bit about transistor cost

who in their right mind doesn't use an adblocker?

I recently lept forward a decade from a circa 2010 AMD FX to a Ryzen

Benchmarked vs a i7-3770 the Ryzen 5600X clobbers it in just about any task you care to mention:

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.

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

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

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

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$8mg$ snipped-for-privacy@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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.