Intel's CEO says Moore's Law is slowing to a three-year cadence, but it's not dead yet
Moore's Law is complicated.
Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger is well-known for saying Moore's Law is still kicking, but he seems to have admitted the pace of the semiconductor industry has at least slowed down. In a talk during Manufacturing@MIT (video below), the CEO stated transistors now double closer to every three years, which is actually significantly behind the pace of Moore's Law, which dictated a two-year cadence. However, Gelsinger isn't throwing in the towel, and he outlined strategies to keep pace with the original Moore's Law.
Moore's Law, first proposed by Intel co-founder and CEO Gordon Moore in 1970, holds that the transistor count for chips doubles every two years. This was thanks to the increasing density of new nodes and the ability to create larger chips or dies. However, the pace of the semiconductor industry has been somewhat lagging behind the trend of Moore's Law in recent years, prompting many (including Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang) to say that Moore's Law is dead.
Ever since taking the position of CEO in 2021, Gelsinger has emphatically said Moore's Law is "alive and well." In fact, he even said Intel could surpass the pace of Moore's Law at least until 2031 and has promoted "Super Moore's Law," a strategy to boost transistor count using 2.5D and 3D chip packaging technologies such as Foveros. Intel also often refers to this strategy as "Moore's Law 2.0," and AMD has also said we're entering the era of a slowed pace of Moore's Law.
In the talk at MIT, Gelsinger was asked about the potential end of Moore's Law, and he began by saying, "I think we've been declaring the death of Moore's Law for about three to four decades." However, he eventually followed this up with, "we're no longer in the golden era of Moore's Law, it's much, much harder now, so we're probably doubling effectively closer to every three years now, so we've definitely seen a slowing."
On the surface, it seems this is a complete U-turn for Gelsinger, who has previously admitted the Law has slowed to a "two-or-three-year cadence," but context is important. Though he doesn't explicitly state it, Gelsinger appears to be talking specifically about process technology when discussing Moore's Law slowing down. Originally, new nodes used to be enough on their own to achieve a doubling of transistors every two years as Moore's Law predicted, but the latest processes have come out with weaker density improvements and have even taken longer to arrive, especially in the case of Intel's Intel 7 and Intel 4 nodes.
Gelsinger said that despite this apparent slowing of Moore's Law, Intel could create a 1-trillion transistor chip by 2030, when today, the biggest chip on a single package has around 100 billion transistors. The CEO said four things made this possible: new RibbonFET transistors, PowerVIA power delivery, next-generation process nodes, and 3D chip stacking. He ended his answer by saying, "For all of the critics that declare we're dead... until the periodic table is exhausted, we ain't finished."
Still, Gelsinger admitted that Moore's Law's economic side is breaking down. "A modern fab seven or eight years ago would have cost about $10 billion. Now, it costs about $20 billion, so you've seen a different shift in the economics."
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Matthew Connatser is a freelancing writer for Tom's Hardware US. He writes articles about CPUs, GPUs, SSDs, and computers in general.
-
Bluetooth! I agree with him that chiplets keep Moores Law going forward and don't think we have to call it a new version (if the thought is focusing on the compute).Reply -
JeffreyP55
No such thing as future proof but the AM4 socket boards are still selling almost eight years later. Upgrade the CPU, flash the BIOS + maybe a couple of other things, you're good to go. Unless of course if you have the upgrade bug and or more money than sense. Eight or 9 years is a good run without a doubt. Moore's law is now showing its flaws and age.vern72 said:Eventually, you can't beat physics. Electrons can't change their size. -
bit_user Gelsinger said that despite this apparent slowing of Moore's Law, Intel could create a 1-trillion transistor chip by 2030,
Ah, but at what price? It's no use, if it's not economically viable. If you think GPU prices are bad today...
"For all of the critics that declare we're dead... until the periodic table is exhausted, we ain't finished."
Obviously, not all elements are equally plentiful.
However, perhaps quantum computers could discover new materials that keep the game going just a bit longer.
Still, Gelsinger admitted that Moore's Law's economic side is breaking down. "A modern fab seven or eight years ago would have cost about $10 billion. Now, it costs about $20 billion, so you've seen a different shift in the economics."
Yup. It's like this:
Sorry that it's old and I don't know the true origin. If anyone has more up-to-date data, please share. -
TerryLaze
You don't have to use electrons though, they do now because it's the cheapest way to do it but they could use photons in the future (optical computing) , or a range of other things.vern72 said:Eventually, you can't beat physics. Electrons can't change their size. -
TerryLaze
If you are the only company with a product that people want then it will be economically viable even at a very high price.bit_user said:Ah, but at what price? It's no use, if it's not economically viable. If you think GPU prices are bad today...
Also the server/professional market will pay for it, as always, and it will trickle down to consumer stuff later. -
kjfatl
The chart, relative to 28nm is likely do drop for a number of reasons.bit_user said:Ah, but at what price? It's no use, if it's not economically viable. If you think GPU prices are bad today...
Obviously, not all elements are equally plentiful.
However, perhaps quantum computers could discover new materials that keep the game going just a bit longer.
Yup. It's like this:
Sorry that it's old and I don't know the true origin. If anyone has more up-to-date data, please share.
- Competition: With TSMC as the only supplier of smaller geometries, they have no incentive to lower price. With Intel now in the market, TSMC alone no longer sets the price.
- Equipment amortization: Processes than used to have 2 or 3 year effective life are moving to 20 to 30 year life. Once much of the equipment is in place and paid for, the operation and maintenance costs start to dominate. This goes across the supply chain to materials and mask generation as well.
- Node optimization. -
bit_user
Take another look at the nodes it covers. Samsung and Global Foundries were on most of those nodes where the price plateau starts. The only exceptions were the 7 nm nodes, which Global Foundries cancelled.kjfatl said:The chart, relative to 28nm is likely do drop for a number of reasons.
- Competition: With TSMC as the only supplier of smaller geometries, they have no incentive to lower price. With Intel now in the market, TSMC alone no longer sets the price.
That doesn't help as much as you think. R&D + equipment has to be paid for over relatively short period of time. Having a long tail might be good for the fab's finances, but most of the datacenters, phones, and PCs run on new nodes and it doesn't really matter if those nodes become cheaper as they mature and are replaced by newer ones.kjfatl said:- Equipment amortization: Processes than used to have 2 or 3 year effective life are moving to 20 to 30 year life. Once much of the equipment is in place and paid for, the operation and maintenance costs start to dominate.
BTW, where did you get the idea that nodes used to have only a 2 or 3 year life? I doubt that's ever been true.
I doubt masks are really getting cheaper, if that's what you're implying. Worse, each new node is generally using more masks. The main counterexample is when Intel went from DUV (Intel 7) to EUV (intel 4), where they were able to reduce mask count, slightly. Yet, the EUV masks are higher-density and almost certainly more expensive per-mask. The main benefit of fewer masks per wafer is just in production time/throughput.kjfatl said:This goes across the supply chain to materials and mask generation as well. -
George³
I suppose you read somewhere that photons are smaller than electrons and hence the ingenious conclusion that they can be worked with like this, as if we were continuing with decreasing size lithography?TerryLaze said:You don't have to use electrons though, they do now because it's the cheapest way to do it but they could use photons in the future (optical computing) , or a range of other things. -
syadnom Should say 'at intel'.Reply
If you include power use in the calculation, then the arm ecosystem has taken the baton.
Primarily Qualcomm proved ARM could perform well, they didn't push Moore's Law with anything but the laid the groundwork.
Now Apple's M1,2,3 series are keeping Moore's Law alive with performance-per-watt and to some degree raw performance.
And Qualcomm is now doing everything they can to have an answer to Apple's arm chip so I expect them to be matching intel's mainline performance in a generation or two.
It should be pointed out that Moore's law says 'about' 18 months, it's fuzzy. And the context was in personal computers. That means that even if we do invent optical computing or compact quantum computers etc they wont really 'count' for moore's law until you can put it in whatever personal computing device you're using.