“The new device is built from arrays of resistive random-access memory (RRAM) cells… The team was able to combine the speed of analog computation with the accuracy normally associated with digital processing. Crucially, the chip was manufactured using a commercial production process, meaning it could potentially be mass-produced.”

Article is based on this paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41928-025-01477-0

  • Alexstarfire@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    234
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    It uses 1% of the energy but is still 1000x faster than our current fastest cards? Yea, I’m calling bullshit. It’s either a one off, bullshit, or the next industrial revolution.

    EDIT: Also, why do articles insist on using ##x less? You can just say it uses 1% of the energy. It’s so much easier to understand.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      21 hours ago

      I would imagine there’s a kernel of truth to it. It’s probably correct, but for one rarely used operation, or something like that. It’s not a total revolution. It’s something that could be included to speed up a very particular task. Like GPUs are much better at matrix math than the CPU, so we often have that in addition to the CPU, which can handle all tasks, but isn’t as fast for those particular ones.

    • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      69
      ·
      1 day ago

      I mean it‘s like the 10th time I‘m reading about THE breakthrough in Chinese chip production on Lemmy so lets just say I‘m not holding my breath LoL.

      • 4am@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Yeah it’s like reading about North American battery science. Like yeah ok cool, see you in 30 years when you’re maybe production ready

    • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      https://www.nature.com/articles/s41928-025-01477-0

      Here’s the paper published in Nature.

      However, it’s worth noting that Nature has had to retract studies before:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_(journal)#Retractions

      From 2000 to 2001, a series of five fraudulent papers by Jan Hendrik Schön was published in Nature. The papers, about semiconductors, were revealed to contain falsified data and other scientific fraud. In 2003, Nature retracted the papers. The Schön scandal was not limited to Nature; other prominent journals, such as Science and Physical Review, also retracted papers by Schön.

      Not saying that we shouldn’t trust anything published in scientific journals, but yes, we should wait until more studies that replicate these results exist before jumping to conclusions.

    • yoyoyopo5@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      24 hours ago

      They’re real, but they aren’t general purpose and lack precision. It’s just analog.

      • turdcollector69@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        As someone with a 401k I really hope it isn’t.

        The economy crashing won’t hurt billionaires but will kill the middle class.

        If anything the economy crashing will allow the 0.1% to buy up anything they haven’t gotten already.

        • BreakerSwitch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          21 hours ago

          Yeah this is literally what happened in 2008. Economic instability stopped banks from lending to would be individual home buyers, but corpos bought up everything they could eagerly with a 20% price cut.

          • MajorasTerribleFate@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            21 hours ago

            Economic instability is generally better for the people who can weather the storm, i.e. those with resources to spare, because (as you say) they can buy assets on the cheap when the less fortunate run out of cash to survive on and have to liquidate.

            It’s long periods of stability that seem to let the lower classes build up a little. Yet another reason why war and strife is of benefit to the rich.

          • Zorque@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            The one so worried about their 401Ks they won’t risk the ire of the rich.