Multimedia
The computer chip has evolved from a simple integrated circuit to a microprocessor with millions of transistors.
In 1965, when Fairchild Semiconductor's Gordon Moore predicted that the number of transistors on a computer chip would double every year , the most advanced chips had around 60 components . In 1975, Moore--who cofounded Intel in 1968--reconsidered his prediction and revised the rate of doubling to roughly every two years. So far, history has proved him more or less right. But growth may soon slow as engineers find it harder to contend with the heat produced and power consumed by transistor-crammed chips (see "Parallel Universe").
Under "Koomey's law," it's efficiency, not power, that doubles every year and a half.
Krishna Palem thinks a little uncertainty in chips could extend battery life in mobile devices--and maybe the duration of Moore's Law, too.
Nice to see Intel's i7 quad core in there, but the processor that really kick-started the whole multi-core phenomenon was the Sun UltraSPARC T1 with 8 cores (and 32 threads.)
Nice die photo at http://jinsatoh.jp/ennui/ultrasparcT1_overlay_die.jpg
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
National Instruments has gathered customer information and data regarding some of the cost differences between building a custom solution versus using NI off-the-shelf tools. Using this data, we built the Graphical System Design ‘Build vs. Buy’ Calculator. The calculator can help show the financial differences between building a custom solution versus buying an off-the-shelf system. This paper discusses the benefits and drawbacks of both a traditional custom design approach and off-the-shelf embedded tools.
View full PDF >
Listen to story > 
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
phoenix
172 Comments
The Cybernetic Revolution
Although Gordon Moore is still getting full credit for making that bold and prophetic statement when he did, I believe that we are simply going through the final stages of what I call 'The Cybernetic Revolution.' I have come to the conclusion that if too much complexity gets factored into any particular system, regardless of its nature, that system eventually reaches a distinct point in its development where the Law of Diminishing Returns starts to become the primary focus, initiates a breakdown in the whole process, thereby producing a net negative effect on the desired outcome. A state of irreducible redundacy is eventually reached which is roughly equal to the same degree of complexity which was originally created in an attempt to solve a particular set of problems. While this may seem like a rather simple minded approach to addressing what is a rather complex situation, instead of going into too much boring and irrelevant detail, I have, as they are fond of saying in the academic world, done the math. I would just like to say in closing, however, that while some comments posted on this site appear to be coming from somehwere way out in left field, the vast majority of them are just as constructive, informative, and insightful, as was that quaint little observation which our friend Mr. Moore made so many years ago. Happy New Year, keep up the good work, and I will look forward to reading what most of you have to say in 2009.
Reply
steveDH
15 Comments
Re: The Cybernetic Revolution
Phoenix, that's a rather bold assertion to make without providing examples or "math." I'm not an expert on complexity, but from what I do know, people are interested in pursuing ever more complex systems for increased adaptability and robustness. The trick is figuring out how to design complex systems...
Nice photo essay! EE programs should standardize this slideshow so that undergrads don't have to see it 25 times...
Reply
phoenix
172 Comments
Re: The Cybernetic Revolution
Although I am just a rather simple-minded Canadian philosopher, and not quite up to your high standards of excellence, steveo, I stand by my statement. But in spite of the fact that, 'The Law of Diminishing Returns,' is a fairly straight forward premise, if you really need some fairly complex variables in order to get your bearings, just go to my post at Technology Review's article, 'The Social Life of Routers,' and you will see what my term, 'an irreducible state of redundancy,' means. The math, which you so earnestly seem to require, will be of no consequence unless you have some experience in defining what are some of the more complicated parameters which resolving various states of complexity requires. In the meantime, however, if you come up with a new formula for reducing complex statical problems into subsets of simple and easy to understand quantifiable relations, please let the rest of us oxymorons know so that we can all breathe a whole lot easier. Your humble servant always, William Eady
Reply