10 x 10 = 100 and 14 x 14 = 196. So in order to double the transistors we only need to shrink by 70% each time.
So I wonder if the emphasis on exponentials is misleading. A geometric decrease in feature size is sufficient, there were lots of atoms to work with while making wires ever smaller, and up till 2010 or so the regime of Dennard scaling gave shrinking transistors the very nice property of not affecting power consumption.
I know the article goes into more complex techno-economic reasons (and I guess that is what you are really discussing as well), but most IEEE papers cite Dennard scaling as a critical enabling driver. The end of Dennard is what made the IDRS roadmap identify an "end" to Moore's law.
Quick aside, I get what you are saying (that is: multiply the original size by 0.7), but as a non-native speaker of English: isn't "shrink by" the opposite of "shrink to", and wouldn't this wording technically imply shrinking to 30% of the original size?
If you're shrinking to a fixed(ish) percent at a fixed(ish) interval, I'd call that exponential. The difference between exponential and geometric is really just continuous vs discreet, isn't it?
So I wonder if the emphasis on exponentials is misleading. A geometric decrease in feature size is sufficient, there were lots of atoms to work with while making wires ever smaller, and up till 2010 or so the regime of Dennard scaling gave shrinking transistors the very nice property of not affecting power consumption.
I know the article goes into more complex techno-economic reasons (and I guess that is what you are really discussing as well), but most IEEE papers cite Dennard scaling as a critical enabling driver. The end of Dennard is what made the IDRS roadmap identify an "end" to Moore's law.