←back to thread

195 points tosh | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
grecy ◴[] No.42207909[source]
I'm amazed Apple don't have a rack mount version of their M series chips yet.

Even for their own internal use in their data centers they'd have to save an absolute boat load on power and cooling given their performance per watt compared to legacy stuff.

replies(6): >>42207973 #>>42207982 #>>42208065 #>>42208068 #>>42208118 #>>42208308 #
jauntywundrkind ◴[] No.42207982[source]
For who? How would this help their core mission?

Maybe it becomes a big enough profit center to matter. Maybe. At the risk of taking focus away, splitting attention from the mission they're on today: building end user systems.

Maybe they build them for themselves. For what upside? Maybe somewhat better compute efficiency maybe, but I think if you have big workloads the huge massive AMD Turin super-chips are going to be incredibly hard to beat.

It's hard to emphasize just how efficient AMD is, with 192 very high performance cores on a 350-500W chip.

replies(1): >>42209480 #
favorited ◴[] No.42209480[source]
> Maybe they build them for themselves. For what upside?

They do build it for themselves. From their security blog:

"The root of trust for Private Cloud Compute is our compute node: custom-built server hardware that brings the power and security of Apple silicon to the data center, with the same hardware security technologies used in iPhone, including the Secure Enclave and Secure Boot. We paired this hardware with a new operating system: a hardened subset of the foundations of iOS and macOS tailored to support Large Language Model (LLM) inference workloads while presenting an extremely narrow attack surface. This allows us to take advantage of iOS security technologies such as Code Signing and sandboxing."

<https://security.apple.com/blog/private-cloud-compute/>

replies(1): >>42210662 #
jauntywundrkind ◴[] No.42210662[source]
This is such a narrow narrow tiny corner of computing needs. That has such serious need for ownership, no matter the cost. And has extremely fantastically chill as shit overall computing needs, is un-perfomamce-sensitive as it gets.

I could not be less convinced by this information that this is a useful indicator for the other 99.999999999% of computing needs.

replies(1): >>42211637 #
1. favorited ◴[] No.42211637[source]
Good, because you can’t have one.