Moore's law was always about transistor density increases, not performance, and definitely not about serial performance in a single core, no matter how much people want to reframe it. Transistor density is still improving, just not as quickly and CPU speed is still increasing, just not on a single core.
Not so. Earlier generations came with higher, often doubled clock speeds. Many programmers today have never seen such a doubling, yet policies still assume them.
Clock speeds have nothing to do with Moore's law, which was about transistor density. I'm not sure how you can say that a doubling in density hasn't happened when there are "7nm" 64 core CPUs out there. Transistor density has slowed but not stopped. Moore also predicted an exponential increase in price for density improvements which has also seemed to happen.
I get that you are being intentionally condescending and obtuse here, but you were talking about 'the end of Moore's' law, which only talks about transistor density increases in addition to cost, and both of those are still increasing. Clock speeds, instructions per clock, cache, latency, prefetching, out of order execution and many other aspects of CPU performance were not the trend Gordon Moore outlined. You are conflating things that stem from transistor density with Moore's Law.
While Moore's original, concise expression was in terms of transistor areal density, the faster clock rate was implied and expected, just as lower latency is implied by the faster clock. Thus, the stagnation of clock rates is rightly recognized as the beginning of its end. Allocation of the newly available transistors to caches, functional units, execution units, and ultimately extra cores was also implied: the transistors are not decorative: they are there to be used.
With feature sizes approaching a single lattice unit cell, its final stage will be reached shortly.
To insist that transistor count is the only point of Moore's Law is to be deliberately obtuse: it was the exactly the extra value provided by the extra transistors and the machinery built of them, and the faster clocks, that would (and did) generate the capital investment needed to develop each succeeding, more expensive, generation.
This is all rationalizing whatever you were trying to say about performance stalling. People only talk about 'the intent' when they realize they have been regurgitating news headlines and haven't looked any deeper. The point is that performance hasn't stalled at all just because clock rates aren't going up. Faster clocks are diminishing returns in performance due to memory latency. Transistor density was the point and performance is still increasing due to transistor density, even if you don't know how to use multiple cores.
It is an objective fact that performance increases are much, much smaller than 20 years ago. It is easy to see why, and why continuing (for now) shrinkage of transistors is failing to deliver as much as before.
You are welcome to die on your "Moore's Law is about feature size and nothing else" hill, but you will have sparse company there.
Don't you think maybe you should take a step back when you repeat the same things over and over, never back them up and have multiple people link you different Wikipedia articles to correct you?
John L. Hennessy; David A. Patterson (June 4, 2018): "The ending of Dennard Scaling and Moore’s Law also slowed this path; single core performance improved only 3% last year!"
<https://iscaconf.org/isca2018/turing_lecture.html>
You didn't confront anything I linked. Again, Moore's law is about transistor density, which hasn't stopped yet and has gone into to more cores. It was never about single core performance. Now it seems like you are including dennard scaling after someone else mentioned it.
You have a quote about the time frame increasing which has never been disputed either.
I'm sure you can find links to some tech blogs that have the same misunderstandings as you do, why don't you go hunt those down too?
