> (number of transistors per chip doubles every X amount of time)
That's closer, but still not there. Moore was more specific: He talked about the chip that currently has the lowest price per transistor.
What really amazes me, is that Moore's law works backwards, too, for much longer periods than Moore had fitted the data to. You need to relax the definition of transistor somewhat, though. But punch-card looms still fit the pattern.
On a tangent: I wonder how long exponential progress in falling prices will last in the fields of genome sequencing and synthesis. (I've also read that rechargeable batteries currently improve by around 8% a year. I don't remember by which metric exactly, though.)
That's closer, but still not there. Moore was more specific: He talked about the chip that currently has the lowest price per transistor.
What really amazes me, is that Moore's law works backwards, too, for much longer periods than Moore had fitted the data to. You need to relax the definition of transistor somewhat, though. But punch-card looms still fit the pattern.
On a tangent: I wonder how long exponential progress in falling prices will last in the fields of genome sequencing and synthesis. (I've also read that rechargeable batteries currently improve by around 8% a year. I don't remember by which metric exactly, though.)