Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I quoted Moore's Law and linked you the actual history, you have some reading to do.


I read it in the '80s. And understood it. You could, too, with some thought. It's not too late.


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?


Now you are multiple people?

Anybody can read Wikipedia, but evidently not everybody can understand what it says.



And anybody can link to Wikipedia, but very evidently need not understand what it says.



Proof by Wikipedia link does not even make the list of fallacies.

2015, Gordon Moore: "I see Moore's law dying here in the next decade or so." <http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/gordon-moore-the...

Brian Krzanich, the former CEO of Intel: "Our cadence today is closer to two and a half years than two." <https://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/07/16/intel-rechisels-the-...

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?


I will pass your comments along to Mr. Moore.


I showed him already and he wondered why someone would say computers aren't getting faster when AMD released a 64 desktop.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: