CSC/ECE 506 Spring 2012/1b ps: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Moore's Law == | |||
In 1965, Intel co-founder predicted that the number of transistors on a die would double every 24 months. This was a rough predictive statement (not a true law of course) that has been claimed to be quite accurate in the decades since. This article explores different interpretations of Moore's law, whether it has failed to hold true during certain intervals of time, and, finally, whether it will continue to hold and, if so, for how long? | |||
In 1965, Intel co-founder predicted that the number of transistors on a | |||
The rate of growth Moore predicted is truly staggering. The equation form of the law is: T(t)=T0 * 2^(t/2) where T0 represents the initial transistor count in the start year and Tn the transistor count in t years. This is somewhat lost on transistors so we'll switch to something everyone understands, money. If one could double his wealth every 24 months and started with $1, he would have $5,931,641 in 45 years! | The rate of growth Moore predicted is truly staggering. The equation form of the law is: T(t)=T0 * 2^(t/2) where T0 represents the initial transistor count in the start year and Tn the transistor count in t years. This is somewhat lost on transistors so we'll switch to something everyone understands, money. If one could double his wealth every 24 months and started with $1, he would have $5,931,641 in 45 years! | ||
Line 10: | Line 8: | ||
If Moore was right, he wasn't right on the first try. His initial prediction was that transistor counts would double every year. In 1975 he revised this prediction to every two years (credit: http://news.cnet.com/Myths-of-Moores-Law/2010-1071_3-1014887.html). If we take 1971 and the Intel 4004 processor as our starting point, we see the following growth alongside the predicted growth and the variance and variance percentage next to each (credit for raw data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count) | If Moore was right, he wasn't right on the first try. His initial prediction was that transistor counts would double every year. In 1975 he revised this prediction to every two years (credit: http://news.cnet.com/Myths-of-Moores-Law/2010-1071_3-1014887.html). If we take 1971 and the Intel 4004 processor as our starting point, we see the following growth alongside the predicted growth and the variance and variance percentage next to each (credit for raw data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count) | ||
== Survey of data across the years == | |||
Line 122: | Line 122: | ||
[[File:TransistorCountVariance.JPG]] | [[File:TransistorCountVariance.JPG]] | ||
== Variance Years == | |||
Line 128: | Line 131: | ||
So it is important when evaluating whether Moore's law has failed to hold to compare chips of the same family, or perhaps take the best technology for a given year. For example, in years 1979, 1982, 1985, 1989 with the Motorola 68000, Intel 80286, Intel 80386 and Intel 80486, the best chips available in the data above, either exceed Moore's predictions or come very close. | So it is important when evaluating whether Moore's law has failed to hold to compare chips of the same family, or perhaps take the best technology for a given year. For example, in years 1979, 1982, 1985, 1989 with the Motorola 68000, Intel 80286, Intel 80386 and Intel 80486, the best chips available in the data above, either exceed Moore's predictions or come very close. | ||
But there are many intervals where this is not true, including 1971-1978, 1993-2000, which show poor performance. One also sees certain chips and chip families which cause transistor counts to lurch forward (for example, the first Itanium 2 which included 221 million transistors, 4 times Moore's prediction for 2006). | But there are many intervals where this is not true, including 1971-1978, 1993-2000, which show poor performance. One explanation is that other chip factors started to become more important (power consumptions, parallel processing, etc.) during this time. One also sees certain chips and chip families which cause transistor counts to lurch forward (for example, the first Itanium 2 which included 221 million transistors, 4 times Moore's prediction for 2006). This lurching forward may have an effect that for subsequent years, the hardware outstrips market needs and it takes some time for operating systems and software to catch up. During this catch up period, there is less demand for more powerful chips so market forces require the production of cheaper chips with lower transistor counts. | ||
== Moore's Law - The Future == | |||
With a good survey of historic firmly in view, we can now consider whether Moore's Law will continue to hold in future years. Clearly, Moore's predictions concerned transistor counts, not processor speed. The latter is a function of many factor besides transistor counts, including memory management and overall processor architecture (pipelining, cache levels, etc.). | |||
Those who argue that transistor counts will eventually hit a wall do so on the basis of physical limitations with the atom as the ultimate limit on the thinness of components. The arguments contain many assumptions which require proof. |
Revision as of 04:39, 31 January 2012
Moore's Law
In 1965, Intel co-founder predicted that the number of transistors on a die would double every 24 months. This was a rough predictive statement (not a true law of course) that has been claimed to be quite accurate in the decades since. This article explores different interpretations of Moore's law, whether it has failed to hold true during certain intervals of time, and, finally, whether it will continue to hold and, if so, for how long?
The rate of growth Moore predicted is truly staggering. The equation form of the law is: T(t)=T0 * 2^(t/2) where T0 represents the initial transistor count in the start year and Tn the transistor count in t years. This is somewhat lost on transistors so we'll switch to something everyone understands, money. If one could double his wealth every 24 months and started with $1, he would have $5,931,641 in 45 years!
But this is exactly what Intel claims it has done with their chips (and certainly their bottom line). To a large extent, the company has symbiotically harnessed and fueled the public awareness of Moore's law to their advantage as a marketing device, but it's still valuable to study the context of the prediction (the 60s and the advent of transistors) and the reasons Moore believed the prediction would hold and whether he was right.
If Moore was right, he wasn't right on the first try. His initial prediction was that transistor counts would double every year. In 1975 he revised this prediction to every two years (credit: http://news.cnet.com/Myths-of-Moores-Law/2010-1071_3-1014887.html). If we take 1971 and the Intel 4004 processor as our starting point, we see the following growth alongside the predicted growth and the variance and variance percentage next to each (credit for raw data: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count)
Survey of data across the years
Processor | Transistor count | Year | Predicted Value | Variance | Percent Error (Variance/Predicted Transistor Count) |
Intel 4004 | 2,300 | 1971 | 2,300 | N/A | |
Intel 8008 | 3,500 | 1972 | 3,253 | 247 | 8% |
Motorola 6800 | 4,100 | 1974 | 6,505 | -2,405 | -37% |
Intel 8080 | 4,500 | 1974 | 6,505 | -2,005 | -31% |
RCA 1802 | 5,000 | 1974 | 6,505 | -1,505 | -23% |
MOS Technology 6502 | 3,510 | 1975 | 9,200 | -5,690 | -62% |
Intel 8085 | 6,500 | 1976 | 13,011 | -6,511 | -50% |
Zilog Z80 | 8,500 | 1976 | 13,011 | -4,511 | -35% |
Motorola 6809 | 9,000 | 1978 | 26,022 | -17,022 | -65% |
Intel 8086 | 29,000 | 1978 | 26,022 | 2,978 | 11% |
Intel 8088 | 29,000 | 1979 | 36,800 | -7,800 | -21% |
Motorola 68000 | 68,000 | 1979 | 36,800 | 31,200 | 85% |
Intel 80186 | 55,000 | 1982 | 104,086 | -49,086 | -47% |
Intel 80286 | 134,000 | 1982 | 104,086 | 29,914 | 29% |
Intel 80386 | 275,000 | 1985 | 294,400 | -19,400 | -7% |
Intel 80486 | 1,180,000 | 1989 | 1,177,600 | 2,400 | 0% |
Pentium | 3,100,000 | 1993 | 4,710,400 | -1,610,400 | -34% |
AMD K5 | 4,300,000 | 1996 | 13,323,023 | -9,023,023 | -68% |
Pentium II | 7,500,000 | 1997 | 18,841,600 | -11,341,600 | -60% |
AMD K6 | 8,800,000 | 1997 | 18,841,600 | -10,041,600 | -53% |
Pentium III | 9,500,000 | 1999 | 37,683,200 | -28,183,200 | -75% |
AMD K6-III | 21,300,000 | 1999 | 37,683,200 | -16,383,200 | -43% |
AMD K7 | 22,000,000 | 1999 | 37,683,200 | -15,683,200 | -42% |
Pentium 4 | 42,000,000 | 2000 | 53,292,093 | -11,292,093 | -21% |
Barton | 54,300,000 | 2003 | 150,732,800 | -96,432,800 | -64% |
AMD K8 | 105,900,000 | 2003 | 150,732,800 | -44,832,800 | -30% |
Itanium 2 | 220,000,000 | 2003 | 150,732,800 | 69,267,200 | 46% |
Itanium 2 with 9MB cache | 592,000,000 | 2004 | 213,168,370 | 378,831,630 | 178% |
Cell | 241,000,000 | 2006 | 426,336,740 | -185,336,740 | -43% |
Core 2 Duo | 291,000,000 | 2006 | 426,336,740 | -135,336,740 | -32% |
Dual-Core Itanium 2 | 1,700,000,000 | 2006 | 426,336,740 | 1,273,663,260 | 299% |
AMD K10 | 463,000,000 | 2007 | 602,931,200 | -139,931,200 | -23% |
POWER6 | 789,000,000 | 2007 | 602,931,200 | 186,068,800 | 31% |
Atom | 47,000,000 | 2008 | 852,673,480 | -805,673,480 | -94% |
AMD K10 | 758,000,000 | 2008 | 852,673,480 | -94,673,480 | -11% |
Core i7 (Quad) | 731,000,000 | 2008 | 852,673,480 | -121,673,480 | -14% |
Six-Core Xeon 7400 | 1,900,000,000 | 2008 | 852,673,480 | 1,047,326,520 | 123% |
Six-Core Opteron 2400 | 904,000,000 | 2009 | 1,205,862,400 | -301,862,400 | -25% |
16-Core SPARC T3 | 1,000,000,000 | 2010 | 1,705,346,960 | -705,346,960 | -41% |
Six-Core Core i7 (Gulftown) | 1,170,000,000 | 2010 | 1,705,346,960 | -535,346,960 | -31% |
8-core POWER7 | 1,200,000,000 | 2010 | 1,705,346,960 | -505,346,960 | -30% |
Quad-core z196[3] | 1,400,000,000 | 2010 | 1,705,346,960 | -305,346,960 | -18% |
Quad-Core Itanium Tukwila | 2,000,000,000 | 2010 | 1,705,346,960 | 294,653,040 | 17% |
8-Core Xeon Nehalem-EX | 2,300,000,000 | 2010 | 1,705,346,960 | 594,653,040 | 35% |
Six-Core Core i7 (Sandy Bridge-E) | 2,270,000,000 | 2011 | 2,411,724,800 | -141,724,800 | -6% |
10-Core Xeon Westmere-EX | 2,600,000,000 | 2011 | 2,411,724,800 | 188,275,200 | 8% |
So it's quite clear that the "law" is not to be taken too literally. It's a general marker for what to expect in upcoming years. One sees actually that the number jump to catch up (by 2011, the variance is only %8 with the 10-Core Xeon chip). The Dual Core Itanium also lurches forward nearly %300.
The following chart shows the actual and predicted transistor counts:
Variance Years
We see that there are probably exceptions which should be taken out of the data; for example, the Atom processor, which is an ultra-low voltage processor embedded in netbooks. These are special purpose processors that do not reflect the state of the technology at the time (for example, the Intel Core i7 chip in 2008, the same year as the Atom chip, is closer to the mark at a variance of only -14%, versus the Atom's -94%.
So it is important when evaluating whether Moore's law has failed to hold to compare chips of the same family, or perhaps take the best technology for a given year. For example, in years 1979, 1982, 1985, 1989 with the Motorola 68000, Intel 80286, Intel 80386 and Intel 80486, the best chips available in the data above, either exceed Moore's predictions or come very close.
But there are many intervals where this is not true, including 1971-1978, 1993-2000, which show poor performance. One explanation is that other chip factors started to become more important (power consumptions, parallel processing, etc.) during this time. One also sees certain chips and chip families which cause transistor counts to lurch forward (for example, the first Itanium 2 which included 221 million transistors, 4 times Moore's prediction for 2006). This lurching forward may have an effect that for subsequent years, the hardware outstrips market needs and it takes some time for operating systems and software to catch up. During this catch up period, there is less demand for more powerful chips so market forces require the production of cheaper chips with lower transistor counts.
Moore's Law - The Future
With a good survey of historic firmly in view, we can now consider whether Moore's Law will continue to hold in future years. Clearly, Moore's predictions concerned transistor counts, not processor speed. The latter is a function of many factor besides transistor counts, including memory management and overall processor architecture (pipelining, cache levels, etc.).
Those who argue that transistor counts will eventually hit a wall do so on the basis of physical limitations with the atom as the ultimate limit on the thinness of components. The arguments contain many assumptions which require proof.