3 ms·

Isn't this a problem for everyone buying Nvidia GPUs at scale?

blinding-streak 7mo ago
Google, Amazon, Meta, etc don't have to wait 12 or 24 months for their big data center to open. They already have lots of DCs to cram all the NVidia cards into, right now.
- carefree-bob 7mo ago
  I think it's less a matter of space and more a matter of power availability
- cavisne 7mo ago
  Definitely not true. Meta is building tents for GPU's
  - trick-or-treat 7mo ago
    > Meta is building tents for GPU's And Starlink / xAI is going to shoot them into space. We are simultaneously living in the future and the past.
    - hamburglar 7mo ago
      > And Starlink / xAI is going to shoot them into space. I highly doubt that. They claim they want to shoot them into space, but I don’t believe a word of it until I see it happen (and see it work). It’s no more real than hyperloop.
    - mikkupikku 7mo ago
      DCs in space is hype but actually makes no rational sense when you figure the size of radiators you'll need, and while solar cells are more efficient in space, they aren't that much better.
      - trick-or-treat 7mo ago
        Well, the sun is always up in space, so yeah they're at least 3x better from that alone.
        deleted 7mo ago
        [deleted]
      - ericd 7mo ago
        The Google paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2511.19468 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2511.19468) didn’t seem too concerned with radiator mass/size when I skimmed it, but maybe I just missed it. My understanding is that if you run the chips relatively hot (and maybe boost with heat pumps? But then you’re not quite as solid state, and maintenance is tough up there), the radiation ability increases enough such that you can make the radiators slightly smaller than the solar panels, and they’d sit on the dark side of the panels. Many people like to point to the ISS system and scale that up, but there’s a big difference between a system assembled in space and meant to keep humans at human temps vs mass manufactured on the ground and keeping things around 100C.
  - Bombthecat 7mo ago
    Tents? Like.. where sleep in the woods in?..
topspin 7mo ago
Only the ones that require profit from the GPUs.
dragonwriter 7mo ago
I think the difference is that the other hyperscalars are doing this out of the enormous cash rivers produced by their other profitable businesses, at a rate less than that at which profits are flowing in, whereas Oracle is funding it out of debt with AI capex in 2026 projected to reach levels nearly as high as their expected revenue (not profits) in the same period. If the hardware refresh rate makes a substantial share of data center cost function more like opex than capex, the companies funding it out of operations (especially from operations of what are essentially monopoly businesses, in the sense pricing power), even if it isn’t the operations it power specifically, are fine in the near-to-intemediate term (barring exogenous shocks to those other businesses), whereas Oracle, funding it by a debt bonanza, is in a different position.

Google, Amazon, Meta, etc don't have to wait 12 or 24 months for their big data center to open. They already have lots of DCs to cram all the NVidia cards into, right now.

carefree-bob 7mo ago
I think it's less a matter of space and more a matter of power availability
cavisne 7mo ago
Definitely not true. Meta is building tents for GPU's
- trick-or-treat 7mo ago
  > Meta is building tents for GPU's And Starlink / xAI is going to shoot them into space. We are simultaneously living in the future and the past.
  - hamburglar 7mo ago
    > And Starlink / xAI is going to shoot them into space. I highly doubt that. They claim they want to shoot them into space, but I don’t believe a word of it until I see it happen (and see it work). It’s no more real than hyperloop.
  - mikkupikku 7mo ago
    DCs in space is hype but actually makes no rational sense when you figure the size of radiators you'll need, and while solar cells are more efficient in space, they aren't that much better.
    - trick-or-treat 7mo ago
      Well, the sun is always up in space, so yeah they're at least 3x better from that alone.
      - deleted 7mo ago
        [deleted]
    - ericd 7mo ago
      The Google paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2511.19468 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2511.19468) didn’t seem too concerned with radiator mass/size when I skimmed it, but maybe I just missed it. My understanding is that if you run the chips relatively hot (and maybe boost with heat pumps? But then you’re not quite as solid state, and maintenance is tough up there), the radiation ability increases enough such that you can make the radiators slightly smaller than the solar panels, and they’d sit on the dark side of the panels. Many people like to point to the ISS system and scale that up, but there’s a big difference between a system assembled in space and meant to keep humans at human temps vs mass manufactured on the ground and keeping things around 100C.
- Bombthecat 7mo ago
  Tents? Like.. where sleep in the woods in?..

topspin 7mo ago

Only the ones that require profit from the GPUs.

dragonwriter 7mo ago

I think the difference is that the other hyperscalars are doing this out of the enormous cash rivers produced by their other profitable businesses, at a rate less than that at which profits are flowing in, whereas Oracle is funding it out of debt with AI capex in 2026 projected to reach levels nearly as high as their expected revenue (not profits) in the same period. If the hardware refresh rate makes a substantial share of data center cost function more like opex than capex, the companies funding it out of operations (especially from operations of what are essentially monopoly businesses, in the sense pricing power), even if it isn’t the operations it power specifically, are fine in the near-to-intemediate term (barring exogenous shocks to those other businesses), whereas Oracle, funding it by a debt bonanza, is in a different position.