Editing Moore's law (section)

== Other formulations and similar observations ==
Several measures of digital technology are improving at exponential rates related to Moore's law, including the size, cost, density, and speed of components. Moore wrote only about the density of components, "a component being a transistor, resistor, diode or capacitor",<ref name=Moore1995 >{{cite web|url=http://www.lithoguru.com/scientist/CHE323/Moore1995.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://www.lithoguru.com/scientist/CHE323/Moore1995.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live |title=Lithography and the future of Moore's law |publisher=[[SPIE]] |last=Moore |first=Gordon E.|author-link=Gordon Moore |year=1995 |access-date=2014-05-27}}</ref> at minimum cost.

''Transistors per integrated circuit'' – The most popular formulation is of the doubling of the number of transistors on ICs every two years. At the end of the 1970s, Moore's law became known as the limit for the number of transistors on the most complex chips. The graph at the top of this article shows this trend holds true today. {{as of|2025}}, the commercially available processor possessing one of the highest numbers of transistors is a [[GeForce 50 series|GB202 graphics processor]] with more than 92.2&nbsp;billion transistors.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-rtx-5090.c4216 |title=NVIDIA GB202|publisher= TechPowerUp|date=2025}}</ref>

''Density at minimum cost per transistor'' – This is the formulation given in Moore's 1965 paper.<ref name="Moore 1965"/> It is not just about the density of transistors that can be achieved, but about the density of transistors at which the cost per transistor is the lowest.<ref>{{cite web|last=Stokes |first=Jon |url=https://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2008/09/moore.ars |title=Understanding Moore's Law |website=Ars Technica |date=2008-09-27 |access-date=2011-08-22}}</ref>

As more transistors are put on a chip, the cost to make each transistor decreases, but the chance that the chip will not work due to a defect increases. In 1965, Moore examined the density of transistors at which cost is minimized, and observed that, as transistors were made smaller through advances in [[photolithography]], this number would increase at "a rate of roughly a factor of two per year".<ref name="Moore 1965" />

''Dennard scaling'' – This posits that power usage would decrease in proportion to area (both voltage and current being proportional to length) of transistors. Combined with Moore's law, [[performance per watt]] would grow at roughly the same rate as transistor density, doubling every 1–2 years. According to Dennard scaling transistor dimensions would be scaled by 30% (0.7×) every technology generation, thus reducing their area by 50%. This would reduce the delay by 30% (0.7×) and therefore increase operating frequency by about 40% (1.4×). Finally, to keep electric field constant, voltage would be reduced by 30%, reducing energy by 65% and power (at 1.4× frequency) by 50%.{{efn|Active power {{=}} ''CV''<sup>2</sup>''f''}} Therefore, in every technology generation transistor density would double, circuit becomes 40% faster, while power consumption (with twice the number of transistors) stays the same.<ref>{{cite journal| url=http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2011/5/107702-the-future-of-microprocessors/fulltext |access-date=2011-11-27 |title=The Future of Microprocessors|date=May 2011| first1 = Shekhar | last1 = Borkar | first2 = Andrew A. | last2 = Chien|journal=Communications of the ACM  |volume=54 |issue=5 |pages=67 | doi=10.1145/1941487.1941507
|citeseerx=10.1.1.227.3582 |s2cid=11032644 }}</ref> Dennard scaling ended in 2005–2010, due to leakage currents.<ref name="Turing Award Lecture 2018" />

The exponential processor transistor growth predicted by Moore does not always translate into exponentially greater practical CPU performance. Since around 2005–2007, Dennard scaling has ended, so even though Moore's law continued after that, it has not yielded proportional dividends in improved performance.<ref name="cartesian">{{cite web|url=http://cartesianproduct.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/the-end-of-dennard-scaling/|title = The end of Dennard scaling|date = April 15, 2013|last = McMenamin|first = Adrian|access-date = January 23, 2014}}</ref><ref name="retrospective">{{cite web|url=http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~agrawvd/COURSE/READING/LOWP/Boh07.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131111040130/http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~agrawvd/COURSE/READING/LOWP/Boh07.pdf |archive-date=2013-11-11 |url-status=live|title = A 30 Year Retrospective on Dennard's MOSFET Scaling Paper|publisher = Solid-State Circuits Society|last = Bohr|first = Mark|date = January 2007|access-date = January 23, 2014}}</ref> The primary reason cited for the breakdown is that at small sizes, current leakage poses greater challenges, and also causes the chip to heat up, which creates a threat of [[thermal runaway]] and therefore, further increases energy costs.<ref name="cartesian" /><ref name="retrospective" /><ref name="Turing Award Lecture 2018" />

The breakdown of Dennard scaling prompted a greater focus on multicore processors, but the gains offered by switching to more cores are lower than the gains that would be achieved had Dennard scaling continued.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~hadi/doc/paper/2012-toppicks-dark_silicon.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~hadi/doc/paper/2012-toppicks-dark_silicon.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live|title = Dark Silicon and the end of multicore scaling|last1 = Esmaeilzedah|first1 = Hadi|last2 = Blem|first2 = Emily|last3 = St. Amant|first3 = Renee|last4 = Sankaralingam|first4 = Kartikeyan|last5 = Burger|first5 = Doug}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Hruska |first=Joel |date=February 1, 2012 |title=The death of CPU scaling: From one core to many – and why we're still stuck |url=http://www.extremetech.com/computing/116561-the-death-of-cpu-scaling-from-one-core-to-many-and-why-were-still-stuck |access-date=January 23, 2014 |publisher=[[ExtremeTech]]}}</ref> In another departure from Dennard scaling, Intel microprocessors adopted a non-planar tri-gate FinFET at 22&nbsp;nm in 2012 that is faster and consumes less power than a conventional planar transistor.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.semiconwest.org/sites/semiconwest.org/files/docs/Kaizad%20Mistry_Intel.pdf |title=Tri-Gate Transistors: Enabling Moore's Law at 22nm and Beyond |publisher=Intel Corporation at semiconwest.org |first=Kaizad |last=Mistry |date=2011 |access-date=2014-05-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150623193119/http://www.semiconwest.org/sites/semiconwest.org/files/docs/Kaizad%20Mistry_Intel.pdf |archive-date=2015-06-23 |url-status=dead }}</ref> The rate of performance improvement for single-core microprocessors has slowed significantly.<ref name="Turing Award Lecture slides">{{cite web |last1=Hennessy |first1=John L. |author1-link=John L. Hennessy |last2=Patterson |first2=David A. |author2-link=David Patterson (computer scientist) |date=June 4, 2018 |title=A New Golden Age for Computer Architecture: Domain-Specific Hardware/Software Co-Design, Enhanced Security, Open Instruction Sets, and Agile Chip Development |url=https://iscaconf.org/isca2018/docs/HennessyPattersonTuringLectureISCA4June2018.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://iscaconf.org/isca2018/docs/HennessyPattersonTuringLectureISCA4June2018.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |publisher=International Symposium on Computer Architecture – ISCA 2018 |quote=End of Growth of Single Program Speed?}}</ref> Single-core performance was improving by 52% per year in 1986–2003 and 23% per year in 2003–2011, but slowed to just seven percent per year in 2011–2018.<ref name="Turing Award Lecture slides" />

''Quality adjusted price of IT equipment'' – The [[Price index|price]] of information technology (IT), computers and peripheral equipment, adjusted for quality and inflation, declined 16% per year on average over the five decades from 1959 to 2009.<ref name=ITprices >{{cite web|url=http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/B935RG3Q086SBEA |title=Private fixed investment, chained price index: Nonresidential: Equipment: Information processing equipment: Computers and peripheral equipment |publisher=[[Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis]] |year=2014 |access-date=2014-05-12}}</ref><ref name=NambiarPoess >{{cite book|volume = 6417|pages = 110–120| first1 = Raghunath | last1 = Nambiar | first2 = Meikel | last2 = Poess| title=Performance Evaluation, Measurement and Characterization of Complex Systems | chapter=Transaction Performance vs. Moore's Law: A Trend Analysis |publisher=[[Springer Science+Business Media|Springer]] | date = 2011 |doi=10.1007/978-3-642-18206-8_9|series = Lecture Notes in Computer Science|isbn = 978-3-642-18205-1|s2cid = 31327565}}</ref> The pace accelerated, however, to 23% per year in 1995–1999 triggered by faster IT innovation,<ref name=Jorgenson01 >{{cite web|url=http://www.worldklems.net/conferences/worldklems2014/worldklems2014_Ho.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://www.worldklems.net/conferences/worldklems2014/worldklems2014_Ho.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live |title=Long-term Estimates of U.S. Productivity and Growth |publisher=World KLEMS Conference | first1 = Dale W. | last1 = Jorgenson| author-link = Dale W. Jorgenson | first2 = Mun S. | last2 = Ho | first3 = Jon D. | last3 = Samuels | date = 2014 |access-date=2014-05-27}}</ref> and later, slowed to 2% per year in 2010–2013.<ref name=ITprices/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://blogs.elis.org/isa/files/2013/02/report_jpmorgan.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140517115045/http://blogs.elis.org/isa/files/2013/02/report_jpmorgan.pdf |archive-date=2014-05-17 |url-status=live |title=US: is I.T. over? |publisher=JPMorgan Chase Bank NA Economic Research | first = Michael | last = Feroli | date = 2013 |access-date=2014-05-15}}</ref>

While [[Price index#Quality change|quality-adjusted]] microprocessor price improvement continues,<ref name="Byrne2013a"/> the rate of improvement likewise varies, and is not linear on a log scale. Microprocessor price improvement accelerated during the late 1990s, reaching 60% per year (halving every nine months) versus the typical 30% improvement rate (halving every two years) during the years earlier and later.<ref name=Aizcorbe01>{{cite web|url=http://www.federalreserve.gov/Pubs/FEDS/2006/200644/ |title=Shifting Trends in Semiconductor Prices and the Pace of Technological Progress |publisher=The Federal Reserve Board Finance and Economics Discussion Series | first1 = Ana | last1 = Aizcorbe | first2 = Stephen D. | last2 = Oliner | first3 = Daniel E. | last3 = Sichel | date = 2006 |access-date=2014-05-15}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.bea.gov/papers/pdf/semiconductorprices.pdf |title=Why Are Semiconductor Price Indexes Falling So Fast? Industry Estimates and Implications for Productivity Measurement |publisher=U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis |first=Ana |last=Aizcorbe |date=2005 |access-date=2014-05-15 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170809160523/https://www.bea.gov/papers/pdf/semiconductorprices.pdf |archive-date=2017-08-09 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Laptop microprocessors in particular improved 25–35% per year in 2004–2010, and slowed to 15–25% per year in 2010–2013.<ref name="Sun 2014" >{{cite web |url=http://repository.wellesley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1284&context=thesiscollection |title=What We Are Paying for: A Quality Adjusted Price Index for Laptop Microprocessors |last=Sun |first=Liyang |publisher=Wellesley College |date=2014-04-25 |access-date=2014-11-07 |quote=... compared with −25% to −35% per year over 2004–2010, the annual decline plateaus around −15% to −25% over 2010–2013. |archive-date=2014-11-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141111024422/http://repository.wellesley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1284&context=thesiscollection |url-status=dead }}</ref>

The number of transistors per chip cannot explain quality-adjusted microprocessor prices fully.<ref name=Aizcorbe01/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bea.gov/papers/pdf/aizcorbe_kortum.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070605131130/http://www.bea.gov/papers/pdf/aizcorbe_kortum.pdf |archive-date=2007-06-05 |url-status=live |title=Moore's Law and the Semiconductor Industry: A Vintage Model |publisher=U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis | first1 = Ana | last1 = Aizcorbe | first2 = Samuel | last2 = Kortum | date = 2004 |access-date=2014-05-27}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/17/business/technology-intel-s-big-shift-after-hitting-technical-wall.html |title=Intel's Big Shift After Hitting Technical Wall |newspaper=New York Times | first = John | last = Markoff |author-link = John Markoff | date = 2004 |access-date=2014-05-27}}</ref> Moore's 1995 paper does not limit Moore's law to strict linearity or to transistor count, "The definition of 'Moore's Law' has come to refer to almost anything related to the semiconductor industry that on a [[semi-log plot]] approximates a straight line. I hesitate to review its origins and by doing so restrict its definition."<ref name=Moore1995/>

''Hard disk drive areal density'' – A similar prediction (sometimes called [[Mark Kryder|Kryder's law]]) was made in 2005 for [[hard disk drive]] [[areal density (computer storage)|areal density]].<ref>
{{cite news
 | first=Chip
 | last=Walter
 | url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/kryders-law/
 | title=Kryder's Law
 | work=Scientific American
 | publisher= (Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck GmbH)
 | date=2005-07-25
 | access-date=2006-10-29
}}</ref> The prediction was later viewed as over-optimistic. Several decades of rapid progress in areal density slowed around 2010, from 30 to 100% per year to 10–15% per year, because of noise related to [[Superparamagnetism#Effect on hard drives|smaller grain size]] of the disk media, thermal stability, and writability using available magnetic fields.<ref>
{{cite journal
 | title = New Paradigms in Magnetic Recording
 | last = Plumer |display-authors=etal
 | first = Martin L.
 | journal = Physics in Canada
 | volume =  67
 | issue = 1
 | date = March 2011
 | pages = 25–29
 | arxiv = 1201.5543
 | bibcode = 2012arXiv1201.5543P
}}</ref><ref name="Mellor 2014-11-10">{{cite news |last=Mellor |first=Chris |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/10/kryders_law_of_ever_cheaper_storage_disproven/ |title=Kryder's law craps out: Race to UBER-CHEAP STORAGE is OVER |work=theregister.co.uk |location=UK |publisher=The Register |date=2014-11-10 |access-date=2014-11-12 |quote=Currently 2.5-inch drives are at 500GB/platter with some at 600GB or even 667GB/platter – a long way from 20TB/platter. To reach 20TB by 2020, the 500GB/platter drives will have to increase areal density 44 times in six years. It isn't going to happen. ... Rosenthal writes: "The technical difficulties of migrating from PMR to HAMR, meant that already in 2010 the Kryder rate had slowed significantly and was not expected to return to its trend in the near future. The floods reinforced this." }}</ref>

''Fiber-optic capacity'' – The number of bits per second that can be sent down an optical fiber increases exponentially, faster than Moore's law. '''Keck's law''', in honor of [[Donald Keck]].<ref>
{{cite web |last=Hecht |first=Jeff |date=2016 |title=Is Keck's Law Coming to an End? – IEEE Spectrum |url=https://spectrum.ieee.org/is-kecks-law-coming-to-an-end |access-date=2023-06-16 |website=[[IEEE]] |language=en}}
</ref>

''Network capacity'' – According to Gerald Butters,<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/personinfo/FromPersonIdPersonTearsheet.jhtml?passedPersonId=922126 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071012201431/http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/personinfo/FromPersonIdPersonTearsheet.jhtml?passedPersonId=922126 |archive-date=2007-10-12 |title=Gerald Butters is a communications industry veteran |magazine=Forbes.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lambdaopticalsystems.com/about-board-dir.php |title=Board of Directors |publisher=LAMBDA OpticalSystems |access-date=2011-08-22}}</ref> the former head of Lucent's Optical Networking Group at Bell Labs, there is another version, called Butters' Law of Photonics,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.tmcnet.com/articles/comsol/0100/0100pubout.htm |title=As We May Communicate |publisher=Tmcnet.com | first = Rich | last = Tehrani |access-date=2011-08-22}}</ref> a formulation that deliberately parallels Moore's law. Butters' law says that the amount of data coming out of an optical fiber is doubling every nine months.<ref>{{cite magazine |url=http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20000926S0065 |title=Speeding net traffic with tiny mirrors |magazine=[[EE Times]] |date=2000-09-26 |first=Gail |last=Robinson |access-date=2011-08-22 |archive-date=2010-01-07 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100107113634/http://eetimes.com/story/OEG20000926S0065 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Thus, the cost of transmitting a bit over an optical network decreases by half every nine months. The availability of [[wavelength-division multiplexing]] (sometimes called WDM) increased the capacity that could be placed on a single fiber by as much as a factor of 100. Optical networking and [[dense wavelength-division multiplexing]] (DWDM) is rapidly bringing down the cost of networking, and further progress seems assured. As a result, the wholesale price of data traffic collapsed in the [[dot-com bubble]]. [[Nielsen's Law]] says that the bandwidth available to users increases by 50% annually.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.useit.com/alertbox/980405.html |title=Nielsen's Law of Internet Bandwidth |publisher=Alertbox | first = Jakob | last = Nielsen |date=1998-04-05 |access-date=2011-08-22}}</ref>

''Pixels per dollar'' – Similarly, Barry Hendy of Kodak Australia has plotted pixels per dollar as a basic measure of value for a digital camera, demonstrating the historical linearity (on a log scale) of this market and the opportunity to predict the future trend of digital camera price, [[LCD]] and [[LED]] screens, and resolution.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/trust-the-power-of-technology/story-e6frg6q6-1225696991379 |title=Trust the power of technology |date=2009-04-09 |access-date=2013-12-02 | first = Ziggy | last = Switkowski |newspaper=The Australian}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |url=http://www.cs.cornell.edu/people/egs/papers/lesser-known-laws.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://www.cs.cornell.edu/people/egs/papers/lesser-known-laws.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live |title=Some Lesser-Known Laws of Computer Science | first1 = Emin Gün | last1 = Sirer | author-link = Emin Gün Sirer | first2 = Rik | last2 = Farrow |access-date=2013-12-02}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://antranik.org/using-moores-law-to-predict-future-memory-trends/ |title=Using Moore's Law to Predict Future Memory Trends |date=2011-11-21 |access-date=2013-12-02}}</ref><ref name="Myhrvold"/>

''The great Moore's law compensator (TGMLC)'', also known as [[Wirth's law]] – generally is referred to as [[software bloat]] and is the principle that successive generations of computer software increase in size and complexity, thereby offsetting the performance gains predicted by Moore's law. In a 2008 article in [[InfoWorld]], Randall C. Kennedy,<ref>{{cite magazine|last=Kennedy |first=Randall C. |url=http://www.infoworld.com/t/applications/fat-fatter-fattest-microsofts-kings-bloat-278?page=0,4 |title=Fat, fatter, fattest: Microsoft's kings of bloat |magazine=InfoWorld |date=2008-04-14 |access-date=2011-08-22}}</ref> formerly of Intel, introduces this term using successive versions of [[Microsoft Office]] between the year 2000 and 2007 as his premise. Despite the gains in computational performance during this time period according to Moore's law, Office 2007 performed the same task at half the speed on a prototypical year 2007 computer as compared to Office 2000 on a year 2000 computer.

''Library expansion'' – was calculated in 1945 by [[Fremont Rider]] to double in capacity every 16 years, if sufficient space were made available.<ref name="The Scholar">{{cite book |last=Rider |first=Fremont |title=The Scholar and the Future of the Research Library |publisher=Hadham Press |year=1944 |oclc=578215272}}</ref> He advocated replacing bulky, decaying printed works with miniaturized [[microform]] analog photographs, which could be duplicated on-demand for library patrons or other institutions. He did not foresee the digital technology that would follow decades later to replace analog microform with digital imaging, storage, and transmission media. Automated, potentially lossless digital technologies allowed vast increases in the rapidity of information growth in an era that now sometimes is called the [[Information Age]].

''[[Carlson curve]]'' – is a term coined by ''The Economist''<ref>Life 2.0. (August 31, 2006). The Economist</ref> to describe the biotechnological equivalent of Moore's law, and is named after author Rob Carlson.<ref>{{cite book | last = Carlson | first = Robert H. | title = Biology Is Technology: The Promise, Peril, and New Business of Engineering Life | publisher = Harvard University Press | date = 2010 |url={{GBurl|NGTbnaXOKD8C|pg=PP6}} |isbn=978-0-674-05362-5}}</ref> Carlson accurately predicted that the doubling time of DNA sequencing technologies (measured by cost and performance) would be at least as fast as Moore's law.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Carlson |first=Robert H. |date=September 2003 |title=The Pace and Proliferation of Biological Technologies |journal=Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science |volume=1 |issue=3 |pages=203–214 |doi=10.1089/153871303769201851 |pmid=15040198 |s2cid=18913248}}</ref> Carlson Curves illustrate the rapid (in some cases hyperexponential) decreases in cost, and increases in performance, of a variety of technologies, including DNA sequencing, DNA synthesis, and a range of physical and computational tools used in protein expression and in determining protein structures.

''[[Eroom's law]]'' – is a pharmaceutical drug development observation that was deliberately written as Moore's Law spelled backward in order to contrast it with the exponential advancements of other forms of technology (such as transistors) over time. It states that the cost of developing a new drug roughly doubles every nine years.

''[[Experience curve effects]]'' says that each doubling of the cumulative production of virtually any product or service is accompanied by an approximate constant percentage reduction in the unit cost. The acknowledged first documented qualitative description of this dates from 1885.<ref name="ebbing_book">{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=oRSMDF6y3l8C |title=Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology |last=Ebbinghaus |first=Hermann |author-link=Hermann Ebbinghaus |publisher=Columbia University |date=1913 |page=42, Figure 2|isbn=9780722229286 }}</ref><ref name="books.google.com">{{cite web |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ikEMAAAAIAAJ&q=%22learning+curve%22 |title=The American Journal of Psychology |volume=14 |date=1903 |first1=Granville Stanley |last1=Hall |first2=Edward Bradford |last2=Titchene}}</ref> A power curve was used to describe this phenomenon in a 1936 discussion of the cost of airplanes.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Wright |first=T. P. |date=1936 |title=Factors Affecting the Cost of Airplanes |journal=Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences |volume=3 |issue=4 |pages=122–128|doi=10.2514/8.155 }}</ref>

''[[Edholm's law]]'' – Phil Edholm observed that the [[Bandwidth (signal processing)|bandwidth]] of [[telecommunication network]]s (including the Internet) is doubling every 18 months.<ref name="Cherry">{{cite journal |last1=Cherry |first1=Steven |title=Edholm's law of bandwidth |journal=IEEE Spectrum |date=2004 |volume=41 |issue=7 |pages=58–60 |doi=10.1109/MSPEC.2004.1309810|s2cid=27580722 }}</ref> The bandwidths of online [[communication networks]] has risen from [[bits per second]] to [[terabits per second]]. The rapid rise in online bandwidth is largely due to the same MOSFET scaling that enabled Moore's law, as telecommunications networks are built from MOSFETs.<ref name="Jindal">{{cite book |last1=Jindal |first1=R. P. |title=2009 2nd International Workshop on Electron Devices and Semiconductor Technology |chapter=From millibits to terabits per second and beyond - over 60 years of innovation |date=2009 |pages=1–6 |doi=10.1109/EDST.2009.5166093 |chapter-url=https://events.vtools.ieee.org/m/195547|isbn=978-1-4244-3831-0 |s2cid=25112828 }}</ref>

''[[Haitz's law]]'' predicts that the brightness of LEDs increases as their manufacturing cost goes down.

''[[Swanson's law]]'' is the observation that the price of solar photovoltaic modules tends to drop 20 percent for every doubling of cumulative shipped volume. At present rates, costs go down 75% about every 10 years.