Comment by fancyfredbot
8 hours ago
The relatively slow depreciation of GPU value is an artifact of supply constraints. If you run fp4 inference and could choose freely between Hopper and a Rubin, the performance per watt would make the Hopper unattractive even if you paid zero for the hardware and only for the power.
You can't get the Rubin, or even the Blackwell, so you will pay for the H100 but this won't last if fabs ramp up capacity.
Not to mention, physical limits to lithography are slowing down significantly... so tech will continue to evolve more slowly... it'll never be the jump from 1080-1990 again, for example, even though 1990-2000 was pretty close, 2000-2010 much slower and since 2010 slower still.
What's as or more weird is how much hardware is backordered, and how much live hardware is allocated, but waiting on facilities for operation. And how many facilities are years behind at this point already... all on various credit and dept swaps between all the involved companies... it's not just a balloon, it's a house of cards balanced on a balloon.
The process node size in William the Conqueror's time was really off the charts.
Plotting that backwards shows a transistor would be the size of a continent, at least.
The infamous attention is all you need paper has this: "The Transformer ... reach a new state of the art in translation quality after being trained for as little as twelve hours on eight P100 GPUs.", the p100 is now quite a bit under 100$ and that's from a time where nvidia was valued 100x less than it is today. Lets wait and see
> since 2010 slower still
The increase in PFLOPS/dollar has continued accelerating, a lot from process, but also a lot by simplifying the architecture- if you had placed an H100 worth of transistors on a CPU-like architecture, you wouldn’t reach the same peak performances.
supposedly, the next step is into fiber & optics.
but I generally agree, people put a lot of faith in the exponential leaps vs the exponential space.
You tell them we're not living on mars any time soon and they'll bring up christopher columbus.
How would fiber and optics help if the bottleneck is computation efficiency and not data transfer?
1 reply →
One does not simply “ramp up fab capacity”.
This is all downstream of ASML who is putting out tens of EUV machines per year.
Are fabs going to ramp up capacity? Wouldn't it make more business sense for them to just not ramp up capacity and enjoy the higher prices?
Yes they are going to ramp up capacity. It would only make business sense to do nothing if all your competitors were also doing nothing, which would probably require some level of illegal collision.
If everyone ramps up then in the best case everyone has the same sized slice of a bigger pie. So in theory it makes business sense. But the more realistic possibility is that you end up with oversupply, crash the market and everyone loses. This is what normally seems to happen with DRAM.
I wonder what shovels were worth after the Gold Rush faltered. Blacksmiths probably had all the scrap iron they could ever care for.
Nah, "selling shovels" is mostly a metaphor, the amount of iron that went into mining equipment was insignificant, beyond some local demand peaks. The majority of the business was consumables.
A key thing to understand about the gold rush is that it was not a major economic event, or at least nowhere near as big as the participants thought it would be, hence the tradegy.
The AI gold rush is different in that there actually is a mountain of "shovels" large enough to flood the global market quite severely.