undefined

points

[-]

Can you blame Moore's Law ending? The graph at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law looks steady up to the 2020s.

1979 to 2009 in the OP graph has a pretty steady drop from 10^7 to 10^1 USD/GB: 6 OOMs in 30 years. Then till before the recent spike it was around 1 OOM in 15 years: 1/3 the rate of progress on a log scale.

When it comes to CPU progress we blame the end of Dennard scaling several years before the knee in this memory curve. I'd guess the story of memory is similar in also hitting technical difficulties, but I don't know.

by marcosdumay1 days ago|

parent|

[-]

Moore's law is about transistors doubling every interval¹ *on the most economical package*.

Wikipedia is misquoting it, and extraordinary expensive chips being more capable doesn't change the economical situation.

by hackernudes1 days ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

I am tickled that OOM can mean "out of memory" in another context. You clearly meant "orders of magnitude".

by account4213 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Well if you underestimate your memory requirements by orders of magnitude you'll be out of memory for sure.

by abecedarius1 days ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Heh, unintentional. Another term shorter than spelling out "orders of magnitude" is "decades", but I figure that's less familiar and even more confusing here. "Memory price started out falling two decades per decade..."

by fc417fc8021 days ago|

prev|

[-]

Moore's law didn't end in any broad sense and certainly not that far back. It's a tiring piece of misinformation that just won't die.

Progress has consistently become more difficult (ie more expensive) but has generally kept up. The scaling of a couple specific technologies noticably slowed down a few years back but that's not the general case.

The node names aren't representative of the reality.