At this point in Moore's law how long till we see the first

>terahertz

never

Moore's Law is not at all relevant to clock speed.
I have no idea what correlation you're trying to make here, but its incomprehensible garbage.

>>56350569
you could obtain high switching rates with josephson junctions though couldn't you?

>>56350523
No

Read up on the speed of light.

>>56350620
Discontinue posting.
Thz switching is done with single transistors for shits and giggles.

>>56350569
Never in our lifetime maybe. I'm sure humanity will reach it time. I say moore's law because it has stalled so much in the last years. Maybe by 2100 or so?

>>56350646
why are you underestimating humanity's ability to improve technology? you realize that in 60 years we went from the first heavier than air flight to landing on the moon right?

to suggest we need a hundred just to take an already existing model and improve its efficiency is just asinine.

Already happened 2 years ago.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/193343-darpa-creates-first-1thz-computer-chip-earns-guinness-world-record

If you're asking when we're going to see them in consumer use, well that's different.

>>56350866

>radio systems

no

>>56350645
Yes there's purposes for single transistors.

But not for CPUs.

>>56350846
>why are you underestimating humanity's ability to improve technology?
Because there is no need for improvement if the goyim keep paying you anyway.

>>56350991
and what are you going to do if they stop paying you? are you going to magically make up for decades of sitting on your ass? your previous breakthrough is now common knowledge. the chance to make a leap in advancements is rare and easily lost by so many.

>>56350523
They kinda, sorta DO have that; though, it's actually a 1000 core processor running at 1.78 GHz.

But, you COULD say it's comparable to a single-core processor running at 1THz.
http://www.techspot.com/news/65271-researchers-build-world-first-1000-core-processor.html

Also, runs off a single AA battery

>>56351002
technology just informed because of all the wars we fought

we life in a capitalistic time where there technological advances make no profit

why should I release a 100ghz you when I can slow down the advancement and sell CPUs that gain 5‰ power per year

this is the new Era my friend we no longer research to improve we do it to make money and nothing but a huge war could change that

>>56351028
>>But, you COULD say it's comparable to a single-core processor running at 1THz.
1.78THz

My mistake

>>56351047
what the fuck are you saying? let's list of some useless endeavors:

the transitor: lol we have vacuum tubes!

the computer: lol we have abacusses and mathematicians!

the car: we have horses and dirt paths. why fix what isn't broken!

MRI: we have xrays! they catch enough!

money is useless if you have nothing that drives you for getting it beyond basic living. otherwise you are going to have a stagnating society that will collapse.

>>56351047
Eh, I don't think so...

I'd do it when/if I could.

Theoretically it should be possible if you made some full retard die shrunk 14nm MOS 6502 or other comparable ancient 8 bit processor.

Exactly how much would it cost to have Intel or some other company make a few batches of full retard 14nm MOS 6502s anyhow?

>>56351002
start putting time bombs in everything
discontinue support for older models
start making products with utter shit build quality

>>56351028
>AMD in 2050

Once someone figures out how to make transistors for Graphene. we will be golden.

>>56351002
Planned obsolescence.
Consumer-grade Intels last only for about 3 years until the shitty thermal paste turns into powder and they start overheating. And the average goy doesn't know about dellidding, much less has enough guts to do it.