52
Specialist 'carbon nanotube' AI chip built by Chinese scientists is 1st of its kind
(www.livescience.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2024
52 points (100.0% liked)
technology
23277 readers
143 users here now
On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.
Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020
- Ways to run Microsoft/Adobe and more on Linux
- The Ultimate FOSS Guide For Android
- Great libre software on Windows
- Hey you, the lib still using Chrome. Read this post!
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
Okay so I read more and I think the headline figure (1700 times more efficient) is made up/due to a significant math error. You might want to correct the title.
The paper claims that a simulated scaled-up 8-bit version of this tech (180nm CNT transistor TPUs) could theoretically reach 1TOPS/W. That is less than the efficiency the author specifies for the google TPU (4TOPS/2W = 2TOPS/W)
Then they go on to speculate that a lower process node will probably improve that efficiency greatly (very likely true, but no figures listed in the public preview of the paper, even simulations)
The author of the article assumed (wrongly) that the actual chip they made could do 1TOPS (it's only 3000 transistors and can only do 2-bit math), and that it consumed 295 microwatts to do so, for an efficiency of 3389TOPS/W. (roughly 1700x the 2TOPS/W of the google chip) That's of course ludicrous.
ah yeah good point, updated the title