3 ms·

You can run this on an M2 Mac Studio. That’ll be consumer level hardware in a few years.

by baz00 3y ago

Closi 3y ago
Run what? Adobe's offering is cloud-only, and I don't think the hardware requirements are disclosed.
- unixhero 3y ago
  The models obviously. Thsse are for the most part available open source on Github
  - ShrigmaMale 3y ago
    Firefly models are not publicly available. The integration with creative cloud apps is not customizable. You can't point it to a local stablediffusion setup. Open-source competitors will flop just like GIMP.
    - nickthegreek 3y ago
      Fyi, there are Adobe plugins that do allow y you to use a local SD install.
      - ShrigmaMale 3y ago
        I mean that sounds good and cool and worth trying for the average hackernews, but not for the average adobe user. Like people are not paying for AI tech to get the 80% mostly-there version, they're paying for the 100% spit-and-polished end product that has the 80% of the work needed to achieve the last 20% of productizing. Consumers have demonstrated over and over they will pay a lot more to avoid dicking around with stuff and professionals can have an even stronger tendency to do this bc their time has a cost.
wayfinder 3y ago
I have an M1 but I first remember thinking it was very impressive that my Mac could run these AI models… …until I tried the same on my RTX 4070 and it made my Mac look like a joke. For the 30 seconds my Mac would have taken for 1 result, which will probably need revising, the RTX would give me 30 results. However the RTX was half the cost of my Mac, so it’s not a good investment if I just want to generate some images. I’d rather pay for the cloud if I didn’t have the RTX already.
- teaearlgraycold 3y ago
  Which M1? That makes a big difference. And the Mac Studio runs the M2 Pro/Max/Ultra.
- internet101010 3y ago
  Yeah my M1 Max is about as fast as my old 1070, at 24 steps per image it comes out to little over 2 images per minute. My new 4090 does an image per second.
  - liuliu 3y ago
    It should be about 6 images per minutes (for SD v1 at 512x512) and 1 image per minute on SDXL for the said hardware (M1 Max): https://engineering.drawthings.ai/integrating-metal-flashattention-accelerating-the-heart-of-image-generation-in-the-apple-ecosystem-16a86142eb18 https://engineering.drawthings.ai/integrating-metal-flashatt...
anonylizard 3y ago
M2 will be a joke for the AI models of the future. The actual best image AI, midjourney, is probably a gigantic model under the hood, that takes 8 A100s to run (Aka more than 100GB VRAM). That's why their quality is leaps and bounds above stable diffusion XL, its because the model size simply allows for it. Model sizes continuously grow to exploit the available hardware to the limit. Midjourney and GPT-4 have both proven that model quality is decisive to success and paying customers, so consumer hardware can never catchup to whatever Nvidia sells to the cloud.
- l33t7332273 3y ago
  How much vram does an a100 have? The M2 ultra has more than 100 GB.
- Auracle 3y ago
  I don’t think I’d say Midjourney is “leaps and bounds” above SDXL. It’s better overall, but SDXL closed the gap a significant amount.
- polygamous_bat 3y ago
  > The actual best image AI, midjourney, is probably a gigantic model under the hood, that takes 8 A100s to run Do you have any source for this speculation? In my experience image models are always much smaller than language and even the largest llama will fit in a smaller GPU machine than that.
- GaggiX 3y ago
  >The actual best image AI, midjourney, is probably a gigantic model under the hood, that takes 8 A100s to run (Aka more than 100GB VRAM) Unet are really expensive to run compare to a regular GPT model and they are compute-bound thx to convolution, a reason why no one has trained a unet that comes close to consume 100GB of VRAM during inference. I doubt that MJ is much bigger than SD XL, it's good but not revolutionary.
- saberience 3y ago
  Have you tried actually downloading SD and all the various custom models and tools? For me it kicks the shit out of Midjourney in flexibility and quality. I can make more images of higher quality, faster and cheaper.

You can run this on an M2 Mac Studio. That’ll be consumer level hardware in a few years.

by baz00 3y ago

You can run this on an M2 Mac Studio. That’ll be consumer level hardware in a few years.

Closi 3y ago

Run what? Adobe's offering is cloud-only, and I don't think the hardware requirements are disclosed.

unixhero 3y ago
The models obviously. Thsse are for the most part available open source on Github
- ShrigmaMale 3y ago
  Firefly models are not publicly available. The integration with creative cloud apps is not customizable. You can't point it to a local stablediffusion setup. Open-source competitors will flop just like GIMP.
  - nickthegreek 3y ago
    Fyi, there are Adobe plugins that do allow y you to use a local SD install.
    - ShrigmaMale 3y ago
      I mean that sounds good and cool and worth trying for the average hackernews, but not for the average adobe user. Like people are not paying for AI tech to get the 80% mostly-there version, they're paying for the 100% spit-and-polished end product that has the 80% of the work needed to achieve the last 20% of productizing. Consumers have demonstrated over and over they will pay a lot more to avoid dicking around with stuff and professionals can have an even stronger tendency to do this bc their time has a cost.

wayfinder 3y ago

I have an M1 but I first remember thinking it was very impressive that my Mac could run these AI models… …until I tried the same on my RTX 4070 and it made my Mac look like a joke. For the 30 seconds my Mac would have taken for 1 result, which will probably need revising, the RTX would give me 30 results. However the RTX was half the cost of my Mac, so it’s not a good investment if I just want to generate some images. I’d rather pay for the cloud if I didn’t have the RTX already.

teaearlgraycold 3y ago
Which M1? That makes a big difference. And the Mac Studio runs the M2 Pro/Max/Ultra.
internet101010 3y ago
Yeah my M1 Max is about as fast as my old 1070, at 24 steps per image it comes out to little over 2 images per minute. My new 4090 does an image per second.
- liuliu 3y ago
  It should be about 6 images per minutes (for SD v1 at 512x512) and 1 image per minute on SDXL for the said hardware (M1 Max): https://engineering.drawthings.ai/integrating-metal-flashattention-accelerating-the-heart-of-image-generation-in-the-apple-ecosystem-16a86142eb18 https://engineering.drawthings.ai/integrating-metal-flashatt...

anonylizard 3y ago

M2 will be a joke for the AI models of the future. The actual best image AI, midjourney, is probably a gigantic model under the hood, that takes 8 A100s to run (Aka more than 100GB VRAM). That's why their quality is leaps and bounds above stable diffusion XL, its because the model size simply allows for it. Model sizes continuously grow to exploit the available hardware to the limit. Midjourney and GPT-4 have both proven that model quality is decisive to success and paying customers, so consumer hardware can never catchup to whatever Nvidia sells to the cloud.

l33t7332273 3y ago
How much vram does an a100 have? The M2 ultra has more than 100 GB.
Auracle 3y ago
I don’t think I’d say Midjourney is “leaps and bounds” above SDXL. It’s better overall, but SDXL closed the gap a significant amount.
polygamous_bat 3y ago
> The actual best image AI, midjourney, is probably a gigantic model under the hood, that takes 8 A100s to run Do you have any source for this speculation? In my experience image models are always much smaller than language and even the largest llama will fit in a smaller GPU machine than that.
GaggiX 3y ago
>The actual best image AI, midjourney, is probably a gigantic model under the hood, that takes 8 A100s to run (Aka more than 100GB VRAM) Unet are really expensive to run compare to a regular GPT model and they are compute-bound thx to convolution, a reason why no one has trained a unet that comes close to consume 100GB of VRAM during inference. I doubt that MJ is much bigger than SD XL, it's good but not revolutionary.
saberience 3y ago
Have you tried actually downloading SD and all the various custom models and tools? For me it kicks the shit out of Midjourney in flexibility and quality. I can make more images of higher quality, faster and cheaper.