R.I.P. Gordon Moore, Co-Founder of Intel, inventor if Moore's Law and pioneer of the x86 CPU, one of the founding father of Silicon Valley and your childhood PCs

Mar 25, 2023 8:22 PM

CarlCopplepot

Views

110166

Likes

1378

Dislikes

16

your childhood PCs would not have been possible without his contributions

thank you Gordon, for all the fun and games we continue to have with out PCs due to your inventions

he predicted that the performance of computers will practically double each year

[deleted]

[deleted]

3 years ago (deleted Mar 25, 2023 11:07 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

So will OP's mom..

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

It wasn't so much a prediction as it was an observation.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I like how he wanted to be a teacher, but couldn't find a job.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Crazy facts…

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

And now we have AI which is doubling in capability approximately every eight weeks. Hang on tight!

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I'll always remember him from that Billy Idol song. "In the midnight hour, she cried Moore Moore Moore."

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

He looks like the bad guy from Robocop.

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Correction: He predicted, computers will become 2x powerful, 1/2 the size, and 1/2 the cost every 18 months, and hes been on track every 18m

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

We're now at the cusp of contact-lense AR technology. https://bigthink.com/the-future/augmented-reality-ar-milestone-wearable-contacts/

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

So, Moore's Law is dead then?

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Lol intel is basically dead so just about

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Moores law can actually can be extended the other direction if you extend it to the Atanasoff Berry Computer in 1942 it still holds up.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

What I’m the hell is that graph?? Are both axis years? How does that work?

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

It's a graph of years per year, seems fairly straight forward really.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Per the chart: 'Intel ignites the trend of personal computing'. I seem to remember that credit to the Apple Macintosh, and for good reason.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

There can be only one. No Moore.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Yes but it was Federico Faggin to invent the first microprocessor called the Intel 4004, his initials F.F. can be found in the chip's die.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

He an Intel co-founder Robert Noyce, the actual inventor of the integrated circuit, made Silicon Valley a thing

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Read Chip War. Pretty good rundown

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

What’s with the mannequins in the top article? Was he into some weird stuff?

3 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 0

I think they're sets of differenct computer labs

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

He was an avid Real Doll collector

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

What good is a computer if you can’t fuck it?!?

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

He was Mannequin Thigh-Stalker, aka Dark Veiner

3 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

I'm somewhat disappointed anybody upvoted this… It was terrible…

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Intel's co-founder inspired Noyce's Law, which predicted the dramatic increases of his last name following a South Park episode.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

RIP

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

But he didn't invent Cole's Law, which is shredded cabbage salad.

3 years ago | Likes 344 Dislikes 7

Have your fucking +1. You’ve earned it.

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

I mean…. when you’re right, you’re right.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Mayo have a good day, sir!

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

v

3 years ago | Likes 28 Dislikes 0

3 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

Moore's the pity

3 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

Clever dude. That’s the law where post the wrong thing to get the right answer.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Moores law was BS that intel hid behind to launch their processors in a specific way. Worked until they hit 9nm.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I am a developer but only marginally adept at hardware. I thought due to limitations of silicon wafer tech, we were finally reaching a>

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

a plateau till we could make quantum computing and other smaller alternatives more cost effective. Don't know but would like to know. I >

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

on last three machines I built it was more about faster RAM, M2 fast NVME HDD, and GPUs with super fast RAM and clock speed.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Quatum computing is achievable at near (absolute) 0°K, No one is getting this hardware small+affordable enough for retail consumers.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Especially when it goes directly against efficiency, environmentally-friendly needs, and a growing 1st world consumer population.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Quantum computing may be possible for businesses + government entities, but the cost & downsides is too great for making it consumer-grade.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

NO - he predicted the *surface density of logic gates* will double. Not performance

3 years ago | Likes 158 Dislikes 3

I've always been fascinated by graphene, and wondered how/when it might be used for things like this. But, I'm just a pleb, I have no idea.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The surface density of your left nostril will double every two years

3 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 4

And every 2 years, not every year. So roughly 1.4x each year.

3 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

His initial 1965 paper said every year, he revised it later on.

3 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

But common culture extended this to other computer metrics such as storage space, number of triangles a gfx card could render etc.

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

3 years ago | Likes 59 Dislikes 1

And we have to this day roughly continued doubling the number of gates, but have long since fallen off the performance curve.

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Exactly - it's why we see 12+ cores (what else are you going to do with all that space?) but a peak of around 4-5GHz. Need a diff substrate

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Now comes quantum entanglement

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I believe it was an observation not a prediction.

3 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 1

Because no sane person would believe that what was about to happen could actually happen for the next 50 years.

3 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 4

Not true, physicists knew then the limits of silicon, so could project out to those limits. Question was if we could ever get there. We did

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

He’ll be twice as dead next year.

3 years ago | Likes 334 Dislikes 5

🏆

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

3 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

I thought he died exponentially?

3 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Dammit, beaten to it!

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Or, he'll be the same amount of dead, at half the price.

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Winner. A

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

No, it was updated - he'll be twice as dead in *two* years. Read the flippin' graph!

3 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

3 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Exactly!

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

This comment will be just as savage

3 years ago | Likes 47 Dislikes 0

Just think of how dead he'll be in 30 years

3 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 0

so ded

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

2^30 dead

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

🎶🎵...in the midnight hour, she cried Moore Moore Moore...🎶🎵"

3 years ago | Likes 37 Dislikes 2

And in the midnight hour 2 years from now, she'll cry Moore Moore Moore Moore Moore Moore.

3 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

3 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

It apparently paused for a few years ~2015 while they changed fabrication techniques but is back (now doubling every two years).

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It's kind of being cheated nowadays with multiple cores instead of pushing it all on one core... And we're getting really close to the limit

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

with our current designs: electrons kind of just hop around if you place the "wires" much closer than they are currently. So, even if you

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

allow for multi-core and 3d placement of transistors, we're still approaching the end of it. Brilliant projection, but it is ending.

3 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0