> Microelectronics manufacturing has been driven for the past 60 years by Moore’s law, which states that the density of transistors on a chip should double every two years. The electronics industry has adopted this principle as a production goal to increase the power and efficiency of computer processors. It has proven successful and steady for decades, but there are signs that the trend is starting to stall.
"Signs it's starting to stall"? Moore's 'law' has been dead for a decade at minimum at the literal interpretation, and for over two decades if observable performance is what you actually cared to measure. What does this even have to do with the research the article is about? It's not clear to me why the author felt the need to shoehorn this into the headline.
I disagree, as far as transistor density it's not completely dead. Looking at the following logarithmic graph there's an inflection point around 2005, it slowed down but it still looks like we're on an exponential growth path.
There's no cost on your graph, so you don't know what is the most economical package.
The fact that the width of the distribution became so much larger after that inflection is evidence against your point. Your graph points suggestively into Moore's law being dead.
(But we do know it died when fabs started making 3D transistors. No need to look at suggestions.)
"Signs it's starting to stall"? Moore's 'law' has been dead for a decade at minimum at the literal interpretation, and for over two decades if observable performance is what you actually cared to measure. What does this even have to do with the research the article is about? It's not clear to me why the author felt the need to shoehorn this into the headline.
https://ourworldindata.org/cdn-cgi/imagedelivery/qLq-8BTgXU8...
The fact that the width of the distribution became so much larger after that inflection is evidence against your point. Your graph points suggestively into Moore's law being dead.
(But we do know it died when fabs started making 3D transistors. No need to look at suggestions.)
Heat radiation elements must be designed as part of the structure?
Sophie Wilson has famously said how easy it is for active silicon to get hotter than a nuclear reactor.
The center of a fuel rod in a PWR reaches more than 1000 C.
Perhaps Wilson was talking about the thermal power/area of chips vs. the surface of fuel rods. I believe the former can exceed the latter.