Moore's Law says absolutely nothing about performance, as this article repeatedly implies. Moore's Law says that the number of transistors in an integrated circuit would double every two years, and that has fairly consistently held true and continues to do so.
For years, those transistors went into increasing CPU speed. Now, additional transistors go into building more CPU cores, or more execution units. Either way, Moore's Law still holds.
This is technically true, but it happens that clock speeds and MIPs have also increased at a geometric rate over long periods of time. It's a bit harder to characterize because processor architecture changes have a discontinuous effect, but on average MIPs doubled every 36 months. [1]
The regular doubling of clock speed ended years ago, around the time of the Pentium 4. (The paper you cited appeared in 2002.) In any case, Moore's Law never said anything about clock speed; that just became a popular misinterpretation.
No it's not but it is what people have often taken as one of the main effects of Moore's law and it is the phenomena the implications of who's end the article is discussing. And those implications are important even if they aren't directly related to Moore's law.
> Moore's Law says that the number of transistors in an integrated circuit would double every two years, and that has fairly consistently held true and continues to do so.
This may be getting close to a wall, too. The smallest process currently viewed as being practical is in the region of 10nm; we're not that far off.
For years, those transistors went into increasing CPU speed. Now, additional transistors go into building more CPU cores, or more execution units. Either way, Moore's Law still holds.