Gordon Moore, no more. (RIP) - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2023, 11:00:14 am
content: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Moore

author: pcprogrammer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2023, 12:18:37 pm
content: He left behind a lot of moneyLots of ping ping for uncle Sam.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2023, 12:31:46 pm
content: A genuine legend. RIP.

author: DH7DN
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2023, 10:54:57 pm
content: The last of the "Traitorous Eight" is gone...Despite all the controversies around the early days of the semiconductor industry, Moore was one of the key people of the Silicon Valley. He was in the right place at the right time with the right people and was a very successful engineer and business manager.He'll be remembered for his "law" and for his significant contributions in the fields of semiconductors and microprocessors, which helped shaping our modern day's technology and the technologies for decades to come.RIP Dr. Moore

author: Sredni
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2023, 04:55:18 am
content: So many foundry memories...

author: jonpaul
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2023, 11:32:30 am
content: Gordon Moore, the Intel Corp. co-founder who set the breakneck pace of progress in the digital age with a simple 1965 prediction of how quickly engineers would boost the capacity of computer chips, has died. He was 94. 1929 — 2023 |Moore died Friday at his home in Hawaii, according to Intel and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.Moore, who held a Ph.D. in chemistry and physics, made his famous observation — now known as "Moore's Law" — three years before he helped start Intel in 1968. It appeared among a number of articles about the future written for the now-defunct Electronics magazine by experts in various fields.The prediction, which Moore said he plotted out on graph paper based on what had been happening with chips at the time, said the capacity and complexity of integrated circuits would double every year.Attachments

author: eti
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2023, 05:49:52 pm
content: Moore is now less.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2023, 07:09:58 pm
content: The first thing I was taught in sophomore college physics was to reject any solution in the formX(t)=Ae+bt, since it had probably blown up already.We keep expecting the saturation of Moore's Law, but so far improvements in device engineering and fab have kept it going.Is there any evidence yet of such saturation?

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2023, 08:05:50 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on March 26, 2023, 07:09:58 pmWell going down to smaller than atoms is going to be a bit of a problem.But we can design ICs with many more layers, so still a large potential for increasing density IMO.

author: eti
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 26, 2023, 11:22:10 pm
content: More powerful processors isn't the solution - VERY VERY LAZY "programmers" are what bogs down CPUs - drag'n'drop "programming" which assumes everything is "taken care of for me" is the MAJORITY of the problem.Let's take a CPU released in 2010 - if it was fast enough then, and if people didn't keep adding piles of pointless & arbitrary "features" on top of it, layer by layer, update by update, the PHYSICAL CPUis equally as able to do what it did then, now, were it not hindered by the"Oh WONDERFUL - you've given us a faster, more powerful horse and cart, now we can load SO much more coal onto it!"mindset.A 50cc motorbike is speedy and efficient until the owner puts on 10 stone - it's not that hard to work out. We only "need" faster CPUs because software is HUGELY inefficient, and so the - ahem - "programmers" - just throw more CPU and RAM at their crappy software, instead of FIXING what makes it slower(I know it's a common punch bag, but for good reason: Android is a PRIME example of this - the "flagship" models, instead of solving for crappy design at Google, which they clearly cannot [because Android IS NOT 100% "open"], the OEM's hands are tied, and so they chuck in buckets of RAM and CPU, thinking that is a "solution", where we have iOS that can execute the same tasks SO many orders of magnitude more efficiently, whilst using leaner and more optimised resources - yeah - I know this has been said a tiresome number of times - that's because truths always remain true)