As far as I can tell, Moore's Law ended about 10 years ago, because 3 GHz CPUs were available then and most CPUs are slower than that now. Sure transistor counts have gone up, but the amount of computation that can be done in a single thread hasn't seen the 100x speedup that it did in previous decades. Mostly there's only been cheating by adding pipeline stages or ram latencies to get the frequencies up.

Also just before I graduated college in 1999 I remember my VLSI professors talking about how chips had passed the point where the interconnect had a square cross section and were moving to rectangular. So today chips look like skyscrapers, with tall ribbons of interconnect that suffer from crosstalk.

On top of that, there's been failure to move to distributed and multicore processing outside of GPUs, or for FPGAs to get adopted by the mainstream. I've given up on innovation on the hardware front from the big players, but I'm optimistic that approaches like Google's Go running inside hypervisors on diverse hardware is going to bring the high throughput we see in gaming and DSP to the mainstream. I’m unimpressed by OpenCL and CUDA and won’t really consider parallel computation as having arrived until more readable languages like Python and MATLAB generate accelerated code for us.

I realize there are holes in my statements here that one could fly a 747 through, but when the single fastest increase in my computing in a decade came from installing a 512 GB SSD drive, it means that something went terribly wrong. Moore’s Law ending could have more to do with computers reaching a point of being “good enough”, essentially becoming disposable appliances, than limitations with technology or cleverness. So they may not be getting any faster, but they are becoming so cheap that I think we’ll see life change in rather interesting ways in coming years.