On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:39:02 AM UTC-5, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> Rick C wrote: 
> > On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 6:47:21 AM UTC-5, Tom Del Rosso wrote: 
> >> In 1959 it was 2 transistors. In 1971 it was 2000. That's a lot 
> >> closer to doubling every year. 
> > 
> > Moore made his observation in the mid 60's. You are trying to apply 
> > that retroactively to the entire period from the date the first two 
> > transistors were placed on a single die. That's a pointless 
> > comparison.
> Obviously he made his statement based on the trend that started in 59, 
> and his observation ("law") can't be applied to that period?

That's YOUR period, not his.  He looked at the then current trend with the data he had from Intel.  Do you have any data for these years?  I can't find any.  

Like I said previously, Moore's law is about transistor density.  Counting two transistors on a die as the first attempt to integrate circuits is a bit disingenuous.  Whatever.  It's not something worth debating further. 

-- 

Rick C.

-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Rick C wrote:
> On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 6:47:21 AM UTC-5, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>> In 1959 it was 2 transistors. In 1971 it was 2000. That's a lot
>> closer to doubling every year.
>
> Moore made his observation in the mid 60's.  You are trying to apply
> that retroactively to the entire period from the date the first two
> transistors were placed on a single die.  That's a pointless
> comparison.

Obviously he made his statement based on the trend that started in 59, 
and his observation ("law") can't be applied to that period?

-- 
Defund the Thought Police
Andiamo Brandon!

On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 6:47:21 AM UTC-5, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> Rick C wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 9:20:50 PM UTC-5, Tom Del Rosso 
> > wrote: 
> >> Rick C wrote: 
> >>>>> It was never about performance, it was just the number of 
> >>>>> transistors doubling every 18 to 24 months. 
> >>> All of that may be true, but Moore's observation was simply about 
> >>> the trend in the number of transistors on a die. That's all. 
> >> Yes but his observation was that it doubled every year, or else the 
> >> 8080 would have had only 250 transistors. 
> > 
> > Not sure what you are talking about. 
> > 
> > "Moore's law is the observation that the number of transistors in a 
> > dense integrated circuit doubles about every two years. Moore's law 
> > is an observation and projection of a historical trend. Rather than a 
> > law of physics, it is an empirical relationship linked to gains from 
> > experience in production." 
> > 
> > Wikipedia. If you don't trust them see what Synopsis says or any of 
> > dozens of other sources. 
> > 
> > Maybe you intended to say something you didn't actually say?
> In 1959 it was 2 transistors. In 1971 it was 2000. That's a lot closer 
> to doubling every year.

Moore made his observation in the mid 60's.  You are trying to apply that retroactively to the entire period from the date the first two transistors were placed on a single die.  That's a pointless comparison. 

> "Moore's law is the observation that the number of transistors in a 
> dense integrated circuit doubles about every two years."
> But in the 90's I always read it was every 18 months, and in the 70's I 
> always read it was every year. 
> 
> In the 70's they projected a billion transistors in 2000, which would be 
> consistent with every year, but it took longer because it slowed down. 

You can look at the graph of densities and find that while there are deviations from the curve, it has remained pretty accurate over the long term.  Trying to analyze any given point on the curve has no point.  You also need to consider that most such plots are of the total transistors on a given device, not the density of transistors which is what Moore's Law is about.  For example, through the 90s, the period you are talking about being "slow" the leading chips were the various flavors of the Pentium.  Until 2002 when the Itanium came out with around four times more transistors than the current Pentium.  

I think if you look at feature sizes or transistor area you will see a more consistent curve through the years. 

> It would be nice to see a reference to Moore that was printed in the 
> 1970's.

Before the Internet...  Not so easy to find.  I wasn't even working in electronics until the end of the 70's, so nothing in my reading room about that. 

-- 

Rick C.

-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Rick C wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 9:20:50 PM UTC-5, Tom Del Rosso
> wrote:
>> Rick C wrote:
>>>>> It was never about performance, it was just the number of
>>>>> transistors doubling every 18 to 24 months.
>>> All of that may be true, but Moore's observation was simply about
>>> the trend in the number of transistors on a die. That's all.
>> Yes but his observation was that it doubled every year, or else the
>> 8080 would have had only 250 transistors.
>
> Not sure what you are talking about.
>
> "Moore's law is the observation that the number of transistors in a
> dense integrated circuit doubles about every two years. Moore's law
> is an observation and projection of a historical trend. Rather than a
> law of physics, it is an empirical relationship linked to gains from
> experience in production."
>
> Wikipedia.  If you don't trust them see what Synopsis says or any of
> dozens of other sources.
>
> Maybe you intended to say something you didn't actually say?

In 1959 it was 2 transistors. In 1971 it was 2000. That's a lot closer 
to doubling every year.

"Moore's law is the observation that the number of transistors in a 
dense integrated circuit doubles about every two years."

But in the 90's I always read it was every 18 months, and in the 70's I 
always read it was every year.

In the 70's they projected a billion transistors in 2000, which would be 
consistent with every year, but it took longer because it slowed down.

It would be nice to see a reference to Moore that was printed in the 
1970's.

-- 
Defund the Thought Police
Andiamo Brandon!

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id 
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id 
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from 
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is 
> CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Thu, 9 Dec 2021 23:01:35 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <sou1se$8mg$11@dont-email.me>.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
follow it's own rules that it uses to troll other posters.

KXrVUx3kkTF8

On 12/9/21 6:10 PM, bitrex wrote:
> On 12/6/21 4:34 PM, Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 06/12/2021 19:04, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>>> On 12/6/2021 20:47, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 20:36:17 +0200, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/6/2021 19:42, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>> https://www.fabricatedknowledge.com/p/the-rising-tide-of-semiconductor 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've also heard that the cost of one next-gen euv scanner is well 
>>>>>> over
>>>>>> $200M, and that the design and mask set for a high-end chip costs a
>>>>>> billion dollars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We just don't need few-nm chips.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gradually electronics design without having access to a silicon 
>>>>> factory
>>>>> becomes useless, hopefully the process is slow enough so we don't see
>>>>> that in full.
>>>>> Sort of like nowadays you can somehow master an internal combustion
>>>>> engine if you have a lathe and a milling machine but you have no 
>>>>> chance
>>>>> to make it comparable to those car makers make, not to speak about 
>>>>> cost.
>>>>
>>>> Some things have got good enough. Hammers, spoons, beds, LED lights,
>>>> microwave ovens. Moore's Law can't go on forever, and is probably at
>>>> or in same cases past its practical limit.
>>>>
>>>> We don't need 3 nm chips to text and twitter. I can't imagine my cell
>>>> phone needing to be better hardware.
>>
>> I would like a *lot* more battery life - the speed is more than 
>> adequate for my needs. I'd trade slower when idle for longer life.
>>
>> Likewise with PC's. I'm in the market for a new one right now but I'm 
>> not convinced that any of them offer single threaded performance that 
>> is 3x better than the ancient i7-3770 I have now. That has always been 
>> my upgrade heuristic (used to be every 3 years). Clock speeds have 
>> maxed out and now they are adding more cores (many of which are idle 
>> most of the time). Performance cores and efficient cores is the new 
>> selling point. It looks on paper like the i5-12600K might just pass 
>> this test.
> 
> I recently lept forward a decade from a circa 2010 AMD FX to a Ryzen 
> 5600X, motherboard + processor + 32 gigs of RAM were about $500 
> delivered from Amazon.
> 
> Benchmarked vs a i7-3770 the Ryzen 5600X clobbers it in just about any 
> task you care to mention:
> 
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxfwvT7GH4g>

Note that game engines largely tend to be single-threaded.

On 12/9/21 6:09 PM, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
> fredag den 10. december 2021 kl. 00.00.57 UTC+1 skrev bitrex:
>> On 12/9/21 5:52 PM, bitrex wrote:
>>> On 12/8/21 6:21 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>> On 07/12/2021 23:21, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
>>>>> tirsdag den 7. december 2021 kl. 23.32.09 UTC+1 skrev
>>>>> gnuarm.del...@gmail.com:
>>>>>> On Monday, December 6, 2021 at 8:14:43 PM UTC-5, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Likewise with PC's. I'm in the market for a new one right now but I'm
>>>>>>> not convinced that any of them offer single threaded performance
>>>>>>> that is
>>>>>>> 3x better than the ancient i7-3770 I have now. That has always been my
>>>>>>> upgrade heuristic (used to be every 3 years). Clock speeds have maxed
>>>>>>> out and now they are adding more cores (many of which are idle most of
>>>>>>> the time). Performance cores and efficient cores is the new selling
>>>>>>> point. It looks on paper like the i5-12600K might just pass this test.
>>>>>> I bought an i5 machine and it was a real dog. I said something to
>>>>>> the effect that they ran out of ways to add transistors to improve
>>>>>> the speed of CPUs a few years ago and someone listed a number of
>>>>>> architectural improvements they've added for a 20-30% boost.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has been quite some time since you could expect significant speed
>>>>>> improvements by adding transistors or faster clock speeds. I think
>>>>>> it was the Pentium 4 where the clock rate peaked at about 3 GHz by
>>>>>> adding pipeline stages for shorter gate delays. But the cost of
>>>>>> pipeline stalls pretty much mitigated that advantage. I believe
>>>>>> people could overclock the Pentium 3 to run faster than the 4.
>>>>
>>>> It would have needed serious water cooling to overclock a Pentium 3.
>>>> My P3 portable actually damaged the surface finish of a table when
>>>> left on power running a particularly heavy simulation overnight. Used
>>>> on a lap at full speed it would almost certainly have resulted in
>>>> serious burns!
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i7-3770-vs-Intel-i9-12900KF-vs-Intel-Pentium-4-3.60GHz/896vs4611vs1079
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Therein lies the problem. The stuff I am developing only cares about
>>>> single thread performance so by moving from the i7-3770 to the latest
>>>> and greatest i9-12900 I get just twice the speed for 4x the power
>>>> used. It would be a lot more cost effective to buy another 3770 or
>>>> 4770 (they are practically giving them away now as desktops have
>>>> fallen out of fashion).
>>>>
>>>> Curiously I can see what turns out to be a step backwards in the
>>>> i7-3770 from my portable which is an i7-2670QM. The latter can
>>>> correctly handle sincos simultaneous evaluation without a pipeline
>>>> stall in my algorithm but the go faster 3770 cannot. I had assumed
>>>> until now that it was a later chip with a lower number until I just
>>>> looked it up.
>>>>
>>>> It seems some of the trick used in the slower clocked low power
>>>> portable CPUs either don't make it into the desktop CPUs or are
>>>> inapplicable.
>>>>
>>>> The i5-12600K looks like it might just be good enough. Improvements in
>>>> the pipelining, sincos simultaneous evaluation and SSE extensions for
>>>> tough floating point problems might just be enough to push it over 3x.
>>>> On paper its floating point performance looks OK.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are web pages that can grind a Haswell-core Celeron N3060 with a
>>> 2.4 Ghz boost clock, from ~5 years ago, on a netbook with 4 gigs RAM and
>>> SSD, plus 100 megabit internet connection to a halt all by themselves,
>>> no other tabs open. Example:
>>>
>>> <https://owlcation.com/stem/I-Found-A-Pretty-Rock-On-The-Beach-And-Wondered-II>
>>>
>> Adblock helps a bunch with that page
> 
> 
> who in their right mind doesn't use an adblocker?
> 

I only block sites that are disgustingly filled with pop ups and other 
crap like that one, or have misbehaving scripts, I don't mind a few ads 
otherwise I think content creators deserve to get paid.