3 ms·
No, it’s not about price of a completely finished product in my humble opinion. It’s about the cost to produce the silicon component itself. Sure, it’s about mo
by jsjohnst 3y ago
No, it’s not about price of a completely finished product in my humble opinion. It’s about the cost to produce the silicon component itself. Sure, it’s about money both ways, but the distinction is important.
The V100 had up to 32gb ram, the H100 is 188gb. While there’s obviously transistors in ram, the counts being compared are for the GPU itself. I’d argue that a big chunk of the price difference in the V100 vs H100 is RAM.
- usaar333 3y ago> I’d argue that a big chunk of the price difference in the V100 vs H100 is RAM. But that's the same Moore's Law problem when using the 'price' definition. 6x RAM 5 years later = 4x the cost? That's even slower than the FLOPS gains.
- jsjohnst 3y agoMoore’s law never applied to ram and again, you aren’t comparing apples to apples either. There’s a lot of factors that go into building a complete system, so stop trying to apply an old cpu transistor adage to something it was never intended for and maybe you’ll have better success?
- esperent 3y agoMoore's law never applied to GPUs either. I don't know if it even said anything about CPUs, specifically. It's about transistor density vs cost. Roughly the same tech advances apply to making all three kinds of chips so I think it applies (somewhat) equally to CPU, GPUs, RAM and even SSDs etc. Bearing in mind that ram lags a few generations behind CPU and GPU (I think DDR5 is 12nm vs latest GPUs around 4nm). And also that Moore's law is not a physical law, even when it was in full swing it was only ever meant as a rough guideline for what to expect over a couple of years period.