That's not how Moore's law works or what it says. I mean, you are a tech channel, how did nobody notice that? <br>Moore's law, a prediction made by American engineer Gordon Moore in 1965 that the number of transistors per processor doubles every year.<br>He literally didn't even mention power.,(reply>), @Patrick Conti They said using energy efficiency instead of power after specifying we move away from moores law. And no most don't know how it works they think they do because channels like this don't bother to know what they are talking about. The channel moore's law is dead is actually poking fun at this very fact.,(reply>), ​@Joe R  Dude you should really watch again this video: at no point they suggested that Moore's law was about energy, they only said that the guy from arm suggested we used ANOTHER metric which is NOT Moore's law to describe CPU evolution. At no point they even explained what Moore's law was because everybody already know how it works.<br>Plus, even if it benefits ARM doesn't mean it's a bad metric: honestly i think power efficiency is actually an important factor.,(reply>), @Patrick Conti They said he suggested they go by energy efficiency vs power. Moore's law is about the number of transistors. I get why ARM worded it how they did. Because that metric would be heavily biased in their favour and wording it that way makes it sound like a subtle change. That's not what Moore's law says however. There are many factors that contribute to computing power. Moore's law is strictly about the number of transistors.<br>Arm wants all processors judged by energy efficiency because it would always put them on top while completely ignoring the downsides.,(reply>), I think you should watch that part of the video again. They do not mention that power is part of Moore's law. The guy at ARM suggested to use Koomey's law, which does, instead of Moore's law, because the latter doesn't take into account energy.<br><br>So here's your answer: nobody noticed that because there is nothing to notice