←back to thread

548 points nsagent | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.002s | source
Show context
benreesman ◴[] No.44566742[source]
I wonder how much this is a result of Strix Halo. I had a fairly standard stipend for a work computer that I didn't end up using for a while so I recently cashed it in on the EVO-X2 and fuck me sideways: that thing is easily competitive with the mid-range znver5 EPYC machines I run substitors on. It mops the floor with any mere-mortal EC2 or GCE instance, like maybe some r1337.xxxxlarge.metal.metal or something has an edge, but the z1d.metal and the c6.2xlarge or whatever type stuff (fast cores, good NIC, table stakes), blows them away. And those things are 3-10K a month with heavy provisioned IOPS. This thing has real NVME and it cost 1800.

I haven't done much local inference on it, but various YouTubers are starting to call the DGX Spark overkill / overpriced next to Strix Halo. The catch of course is ROCm isn't there yet (they're seeming serious now though, matter of time).

Flawless CUDA on Apple gear would make it really tempting in a way that isn't true with Strix so cheap and good.

replies(6): >>44566825 #>>44566885 #>>44566921 #>>44567049 #>>44569265 #>>44570399 #
hamandcheese ◴[] No.44566921[source]
For the uninitiated, Strix Halo is the same as the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 which will be in the Framework Desktop and is starting to show up in some mini PCs as well.

The memory bandwidth on that thing is 200GB/s. That's great compared to most other consumer-level x86 platforms, but quite far off of an Nvidia GPU (a 5090 has 1792GB/s, dunno about the pro level cards) or even Apple's best (M3 Ultra has 800GB/s).

It certainly seems like a great value. But for memory bandwidth intensive applications like LLMs, it is just barely entering the realm of "good enough".

replies(2): >>44567085 #>>44567169 #
yieldcrv ◴[] No.44567085[source]
Apple is just being stupid, handicapping their own hardware so they can sell the fixed one next year or the year after

This is time tested Apple strategy is now undermining their AI strategy and potential competitiveness

tl;dr they could have done 1600GB/s

replies(2): >>44567176 #>>44567918 #
1. Nevermark ◴[] No.44567918[source]
So their products are so much better, in customer demand terms that they don’t need to rush tech out the door?

Whatever story you want to create, if customers are happy year after year then Apple is serving them well.

Maybe not with same feature dimension balance you want, or other artificial/wishful balances you might make up for them.

(When Apple drops the ball it is usually painful, painfully obvious and most often a result of a deliberate and transparent priority tradeoff. No secret switcherooos or sneaky downgrading. See: Mac Pro for years…)

replies(1): >>44569426 #
2. yieldcrv ◴[] No.44569426[source]
Apple is absolutely fumbling on their AI strategy despite their vertical hardware integration, there is no strategy. Its a known problem inside Apple, not a 4-D chess thing to wow everyone with a refined version in 2030