Slashdot Mirror


IBM Unveils the 'World's Smallest Computer' (mashable.com)

On the first day of IBM Think 2018, the company's flagship conference, IBM has unveiled what it claims is the world's smallest computer. It's smaller than a grain of salt and features the computer power of the x86 chip from 1990. Mashable first spotted this gem: The computer will cost less than ten cents to manufacture, and will also pack "several hundred thousand transistors," according to the company. These will allow it to "monitor, analyze, communicate, and even act on data." It works with blockchain. Specifically, this computer will be a data source for blockchain applications. It's intended to help track the shipment of goods and detect theft, fraud, and non-compliance. It can also do basic AI tasks, such as sorting the data it's given. According to IBM, this is only the beginning. "Within the next five years, cryptographic anchors -- such as ink dots or tiny computers smaller than a grain of salt -- will be embedded in everyday objects and devices," says IBM head of research Arvind Krishna. If he's correct, we'll see way more of these tiny systems in objects and devices in the years to come. It's not clear yet when this thing will be released -- IBM researchers are currently testing its first prototype.

164 comments

  1. I'm waiting for the smallest camera... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...any day now.

    1. Re:I'm waiting for the smallest camera... by AlejandroTejadaC · · Score: 1

      A camera like this? https://www.pcmag.com/article2...

  2. Ultra SoC by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

    So they added some memory to an existing SoC?

    It can also do basic AI tasks, such as sorting the data it's given

    So it's a bunch of integer calculators. uint8 or uint16. Like the old FPU less machines of yester year.

    1. Re:Ultra SoC by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      How the hell is sorting even an "AI task"?
      Also, blockchain. Still? Seriously?

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:Ultra SoC by Amouth · · Score: 1

      i was about to say, since when is "sorting" considered AI? if so let me update my resume to add 20+ years experience in "AI" - although give IBM's current approach to workforce........

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    3. Re:Ultra SoC by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      You guys keep moving the goalposts. As soon as we make a breakthrough in AI you come around and claim "that isn't AI". Next you are going to tell me that Siri isn't AI!

    4. Re:Ultra SoC by nashv · · Score: 1

      Well, you could have AI based sorting. Like sorting first on some heuristic parameter that isn't actually the parameter to be eventually sorted by.

      --
      Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
    5. Re:Ultra SoC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it's just an ESP8266 or even an ARM, just in a different chip package. Oooo! It can sort! So can my TI-85...

    6. Re:Ultra SoC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IoT, edge computing and filtering are so yesterday today.

    7. Re:Ultra SoC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As soon as we make a breakthrough in AI

      Yeah, as soon as that happens, let us know will you?

    8. Re:Ultra SoC by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      It happened already. Jobs for Chess and Go Masters disappeared overnight.

    9. Re:Ultra SoC by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Good idea. Why sort of the parameter to be eventually sorted on, when you can sort by something completely different first?

    10. Re:Ultra SoC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's poor AI sorting. You need to run a genetic algorithm over the data to sort it or train a neural net to either figure out which items are greater/less/equal to each other or to determine when the data has been fully sorted. If doing the fully sorted NN, then you link the genetic algorithm's output into the NN to figure out when its finished.

      We could also follow in the foot steps of the giants like the Chess and Go playing AIs by pre-computing the majority of the data shifts to go from any unsorted list to the proper sorted list. Then we scan down the list of items to sort to see which known case it best matches and then apply the pre-computed solution for that case. If no cases match, then we randomly shift the data around based on some heuristic until we've match one of the know cases.

      Those are the proper ways to do AI sorting. Or we can all forget about buzzwords and just use the O(1) bead sort for everything. That would really speed up processing. Where's my AI sorting patients?

    11. Re:Ultra SoC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you remind me so much of creimer?

    12. Re:Ultra SoC by nashv · · Score: 1

      Because the AI might be able to sort out certain things faster/to get clusters that may/may not be worth further sorting.

      --
      Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
    13. Re:Ultra SoC by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Of COURSE Siri isn't AI - I asked Alexa and she confirmed it!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    14. Re:Ultra SoC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Computing 101. Different sorts for different data.
      In DB2 and older - say 50 years ago, run-stats or the like on indexes told which was the best sort to use, even on doubly linked lists and B-trees.
      Usually the graduate knew about Knuth's book, and chose wisely.

      When AI can do the below, I will be impressed.Humans : Chess program in 487 BYTES http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-31028787

      A Massive parallel supercomputer to beat one brain and one chessmaster is unfair. Would like to see the computer run against many chessmasters,
      and the power consumption of the computer limited to calories consumed by humans.

      As for this new chip, not all that new. Credit card chips with crypto can be pretty smart, but are fabbed at the cheapest place because if it were the size of 8 salt grains, nobody cares - the battery and power remains the problem.

    15. Re:Ultra SoC by DeVilla · · Score: 1

      Or is "sorting" the word you give some C-level exec when trying to explain classification problems that don't depend on per-defined equivalence relationships? You can bet IBM is addressing the executives and not the technical people.

    16. Re: Ultra SoC by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Touche; one of your better posts. Those are outlier, however; for machine logic to even begin to handle virtually any of the wide range of tasks that people perform constantly, there need to be massive revolutionary improvements in addition to the evolutionary changes we've seen so far. Our current 'computing models' aren't the way to go about implementing it, either; eventually, digital tools will probably enable far more efficient analog processor designs but until then, 'AI' will remain marketing horseshit spewed forth for the pleasure of Wall Street and the fear of everyone else.

    17. Re:Ultra SoC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like a PowePC 604 which was nearly twice the performance of the Pentium 90Mhz(toasters/heaters).

    18. Re: Ultra SoC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree... what we have STILL... is not AI... it is statistics.... very simple math really... no "actual" AI about it, at least not what I would consider to be worthy of the title AI. I am still waiting for something along the lines of terminator, mr. Data, Marvin or Hal 9000

    19. Re:Ultra SoC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's equivalent to "the" x86 chip of 1990 then it has the same processing power as a 486DX-33, which had an integrated FPU.

    20. Re:Ultra SoC by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Siri isn't AI,

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    21. Re:Ultra SoC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they added some memory to an existing SoC?

      Well. if UltraSoC is 1x1 mm in size, and includes on top of memory a photovoltaic cell for power and a LED communications unit and photo sensor, sure.
      Then they 'Just added some memory'.

    22. Re:Ultra SoC by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      I can think of one example, block-sorting file compression as used by bzip2. If you are making a tarball of several files, it will presumably help to have files with similar content next to each other in the archive. (The block-sorting process would rearrange them later to some extent, but I believe that compression will be a bit better if they are already close, particularly if the input data is much bigger than the sorting window.)

      So you first sort by some measure that only approximates sorting by content. That is, you sort by filename first. It's a guess that similar filenames will have similar content. That could be completely wrong, of course, but the heuristic tends to work in practice.

      (This applies to most forms of compressed archive, even if the compression algorithm doesn't involve sorting, but here you have an example of where it's worth sorting by some approximate key before sorting again.)

      Another example may be bulk insertion into a relational database table, where inserting rows in sorted order is fastest, but you may not have the memory to sort them on the client. If you could sort them by something that tends to correlate to the final ordering, you will typically get some speedup in practice.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    23. Re:Ultra SoC by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      We should build a matching MIDI violin for it!

      Also, this , if you want something really small and power-efficient.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    24. Re:Ultra SoC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is because they haven't given much thought into what the difference between AI and actual intelligence is.
      Some people seem to think that any intelligence not biological and evolved would make it artificial.
      I guess that can work if you define artificial as constructed.

      I tend to define AI as simulated intelligence.
      In my book, if it passes the Turing test it qualifies to be called an AI.

      If it actually thinks it is no longer artificial.

    25. Re:Ultra SoC by MancunianMaskMan · · Score: 1

      IBM (actually its corporate predecessors) probably called it that when they had Hollerith's machine sorting census punch cards. Must have seemed a marvel of technology then, and it was.

    26. Re:Ultra SoC by Black.Shuck · · Score: 1

      So they added some memory to an existing SoC?

      "Why, the fax-machine is nothin' but a waffle-iron with a 'phone attached!"

    27. Re:Ultra SoC by Joosy · · Score: 2

      Well, the 486-DX33 had a power dissipation of 2.5 Watts, which is a lot to radiate off something smaller than a grain of salt.

      Not to mention the fact that this sucker probably only has a VGA connector.

      --
      I'm sick and tired of these hip, "ironic" sigs. This is an actual, honest-to-goodness no-nonsense sig!
    28. Re:Ultra SoC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's creimer's grandbro!

  3. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Blockchain and AI in one press release? I Best Buy some IBM stock.

    1. Re:Wow by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      They have to find something to prop up the part of the business trying to sell their own SCM. A lot of companies are dumping ClearCase and Jazz SCM and moving to git.

      Although it seems like we'll never be free of DOORS.

  4. Breakthrough by 110010001000 · · Score: 1, Troll

    Computers once filled an entire room. Now they are smaller than a grain of salt and more powerful. This means that all things are now possible. AI and trips to Mars. Quantum Computing. We just need to sit back and wait for it all to happen.

    1. Re:Breakthrough by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 1

      Said no one ever, except a certain straw stuffed fellow on his way to Oz.

      BTW, can you clarify which ones you think are impossible and which ones you think are possible without faster computers?

    2. Re:Breakthrough by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

      This is nothing but an incremental change that does not have much of a bearing on AI, trips to Mars and quantum computing. I.e. there are obstacles in the way to those goals that this particular innovation will contribute very, very little, maybe even nothing, to overcome. Finally, the required breakthroughs will not happen if we just sit back and wait.

    3. Re:Breakthrough by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I think all things are possible. When I was growing up computers only had 64k of memory. Now they have GB and can fit on my wrist. Also, I can talk to my cellphone and it will tell me the weather in a woman's voice. Truly the future is NOW.

    4. Re:Breakthrough by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      But it does AI sorting and Blockchain. And is the size of a grain of salt. Did you not read the article?

    5. Re:Breakthrough by mikael · · Score: 2

      Imagine being able to covertly send a message to someone simply by writing some data into a pile of smart-dust and let it blow around by the global wind currents such as the jet stream. Might take a few days but that's quicker than most international postal services.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    6. Re:Breakthrough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think all things are possible. When I was growing up computers only had 64k of memory. Now they have GB and can fit on my wrist. Also, I can talk to my cellphone and it will tell me the weather in a woman's voice. Truly the future is NOW.

      Where's my flying car?

    7. Re: Breakthrough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not use a satellite and get it immediately?

    8. Re:Breakthrough by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 1

      Right, but dropping your usual comedy A+ "lets go live on mars, just kidding, I fooled you, space nutters suck!" routine, what do you actually believe won't be helped by faster, smaller computers? Do you think true AI isn't possible, or just the time frame is wrong? (Which it always is) Just curious because you always pop up in these types of discussions, so you obviously care enough to post.

    9. Re:Breakthrough by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      ... and it will tell me the weather in a woman's voice.

      With the same unfortunate lack of accuracy that the dumpy guy on the TV green screen gave us.

      Progress of a sort, I suppose.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    10. Re:Breakthrough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think all things are possible.

      Physics sets some limits to that.

    11. Re:Breakthrough by Zorpheus · · Score: 1

      Where's my flying car?

      Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    12. Re:Breakthrough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Physics sets some limits to that.

      Trump will abolish the laws of physics if re-elected for a second term.

    13. Re:Breakthrough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make physics great again!

    14. Re: Breakthrough by mikael · · Score: 1

      The satellite communication could be intercepted if it were broadcast. Just like those numbers radio stations.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  5. I hate everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It can also do basic AI tasks, such as sorting the data it's given.

    Basic AI tasks .... sorting. Riiiiiight.

  6. Buzzwords! by saccade.com · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's just an x86 microcontroller, but we'll throw in exciting buzzwords like AI, blockchain and cryptographic anchors to see if our stock goes up. Since when is "sorting" a "basic AI task"?

    1. Re:Buzzwords! by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since 2015 every computer algorithm was reclassified as AI. It was to cover up the fact that AI really hasn't made any progress in the last 40 years.

    2. Re: Buzzwords! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Such small ambitions and thought.

      Do you realize that even at a 1990s level of computational power and with the diminutive size of the full package that this is within the realm of being powered by your existing metabolism or a micro thermoelectric generator?

      Outside of the ultra sci-fi here. Imagine having direct and instant access to that kind of power, an extension of your mind. You'd not even know or feel these in your body.

      At some point. A tiny device like this will take over for damaged control systems in a human body.

      Steps like this are how we get to such tech

    3. Re: Buzzwords! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya, ya, more merge with machines bullshit. No thanks, I'll keep my humanity.

    4. Re:Buzzwords! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget 'patented'. Every algorithm was reclassified and as AI and patented.

      Get ready for the Apple vs Samsung "sorting with AI" court wars!

    5. Re: Buzzwords! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah the device is cool and small.

      Blockchain! AI!

      It's so cool because blockchain and AI!

    6. Re:Buzzwords! by nnull · · Score: 1

      Just like the cloud.

    7. Re:Buzzwords! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its cheaper to make new words than create new technology. We could consider these linguistic exercises part of cost savings measures to stimulate economic growth, at the risk of increasing our information complexity. With the complexity beneficial for consulting, there should be no end to the creation of new buzzwords to refer to the same idea.

    8. Re:Buzzwords! by caviare · · Score: 1

      That's because you are classifying everything that has made progress in the last 40 years as not AI.

    9. Re:Buzzwords! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course! Finding a local solution of a nonlinear function -> Newton's method (ref Issac Newton circa 1700!)-> gradient decent -> stochastic gradient decent (a.k.a. SDG). Now you can immediately jump to DNN and A.I.!

    10. Re:Buzzwords! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, my fat fingers, should be SGD instead of SDG.

    11. Re: Buzzwords! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >A tiny device like this will take over for damaged control systems in a human body.
      This is a serious problem.Since when do you allow other people (read: government) to literally control your body functions and to kill you if they want?!
      THIS IS SLAVERY!!!

    12. Re: Buzzwords! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you'll be left behind with all the other meatbags too afraid to embrace the future.

    13. Re: Buzzwords! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would be great for law enforcement. Second someone steps out of line, they are immediately zapped or their legs are rendered inoperable until the police come by to scoop them up, to take them to jail.

    14. Re:Buzzwords! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets call them stochastic and non-stochastic inference machines and processes, that is SIMs, SIPs, NIMs and NIPs. Like a four lustful dwarfs aiming to score with the Snow White.

    15. Re:Buzzwords! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The AI generates the press releases and probes the market to see what sticks.

  7. This is truly a nightmare. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Within the next five years, cryptographic anchors -- such as ink dots or tiny computers smaller than a grain of salt -- will be embedded in everyday objects and devices,"

    How can anyone read this without getting chills on their backs? The current situation is already a living nightmare of surveillance, but this... makes it impossible to keep existing in this world.

    1. Re:This is truly a nightmare. by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      this... makes it impossible to keep existing in this world.

      Okay. Be sure to fill out your organ donor card before you stop existing in this world. That way you can help at least a few other people on your way out.

    2. Re:This is truly a nightmare. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this... makes it impossible to keep existing in this world.

      Okay. Be sure to fill out your organ donor card before you stop existing in this world. That way you can help at least a few other people on your way out.

      Jamming my dick in your mouth counts for an "organ" donation!

    3. Re:This is truly a nightmare. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      FAIL. If you really wanted to pwn the dude, you'd be ramming your dick in his ASS. Don't you know anything about expressing dominance?

    4. Re:This is truly a nightmare. by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      He also seems to know absolutely nothing about teeth.

  8. Privacy by should_be_linear · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Drop hundreds of billions of these from airplane over city, they will connect into encrypted wireless net, and you have "street view", but streaming live from everywhere, even from interiors of houses. If you think your privacy is violated by Facebook, hold on for this!

    --
    839*929
    1. Re:Privacy by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      That would be awesome. We could call it "Smart Dust". Oh yeah, people were talking about that 20 years ago.

    2. Re:Privacy by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      More like 60 years ago, seems you do not read much Stanislaw Lem.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:Privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smart dust. Is that like "the cloud"?

    4. Re:Privacy by nonBORG · · Score: 1

      or maybe you would just make a mess. Great words from marketing but think about power supplies, IO and even a purpose otherwise they are pollution and nothing else.

      --
      You can't handle the truth! - Because I don't post left all my comments get modded down, bye bye Karma.
    5. Re:Privacy by nasch · · Score: 1

      Unless there are cameras smaller than a grain of salt too, I'm not worried about that yet.

  9. Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A Beowulf cluster that can sit on the tip of my finger.

  10. And so we come to - by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1. Does it run Linux?

    2. Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!
    Building a Beowulf Cluster in just 13 steps

    How many cluster nodes per cm^3?

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  11. Beowulf Cluster Recipe by PPH · · Score: 5, Funny

    1/2 tsp processors
    Add Linux distro to taste

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re: Beowulf Cluster Recipe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taking the whole salting thing literal.

    2. Re:Beowulf Cluster Recipe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG that was so funny!!!

    3. Re:Beowulf Cluster Recipe by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Imagine a Beowu... oh, never mind.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    4. Re:Beowulf Cluster Recipe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll take mine with Mint and Cinnamon!

  12. Just great. Tiny devices, embedded everywhere. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    Now the TSA will want to download data from my underwear along with my laptop and phone.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Just great. Tiny devices, embedded everywhere. by Mr0bvious · · Score: 2

      Your laptop and phone download data from your underwear?

      Man I'm out of date, I ain't got any of this good shit.

      --
      Never happened. True story.
    2. Re:Just great. Tiny devices, embedded everywhere. by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Now the TSA will want to download data from my underwear along with my laptop and phone.

      Your laptop and phone download data from your underwear?

      No, his laptop and phone are in his underwear.

    3. Re: Just great. Tiny devices, embedded everywhere. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are kot called the Toilet Safety Association for nothing you know...
      Soon we are ALL required to wear IoT underwear

  13. Words fail me... by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

    see sig.

  14. Compute is small, but it must connect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to something, for I/O. I/O. It's HUUUUGGGEEEE!, she said.

  15. I wasn't interested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until she said it had blockchain

  16. Re:Wow FTFY by zlives · · Score: 3, Funny

    Blockchain and AI in one press release? I Best Buy some IBM CRYPTOstock.

  17. How do you communicate with it? by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

    If I'm reading it right, it has some kind of LED attached and a micro solar panel. Like it can flash or something and run from power from the sun?

    I didn't get the impression you can plug anything in to it like a keyboard or even connect wirelessly, unless the article is missing something?

    1. Re:How do you communicate with it? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Well it needs to actually go on a "motherboard" first, which is about the size of a computer chip. No, I am not kidding. But trust me, it is really revolutionary. Or will be. At some point.

    2. Re:How do you communicate with it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't think it needs a motherboard. Look at the diagram:
      * PV power source, right there on the chip. So you don't need to plug into external power.
      * Static RAM data storage, right there on the chip. So you don't need a hard drive or anything like that.
      * LED communications and photo-detector, so you have input/output there.
      * x100,000 transistor processing unit. So there's your CPU.

      So you don't need a motherboard. It's entirely self-contained.

    3. Re:How do you communicate with it? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      No. It needs a motherboard. It even shows it in the picture. As usual, this is BS. IBM was pushing "Smart Dust" 20 years ago with the same idea. No one wants it.

    4. Re:How do you communicate with it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this motherboard happen to use the new "QFP leadframe" architecture and the "gold wire bonding" interconnect?

    5. Re:How do you communicate with it? by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

      10Base5 Ethernet.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    6. Re:How do you communicate with it? by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Informative

      The picture of a chip sitting on a finger in the article is 64 motherboards.
      Each motherboard is 1x1mm, which includes the CPU, SRAM, a PV cell for power and an LED/photodiode for I/O.
      Smaller than a relatively big grain of salt.

      I'm a little confused about the power of the thing though. They say it's similar performance to a CPU from 1990, which would be a 486.
      Except the 486 had over 1 million transistors, this has 100,000. That's more on par with a 286 from the early 80's

    7. Re:How do you communicate with it? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      A fast 486 back in those days was 33 MHz; perhaps this runs at 330 MHz, and thus makes up for less transistor count with brute speed of execution?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    8. Re:How do you communicate with it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA!

      There's a photo of a motherboard carrying one of these chips sitting on a pile of salt - the motherboard is 1mm x 1mm, not "the size of a computer chip".

    9. Re:How do you communicate with it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how well it would deal with an ESD event.

    10. Re:How do you communicate with it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy, you just have to enable IPv6.

    11. Re:How do you communicate with it? by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      Except the 486 had over 1 million transistors, this has 100,000. That's more on par with a 286 from the early 80's

      Number of transistors is not the only factor determining the performance of a CPU. The switching speed of a transistor is a determining factor as well, and the process size that is fabbed nowadays is in the few tens of nm in size (10-16 nm), while it was about 500 nm in mid 1990s. This implies much lower capacitances and therefore, much higher switching speed.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    12. Re:How do you communicate with it? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      It's also a CPU powered by a PV panel that only covers a fraction of a 1x1mm chip, so it's not going to be running that fast.

    13. Re:How do you communicate with it? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      It's still claimed to be an x86 processor though. The 100k transistor 286 had a much smaller instruction set and was only 16 bit
      The first proper "x86" was the 386, which came in at 275,000 transistors.

      It would have to be a *very* fast, very simple processor emulating x86 to be as fast as a 33MHz 486 and only require 100k transistors.
      and still run on half a bee's dick of power from a tiny PV panel.

    14. Re:How do you communicate with it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article said a few hundred thousand transistors. That would be enough to be a 386.
      I've always wondered what a 486 made with modern processes (transistor size) would look like. This is pretty close.
      I hope they can open this up to hobbyists and offer additional packaging options as well.

    15. Re:How do you communicate with it? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      It's still claimed to be an x86 processor though. The 100k transistor 286 had a much smaller instruction set and was only 16 bit The first proper "x86" was the 386, which came in at 275,000 transistors.

      Hmmm, x86 processors started with the 8086. It refers to a fundamental architecture and instruction set. I think your arbitrary declaration of 386 as the first "proper" x86 is misguided.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    16. Re:How do you communicate with it? by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      You are absolutely right.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    17. Re:How do you communicate with it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's basically a bog-standard cpu without the plastic chip casing and pins (ball grid, whatever) hooked up to make it, well, useable?

      What a revolution!

    18. Re:How do you communicate with it? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Even so, an x86 from 1990 was a 486 with a million transistors.

      An 8086 does about 0.1 mips per mhz, while a 486 does around 0.6. You'd need to run an 8086 at 300MHz is compete with a 50MHz 486. Probably much faster if you're using 32bit math. Even faster again to compete with the memory bandwidth difference.

    19. Re:How do you communicate with it? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      The 386 was still in heavy use in 1990; the 486 had just been released. I would wager there were at least 10X the number of 386 PCs in use in 1990 as there were 486 PCs. The 386 had around 275K transistors (fits with this story), and would do about 11 MIPS at 33 MHz, so if you clock that up to 300 MHz you're around 100 MIPS. Not too shabby!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  18. So I read the article... by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 3, Informative

    I know, I know, we don't read the article. And this one was crap too. Buzzword noise.

    But the block diagram was included, at least, and that's fascinating. Unlike Intel and their little chip, IBM has actually thought about the practicality of using the thing. It comes with an integrated solar cell and an integrated photo-diode communications array for both transmission and receipt of data. It also includes some SRAM. No mention of how many bytes, no mention of data throughput from the array, no mention of actual power consumption (and accompanying heat dissipation).

    All coverage appears to be essentially content-free crap designed to pump IBM's stock price.

    Maybe somebody can figure out what to do with it. It's going to be difficult since all I/O requires line of sight.

    1. Re:So I read the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can do a LOT with 1M transistors, Intel 4004 only has 2,300 transistors, sans memory. With today's semiconductor technology, making a CPU core with 1M transistors is really a piece of cake. The real hard questions are 1) how low power it is, and how to deliver the power to this "grain of salt", tiny batteries? energy harvesting from sunlight, from human body heat, or parasitic on wi-fi signals? 2) how to communicate with it. Perhaps something related to RFID can be leveraged.

      On the other hand, with 1M transistors we can sure two things will be available: 1) a high quality random number generator, 2) an adequate instruction set, which means some sophisticated algorithms can run this "grain-of-salt". It is an "active" device, it can "memorize" where it has been, which is totally different from a "passive" tracker like RFID. If all details are worked out, and the cost is kept low, it has the potential of a game changer.

    2. Re:So I read the article... by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      Mesh computing, sprinkle the magic dust around the Oceania embassy and enjoy the spying goodness

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  19. So what? GPUs. Bored now! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    Big deal. Don't modern GPUs have thousands of processor cores? For that matter, aren't there microcontrollers that have been on the market for years now that are a complete SoC, with peripherals like ethernet, wifi, and bluetooth?

    1. Re:So what? GPUs. Bored now! by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      Did those microcontrollers do AI sorting and blockchain? Nope. Those things just come with a boring data sheet. This one does blockchain. Imagine what it can do!

    2. Re:So what? GPUs. Bored now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A complete programmable GPU core for the latest 3D API extensions can fit inside the space of a single logic gate of a 6502 or Z80 microprocessor. GPU cores are SIMD processors. They have one controller for 64+ data streams and process shader programs in lock step known warps. There are SoC's with wireless connectivity, but they are at least the size of the largest connector and require a power supply.

      They can etch lenses the size of salt crystals , so being able to air-drop a swarm of camera dust isn't far off.

    3. Re:So what? GPUs. Bored now! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      A modern GPU is the size of a small book and draws some 100W of power.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:So what? GPUs. Bored now! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      What we have currently is incorrectly named "AI"; Neal Stephenson has a better term for it: "pseudo-intelligence".

      You forgot to end your comment with "</sarcasm>"

  20. But.. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    ..will it run Crysis?

  21. Smaller than a gain of salt...yeah...coarse salt by Eloking · · Score: 2, Informative

    The headline said "IBM has created a computer smaller than a grain of salt" but they compare it to Kosher Salt (Or another variety with the grain size if bigger).

    If you want to use an headline like this at least make sure it's smaller than the most popular type of salt. I mean, I've worked in a salt mine where I could find salt rock bigger than your house.

    --
    Elok
  22. Re:Smaller than a gain of salt...yeah...coarse sal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This comment, among others, makes me laugh. It's not the most common coarseness of salt? Why is a theme of this comment section that slashdotters, technologists, want to deny the legitimacy of technological advancement?

    If you look for this pattern on here, you'll start to see it everywhere.

    AC because I don't want a bunch of people telling me how Moore's Law is broken, daggamit.

  23. Useful for nanotech? by Trogre · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Great, now can we attach batteries and motors to a small swarm of these and program them to harvest plaque from artery walls?

    Please?

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re:Useful for nanotech? by bgrahambo · · Score: 1

      It's more likely a swarm of these will harvest your liver as they pass through your neighborhood, depositing it to the highest bidder. Make sure you bid high to get that sucker back! Or just bid on your neighbor's liver; he hasn't filtered cheap liquor each night like you have

  24. Re:Iâ(TM)m unveiling something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And they relate to the subject because they are as small as a grain of salt?
    Or just because they taste like salt?

  25. Obligatory Query by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, but can it run Crysis?

  26. Re:Smaller than a gain of salt...yeah...coarse sal by waveclaw · · Score: 1

    A biohacker can't inject a rock bigger than my house into his junk and claim to be 'thinking with the other head' while doing his taxes on his dick-puter. Via the wikfi.

    Honestly, I expect facebook to come out with Jewelry that lets you rate the reputation of your meal with this. Then you'll finally be living in one of the Black Mirror episodes. The Nosedive episode, not the San Junipero episode (where the civilization ends by everyone become uploads living life in a retirement village that looks like American TV from the 60s, 70s and 80s until the first major power outage.)

    Can one fit a bluetooth adapter and some of that motion power tech? If your can get dental implants with this thing you'd have a Beowulf cluster of teeth powered by blab. With Bluteeth(tm), you could move your datacenter into the sales people's mouths and never pay a power bill again. Rent might be a big pricey if they demand a commission on their oral real estate. But then you could actually get something done in a meeting like serve web pages through your molars as you chew on the free donuts.

    --

    "You cannot have a General Will unless you have shared experiences. You cannot be fair to people you don't know."
  27. The obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    awww, beat me to it !

  28. French's blockchain mustard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long before marketing realizes their precious buzzwords are now toxic jokes?

  29. Re:Smaller than a gain of salt...yeah...coarse sal by Eloking · · Score: 1

    This comment, among others, makes me laugh. It's not the most common coarseness of salt? Why is a theme of this comment section that slashdotters, technologists, want to deny the legitimacy of technological advancement?

    If you look for this pattern on here, you'll start to see it everywhere.

    AC because I don't want a bunch of people telling me how Moore's Law is broken, daggamit.

    Let's be clear,

    It's an amazing technological advancements, there's no denying it. But I can't stand sensationalism.

    They could have said ""IBM has created a computer smaller than a pea" and it would have been equally impressive.

    --
    Elok
  30. Uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should we notify the authorities? Don't go all Kasinski on us bro...

  31. Re: Breakthrough, yeah but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can it run Crysis?

  32. Re: Iâ(TM)m unveiling something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THE real question: does it still works once it's inside a baby !!?

  33. Re:Smaller than a gain of salt...yeah...coarse sal by EETech1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I believe you meant Morton's law.

  34. It can also do basic AI tasks ... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    It can also do basic AI tasks, such as sorting the data it's given.
    Ah ha ...

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  35. "The x86 chip from 1990"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't recall a chip named 'x86', who the fuck writes this shit?

  36. oh get a room, both of you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I imagined a pollen collector and pollinator shaped like the Planter's Peanuts hot-air balloon but drifting in the wind with a little squid-like airjet engine.

  37. "The computer power of the x86 chip from 1990" by AdamStarks · · Score: 1

    I'm having trouble understanding this analogy. Can someone explain the equivalent processing power in Librarians of Congress per Svedberg?

    1. Re:"The computer power of the x86 chip from 1990" by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      They had machines running in terms of Megahertz instead of Giga hertz like today. I used to sell them. I used to run real Unix, Free BSD Unix on them and they had little memory, usually 4 Megabytes. I used to set up answering services, etc complete with a lan, database and such and it was all reasonable speed. With any luck they're talking about something like a 486-33. I used to sell those boards like hot cakes. Case at a time. Memory used to be a bitch because they were millipede like and I remember my fingers used to just about bleed inserting them into their sockets. 4 Megabytes and if I remember right, it was 36 chips to get it. Better than what we used to have to do when we had 4K chips. We'd have a whole tray and it would be like 64K.

  38. Re: Breakthrough, yeah but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am currently playing crysis on a gtx1080 with an i7 6700k and 32 GB memory and it seems to work. I am not sure if a grain of sand can do the same

  39. Next in the news: environmental disaster... by printman · · Score: 1

    I can only imagine what billions of these things will so to the environment. We already have to worry about frigging sparkles killing wildlife and now we’ll have animals dying from investing these things...

    --
    I print, therefore I am.
    1. Re: Next in the news: environmental disaster... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Better than all the bears investing in the stork market like a bull in a China shop.

    2. Re:Next in the news: environmental disaster... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      no, these can pass through and be shit out like a small rock. are you going to worry about creatures eating rocks?

  40. Missing feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No 3.5 mm headphone jack? Then forget it.

  41. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  42. Put these in skincream... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have a Beowulf on the end of your cock!

  43. Re:Smaller than a gain of salt...yeah...coarse sal by Headw1nd · · Score: 1
    If the item is so incredible, so revolutionary, then why lie about it? It's larger than a grain of salt, but not by much. The average grain of salt is cuboidal and .3 mm a side. Just say the damn thing is 1mm square and give specs.

    People here react badly to overhyped stats because we're inundated with them and frankly sick of having to sort out what's real and what was dreamed up by someone in sales.

  44. Hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The memory chip on the motherboard is 1/4 the size of the logic unit. To say that it can perform like an IBM AT computer of 1990 running OS2 is a bit of an overstatement.

  45. Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meh, my toaster does blockchain.

  46. Yea, but..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where do I plug in the power cord?

  47. Listen to the sound of world's smallest ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... sound card.

  48. Cynical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is everyone here so cynical? Is this thing super useful and revolutionary? No... But it is pretty damn neat to see a full SoC at 1 mm^2, is it that hard to admit something is cool?

  49. Re:Smaller than a gain of salt...yeah...coarse sal by nasch · · Score: 1

    It makes people feel superior to crap on the achievements of others.

  50. Re:Smaller than a gain of salt...yeah...coarse sal by nasch · · Score: 1

    Five stars, would mod funny

  51. 800lb Gorilla Warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On a computer that small, it would be virtually impossible to see the screen. The keyboard is probably a bit cramped as well.

  52. Rock Salt by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Ya, exactly what I was thinking, varies with the size of salt...

    They specifically say grain, which is obviously untrue, or at least misleading as people think of a grain of table salt. That isn't even course sea salt, or even kosher salt. The picture looks like "Rock Salt" of a particularly lumpy variety. Most of the stuff I use on my driveway is finer than that stuff. I mean "Salt" can come in just about any dimensions you want, but I am not sure I would call it a "grain". We just bout a Salt Lamp for a friends housewarming gift and that "grain" probably weighed 40-50lb...

    Given all that, I'm not sure why they even used the grain of salt analogy at all given it's size. Sure it is small, but it isn't that much smaller than a lot of embedded chips.

  53. Re:Smaller than a gain of salt...yeah...coarse sal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EETech1 wins the internet today.

  54. Lightspeed Briefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's intended to help track the shipment of goods and detect theft, fraud, and non-compliance. If he's correct, we'll see way more of these tiny systems in objects and devices in the years to come.

    Non-compliance? Way more?

    Your socks and underwear (Lightspeed Briefs?) were not able to verify compliance and cannot be worn today.

    1. Re:Lightspeed Briefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Is this pair of socks authentic? Click here."

  55. Simulator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To make this discussion more meaningful, there has to be a way to simulate it's instruction set and architecture to get a true feel of what it can do. Is it truly an 8086 instruction set? Then we need to know available addresses of memory, what registers it has including the status register, what instructions are missing, what interrupt vectors are available? Is it nothing more than an embedded processor with no operating system? What address does it turn to when it turns on? All that and more needed for a decent simulation. Then we can tell if IBM is just looking for publicity, like they did with their 3D memory stunts, or whether they actually intend to manufacture it.

    The illustration shows only RAM, and no ROM, so it has to have at least two states: program load, and program execution. Do you have to burn the program onto the chip? Or what feeds the program load? Judging by the example, it looks like you have to burn your own program, meaning that you need special equipment to do that. All the more need for a simulator to debug your program before you burn it in and do something useful with it.