this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2024
52 points (100.0% liked)
technology
23277 readers
190 users here now
On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.
Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020
Rules:
- 1. Obviously abide by the sitewide code of conduct.
Bigotry will be met with an immediate ban
- 2. This community is about technology. Offtopic is permitted as long as it is kept in the comment sections
- 3. Although this is not /c/libre, FOSS related posting is tolerated, and even welcome in the case of effort posts
- 4. We believe technology should be liberating. As such, avoid promoting proprietary and/or bourgeois technology
- 5. Explanatory posts to correct the potential mistakes a comrade made in a post of their own are allowed, as long as they remain respectful
- 6. No crypto (Bitcoin, NFT, etc.) speculation, unless it is purely informative and not too cringe
- 7. Absolutely no tech bro shit. If you have a good opinion of Silicon Valley billionaires please manifest yourself so we can ban you.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
yeah I think someone in writing this article got very math-confused
An actual quote from the authors says this:
So it's (in simulations) way more efficient than 180nm silicon, which was achieved around 1999. If it can be brought down to 10 or even 5nm or less, which they think is theoretically possible, it will probably see insane efficiency gains
I can't find anything publicly (damn paywall) about the operations per second achieved by the actual tested chip, which was only 3000 transistors and capable of 2 bit operations. Without knowing that we can't know the actual empirical efficiency. But its so early-days that the simulated result of an 8-bit version is probably more useful information anyhow assuming it's accurate