“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
    1
    ·
    17 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.

    • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 days 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.

  • NutWrench@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 days ago

    Look, It’s one of those articles again. The bi-monthly “China invents earth-shattering technology breakthrough that we never hear about again.”

    “1000x faster?” Learn to lie better. Real technological improvements are almost always incremental, like “10-20% faster, bigger, stronger.” Not 1000 freaking times faster. You lie like a child. Or like Trump.

    • jali67@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 days ago

      Because until it hits market, it’s almost meaningless. These journalists do the same shit with drugs in trials or early research.

      • trolololol@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        16 days ago

        I agree that before it’s a company selling a product it’s just dreams.

        However this is serious research. Skip the journo and open the nature.com link to the scientific article.

        For the ones not familiar with nature, it’s a highly regarded scientific magazine. Articles are written by researchers not journalists.

        • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          16 days ago

          The Nature paper says they’ve done a proof of concept with a few bits, and concluded that they can reproduce it with cutting edge processors. That’s akin to ‘Mice survive cancer longer’ becoming ‘We’ve cured cancer forever’.

          They might be right, but I’m not holding my breath.

  • Quazatron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    17 days ago

    This was bound to happen. Neural networks are inherently analog processes, simulating them digitally is massively expensive in terms of hardware and power.

    Digital domain is good for exact computation, analog is better for approximate computation, as required by neural networks.

    • bulwark@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      17 days ago

      That’s a good point. The model weights could be voltage levels instead of digital representations. Lots of audio tech uses analog for better fidelity.I also read that there’s a startup using particle beams for lithography. Exciting times.

        • bulwark@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          17 days ago

          Vinyl records, analog tube amplifiers, a good pair of speakers 🤌

          Honestly though digital compression now is so good it probably sounds the same.

          • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            16 days ago

            speakers are analog devices by nature.

            The other two are used for the distortions they introduce, so quite literally lower fidelity. Whether some people like those distortions is irrelevant.

            You want high fidelity: lossless digital audio formats.