Moore's Law

As certainly one of the most ubiquitous technological hypotheses, Moore’s Law which postulates that the number of transistors or the power of a processor will double every eighteen months, has been under pressure time and time again. Every time it appears that the available technology will not be able to continue to support the doubling of a microprocessors power, something comes along that proves that it can be done yet again. New process, new materials or new innovations continue to push the limits of what can be done on a smaller and smaller sliver of silicon. Even when it appeared that the market’s appetite for more gigahertz would slow processor power innovations dual- and quad-core processors accomplish the same feat while virtualization technologies allow the additional power to be used in new and unique (and ultimately more efficient) ways.

So why spend any cycles on a “law” that continues to provide new and different ways to integrate technology into everything we do and create new ways to extend efficiencies? It appears that science is again running hard into the hurdles of physics that may mean the ultimate end to Moore’s Law. As manufacturing process continues to shrink to 20 nanometers it’s increasingly clear that the traditional silicon materials will fail as a foundation for delivering electron-based bits. As a matter of fact it becomes easier and easier to see that the existing processes will reach their natural conclusion as early as 2014. (See http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10265373-64.html).

Of course there have been countless naysayers over the years. The wonderful thing about technology is that whenever you tell a group of engineers that you can’t do something they automatically get to work on proving you wrong. This has worked in Moore’s Law favor so many times that it becomes difficult to count. Innovation, the hallmark of the technology industry, is a wonderful thing.

Don’t believe me? Check this out: http://www.mercurynews.com/topstories/ci_12596666

Ultimately this leads to one last question: Do we rename Silicon Valley? Somehow “Bismuth Valley” just doesn’t have the same ring to it. I guess we’ll all happily grow into it.