> Yeah, clearly the low-hanging fruit is simply to offer more memory. Yep. And just to be clear, this isn't necessarily a strategy to directly make money, as t

> Yeah, clearly the low-hanging fruit is simply to offer more memory. Yep. And just to be clear, this isn't necessarily a strategy to directly make money, as the market for people running these things locally is probably not very big (as a lot of people in the Intel thread said). But it's a strategy to beat the CUDA monopoly and get everyone and their dog to support your hardware with their software. I know I would be porting my software to their hardware if it was actually compelling for small fish, and I know plenty of other people who would too. AMD also somewhat falls into this trap. They're slightly cheaper than NVidia, and their hardware is roughly good enough, but because their software stack and their hardware support sucks (just look at their ROCm compatibility list, it's a complete joke with, like, 3 models of GPUs, vs NVidia where I can use any GPU from the last 8 years) no one bothers. Being good enough is not good enough, you need to offer some sort of a unique selling point for people to tolerate the extra software issues they'll have with your hardware.