Moore's Law

Moore's law has to come to odds with the law of diminishing returns. This i s a reality. Throwing the GPU in the CPU does not make a better CPU. What's more, look at how the speed of these processors is stuck at a couple of GH z. Electrons only move so fast.

I predicted they would figure out optical processors eventually, and they p robably will, but when is eventually ?

In all things there is a theoretical limit. Even if a car engine has a VE o f friggin 200, it cannot exceed its theoretical compression ratio, and if y ou separate the components, even a turbo or supercharger cannot do it. What 's more, the crank can only stand so much force.

They have TV sets with 1080p resolution. do you think they are going to go higher ? They are getting to the point where people can't see any better.

Computers ? They are so fast now that even Microsoft can't write software t o slow them down enough anymore. They've been outdone by the people who wro te Solidworks and Rhinocerous. But at least those programs DO something. Ma ybe Pspice, but I aonly have LTspice. It can take a few second to analyze a nd do a simulation, but then this computer is like from 2008. My brand new Win 10 coputer at work is no faster.

What did we gain ?

Well we stimulated the economy and put a bunch of geeks to work. Ad that is what it is. We really do not need any more, they have to push it or they'r e out of a job. I'd use Win 98SE on a 486 if I could get the damn thing to connect to the router. It was simply not that slow. The other problem is th e browser.

The internet is the biggest impetus for this buy and throw out deal we got now. Friggin nags me to upgrade my browser to see a picture hosted on one o f those sites, go f*ck yourself. I can do everything else I want just they way it is, I have to change to see a picture ? Tell you what, you want to s how me a picture get Dropbox and use the \public directory. Simple, no ads, no frames, no nothing, just the damn picture. Want a caption, take a super uper duper advanced graphics program like Paint Shop Pro 4 from 1995 or so and "expand canvas" and then go to the little "A" and insert some text. Be sure to pick the right font size first, that can be tricky at times.

I would use DOS. Hell, it is probably easier to write programs for DOS but you supply the GUI. People will not give up their mouse.

Anyway, the law of diminishing returns is really a factor here and one of the reasons I won't buy anything anymore. Plus they always take out functio ns I want.

Bottom line, putting more transistors on a chip is not advance. You throw t he GPU in there, that is just two chips in one package. Alright they can co mmunicate a bit faster, but not all that much. Eventually they might put th e soundcard in the CPU too and call that an advancement. But it ain't, it i s just saving them a few bucks. Next maybe the wifi receiver goes in, but s till all they have done is to cram more stuff into one package.

Ad then, when just ONE of those billions of transistors goes bad in there, you have to shitcan the whole thing. How convenient for them.

That's progress.

Reply to
jurb6006
Loading thread data ...

Maybe the only chips worth doing at sub 10 nm is memory.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
Reply to
John Larkin

"Jim Thompson" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

How much analog is even done under 200nm?

Think I recall the RF stuff more or less peaks around there.

Tim

--
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC 
Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design 
Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com
Reply to
Tim Williams

On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:49:04 -0500, "Tim Williams" Gave us:

Perhaps, but photonics takes it all into a new realm.

formatting link

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

You're an idiot, too.

You've totally ignored the improvements in architecture, allowed by unlimited transistor budgets.

Reply to
krw

There are idgits trying it... you know the kind of "analog" engineer... can't solder, but can run a simulator :-(

I had an inquiry where a manager wanted me to "review" his expensive non-functional analog designs on 65nm and make suggestions for improvements... on-site in Massachusetts for six months. I declined on-site, but would do it remotely using my own tools. Manager declined. Probably hired yet another robot :-( ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    | 
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142   Skype: Contacts Only  |             | 
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  | 
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     | 
              
           The touchstone of liberalism is intolerance
Reply to
Jim Thompson

Not very soon. Optical is the domain of companies saddled with crushing debt from all those crashes over the last 20 years. Others know far more than I, but I wouldn't expect to see it, frankly. SFAIK (which is pitifully little ) not much processing happens in the optical domain.

They are going higher. It's called 4K and you can see them at Best Buy and at Sams and they are spectacular.

Right now, it's custom demo reels to show them off - there is little if any program material commercially available beyond BluRay but I'm not usually impressed by video, but these, you can get lost in.

Nobody really wants to face the realities of software. If you do, as I do, high-performance* realtime, it's really sort of lonely out here. I can read about some people doing some things some ways on the Internet but it's mostly people knitting .NET, Java or Python together. Or worse.

*which is always domain dependent.

Windows itself is no excuse for any of jitter, latency or the like. You can tune out a Linux distro for pretty good high rate performance, but it doesn't really come that way stock.

And that's it. Some time about 1990, it stopped being "woe betide you who choose to practice this". Too many 200 pound lumps stuck on the couch, I guess.

No, because FAT32 and the propensity for Win98 to just latch. Make that Win2k and I am right behind you. I do a lot of work at home in a Win2k VM.

but that's what the Innernet *is* to most people.

It's analogous to body count in Vietnam, or tractors in the Soviet Union. . "Glorious Soviet production of transistors up 10% this year."

If all else fails, do packaging.

I would actively not buy a rolled in wifi widget.

"I went back to the store They gave me four more The guy told me at the door It's a piece of crap " - Neil Young, "Piece Of Crap"

--
Les Cargill
Reply to
Les Cargill

On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:17:20 -0500, Les Cargill Gave us:

IBM, Intel, Samsung, etc. are doing great things in photonics. There is 100% optical memory now, and there are even processors in the works. You guys have apparently not been keeping up. I posted a link to a google images page and most of the images have links attached to them. Go take a look at what is going on.

Optical and quantum computing are converging. It is happening.

"Not very soon"? Wake up and notice the photonic control we have.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:17:20 -0500, Les Cargill Gave us:

Looks pretty good doing CAD work. They are far better than 1080 LED displays and even the old fine pitch CRTs. 4K and beyond is on its way in. Wake up.. You sound like a bunch of luddite old gits.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

e

I'll crispen that up to "never". There are a lot of amazing things you can do with photons, but a practical general purpose processor competitive with CMOS is not one of them.

Optical interconnection between chips, and even to a limited degree on-chip , sure. (I spent some years working to help make that happen.)

There's a very basic problem with optical logic: a few electrons sitting on a gate can control many electrons at the drain, but a few photons can't co ntrol many in that way.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Reply to
Phil Hobbs

I wonder if a 4K set is bought today if it will continue to work well with the various sources in a couple of years? I've seen plenty of issues with sets not properly supporting various video modes. Since 4K is so new with so little program source material, will it all still be properly compatible when program material is out? Or I guess I'm wondering if the set makers have the bugs out.

--

Rick
Reply to
rickman

Remember that the original Moore's formulation was about the number of transistors per chip. The side effects of process shrink (speed bumps, leakage improvements) are an icing on a cake that is indeed pretty much gone, but the increase in the number of transistors is still going strong.

Reply to
Przemek Klosowski

That's a really good question.

I figure to let it ride for a while myself. But it's stunning. I think everyone will want this when it's firmed up. I at least temporarily lost the sensation that I was watching a screen. It's completely immersive. HD is nice, but it's still a TV, a screen.

I have no idea whatsoever how it may be that program material gets to it. Dunno of the standard streaming services will support it or not.

The downside will be that it'll probably need to be an 80 inch screen to get the full effect.

--
Les Cargill
Reply to
Les Cargill

Ok by me! I've yet to buy any flat panels so when I get one I won't mind making it really big!

--

Rick
Reply to
rickman

The broadcasters are also pushing high dynamic range, I.E. finally moving away from the colour limitations of forty years ago. They like it because the quality is outstanding but the bandwidth is only another 20% or so.

Colin

Reply to
colin_toogood

Correct. On screens smaller than about 40 inches viewed from six or more feet, there is no much difference.

Dan

Reply to
dcaster

They're cheap, now. For largeish screens, I don't see why one would not want 4K. Even the entry level are stunning.

I don't think so. 55-65" screens are stunning, as well. We have three flat screens (1080P - two 40 and 42") in the house now. I was ready to pull the trigger on a 65" high-end Samsung 65" but SWMBO wasn't convinced so we let the deal escape. The best deal I can find now is $1K more than a month ago (new models).

Reply to
krw

That's the theory. The reality is something different. The sets are far better all around.

Reply to
krw

Litho generations have slowed down a lot. This is already an old plot:

formatting link
.

This one is a bit more recent:

formatting link
.

Litho put on a bit of a burst of speed around 2000, but that's ancient history now.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs 
Principal Consultant 
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC 
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 

160 North State Road #203 
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 

hobbs at electrooptical dot net 
http://electrooptical.net
Reply to
Phil Hobbs

How about 18" inches viewed from two feet? One reason I haven't bought a big screen is it would be far enough away that my laptop is actually a much bigger screen. I wouldn't mind having a really big screen I can use as a computer monitor. But for it to actually be "large" it would have to be reasonably close.

--

Rick
Reply to
rickman

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.