"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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 227 points 1 year ago* (18 children)

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.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 69 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I’m ready for this entire category of “science blog” website to disappear. Mainstream media are bad enough at interpreting movements in science, but these shitty little websites make their entire living off of massively overblowing every little thing. Shame on OP and anyone who posts this kind of garbage.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 46 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    But it only does 16x16 matrix inversion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Oh noes, how could that -possibly- scale?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    To a billion parameter matrix inverter? Probably not too hard, maybe not at those speeds.

    To a GPU, or even just the functions used in GenAI? We don't even know if those are possible with analog computers to begin with.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 27 points 1 year 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    It's a weird damn lie if it is.

    And the death of the American economy if it isn't, fingers crossed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year 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.

  • source
  • parent