It's more than that though as it's important to remember why Moore made his law in the first place.
The rough organizational structure of a VLSI team that makes CPUs is the following pipeline:
architecture team -> team that designs the circuits which implement the architecture -> team that manufactures the circuits
The law was a message to the architecture team that by the time your architecture gets to manufacture you should expect there to be ~2x the number of transistor you have today available, and that should influence your decisions when making trade-offs.
And that held for a long time. But, if you're in a CPU architecture team today, and you operate that way, you will likely be disappointed when it comes to manufacture. Therefore one should consider Moore's law dead when architecting CPUs.
I don’t think it’s irrelevant to look at changing timescale. If the law broke down to be 3 years, there isn’t any reason it won’t be 4, 5, or some other N years in the future.
Re:Apple and Intel first to use TSMC 3nm
by vlovich123 on Saturday July 03, 2021 @10:27AM
(#27721826)
Every 2 years
David Patterson is saying he considers Moore's Law is dead because the current state of say, "transistor count doubling every three years" doesn't match the Moore's Law exact statement.
In other words, he is simply being very pedantic about his definition. I can see where he's coming from with that argument.