Not worth changing the design now...
It will be much better if the OP link to the announcement news rather than straight to the datasheet for better context.
[1] TI introduces the world's smallest MCU, enabling innovation in the tiniest of applications:
https://www.ti.com/about-ti/newsroom/news-releases/2025/2025...
There are more pieces like this in "wearables" market now, things like "SmartBond" series. But for a while, weird off-label pieces like this wore the integration crown.
The 1KB of SRAM is admittedly very tight (even WCH's 10-cent RISC-V parts usually give you 2KB), so you are strictly in bare-metal, carefully-managing-your-stack territory.
Plenty of DIY projects used ATtiny2313 with V-USB. That's a pure software USB implementation bit banging the IO pins (not a USB stack on top of hardware USB support)+ your application logic squeezed into 2K of flash + 128 bytes of ram.
Chips like this are great for digital glue logic. Read a sensor, read a button press, blink some LEDs with simple state machine or control loop.
In terms of projects that I would be inclined to try that are uniquely enabled by this, my mind goes towards wearables. It's small enough to be hidden in seams of fabric. If you wanted to have a bunch of temperature sensors all over your body, or have a complex arrangement of dimmable LEDs woven into clothing, each string going to its own controller hidden close by and communicating with a central controller, or maybe measure your skin conductivity all over your body or something, this is a great piece of tech to do that with style. You still need to run power and data wires everywhere (no RF on this chip), but flexible wires are a very solvable problem.
The applications required only I2C to communicate with a bunch of other integrated circuits and a few general-purpose pins.
An example of an application was a kind of hardware video converter, which received video input from a camera and then sent it wirelessly or on cables, where the MCU configured and reconfigured everything on the board, after reset or when certain buttons were pressed, and the configuration for some things, like a HDMI transmitter, was complicated, requiring the reading and the writing of many internal registers via I2C, so a MCU was really needed.
There are many types of complex integrated circuits that need to be configured with values written in internal registers to be usable, so, even if just for the initial configuration after reset, you need some small MCU that can write the registers via I2C or SPI. For this, the smaller the MCU is, so it will not take space on the PCB just for booting the other ICs, the better.
But like *really* tiny.
The L line and G lines have better ADCs, Comparators, better connectivity, and some of them even have on board OpAmps.
Tiny chips have a use of you are tying to build the absolute smallest devices. But hobbyists don't have the equipment to comfortably build things of this size.
Sizing up to VQFN packages and 0603 passives makes more sense for the typical hobbyist.
-----------
As far as how a professional would use this, there are plenty of good uses of chips inside of cables or other kinds of smarts. Like a chip controlling a bunch of LEDs for example, based on voltage measurements elsewhere (there is a 12-bit ADC after all, which means you have rather solid voltage sensing from a few pins).
Basic voltage comparisons + math + crude timer and then a few pins for in/out gets you to a lot of useful projects. Albeit dumb ones. I dunno why anything needs to be this small in particular though.
Applications
• Battery charging and management
• Power supplies and power delivery
• Personal electronics
• Building security and fire safety
• Connected peripherals and printers
• Grid infrastructure
• Smart metering
• Communication modules
• Medical and healthcare
• Lighting
I made and tested it but didn’t care enough to continue.
This specific SKU has serious limitations due to the SRAM - TI limits the features (ROM bootloader IIRC, etc.) severely on these due to this.
With tiny mcu like this one, I think it would be possible to add a bodge inside that would turn on recording automatically after single press of button. The MCU needs to be really tiny to fit inside camera.
The Apple Disk II Controller discussed yesterday used two 256-byte ROM chips and a shift register for dynamic memory.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48723102
The linked article of the Disk II Controller has great detail about the state machine encoded in one of the ROMs, and walks through the bootstrap code stored in the other one.
I haven't tried any microcontroller projects myself, but my first computer projects were on the small home micros of the early 1980s. I enjoy this kind of thinking.
The scale precision comes from calibration of the measuring mechanism done on factory line at certain weights. If your specific body weight is far from the weights used in calibration, or too much time passed, then the calibration doesn't help much.
A better microcontroller doesn't help at all. Even a cheapest uC from decades ago is good enough. Better ADC and gauge sensor would help, but even more important is good analog engineering to produce self-correcting circuits with decent noise rejection.
In general this category of products is more for tracking changes in your body weight than getting the precise absolute value. And the body weight changes a lot just from hydration level, so the ±.5kg tolerance is considered good enough.
I guess the overall finickiness of that can't be instantly improved by a better microcontroller alone? They drift and have linearlity issues and show temperature dependancy and all that.
Precise body weight measurement at bathrooms is also probably not that important, 500 grams is one full bottle of soda/water; body weights can easily change that much within a single day.
I would suspect that the "real" reason is combination of both. 100-500g can be a "good" compromise for cheap bathroom scales.
Decreasing resolution hides all of those.
For majority of use cases nowadays it's much easier to use a programmable chip than invent a complex device using discrete analog electronic parts.
The reason is that most people use a dirt cheap HX711 or cheaper. A fancier microcontroller doesn't help all that much.
I got to 100dB of dynamic range at 1ksps (1 gram of noise at 100kg max load), so it's very much doable.
Every scale I've tried since is wildly inaccurate, and they do have brains and they fake it. Step on, get a random weight within a 5lb range of the true weight. Step on repeatedly, even after the scale has timed out and had to be rezeroed, and get that exact weight again. Fake. Every single 4-sensor scale (one in each corner post) that I've tried does this.
I've since found another relatively vintage single strain gauge scale whose battery still works. And I have a mechanical scale in reserve for when it no longer does.
Resolution of +/- 500g just means there's not enough "steps" values in your ADCs provided bit depth: for example the 10bits on an attiny85 gives you 1024 discreet values you can map to weight values etc.
This is why highly accurate scales usually have very low max weights.
They'd be done already if they bought up or licensed Analogue though.
On top of all this, latency for anything is gonna be abysmal because the cores are so slow...
I honestly don't see an application where this is even close to desirable.
Would be fun, tough, to have a 10-stack of PCBs with 10 by 10 CPUs each for a thousand cores (=> ~4W power @1.8V).
I could only imagine the bringup fun for thousands of them. :P
If you had 1024 of these, you'd have a grand total of 1 MiB of RAM. You won't be compute clustering much with 1 MiB of RAM.
I have no grasp of even the magnitude of the price for something like this.