{"id":49202,"date":"2015-12-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2015-12-18T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.techopedia.com\/more-than-moore-50-years-of-moores-law\/"},"modified":"2020-11-12T21:58:45","modified_gmt":"2020-11-12T21:58:45","slug":"more-than-moore-50-years-of-moores-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.techopedia.com\/2\/31273\/hardware\/memory\/more-than-moore-50-years-of-moores-law","title":{"rendered":"More Than Moore – 50 Years of Moore’s Law"},"content":{"rendered":"

There has been a good deal written in the tech press about the fact that we have passed the 50th<\/sup> anniversary of “Moore’s law<\/a>” (one of the better articles is by Thomas Friedman, “Moore’s Law Turns 50<\/a>” in the New York Times of May 19th<\/sup>). While most of the articles correctly indicate that the so-called Moore’s law is an indication of the exponential growth of computer power since Gordon Moore<\/a>, one of the three founders of Intel, made the observation\/prediction that came to bear his name and be promulgated as a “law.”<\/p>\n

The Basics of Moore's Law<\/span><\/h2>\n

To start with some background — Moore’s law is not a law as gravity is (irrefutable) or a traffic law (a suggestion enforceable by court action — fines, jail time, license suspension and\/or probation). It is, rather, as stated above, a combination of an observation and a prediction. In Friedman's words, in April 1965, Gordon Moore,<\/p>\n

“[T]hen the head of research for Fairchild Semiconductor and later one of the co-founders of Intel, was asked by Electronics Magazine to submit an article predicting what was going to happen to integrated circuits<\/a>, the heart of computing, in the next 10 years. Studying the trend he’d seen in the previous few years, Moore predicted that every year we’d double the number of transistors<\/a> that could fit on a single chip of silicon so you’d get twice as much computing power for only slightly more money. When that came true, in 1975, he modified his prediction to a doubling roughly every two years. "Moore’s Law" has essentially held up ever since – and, despite the skeptics, keeps chugging along, making it probably the most remarkable example ever of sustained exponential growth of a technology.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Many writers skip over the heart of Moore’s law – the constant miniaturization of electronic components that first allowed a single transistor on a chip, then multiple transistors on a chip, then tens, then hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, etc. – and just write “double the speed of computers every two years” (now 18 months). While the effect of the doubling of the transistors on a chip is doubling of the speed, it is helpful to understand “the why” of the result, because while the speed of the processor<\/a> is the underlying component of the increase in computer power over the 50 years, it is not the sole component.<\/p>\n

An Observation of My Own<\/span><\/h2>\n

“johnmac’s law” (not a real law, another observation) is:<\/p>\n

Increase in Computing Power = f ((increase in processor speed + improvements in storage + increase in telecommunications bandwidth) * power of paradigm shifts)<\/p>\n

or<\/p>\n

\"GreekCP = f ((\"Greekp +\"Greeks +\"Greekt) * PS)<\/p>\n

Where:<\/p>\n

\"Greek = Change
f = Function
* = Multiplication
CP = Computer Power
p = Processor Speed
s = Storage
t = Telecommunications Bandwidth
PS = Paradigm Shifts
(Note: The above is not meant to be a mathematical formula but rather function as a display tool.)<\/p>\n

Storage – Another benefit of miniaturization is the fact that storage has become much, much smaller in size; much, much greater in capacity; much faster; and much, much cheaper in cost. About 35 years ago, I bought a 10 million byte (very large in capacity for its time) Corvus hard drive. The drive was bigger than a desktop personal computer and cost me $5,500.00. Today, I wear a 128 billion byte drive on a chain around my neck that cost me under $100.00. If prices had stayed the same, 1 billion bytes would cost $550,000.00 and the 128 GB drive around my neck would come in at seven billion, forty million dollars<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Telecommunication Bandwidth – We have seen computer modems<\/a> which started at 110 baud<\/a> (11 characters per second) replaced by 300 baud and then 1200, 2400, 9600, 28800, 56000, baud – each of which could only handle one user at a time – and finally replaced by fiber optic<\/a> and cable broadband<\/a> access. Yet, we are still behind much of the developed world in telecommunications speed and so we have a way to go.<\/p>\n

Paradigm Shifts – This is the hardest of the components to quantify – it is not measurable in bytes, or baud, or MIPS<\/a> – yet it is one of the most important elements in the equation and is driven constantly by human creativity. This is not to say that the engineers developing smaller and faster chips aren’t creative, but they are working in a fairly straight line while the paradigm shifts are often caused by people thinking of new things to do with the smaller and faster computers, and then writing programs to do the new things, which caused people to buy computers almost solely because of the new things.<\/p>\n

Paradigm Shifts in Computing History<\/span><\/h2>\n

Some important events that have changed the course of technology:<\/p>\n