• _number8_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      57
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      yeah i thought 4TB would be like $50 now. whatever happened to moore’s law

      • Lath@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        55
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        Unregulated capitalism some would say, I say cheap production costs with little to no consequence whatsoever for them doing this kind of thing.

        • fartsparkles@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          29
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Exactly, if forced scarcity was regulated, we’d be in an entirely different situation. For instance diamonds would be practically worthless.

        • fugacity@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Unless this is a matter of price collusion (which I doubt as it appears more as a supply demand issue) I don’t think this unregulated capitalism is bad. Last I checked making any kind of products involving semiconductors isn’t cheap or easy. Maybe it is once you figure out how to, but the R&D costs involved are insane.

          We as consumers want prices as low as possible. Suppliers want prices as high as possible. Samsung (and the like) clearly aren’t willing to make more of a product at the price that it is currently at (which is a mistake to begin with). There are plentu of other players making ssds, and the prices are all very similar. Something tells me that they’re not gonna price things for cheaper because they can’t survive that way.

      • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Moore’s law has been dead for a long long time.

        E: if you’re downvoting this it’s because you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. Moore’s law was the observation that transistor density would double every ~2 years. That’s not happening and hasn’t for a long time.

        • neclimdul@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          10 months ago

          No need to downvote this. It’s an insidery technically correct statement. We’ve redefined how we measure Moore’s law several times to make it “keep working” and some people designing chips, not selling them, think it’s not only outlined it’s usefulness but also not true anymore.

          • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            In my experience, a lot of people incorrectly conflate Moore’s Law with “computers get faster”

            So when you say Moore’s Law is dead and it’s unrealistic to expect it not to be, they get upset and jump to the conclusion that you’re defending tech companies for giving paltry upgrades, which obviously isn’t what I’m doing.

            There are other things to PCs getting faster in a post Moore’s Law world. Architecture improvements, hardware acceleration, advanced packaging such as AMD’s chiplet technology, etc - these are all commonplace and have replaced the idea of “let’s just double transistor counts every two years”

            • neclimdul@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              We’ve gone through die size, clock speed, instructions and operations, the transistors count. All are stand-ins for “complexity” which is why some people question if the law ever existed.

              That said, regardless of the “real” law, until recently the colloquial usage has always been a stand in for how “quick” a processor is. In that sense, you really need to do some hand waving around core counts and even then it doesn’t really work.

              Maybe more importantly, one of the most important processor markets are mobile and servers which are largely focused on less complex more efficient processors like arm.

              So outside of marketing, it’s very easy to see why a lot of people think Moore’s law is dead and we’re all better for it. We can continually make better processors without trying to meet some arbitrary metric that didn’t really mean anything useful to start with.

              E: aggressively agreeing

        • fugacity@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Moore’s law hasn’t died, if you mean number of transistors per area. Linear scaling to transistor counts has.

        • mihnt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          Moore’s law is the observation that the number of transistors in an integrated circuit doubles about every two years. Moore’s law is an observation and projection of a historical trend.

          It is.

        • Aceticon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          It’s about the shrinking in integrated circuit feature size, hence increase in IC element densities, so it applies to memories which are integrated circuits such as flash memory and the various kinds of RAM, but not to magnetic storage such as in HDDs as they’re something else altogether.

          That said, I believe (but am not absolutelly sure) that IC feature size has been shrinking slower than Moore’s Law predicts for maybe a decade as the size of the features becomes so small that quantum-level effects start becoming a problem (think stuff like signal leaks due to quantum tunnelling).

      • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        As tech shrinks it’s only getting more and more expensive per mm. Unless we get some major improvement we’re kinda at the limit for the moment.

      • fugacity@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        Moore’s law makes no comments about the cost of each transistor in an advanced process. And believe me, they ain’t cheap. It’s not a coincidence we’re up to PLC flash… why go for 32 levels when TLC is likely already a pain?

      • NoRodent@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Right? SATA III SSDs currently cost the same as HDDs of the same capacity, at least where I live. If it stays like that, it will no longer make any sense to buy HDDs. Finally.

        I still remember buying my first SSD some 10 years ago which at the time cost 20 times more per GB of what it costs now.