Featured Articles

Snapdragon 400 is Qualcomm’s SoC for watches, wearables

Snapdragon 400 is Qualcomm’s SoC for watches, wearables

We wanted to learn a bit more about Qualcomm's plans for wearables and it turns out that the company believes its…

More...
Qualcomm sampling 20nm Snapdragon 810

Qualcomm sampling 20nm Snapdragon 810

We had a chance to talk to Michelle Leyden-Li, Senior Director of Marketing, QCT at Qualcomm and get an update on…

More...
EVGA GTX 970 SC ACX 2.0 reviewed

EVGA GTX 970 SC ACX 2.0 reviewed

Nvidia has released two new graphics cards based on its latest Maxwell GPU architecture. The Geforce GTX 970 and Geforce GTX…

More...
Nvidia GTX 980 reviewed

Nvidia GTX 980 reviewed

Nvidia has released two new graphics cards based on its latest Maxwell GPU architecture. The Geforce GTX 970 and Geforce GTX…

More...
PowerColor TurboDuo R9 285 reviewed

PowerColor TurboDuo R9 285 reviewed

Today we will take a look at the PowerColor TurboDuo Radeon R9 285. The card is based on AMD’s new…

More...
Frontpage Slideshow | Copyright © 2006-2010 orks, a business unit of Nuevvo Webware Ltd.
Friday, 30 August 2013 08:44

Economics could kill Moore’s Law

Written by Nick Farrell

Or Colonel Mustard with the pipe in the Library 

Pundits have made a number of predictions for the death of Moore’s Law but this one suggests that it is actually going to be the economy which bumps the idea off.

Moore’s Law, named for Intel co-founder Gordon Moore, states that the number of transistors contained on integrated circuits is doubled roughly every two years. However according to Robert Colwell of DARPA’s Microsystems Technology Office Moore’s Law could end as early as 2020, with economics, rather than physics, being the main reason for its demise.

He said that Moore’s Law will not have to end because of physics as a restriction on chip evolution. Instead, Colwell forecasts that economics would halt the rapid progression of technology, as more advanced chips become less likely to make profit.

“Chip companies don't make the bulk of their profits from the top-of-the-line chips, but instead from the huge numbers of run-of-the-mill follow-on chips that they peddle,” he said.

He thinks that Intel would lose interest in smaller and smaller chips if they failed to appeal to a consumer market.

Nick Farrell

E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
blog comments powered by Disqus

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments