Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
https://wolfstreet.com/2019/06/04/global-semiconductor-sales-plunge-but-why/
There may be another kind of Moore's Law: we just don't need all those
transistors.
Yes,,that dip near 2009 is unusual, but the growth trend popped backOn Friday, June 7, 2019 at 11:49:35 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
https://wolfstreet.com/2019/06/04/global-semiconductor-sales-plunge-but-why/
There may be another kind of Moore's Law: we just don't need all those
transistors.
I've tried to make that point before, but it seems they can still make CPUs faster and faster with more transistors as long as they can hold down the power. The last some years the power has been the main focus of semiconductor processes.
Then there is always the ability to integrate more of the system on a single chip and who doesn't want more memory?
But to get to the article you cite, their premise is actually that there has been a 24% "drop" in semi sales from October to April. First, there are very clear seasonal variations in sales which are not factored out by this comparison. Sales are only down 14% year over year. But even that is not a very useful comparison which is clear after looking at the chart provided. The sales trend for the last 15 years puts the current figure right on track for growth. Rather it is the 2017 and 2018 years which were an exceptional spurt!
This is the same thinking that local governments had during the tax revenue crash where they moaned and groaned that their windfall wasn't lasting. Seems even in 2008 they couldn't see back a very few years to understand how to balance their budget.
Yes,,that dip near 2009 is unusual, but the growth trend popped back on
track afterwards.
https://wolfstreet.com/2019/06/04/global-semiconductor-sales-plunge-but-why/
There may be another kind of Moore's Law: we just don't need all those
transistors.
"Robert Baer" <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:ERCKE.54$wz.14@fx41.iad...
Yes,,that dip near 2009 is unusual, but the growth trend popped
back on
track afterwards.
Not really. Semi mfg is expensive. Its fate is closely tied with
the availability of financing. 2008 crash, 2009 parts shortages.
I remember 26-52+ week lead times, from most mfgs, back in 2010.
Tim
"Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> wrote in
news:qdfhr4$ebc$1@dont-email.me:
"Robert Baer" <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:ERCKE.54$wz.14@fx41.iad...
Yes,,that dip near 2009 is unusual, but the growth trend popped
back on
track afterwards.
Not really. Semi mfg is expensive. Its fate is closely tied with
the availability of financing. 2008 crash, 2009 parts shortages.
I remember 26-52+ week lead times, from most mfgs, back in 2010.
Tim
Trump tarrifs... What effect will stupid crap like that have?
Note: rhetorical.
Many stock market players LOVE charts, sometimes to the death."Robert Baer" <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:ERCKE.54$wz.14@fx41.iad...
Yes,,that dip near 2009 is unusual, but the growth trend popped back
on track afterwards.
Not really. Semi mfg is expensive. Its fate is closely tied with the
availability of financing. 2008 crash, 2009 parts shortages. I
remember 26-52+ week lead times, from most mfgs, back in 2010.
Tim
On Friday, 7 June 2019 16:49:35 UTC+1, John Larkin wrote:
https://wolfstreet.com/2019/06/04/global-semiconductor-sales-plunge-but-why/
There may be another kind of Moore's Law: we just don't need all those
transistors.
We could use more. But we're in the timezone now where computers over
10 years old can still be perfectly capable. The urgency that used to
exist has largely gone.
On 08/06/2019 09:50, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 7 June 2019 16:49:35 UTC+1, John Larkin wrote:
https://wolfstreet.com/2019/06/04/global-semiconductor-sales-plunge-but-why/
There may be another kind of Moore's Law: we just don't need all those
transistors.
We could use more. But we're in the timezone now where computers over
10 years old can still be perfectly capable. The urgency that used to
exist has largely gone.
Until the next great must have application comes along that requires an
order of magnitude performance increase to work there will be a hiatus.
Existing designs are plenty fast enough for all office and consumer uses
which means there is no compelling reason for upgrading any more.
On 08/06/2019 09:50, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 7 June 2019 16:49:35 UTC+1, John Larkin wrote:
https://wolfstreet.com/2019/06/04/global-semiconductor-sales-plunge-but-why/
There may be another kind of Moore's Law: we just don't need all those
transistors.
We could use more. But we're in the timezone now where computers over
10 years old can still be perfectly capable. The urgency that used to
exist has largely gone.
Until the next great must have application comes along that requires an
order of magnitude performance increase to work there will be a hiatus.
Existing designs are plenty fast enough for all office and consumer uses
which means there is no compelling reason for upgrading any more.
On Sunday, June 9, 2019 at 11:18:54 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 08/06/2019 09:50, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 7 June 2019 16:49:35 UTC+1, John Larkin wrote:
https://wolfstreet.com/2019/06/04/global-semiconductor-sales-plunge-but-why/
There may be another kind of Moore's Law: we just don't need all those
transistors.
We could use more. But we're in the timezone now where computers
over 10 years old can still be perfectly capable. The urgency
that used to exist has largely gone.
Until the next great must have application comes along that
requires an order of magnitude performance increase to work there
will be a hiatus. Existing designs are plenty fast enough for all
office and consumer uses which means there is no compelling reason
for upgrading any more.
One reason why I don't bother with getting faster Internet access is
because the browsers are so slow. Also there are video playback
issues that sometimes suck up available CPU resources and freeze my
cursor. Perhaps that is an issue with Netflix, but a faster CPU
would resolve it I expect.
Faster spread sheet calculations would also be welcome. I have
plenty of filter design files that recalculate very slowly when
anything is changed.
So, no, PCs are not fast enough for all purposes.
On Sunday, June 9, 2019 at 11:18:54 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 08/06/2019 09:50, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 7 June 2019 16:49:35 UTC+1, John Larkin wrote:
https://wolfstreet.com/2019/06/04/global-semiconductor-sales-plunge-but-why/
There may be another kind of Moore's Law: we just don't need all those
transistors.
We could use more. But we're in the timezone now where computers over
10 years old can still be perfectly capable. The urgency that used to
exist has largely gone.
Until the next great must have application comes along that requires an
order of magnitude performance increase to work there will be a hiatus.
Existing designs are plenty fast enough for all office and consumer uses
which means there is no compelling reason for upgrading any more.
One reason why I don't bother with getting faster Internet access is because the browsers are so slow. Also there are video playback issues that sometimes suck up available CPU resources and freeze my cursor. Perhaps that is an issue with Netflix, but a faster CPU would resolve it I expect.
Faster spread sheet calculations would also be welcome. I have plenty of filter design files that recalculate very slowly when anything is changed.
So, no, PCs are not fast enough for all purposes.
On 08/06/2019 09:50, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 7 June 2019 16:49:35 UTC+1, John Larkin wrote:
https://wolfstreet.com/2019/06/04/global-semiconductor-sales-plunge-but-why/
There may be another kind of Moore's Law: we just don't need all those
transistors.
We could use more. But we're in the timezone now where computers over
10 years old can still be perfectly capable. The urgency that used to
exist has largely gone.
Until the next great must have application comes along that requires an
order of magnitude performance increase to work there will be a hiatus.
Existing designs are plenty fast enough for all office and consumer uses
which means there is no compelling reason for upgrading any more.
On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 16:18:50 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 08/06/2019 09:50, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 7 June 2019 16:49:35 UTC+1, John Larkin wrote:
https://wolfstreet.com/2019/06/04/global-semiconductor-sales-plunge-but-why/
There may be another kind of Moore's Law: we just don't need all those
transistors.
We could use more. But we're in the timezone now where computers over
10 years old can still be perfectly capable. The urgency that used to
exist has largely gone.
Until the next great must have application comes along that requires an
order of magnitude performance increase to work there will be a hiatus.
Existing designs are plenty fast enough for all office and consumer uses
which means there is no compelling reason for upgrading any more.
I'd like Spice to run 1000x faster, and have parts value sliders, so I
can tune things on a screen like I can on my bench. But that would be
used rarely, and I have no other need for more compute power. Not many
people do.
Most "computing" is done on phones nowadays.
With hard drives so cheap, and storage going to the cloud, people
don't need enormous amounts of flash or dram.
Truly real looking 3D gaming might need a lot of compute power, but
only for a few crazies. And gaming could be powered by servers too.
One EUV wafer scanner now costs $150e6, and uptime is bad. The
"collector" (a huge megabuck multilayer mirror) has to be replaced
often as it loads up with tin debris.
A chip development with mask sets can cost a billion dollars. We are
close to End Times of silicon IC development.
On Sunday, June 9, 2019 at 11:18:54 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 08/06/2019 09:50, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 7 June 2019 16:49:35 UTC+1, John Larkin wrote:
https://wolfstreet.com/2019/06/04/global-semiconductor-sales-plunge-but-why/
There may be another kind of Moore's Law: we just don't need all those
transistors.
We could use more. But we're in the timezone now where computers
over 10 years old can still be perfectly capable. The urgency
that used to exist has largely gone.
Until the next great must have application comes along that
requires an order of magnitude performance increase to work there
will be a hiatus. Existing designs are plenty fast enough for all
office and consumer uses which means there is no compelling reason
for upgrading any more.
One reason why I don't bother with getting faster Internet access is
because the browsers are so slow. Also there are video playback
issues that sometimes suck up available CPU resources and freeze my
cursor. Perhaps that is an issue with Netflix, but a faster CPU
would resolve it I expect.
Faster spread sheet calculations would also be welcome. I have
plenty of filter design files that recalculate very slowly when
anything is changed.
So, no, PCs are not fast enough for all purposes.
On 09/06/2019 20:54, Rick C wrote:
On Sunday, June 9, 2019 at 11:18:54 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 08/06/2019 09:50, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 7 June 2019 16:49:35 UTC+1, John Larkin wrote:
https://wolfstreet.com/2019/06/04/global-semiconductor-sales-plunge-but-why/
There may be another kind of Moore's Law: we just don't need all those
transistors.
We could use more. But we're in the timezone now where computers
over 10 years old can still be perfectly capable. The urgency
that used to exist has largely gone.
Until the next great must have application comes along that
requires an order of magnitude performance increase to work there
will be a hiatus. Existing designs are plenty fast enough for all
office and consumer uses which means there is no compelling reason
for upgrading any more.
One reason why I don't bother with getting faster Internet access is
because the browsers are so slow. Also there are video playback
issues that sometimes suck up available CPU resources and freeze my
cursor. Perhaps that is an issue with Netflix, but a faster CPU
would resolve it I expect.
There are some graphics driver bugs that do this sort of thing but only
on certain quite elderly versions of the OS. Last time I saw 100%
multicore CPU utilisation with nothing useful happening was on Vista.
I have a pretty grotty internet connection with 5Mbps on a good day but
I can stream full HD quality TV when it is working properly. On a bad
day internet radio is unreliable. Quad HD is out of the question here.
Faster spread sheet calculations would also be welcome. I have
plenty of filter design files that recalculate very slowly when
anything is changed.
You need to redesign the spreadsheet algorithm then or set it to manual
recalculation. I have done some very large scale things in spreadsheets
and have never really had that much bother with the speed. Disabling
screen updating and automatic calculation makes a very big difference.
So, no, PCs are not fast enough for all purposes.
Not for all purposes but when used correctly they are well capable of
doing everything that a typical home or office user requires.
On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 16:18:50 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 08/06/2019 09:50, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 7 June 2019 16:49:35 UTC+1, John Larkin wrote:
https://wolfstreet.com/2019/06/04/global-semiconductor-sales-plunge-but-why/
There may be another kind of Moore's Law: we just don't need all those
transistors.
We could use more. But we're in the timezone now where computers over
10 years old can still be perfectly capable. The urgency that used to
exist has largely gone.
Until the next great must have application comes along that requires an
order of magnitude performance increase to work there will be a hiatus.
Existing designs are plenty fast enough for all office and consumer uses
which means there is no compelling reason for upgrading any more.
I'd like Spice to run 1000x faster, and have parts value sliders, so I
can tune things on a screen like I can on my bench. But that would be
used rarely, and I have no other need for more compute power. Not many
people do.
Most "computing" is done on phones nowadays.
With hard drives so cheap, and storage going to the cloud, people
don't need enormous amounts of flash or dram.
Truly real looking 3D gaming might need a lot of compute power, but
only for a few crazies. And gaming could be powered by servers too.
One EUV wafer scanner now costs $150e6, and uptime is bad. The
"collector" (a huge megabuck multilayer mirror) has to be replaced
often as it loads up with tin debris.
A chip development with mask sets can cost a billion dollars. We are
close to End Times of silicon IC development.
Yes, "can" cost, but "can" also cost 200k USD and mask cost less than 50k (0.35um process). Samples for less than 10k USD (MOSIS)
On Sunday, 9 June 2019 17:52:36 UTC+2, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 9 Jun 2019 16:18:50 +0100, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 08/06/2019 09:50, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, 7 June 2019 16:49:35 UTC+1, John Larkin wrote:
https://wolfstreet.com/2019/06/04/global-semiconductor-sales-plunge-but-why/
There may be another kind of Moore's Law: we just don't need all those
transistors.
We could use more. But we're in the timezone now where computers over
10 years old can still be perfectly capable. The urgency that used to
exist has largely gone.
Until the next great must have application comes along that requires an
order of magnitude performance increase to work there will be a hiatus.
Existing designs are plenty fast enough for all office and consumer uses
which means there is no compelling reason for upgrading any more.
I'd like Spice to run 1000x faster, and have parts value sliders, so I
can tune things on a screen like I can on my bench. But that would be
used rarely, and I have no other need for more compute power. Not many
people do.
Most "computing" is done on phones nowadays.
With hard drives so cheap, and storage going to the cloud, people
don't need enormous amounts of flash or dram.
Truly real looking 3D gaming might need a lot of compute power, but
only for a few crazies. And gaming could be powered by servers too.
One EUV wafer scanner now costs $150e6, and uptime is bad. The
"collector" (a huge megabuck multilayer mirror) has to be replaced
often as it loads up with tin debris.
A chip development with mask sets can cost a billion dollars. We are
close to End Times of silicon IC development.
Yes, "can" cost, but "can" also cost 200k USD and mask cost less than 50k (0.35um process). Samples for less than 10k USD (MOSIS)
Cheers
Klaus