Comment by jacquesm
9 hours ago
True, even so: They still make some pretty impressive hardware. They have access to fab capacity, they know how to make chips. They have the capital. If they really wanted they could do it.
9 hours ago
True, even so: They still make some pretty impressive hardware. They have access to fab capacity, they know how to make chips. They have the capital. If they really wanted they could do it.
In what way is the IBM Spyre not what you're asking for?
In a way it is, but I would see that as a starting point, not as the ready solution. They'd need to do what NV has done for their eco-system: fantastic libraries, a credible future upgrade path, easy ordering, manufacturing partnerships, the works. I figure besides the performance gap that they are at least 5 to 10 years behind NV with their present offering. But NVidia is dropping stitches and IBM should take advantage of that.
I think IBM sees the Spyre as a reason to sell more Power hardware but that's just not where the industry is right now and I doubt it will be enough to create sufficient demand. Who knows, I don't have any insight in what they're doing there, but there is massive gap between A GB300 workstation and what IBM currently offers. At the same time: the RAM crunch hits all parties and that's a major obstacle as well.
Yeah. For all the jokes we make about paperclip maximizer, we've figured it out. It's not paperclips, it's RAM.
That's the thing though. Software is cheap with AI, but Nvidia has Cuda. If software doesn't matter anymore (it does) because it's so cheap now, then Nvidia's moat evaporates to IBM's Spyre. In reality "just a little bit of software" has inertia and cannot be dislodged quickly, quietly, or easily. cf Microsoft.
1 reply →