6 ms·

A gb200-nvl72 seems to cost [1] about $3,000,000. I expect Apple could throw together a few, several even, 192GB M2's for that sort of money - and they may not

A gb200-nvl72 seems to cost [1] about $3,000,000. I expect Apple could throw together a few, several even, 192GB M2's for that sort of money - and they may not have a 16TB bus, but I suspect (for the same price) their quantity might make up for it in the problem-sphere that a gb200-nvl72 would expect to be in... [1] https://www.tweaktown.com/news/98292/nvidias-new-gb200-superchip-costs-up-to-70-000-full-b200-nvl72-ai-server-3-million/index.html https://www.tweaktown.com/news/98292/nvidias-new-gb200-super...

talldayo 2y ago
It's expensive, but that's because 72 GB200s are faster than 144 networked M2 Ultras. You're tackling bigger workloads with better-standardized software, genuine first-party support and proprietary integration that goes even further than Apple's memory coherency. Datacenter customers aren't drooling over the advantages of Apple Silicon because most of them are table-stakes at their scale; Apple has to go the extra mile to stand out, specifically for these customers. I won't deny, Nvidia charges the sort of margins that would make Apple blush. But they do that (and are successful) because they're scaling the workloads Apple won't. Apple turned their back on Nvidia, gave up funding Kronos' alternative to CUDA, and now wants a piece of the pie they've spent the past 15 years trying to avoid. It just doesn't seem like they're capable of winning here; their strategy is to dominate or die, and domination isn't an option.
- spacedcowboy 2y ago
  An M2 system costs Apple a grand, two at most. You get a lot more than 144 of them for $3M. I don’t see how you get better support than from the company that built the hardware and software both… And I was under the impression that Apple was building these for themselves, they don’t need to satisfy other customers demands.

6 ms·

A gb200-nvl72 seems to cost [1] about $3,000,000. I expect Apple could throw together a few, several even, 192GB M2's for that sort of money - and they may not

by spacedcowboy 2y ago

talldayo 2y ago
It's expensive, but that's because 72 GB200s are faster than 144 networked M2 Ultras. You're tackling bigger workloads with better-standardized software, genuine first-party support and proprietary integration that goes even further than Apple's memory coherency. Datacenter customers aren't drooling over the advantages of Apple Silicon because most of them are table-stakes at their scale; Apple has to go the extra mile to stand out, specifically for these customers. I won't deny, Nvidia charges the sort of margins that would make Apple blush. But they do that (and are successful) because they're scaling the workloads Apple won't. Apple turned their back on Nvidia, gave up funding Kronos' alternative to CUDA, and now wants a piece of the pie they've spent the past 15 years trying to avoid. It just doesn't seem like they're capable of winning here; their strategy is to dominate or die, and domination isn't an option.
- spacedcowboy 2y ago
  An M2 system costs Apple a grand, two at most. You get a lot more than 144 of them for $3M. I don’t see how you get better support than from the company that built the hardware and software both… And I was under the impression that Apple was building these for themselves, they don’t need to satisfy other customers demands.