← Back to context Comment by spwa4 10 hours ago * 96GB - $6,799* 256GB - $10,799* 512GB - $22,299(M5 Ultra with just 1TB of storage) 12 comments spwa4 Reply asdff 10 hours ago 512gb being more expensive than just two 256g is a little strange. You mean you can get the same exact total cluster ram but double the compute/storage nodes and save $700? addaon 9 hours ago Which is an especially interesting option given built-in RDMA support with reasonable performance, including fully-connected graphs up to 6 machines… asdff 9 hours ago Didn't take me long to find a nice proof of concept, 4x mac studio cluster in this case:https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2025/15-tb-vram-on-mac-stu... fotta 9 hours ago you're still limited to TB5's 120Gbps speeds vs 1.2Tbps memory bandwidth on M5 Ultra 3 replies → speedgoose 9 hours ago It was the same with the M3 Ultra. Two 256GB is a better deal if you want to bother connecting them with thunderbolt. acchow 9 hours ago The 512GB is likely targeting people who want 1TB RAM (2x cluster). HSO 9 hours ago yea but who needs that clutter on their desk
asdff 10 hours ago 512gb being more expensive than just two 256g is a little strange. You mean you can get the same exact total cluster ram but double the compute/storage nodes and save $700? addaon 9 hours ago Which is an especially interesting option given built-in RDMA support with reasonable performance, including fully-connected graphs up to 6 machines… asdff 9 hours ago Didn't take me long to find a nice proof of concept, 4x mac studio cluster in this case:https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2025/15-tb-vram-on-mac-stu... fotta 9 hours ago you're still limited to TB5's 120Gbps speeds vs 1.2Tbps memory bandwidth on M5 Ultra 3 replies → speedgoose 9 hours ago It was the same with the M3 Ultra. Two 256GB is a better deal if you want to bother connecting them with thunderbolt. acchow 9 hours ago The 512GB is likely targeting people who want 1TB RAM (2x cluster). HSO 9 hours ago yea but who needs that clutter on their desk
addaon 9 hours ago Which is an especially interesting option given built-in RDMA support with reasonable performance, including fully-connected graphs up to 6 machines… asdff 9 hours ago Didn't take me long to find a nice proof of concept, 4x mac studio cluster in this case:https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2025/15-tb-vram-on-mac-stu... fotta 9 hours ago you're still limited to TB5's 120Gbps speeds vs 1.2Tbps memory bandwidth on M5 Ultra 3 replies →
asdff 9 hours ago Didn't take me long to find a nice proof of concept, 4x mac studio cluster in this case:https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2025/15-tb-vram-on-mac-stu...
fotta 9 hours ago you're still limited to TB5's 120Gbps speeds vs 1.2Tbps memory bandwidth on M5 Ultra 3 replies →
speedgoose 9 hours ago It was the same with the M3 Ultra. Two 256GB is a better deal if you want to bother connecting them with thunderbolt.
512gb being more expensive than just two 256g is a little strange. You mean you can get the same exact total cluster ram but double the compute/storage nodes and save $700?
Which is an especially interesting option given built-in RDMA support with reasonable performance, including fully-connected graphs up to 6 machines…
Didn't take me long to find a nice proof of concept, 4x mac studio cluster in this case:
https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2025/15-tb-vram-on-mac-stu...
you're still limited to TB5's 120Gbps speeds vs 1.2Tbps memory bandwidth on M5 Ultra
3 replies →
It was the same with the M3 Ultra. Two 256GB is a better deal if you want to bother connecting them with thunderbolt.
The 512GB is likely targeting people who want 1TB RAM (2x cluster).
yea but who needs that clutter on their desk