Intel attempts to maintain Moore's Law despite cost
Company continues to develop faster, more powerful chips
Paul Sakuma / Associated Press
Intel Chief Executive Craig Barrett faces the challenge of maintaining "Moore's Law" while keeping prices low and convincing shoppers they need more powerful processors.
By Matthew Fordahl / Associated Press
LIVERMORE, Calif. -- Computing power hasn't doubled every 12 to 18 months just because Gordon Moore said it would back in 1965.
Few people understand that more than Intel Corp. chief executive Craig Barrett, who leads the company Moore co-founded in 1968 and faces the challenge and costs of maintaining "Moore's Law" -- while keeping prices low and convincing customers they actually need more powerful processors.
The continued prosperity of the high-tech economy depends on faster, better, cheaper chips.
Intel recently announced progress on two fronts. It plans to start making chips on larger, 12-inch wafers, cutting costs by about 30 percent over the current 8-inch wafers. And a new technology that adds more features -- more processing punch for smaller spaces -- also was unveiled this month.
During a recent drive from Santa Clara to Livermore, Barrett spoke about the challenge of maintaining Moore's Law, Intel's approach to research and the future of computing.
The Associated Press: Are you surprised at how long the semiconductor has been able to sustain Moore's Law?
Craig Barrett: I think everyone has been amazed that Moore's Law has gone as long as it has. I know that in 1965, when Gordon postulated that law, he didn't think it would be sustained over an extended period of time. That was 35 years ago, and we're still pretty much on track.
Most people would suggest it's got somewhere between 10 and 20 years more. That would make about 50 years of doubling every 18 months. Mother Nature doesn't do many things of that sort. It is quite amazing to all involved that something could be increased geometrically for that extended period of time.
AP: As more computing power is available, how do you see the personal computer evolving?
Barrett: I see the computer continuing to do very much the same things it has done in the past -- word processing, spreadsheets and act as a vehicle to access information and to communicate and also to extend its features and capabilities into natural data types -- to audio, digital video imaging, entertainment, animation, rich communication. I think the image of the desktop PC, which is this rectangular, beige box, flat and on end under the desktop or on the desktop, is going to disappear, mainly because houses will be networked and there will be wireless connectivity. You can put the guts of your PC anywhere. It may well be some place out of sight.
AP: In the past, some of the greatest inventions of the computer age have originated in corporate labs performing basic research. Why doesn't Intel follow that model?
Barrett: There are historic reasons, which is the founders of the company came out of Fairchild (Semiconductor). Fairchild had what we call an esoteric R&D laboratory that did not interface terribly closely with the rest of the company. It had a very difficult time transferring its research results into the mainstream of the company.
(Intel founders) Bob Noyce, Gordon Moore and Andy Grove at that time noticed they could do much better if they dedicated their research more toward the development and commercialization of technology as opposed to the basic creation of technology.
AP: A lot of time, effort and money is going into faster processors. Yet many consumers say there's no need for such speed. How do you respond?
Barrett: I heard it when we transformed the 286 to the 386, the 386 to 486, the 486 to the Pentium, the Pentium to the Pentium II, Pentium III to the Pentium 4. That has been a common comment through every transition we have made. Unfortunately, we tend to always look at the next generation of microprocessors in light of our past experience rather than thinking about what we can do in the future.
AP: The dot-coms and the Internet seemed to offer new uses for more powerful computers. What happened there?
Barrett: Business models. Anybody who had a halfway smart idea could create an IPO and go out and be valued in the billions of dollars with no products, no revenue, no profits, no customer service, no nothing. It was an unsustainable model, so we crashed back to Earth. The dot-coms had farther to fall, and they're squished flat.
AI
