> is it a matter of absolute capacity still being insufficient for current model sizes
This. Additionally, models aren't getting smaller, they are getting bigger and to be useful to a wider range of users, they also need more context to go off of, which is even more memory.
Now compare that to an NV72 and the direction Dell/CoreWeave/Switch are going in with the EVO containment... far better. One can imagine that AMD might do something similar.
Thanks for the links — I went through all of them (took me a while). The point about rack density differences between SRAM-based systems like Cerebras or Groq and GPU clusters is now clear to me.
What I’m still trying to understand is the economics.
Groq seems to offer near lowest prices per million tokens and the near fastest end to end response times. That’s surprising because in my understanding, speed(latency) and the cost are trade-offs.
So I’m wondering:
Why can’t GPU-based providers can't offer cheaper but slower(high-latency) APIs?
Or do you think Groq/Cerebras are pricing much below cost (loss-leader style)?
Loss leader. It is uber/airbnb. Book revenue, regardless of economics, and then debt finance against that. Hope one day to lock in customers, or raise prices, or sell the company.
This. Additionally, models aren't getting smaller, they are getting bigger and to be useful to a wider range of users, they also need more context to go off of, which is even more memory.
Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42003823
It could be partially the DC, but look at the rack density... to get to an equal amount of GPU compute and memory, you need 10x the rack space...
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/andrewdfeldman_a-few-weeks-ag...
Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39966620
Now compare that to an NV72 and the direction Dell/CoreWeave/Switch are going in with the EVO containment... far better. One can imagine that AMD might do something similar.
https://www.coreweave.com/blog/coreweave-pushes-boundaries-w...