News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The chips are down for Moore’s law by Symmetry on Thursday February 11, 2016 @08:20AM (#11079913)
When Gorden Moore wrote his first paper on things doubling every fixed time period it was on the lowest cost transistors back in 1965 but the term Moore's Law didn't come into use until the mid 70s by which time he had written a number of other papers pointing out a number of other doublings including feature size. In the old days these all doubled in lockstep so the original coinage of the term didn't really distinguish economics from minimal feature size.

So there's really no legitimate way to insist that Moore's law has to refer to the lowest cost number of transistors. It actually wasn't that by coinage and it certainly isn't that by common usage. I've even got a copy of a memo by Moore in my 6.175 lecture notes endorsing a broader conception of Moore's law.

Re:The chips are down for Moore’s law by hga on Thursday February 11, 2016 @08:42AM (#11080014)
Well, my conclusion after many years, echoed by one of the themes of Nature article including the lock step nature of node moves, is that Moore's Law is more one of economics than anything else. So I focus on that original definition of it, it seems to be the essence of it and its implications.

Now, if you're in the weeds of designing a chip or node, yeah, things like feature size are paramount, but why are you going to the trouble of moving to a new node in the first place, especially with the end of Dennard scaling a decade+ ago? Power consumption could be an alternative to the raw economics, or maybe taking up less space in the smaller mobile form factors. Intel's leading with mobile chips for some reason.