4 ms·
I think the overwhelming complexity of modern GPUs, CPUs, SoCs don't... overwhelm us. Compared to the process of producing a 3nm chip with all those billions o
by Arnt 3y ago
I think the overwhelming complexity of modern GPUs, CPUs, SoCs don't... overwhelm us.
Compared to the process of producing a 3nm chip with all those billions of transistors, the Manhattan project isn't huge. Groundbreaking, sure. Huge, compared to the development of EUV wafers, no.
- wmf 3y ago10% is overwhelming complexity and 90% is Nvidia's profit margin.
- bawolff 3y agoIf you really believe that, i would suggest you go into the GPU business.
- 123yawaworht456 3y agowhat do you believe? that a chip and 80GB of HBM memory (a H100) cost $40000 to develop and manufacture? 90% margin is likely the low end for Nvidia's AI offerings.
- talldayo 3y agoThey should charge double that, and teach the industry what happens when they abandon Open standards.
- bawolff 3y agoUmm, no. I believe it would cost in the hundreds of millions to develop and manufacture. I dont work in hardware, so i dont know what is involved. I do however work in software, where people are constantly saying things are easy or devs are just lazy. Until they put their money where their mouth is and try it themselves. Usually they are in for a rude awekening once it becomes obvious they are full of shit.
- wmf 3y agoI should go into the GPU firmware, driver, and compiler business.
- chx 3y agoPerhaps it's worth mentioning some lesser known big achievements of the Manhattan Project. It's not the scientists. It's Hanford and Oak Ridge. Hanford was not only nuclear reactors but a city of more than 43 000 people out of literally nothing. Oak Ridge had the largest building in the world, K-25. It was only surpassed by the Boeing Everett Factory more than twenty years later. These two sites were also the major cost centers of the project. Science is cheap. Enriching uranium and manufacturing plutonium -- especially when no one did it before -- is not.
- Gare 3y ago> Science is cheap. Indeed. Sustained nuclear chain reaction was achieved in Chicago Pile-1 beneath the stands of campus football stadium at the end of 1942. That's when, scientifically, it was proven that the bomb is possible.
- adastra22 2y agoPedantic point, that's when they proved nuclear power was possible. It was still unknown whether the cross section of U-235 was large enough to permit a small, transportable bomb to go critical, and whether that reaction would have occurred fast enough to generate a significant explosion. And in the case of Plutonium, the idea of implosion hadn't even been worked out yet, let alone tested.
- chx 2y agoBy 1942 no one really had doubts about that. I mean, the Einstein–Szilard letter was written in 1939 and Bohr mentioned in lectures also in 1939 the bomb is possible but he didn't think it was possible to produce enough weapons grade uranium within the timeframe of the war. He couldn't foresee, no one could, really, what the US could do when determined.
- adastra22 2y agoThese details were covered in depth in The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes. The Oppenheimer movie glosses over a lot of the technical details. It’s worth a read.