denser chips, with minimum features approaching 10 nanometers. Excimer laser lithography has thus played a critical role in the continued advance of Moore's law for the last 20 years.[27]

Hard disk storage cost per unit of information. A similar law (sometimes called Kryder's Law) has held for hard disk storage cost per unit of information.[28] The rate of progression in disk storage over the past decades has actually sped up more than once, corresponding to the utilization of error correcting codes, the magnetoresistive effect and the giant magnetoresistive effect. The current rate of increase in hard drive capacity is roughly similar to the rate of increase in transistor count. Recent trends show that this rate has been maintained into 2007.[29]

Network capacity. According to Gerry/Gerald Butters,[30][31] the former head of Lucent's Optical Networking Group at Bell Labs, there is another version, called Butters' Law of Photonics,[32] a formulation which deliberately parallels Moore's law. Butter's law[33] says that the amount of data coming out of an optical fiber is doubling every nine months. Thus, the cost of transmitting a bit over an optical network decreases by half every nine months. The availability of wavelength-division multiplexing (sometimes called "WDM") increased the capacity that could be placed on a single fiber by as much as a factor of 100. Optical networking and dense wavelength-division multiplexing (DWDM) is rapidly bringing down the cost of networking, and further progress seems assured. As a result, the wholesale price of data traffic collapsed in the dot-com bubble. Nielsen's Law says that the bandwidth available to users increases by 50% annually.[34]

Pixels per dollar. Similarly, Barry Hendy of Kodak Australia has plotted the "pixels per dollar" as a basic measure of value for a digital camera, demonstrating the historical linearity (on a log scale) of this market and the opportunity to predict the future trend of digital camera price, LCD and LED screens and resolution.[35][36][37]

The great Moore's law compensator (TGMLC), generally referred to as bloat, and also known as Wirth's law, is the principle that successive generations of computer software acquire enough bloat to offset the performance gains predicted by Moore's law. In a 2008 article in InfoWorld, Randall C. Kennedy,[38] formerly of Intel, introduces this term using successive versions of Microsoft Office between the year 2000 and 2007 as his premise. Despite the gains in computational performance during this time period according to Moore's law, Office 2007 performed the same task at half the speed on a prototypical year 2007 computer as compared to Office 2000 on a year 2000 computer.

Library expansion was calculated in 1945 by Fremont Rider to double in capacity every 16 years, if sufficient space were made available.[39] He advocated replacing bulky, decaying printed works with miniaturized microform analog photographs, which could be duplicated on-demand for library patrons or other institutions. He did not foresee the digital technology that would follow decades later to replace analog microform with digital imaging, storage, and transmission mediums. Automated, potentially lossless digital technologies allowed vast increases in the rapidity of information growth in an era that is now sometimes called an "Information Age".

The Carlson Curve is a term coined by The Economist [40] to describe the biotechnological equivalent of Moore's law, and is named after author Rob Carlson.[41] Carlson accurately predicted that the doubling time of DNA sequencing technologies (measured by cost and performance) would be at least as fast as Moore's law.[42] Carlson Curves illustrate the rapid (in some cases hyperexponential) decreases in cost, and increases in performance, of a variety of technologies, including DNA sequencing, DNA synthesis and a range of physical and computational tools used in protein expression and in determining protein structures.

As a target for industry and a self-fulfilling prophecy[edit]

Although Moore's law was initially made in the form of an observation and forecast, the more widely it became accepted, the more it served as a goal for an entire industry. This drove both marketing and engineering departments of semiconductor manufacturers to focus enormous energy aiming for the specified increase in processing power that it was presumed one or more of their competitors would soon actually attain. In this regard, it can be viewed as a self-fulfilling prophecy.[4][43]

Moore's second law[edit]

As the cost of computer power to the consumer falls, the cost for producers to fulfill Moore's law follows an opposite trend: R&D, manufacturing, and test costs have increased steadily with each new generation of chips. Rising manufacturing costs are an important consideration for the sustaining of Moore's law.[44] This had led to the formulation of "Moore's second law", also called Rock's law, which is that the capital cost of a semiconductor fab also increases exponentially over time.[45][46]

Materials required for advancing technology, such as photoresists and other polymers and industrial chemicals, are derived from natural resources such as petroleum, meaning that they are affected by the cost and supply of these resources. Nevertheless, photoresist costs are decreasing due to more efficient delivery, though shortage risks remain.[47]

Major enabling factors and future trends[edit]

Numerous innovations by a large number of scientists and engineers have helped significantly to sustain Moore's law since the beginning of the integrated circuit (IC) era. Whereas assembling a detailed list of such significant contributions would be as desirable as it would be difficult, below just a few innovations are listed as examples of breakthroughs that have played a critical role in the advancement of integrated circuit technology by more than seven orders of magnitude in less than five decades:

Computer industry technology roadmaps predict (as of 2001) that Moore's law will continue for several generations of semiconductor chips. Depending on the doubling time used in the calculations, this could mean up to a hundredfold increase in transistor count per chip within a decade. The semiconductor industry technology roadmap uses a three-year doubling time for microprocessors, leading to a tenfold increase in the next decade.[55] Intel was reported in 2005 as stating that the downsizing of silicon chips with good economics can continue during the next decade,[note 1] and in 2008 as predicting the trend through 2029.[56]

Some of the new directions in research that may allow Moore's law to continue are:

The trend of scaling for NAND flash memory allows doubling of components manufactured in the same wafer area in less than 18 months.

Ultimate limits of the law[edit]

Atomistic simulation result for formation of inversion channel (electron density) and attainment of threshold voltage (IV) in a nanowire MOSFET. Note that the threshold voltage for this device lies around 0.45 V. Nanowire MOSFETs lie towards the end of the ITRS roadmap for scaling devices below 10 nm gate lengths.[55]

On 13 April 2005, Gordon Moore stated in an interview that the law cannot be sustained indefinitely: "It can't continue forever. The nature of exponentials is that you push them out and eventually disaster happens". He also noted that transistors would eventually reach the limits of miniaturization at atomic levels:

In terms of size [of transistors] you can see that we're approaching the size of atoms which is a fundamental barrier, but it'll be two or three generations before we get that far—but that's as far out as we've ever been able to see. We have another 10 to 20 years before we reach a fundamental limit. By then they'll be able to make bigger chips and have transistor budgets in the billions.[66]

In January 1995, the Digital Alpha 21164 microprocessor had 9.3 million transistors. This 64-bit processor was a technological spearhead at the time, even if the circuit's market share remained average. Six years later, a state of the art microprocessor contained more than 40 million transistors. It is theorised that with further miniaturisation, by 2015 these processors should contain more than 15 billion transistors, and by 2020 will be in molecular scale production, where each molecule can be individually positioned.[67]

In 2003, Intel predicted the end would come between 2013 and 2018 with 16 nanometer manufacturing processes and 5 nanometer gates, due to quantum tunnelling, although others suggested chips could just get bigger, or become layered.[68] In 2008 it was noted that for the last 30 years it has been predicted that Moore's law would last at least another decade.[56]

Some see the limits of the law as being in the distant future. Lawrence Krauss and Glenn D. Starkman announced an ultimate limit of around 600 years in their paper,[69] based on rigorous estimation of total information-processing capacity of any system in the Universe, which is limited by the Bekenstein bound.

One could also limit the theoretical performance of a rather practical "ultimate laptop" with a mass of one kilogram and a volume of one litre. This is done by considering the speed of light, the quantum scale, the gravitational constant and the Boltzmann constant, giving a performance of 5.4258 ⋅ 1050 logical operations per second on approximately 1031 bits.[70]

Then again, the law has often met obstacles that first appeared insurmountable but were indeed surmounted before long. In that sense, Moore says he now sees his law as more beautiful than he had realized: "Moore's law is a violation of Murphy's law. Everything gets better and better."[71]

Futurists and Moore's law[edit]

Kurzweil's extension of Moore's law from integrated circuits to earlier transistors, vacuum tubes, relays and electromechanical computers.

Futurists such as Ray Kurzweil, Bruce Sterling, and Vernor Vinge believe that the exponential improvement described by Moore's law will ultimately lead to a technological singularity: a period where progress in technology occurs almost instantly.[72]

Although Kurzweil agrees that by 2019 the current strategy of ever-finer photolithography will have run its course, he speculates that this does not mean the end of Moore's law:

Moore's law of Integrated Circuits was not the first, but the fifth paradigm to forecast accelerating price-performance ratios. Computing devices have been consistently multiplying in power (per unit of time) from the mechanical calculating devices used in the 1890 U.S. Census, to [Newman's] relay-based "[Heath] Robinson" machine that cracked the Lorenz cipher, to the CBS vacuum tube computer that predicted the election of Eisenhower, to the transistor-based machines used in the first space launches, to the integrated-circuit-based personal computer.[73]

Kurzweil speculates that it is likely that some new type of technology (e.g. optical, quantum computers, DNA computing) will replace current integrated-circuit technology, and that Moore's Law will hold true long after 2020.[73]

If the current trend continues to 2020, the number of transistors would reach 32 billion.

Seth Lloyd shows how the potential computing capacity of a kilogram of matter equals pi times energy divided by Planck's constant. Since the energy is such a large number and Planck's constant is so small, this equation generates an extremely large number: about 5.0 * 1050 operations per second.[72]

He believes that the exponential growth of Moore's law will continue beyond the use of integrated circuits into technologies that will lead to the technological singularity. The Law of Accelerating Returns described by Ray Kurzweil has in many ways altered the public's perception of Moore's law. It is a common (but mistaken) belief that Moore's law makes predictions regarding all forms of technology, when it was originally intended to apply only to semiconductor circuits. Many futurists still use the term "Moore's law" in this broader sense to describe ideas like those put forth by Kurzweil. Kurzweil has hypothesised that Moore's law will apply – at least by inference – to any problem that can be attacked by digital computers as is in its essence also a digital problem. Therefore, because of the digital coding of DNA, progress in genetics may also advance at a Moore's law rate. Moore himself, who never intended his law to be interpreted so broadly, has quipped:

Moore's law has been the name given to everything that changes exponentially. I say, if Gore invented the Internet,[note 3] I invented the exponential.[75]

Michael S. Malone wrote of a Moore's War in the apparent success of Shock and awe in the early days of the Iraq War.[76] Michio Kaku, an American scientist and physicist, predicted in 2003 that "Moore's law will probably collapse in 20 years".[77]

Consequences and limitations[edit]

Technological change is a combination of more and of better technology. A 2011 study in the journal Science showed that the peak of the rate of change of the world's capacity to compute information was in the year 1998, when the world's technological capacity to compute information on general-purpose computers grew at 88% per year.[78] Since then, technological change has clearly slowed. In recent times, every new year allowed mankind to carry out roughly 60% of the computations that could have possibly been executed by all existing general-purpose computers before that year.[78] This is still exponential, but shows the varying nature of technological change.[79]

While physical limits to transistor scaling such as source-to-drain leakage, limited gate metals, and limited options for channel material have been reached, new avenues for continued scaling are open. The most promising of these approaches rely on using the spin state of electron spintronics, tunnel junctions, and advanced confinement of channel materials via nano-wire geometry. A comprehensive list of available device choices shows[80] that a wide range of device options is open for continuing Moore's law into the next few decades. Spin-based logic and memory options are actively being developed in industrial labs[81] as well as academic labs.[82]

The exponential processor transistor growth predicted by Moore does not always translate into exponentially greater practical CPU performance. Let us consider the case of a single-threaded system. According to Moore's law, transistor dimensions are scaled by 30% (0.7x) every technology generation, thus reducing their area by 50%. This reduces the delay by 30% (0.7x) and therefore increases operating frequency by about 40% (1.4x). Finally, to keep electric field constant, voltage is reduced by 30%, reducing energy by 65% and power (at 1.4x frequency) by 50%.[note 4] Therefore, in every technology generation transistor density doubles, circuit becomes 40% faster, while power consumption (with twice the number of transistors) stays the same.[83]

Another source of improved performance is in microarchitecture techniques exploiting the growth of available transistor count. Out-of-order execution and on-chip caching and prefetching reduce the memory latency bottleneck at the expense of using more transistors and increasing the processor complexity. These increases are empirically described by Pollack's Rule which states that performance increases due to microarchitecture techniques are square root of the number of transistors or the area of a processor.

For years, processor makers delivered increases in clock rates and instruction-level parallelism, so that single-threaded code executed faster on newer processors with no modification.[84] Now, to manage CPU power dissipation, processor makers favor multi-core chip designs, and software has to be written in a multi-threaded manner to take full advantage of the hardware. Many multi-threaded development paradigms introduce overhead, and will not see a linear increase in speed vs number of processors. This is particularly true while accessing shared or dependent resources, due to lock contention. This effect becomes more noticeable as the number of processors increases. There are cases where a roughly 45% increase in processor transistors have translated to roughly 10–20% increase in processing power.[85]

On the other hand, processor manufactures are taking advantage of the 'extra space' that the transistor shrinkage provides to add specialized processing units to deal with features such as graphics, video and cryptography. For one example, Intel's Parallel JavaScript extension not only adds support for multiple cores, but also for the other non-general processing features of their chips, as part of the migration in client side scripting towards HTML5.[86]

A negative implication of Moore's law is obsolescence, that is, as technologies continue to rapidly "improve", these improvements can be significant enough to rapidly render predecessor technologies obsolete. In situations in which security and survivability of hardware or data are paramount, or in which resources are limited, rapid obsolescence can pose obstacles to smooth or continued operations.[87] Because of the toxic materials used in the production of modern computers, obsolescence if not properly managed can lead to harmful environmental impacts.[88]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ a b The trend begins with the invention of the integrated circuit in 1958. See the graph on the bottom of page 3 of Moore's original presentation of the idea.[10]
  2. ^ Although originally calculated as a doubling every year,[10] Moore later refined the period to two years.[21] In this second source Moore also suggests that the version that is often quoted as "18 months" is due to David House, an Intel executive, who predicted that period for a doubling in chip performance (being a combination of the effect of more transistors and them being faster).[9]
  3. ^ Moore here is referring humorously to a widespread assertion that then-Vice President Al Gore once claimed to have invented the internet. This was, however, based on a misunderstanding.[74]
  4. ^ Active power = CV2f

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b c d Moore, Gordon E. (1965). "Cramming more components onto integrated circuits" (PDF). Electronics Magazine. p. 4. Retrieved 2006-11-11. 
  2. ^ a b "Excerpts from A Conversation with Gordon Moore: Moore’s Law" (PDF). Intel Corporation. 2005. p. 1. Retrieved 2013-09-12. 
  3. ^ "1965 – "Moore's Law" Predicts the Future of Integrated Circuits". Computer History Museum. 2007. Retrieved 2009-03-19. 
  4. ^ a b Disco, Cornelius; van der Meulen, Barend (1998). Getting new technologies together. New York: Walter de Gruyter. pp. 206–207. ISBN 3-11-015630-X. OCLC 39391108. Retrieved 23 August 2008. 
  5. ^ Nathan Myhrvold (7 June 2006). "Moore's Law Corollary: Pixel Power". New York Times. Retrieved 2011-11-27. 
  6. ^ Rauch, Jonathan (January 2001). "The New Old Economy: Oil, Computers, and the Reinvention of the Earth". The Atlantic Monthly. Retrieved 28 November 2008. 
  7. ^ Keyes, Robert W. (September 2006). "The Impact of Moore's Law". Solid State Circuits Newsletter. Retrieved 28 November 2008. 
  8. ^ Liddle, David E. (September 2006). "The Wider Impact of Moore's Law". Solid State Circuits Newsletter. Retrieved 28 November 2008. 
  9. ^ a b "Moore's Law to roll on for another decade". Retrieved 2011-11-27. "Moore also affirmed he never said transistor count would double every 18 months, as is commonly said. Initially, he said transistors on a chip would double every year. He then recalibrated it to every two years in 1975. David House, an Intel executive at the time, noted that the changes would cause computer performance to double every 18 months." 
  10. ^ a b Gordon E. Moore (1965-04-19). "Cramming more components onto integrated circuits". Electronics. Retrieved 2011-08-22. 
  11. ^ Kanellos, Michael (19 April 2005). "New Life for Moore's Law". cnet. Retrieved 2009-03-19. 
  12. ^ "Overall Technology Roadmap Characteristics". International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors. 2010. Retrieved 2013-08-08. 
  13. ^ "Moore's Law – The Genius Lives On". IEEE solid-state circuits society newsletter. September 2006. Archived from the original on 2007-07-13. 
  14. ^ "Computing Machinery and Intelligence". Mind. 1950. 
  15. ^ Markoff, John (18 April 2005). "It's Moore's Law But Another Had The Idea First". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 4 October 2011. Retrieved 4 October 2011. 
  16. ^ Markoff, John (31 August 2009). "After the Transistor, a Leap Into the Microcosm". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-08-31. 
  17. ^ Moore 1965, p. 5.
  18. ^ Ethan Mollick (2006). "Establishing Moore's Law". IEEE Annals of the History of Computing. Retrieved 2008-10-18. 
  19. ^ Moore, G.E. (1975). "Progress in digital integrated electronics". IEEE. Retrieved 2011-11-27. 
  20. ^ "Excerpts from A Conversation with Gordon Moore: Moore’s Law". Intel. Retrieved 2011-08-22. 
  21. ^ "Excerpts from A Conversation with Gordon Moore: Moore’s Law". Intel. Retrieved 2011-08-22. 
  22. ^ Michael Kanellos (2005-04-11). "Intel offers $10,000 for Moore's Law magazine". ZDNET News.com. Retrieved 2013-06-21. 
  23. ^ "Moore's Law original issue found". BBC News Online. 2005-04-22. Retrieved 2012-08-26. 
  24. ^ Stokes, Jon (2008-09-27). "Understanding Moore's Law". ars technica. Retrieved 2011-08-22. 
  25. ^ a b c Jain, K. et al, "Ultrafast deep-UV lithography with excimer lasers", IEEE Electron Device Lett., Vol. EDL-3, 53 (1982); http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1482581
  26. ^ a b c Jain, K. "Excimer Laser Lithography", SPIE Press, Bellingham, WA, 1990.
  27. ^ a b c La Fontaine, B., "Lasers and Moore's Law", SPIE Professional, Oct. 2010, p. 20; http://spie.org/x42152.xml
  28. ^ Walter, Chip (2005-07-25). "Kryder's Law". Scientific American ((Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck GmbH)). Retrieved 2006-10-29. 
  29. ^ [1] – Moore's Law Made real by Intel innovation
  30. ^ "Gerald Butters is a communications industry veteran". Forbes.com. Archived from the original on 2007-10-12. 
  31. ^ "Board of Directors". LAMBDA OpticalSystems. Retrieved 2011-08-22. 
  32. ^ Rich Tehrani. "As We May Communicate". Tmcnet.com. Retrieved 2011-08-22. 
  33. ^ Gail Robinson (2000-09-26). "Speeding net traffic with tiny mirrors". EE Times. Retrieved 2011-08-22. 
  34. ^ Jakob Nielsen (1998-04-05). "Nielsen's Law of Internet Bandwidth". Alertbox. Retrieved 2011-08-22. 
  35. ^ Ziggy Switkowski (2009-04-09). "Trust the power of technology". The Australian. Retrieved 2013-12-02. 
  36. ^ EMIN GÜNSIRER, RIK FARROW. Some Lesser-Known Laws of Computer Science. Retrieved 2013-12-02. 
  37. ^ "Using Moore’s Law to Predict Future Memory Trends". 2011-11-21. Retrieved 2013-12-02. 
  38. ^ Kennedy, Randall C. (2008-04-14). "Fat, fatter, fattest: Microsoft's kings of bloat". InfoWorld. Retrieved 2011-08-22. 
  39. ^ Rider (1944). The Scholar and the Future of the Research Library. New York City: Hadham Press. 
  40. ^ Life 2.0. (2006, August 31). The Economist
  41. ^ Carlson, Robert H. Biology Is Technology: The Promise, Peril, and New Business of Engineering Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2010. Print
  42. ^ "The Pace and Proliferation of Biological Technologies" Robert Carlson. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science. September 2003, 1(3): 203-214. doi:10.1089/153871303769201851
  43. ^ "Gordon Moore Says Aloha to Moore's Law". the Inquirer. 13 April 2005. Retrieved 2 September 2009. 
  44. ^ Sumner Lemon, Sumner; Tom Krazit (2005-04-19). "With chips, Moore's Law is not the problem". Infoworld. Retrieved 2011-08-22. 
  45. ^ Jeff Dorsch. "Does Moore's Law Still Hold Up?" (PDF). EDA Vision. Retrieved 2011-08-22. 
  46. ^ Bob Schaller (1996-09-26). "The Origin, Nature, and Implications of "Moore's Law"". Research.microsoft.com. Retrieved 2011-08-22. 
  47. ^ Jean-François Tremblay (2006-06-26). "Riding On Flat Panels – Materials suppliers are under pressure to raise output, but costs are rising, and rapid growth doesn't always translate into high profits". C&EN. Retrieved 2011-08-22. 
  48. ^ Kilby, J., "Miniaturized electronic circuits", US 3138743 , issued 23 June 1964 (filed 6 February 1959).
  49. ^ Noyce, R., "Semiconductor device-and-lead structure", US 2981877 , issued 25 April 1961 (filed 30 July 1959).
  50. ^ Wanlass, F., "Low stand-by power complementary field effect circuitry", US 3356858 , issued 5 December 1967 (filed 18 June 1963).
  51. ^ Dennard, R., "Field-effect transistor memory", US 3387286 , issued 4 June 1968 (filed 14 July 1967)
  52. ^ "Laser science milestones from 1917 through today". Laser Fest. Retrieved 2011-08-22. 
  53. ^ "50 Years Advancing the Laser". SPIE. Retrieved 2011-08-22. 
  54. ^ Lasers in Our Lives / 50 Years of Impact, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, retrieved 2011-08-22 
  55. ^ a b "International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors". Retrieved 2011-08-22. 
  56. ^ a b "Moore's Law: "We See No End in Sight," Says Intel's Pat Gelsinger". SYS-CON. 2008-05-01. Retrieved 2008-05-01. 
  57. ^ "Chilly chip shatters speed record". BBC Online. 2006-06-20. Retrieved 2006-06-24. 
  58. ^ "Georgia Tech/IBM Announce New Chip Speed Record". Georgia Institute of Technology. 2006-06-20. Retrieved 2006-06-24. 
  59. ^ Strukov, Dmitri B; Snider, Gregory S; Stewart, Duncan R; Williams, Stanley R (2008). "The missing memristor found". Nature 453 (7191): 80–83. Bibcode:2008Natur.453...80S. doi:10.1038/nature06932. PMID 18451858. 
  60. ^ Dexter Johnson (2010-02-22). "Junctionless Transistor Fabricated from Nanowires". IEEE Spectrum. Retrieved 2010-04-20. 
  61. ^ Super-small transistor created: Artificial atom powered by single electron. Science Daily. 2011-04-19. Bibcode:2011NatNa...6..343C. doi:10.1038/nnano.2011.56. Retrieved 2011-08-22. 
  62. ^ A single-atom transistor. Nature. 2011-12-16. Bibcode:2012NatNa...7..242F. doi:10.1038/nnano.2012.21. Retrieved 2012-01-19. 
  63. ^ Michio Kaku (2010). Physics of the Future. Doubleday. p. 173. ISBN 978-0-385-53080-4. 
  64. ^ Bob Yirka (2013-05-02). "New nanowire transistors may help keep Moore's Law alive". Phys.org. doi:10.1039/C3NR33738C. Retrieved 2013-08-08. 
  65. ^ "Rejuvenating Moore's Law With Nanotechnology". Forbes. 2007-06-05. Retrieved 2013-08-08. 
  66. ^ Manek Dubash (2005-04-13). "Moore's Law is dead, says Gordon Moore". Techworld. Retrieved 2006-06-24. 
  67. ^ Waldner, Jean-Baptiste (2008). Nanocomputers and swarm intelligence. London: ISTE. pp. 44–45. ISBN 978-1-84821-009-7. 
  68. ^ Michael Kanellos (2003-12-01). "Intel scientists find wall for Moore's Law". CNET. Retrieved 2009-03-19. 
  69. ^ Lawrence M. Krauss; Glenn D. Starkman (2004-05-10). "Universal Limits of Computation". arXiv:astro-ph/0404510.
  70. ^ Seth Lloyd (2000). "Ultimate physical limits to computation". Nature. Retrieved 2011-11-27. 
  71. ^ "Moore's Law at 40 – Happy birthday". The Economist. 2005-03-23. Retrieved 2006-06-24. 
  72. ^ a b Kurzweil, Ray (2005). The Singularity is Near. Penguin Books. ISBN 0-670-03384-7. 
  73. ^ a b Ray Kurzweil (2001-05-01). "The Law of Accelerating Returns". KurzweilAI.net. Retrieved 2006-06-24. 
  74. ^ "Internet of Lies". Snopes. Retrieved 2011-08-22. 
  75. ^ Yang, Dori Jones (2 July 2000). "Gordon Moore Is Still Chipping Away". U.S. News and World Report. Retrieved 2011-11-27. 
  76. ^ Malone, Michael S. (27 March 2003). "Silicon Insider: Welcome to Moore's War". ABC News. Retrieved 2011-08-22. 
  77. ^ Kaku, Michio. "Parallel universes, the Matrix, and superintelligence". Kurzweil. Retrieved 2011-08-22. 
  78. ^ a b Hilbert, Martin; López, Priscila (2011). "The World’s Technological Capacity to Store, Communicate, and Compute Information". Science 332 (6025): 60–65. Bibcode:2011Sci...332...60H. doi:10.1126/science.1200970. PMID 21310967.  Free access to the study through www.martinhilbert.net/WorldInfoCapacity.html and video animation ideas.economist.com/video/giant-sifting-sound-0
  79. ^ "Technological guideposts and innovation avenuesn", Sahal, Devendra (1985), Research Policy, 14, 61.
  80. ^ Dmitri E. Nikonov; Ian A. Young (2013-02-01). "Overview of Beyond-CMOS Devices and A Uniform Methodology for Their Benchmarking". Cornell University Library. Retrieved 2013-08-08. 
  81. ^ Sasikanth Manipatruni; Dmitri E. Nikonov; Ian A. Young (2012-12-13). "Material Targets for Scaling All Spin Logic". Cornell University Library. Retrieved 2013-08-08. 
  82. ^ "Proposal for an all-spin logic device with built-in memory". Nature Nanotechnology. 2010-02-28. Retrieved 2013-08-08. 
  83. ^ Shekhar Borkar, Andrew A. Chien (05 2011). "The Future of Microprocessors". Communications of ACM 54 (5). Retrieved 2011-11-27. 
  84. ^ See Herb Sutter,The Free Lunch Is Over: A Fundamental Turn Toward Concurrency in Software, Dr. Dobb's Journal, 30(3), March 2005. Retrieved 21 November 2011.
  85. ^ Anand Lal Shimpi (2004-07-21). "AnandTech: Intel's 90nm Pentium M 755: Dothan Investigated". Anadtech. Retrieved 2007-12-12. 
  86. ^ "Parallel JavaScript". Intel. 2011-09-15. Retrieved 2013-08-08. 
  87. ^ Peter Standborn (April 2008). Trapped on Technology's Trailing Edge. IEEE Spectrum. Retrieved 2011-11-27. 
  88. ^ "WEEE - Combating the obsolescence of computers and other devices". SAP Community Network. 2012-12-14. Retrieved 2013-08-08. 

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]

News[edit]

Articles[edit]

Data[edit]

FAQs[edit]