Talk:Moore's law

Scientific law

May 2026 - The first paragraph states Moore's law describes an empirical relationship, not a scientific law. Scientific law reads to me as "empirical relationships" being scientific laws. If it isn't, might someone explain the difference to me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-31950-21 (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

First paragraph

As of 2023 sep, the first paragraph reads: "Moore's law is the observation that the number of transistors in an integrated circuit (IC) doubles about every two years. Moore's law is an observation and projection of a historical trend. Rather than a law of physics, it is an empirical relationship linked to gains from experience in production."

The last word is the key to understanding what's meant. This should appear earlier in the paragraph for good, quick comprehension.

As it stands, one gets the impression that the transistors in your device are breeding or something. This whole idea is about what's going on in MANUFACTURING. 184.96.226.106 (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The paper he wrote wasn't even primarily about transistors. The word is only mentioned twice. More emphasis should be put on what he actually was saying, and less on what people think he was saying since "Moore's law" has been misused a lot since he wrote on the topic in the sixties. Oskar Tegby (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

No, you contradict yourself and are revising this law. Moore was very specific in his claims it was in "Production" and not simply "Manufacturing." You acknowledge this, then dispute yourself. This suggestion fails to acknowledge the difference and should be removed. 87.208.131.149 (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Clearly state "density", "production", and "cost"

The top section should really include all the major points of the law, specifying after some time (12/18/24 months), number of transistors in given area (density) will double, and remain roughly the same production cost (minimum component costs). People often misquote it as "performance doubles every 2 years", or in better cases "transistors on a cpu doubles every 2 years", missing the points about density (comparing a Grace Hopper to mobile SOCs) or cost (again think about big server chips vs small SOC).

One slight problem is finding source, these points are all scattered around in the 1965 paper, and even Intel doesn't seem to care about density. (they mentioned cost though)(I like to imagine they avoided talking about density due to their struggle to get to 10nm :)) Sohryu Asuka Langley Not Shikinami (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The increased density very directly leads to improved performance and cost benefits so those apples don't fall far from Moore's tree so I think it is fair to cover all these adjacent "misinterpretations" here ~Kvng (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree those things are important, but off topic or a side topic that is not exactly related to Moores law. The fact that Moore's law doesn't include these things might be something you want to mention, but Moore's law was adopted because it focused on Progress in the complexity of the devices we design. Which is why you're struggling to find a source. 87.208.131.149 (talk) 11:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This is re-visionary, and should be deleted. The comment author themselves are struggling to find sources, while we can find a huge number of sources that do not mention density, production and cost. And though this is important, its not important to Moore's law. Which is why there are no links. 87.208.131.149 (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think I'm fully following you. Maybe we can talk about specific statements that should either be removed or sourced. Can you identify one or two we should look at in detail? ~Kvng (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

You need to provide a source that states what you're claiming. That Moore's law was regarding an area or density, and that they will cost the same in production costs. That is going to be tough to find a source for that, since that wasn't what Moore's law has been. Infact, the current graph and the entire article doesn't talk about it, and is simply a transistor count. 87.208.131.149 (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mooreslaw.asp

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/resources/moores-law.html

"Moore’s Law is the observation that the number of transistors on an integrated circuit will double every two years with minimal rise in cost. Intel co-founder Gordon Moore predicted a doubling of transistors every year for the next 10 years in his original paper published in 1965. Ten years later, in 1975, Moore revised this to doubling every two years. This extrapolation based on an emerging trend has been a guiding principle for the semiconductor industry for close to 60 years."

And many others. Sorry, but the top section should NOT say anything regarding area (density) or production cost. That is not Moore's law. 87.208.131.149 (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Forget about density for a moment, why can't we mention cost? "with minimal rise in cost" is in the first sentence of your quote, if you don't like 'same production cost', we can use 'with minimal cost increase' to be more precise. Including cost is a logical thing to do, more advanced nodes simply cost higher, I don't know what else to say. Density is also important imo, think M1 Ultra vs M1 Max, well the transistor count doubled, but it ain't that difficult to accomplish compared to actually doubling the density. Look at the title of the 1965 paper by Gorden Moore, "Cramming more components onto integrated circuits", why do we need to "cram" ? Because we only have finite space. Moore did not "invent a law", he observed and projected the trend, part of the trend was, and still is, that density is increasing. Sohryu Asuka Langley Not Shikinami (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Article review

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed a very long, mostly uncited "Other formulations and similar observations" section. It feels like lots of this information is part of WP:COATRACK for the article. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

A video which states multiple sources that say that Moores Law is dead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4H-nK6WMzo 2001:18C0:766:8E00:0:0:0:F835 (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Moore's law

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

A very long "Other formulations and similar observations" section with some uncited paragraphs makes this section hard to read. It also feels like lots of this information is a WP:COATRACK for the article. The "Recent trends" section has a yellow "this list might be better as prose" banner. "Forecasts and roadmaps" states that the observation's namesake predicts its end in 2025, so the article might need to be updated. Z1720 (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Current values ​​and validity of the law

The latest values ​​in the graph date back to 2019. Seven years have since passed. Is it possible to extend the graph to assess current trends? The existing data already indicate that—as with all natural growth processes—there is no exponential growth, but rather a horizontal S-curve. SKraemer (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2026 (UTC)