Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Bu video yüklenirken bir sorun oluştu. Bu geçici bir ağ sorunundan kaynaklanıyor olabilir veya video kullanılamıyor olabilir.

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Awesome. NVIDIA dropped PiD - fast high-res latent decoding via pixel diffusion! - replace VAE - 4/8x upsampling - 2k decoding in <1s on RTX 5090 - works with FLUX.1/SD3/Z - rapid generation previews sharper details, much lower hardware lag compared to standard methods.

Wildminder

12,292 subscribers

23,806 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

5 Yorum

Ramon Guthrie profil fotoğrafı

Ramon Guthrie4 ay önce

🙄 @ComfyUI when?

MADmotionAI profil fotoğrafı

MADmotionAI4 ay önce

I wonder if this has a chance of making it into the LTX 2.3 workflow, their RTX Video Super Resolution works pretty well.

Sen Fang profil fotoğrafı

Sen Fang4 ay önce

NVIDIA's approach is similar to one we disclosed two months ago. However, they use DiT to decode in <1 second, while we use CNN to decode in 0.02 seconds. They didn't notice our work: Project Page:

Brian Berneker profil fotoğrafı

Brian Berneker4 ay önce

When can we get it for our workflows?

Matt Hillebrand profil fotoğrafı

Matt Hillebrand4 ay önce

Very interesting! Can't wait to try this with my FLUX.2-dev LoRAs.

Benzer Videolar

Most speculative decoding still drafts tokens one at a time. That's not parallel generation — it just hides the serial loop behind a smaller model. UC San Diego's z-lab just drew a clear line between the two. They released DFlash — a lightweight block diffusion model that drafts a whole block of tokens in a single forward pass, then lets the target model verify the block in parallel. Up to 15× higher throughput for gpt-oss-120b on NVIDIA Blackwell. No token-by-token drafting anywhere in the speculative path. Here's what's actually interesting: → The drafter is conditioned on the target model's own hidden features, injected into the Key/Value cache of every draft layer — so acceptance length scales with draft depth instead of diluting away → A 5-layer drafter replaces the 7B diffusion drafters that capped earlier methods near 3–4× → MATH-500 speedup: 6.08× vs. 1.81× for EAGLE-3 (4.86× average vs. 1.76×, Qwen3-8B, greedy) → Up to 15× higher throughput for gpt-oss-120b on NVIDIA Blackwell — at the same interactivity target → Lossless: the target still verifies every token, so output quality is preserved Full analysis: Paper: NVIDIA's metrics: Project: Model weights: Repo: NVIDIA AI NVIDIA AIDev

Most speculative decoding still drafts tokens one at a time. That's not parallel generation — it just hides the serial loop behind a smaller model. UC San Diego's z-lab just drew a clear line between the two. They released DFlash — a lightweight block diffusion model that drafts a whole block of tokens in a single forward pass, then lets the target model verify the block in parallel. Up to 15× higher throughput for gpt-oss-120b on NVIDIA Blackwell. No token-by-token drafting anywhere in the speculative path. Here's what's actually interesting: → The drafter is conditioned on the target model's own hidden features, injected into the Key/Value cache of every draft layer — so acceptance length scales with draft depth instead of diluting away → A 5-layer drafter replaces the 7B diffusion drafters that capped earlier methods near 3–4× → MATH-500 speedup: 6.08× vs. 1.81× for EAGLE-3 (4.86× average vs. 1.76×, Qwen3-8B, greedy) → Up to 15× higher throughput for gpt-oss-120b on NVIDIA Blackwell — at the same interactivity target → Lossless: the target still verifies every token, so output quality is preserved Full analysis: Paper: NVIDIA's metrics: Project: Model weights: Repo: NVIDIA AI NVIDIA AIDev

Marktechpost AI

23,328 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

🚀 Sol-H3: MiniMax (official) H3 Video Generation Faster Than Playback 🤩 Five seconds of world. 1.653 seconds to infer. We’re releasing Sol-H3, our fastest end-to-end MiniMax-H3 inference stack yet. On one 8× NVIDIA B300 Blackwell system, it generates five seconds of 1344×768 video with stereo audio in 1.653 seconds. Across 1×, 4×, and 8× B300, Sol-H3 reaches up to a 15.54× speedup versus Base H3. Compared with 50-step Base H3 Dense on the same 8× B300 system, the four-step Sol-H3 profile delivers: • 5s: 18.250s → 1.653s (11.04×) • 10s: 50.660s → 3.732s (13.57×) • 15s: 99.513s → 6.612s (15.05×) Sol-H3 also scales across GPU counts: • 4× B300: 2.918s / 6.993s / 12.542s for 5s / 10s / 15s (12.11–15.54×) • 1× B300: 13.745s / 37.813s / 52.260s for 5s / 10s / 15s (9.45–14.29×) All figures are medians of three measured runs after one warmup at 1344×768 and 24 FPS with stereo audio. Base H3 uses 50 scheduler points (49 DiT forwards); Sol-H3 uses four DiT forwards, so this is a full-profile comparison—not an attention-only runtime change. Sol-H3 uses Dense attention on 1× B300 and SOL with INT8 QKV / FP8 output transport on 4× / 8×. Timing includes text encoding, DiT denoising, and video/audio VAE decoding; model loading, compilation warmup, and final MP4 encoding are excluded. Sol-H3 brings Sol-Engine × Sol-Attn into one full-stack runtime: • dynamic sparse attention with no retraining • fused norm, RoPE, MLP, and sparse-attention setup • fused INT8 QKV / FP8 output communication across 8 GPUs • parallel, batched VAE decoding • precomputed AdaLN caching Inside the stack: • sparse-attention setup: 1.206 → 0.285 ms (−76.4%) • VAE decode: 7.55 → 0.602 s • ~24 GB memory freed per GPU Any MiniMax-H3 few-step LoRA can plug into the same engine, and the code is deployment-friendly under Apache 2.0. For us, the bigger milestone is crossing from “fast generation” into “faster than playback.” That opens the path toward continuous 24 FPS generation and truly interactive video systems. We’re excited to partner with reactor to release Sol-H3 and make it available as an API day-0. Try it now on Reactor: 🔗 Amazing team effort—full credits in the blog. LoveSy Junsong_Chen yitong li Haopeng Li Haocheng Xi Song Han

Enze Xie

208,716 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

If you are running local LLMs without N-gram speculative decoding, you are wasting massive amounts of compute. Whether your AI is editing a document, outputting structured JSON, or rewriting boilerplate templates, a huge chunk of the text it generates is highly repetitive or already exists right there in the prompt. Standard decoding wastes expensive GPU compute cycles "re thinking" every single token. By adding one hidden flag in llama.cpp, you can instantly fast forward through the repetition. Zero draft models. Zero extra VRAM. And virtually zero compute overhead. Google Colab hands you an enterprise grade NVIDIA Tesla T4 GPU with 16GB of VRAM for free. It’s the perfect Ubuntu Linux sandbox to build a bleeding edge inference engine from scratch. Recently, I showed you how to double your local speeds using MTP (Multi Token Prediction). But MTP requires a secondary neural network draft model. That eats into your precious VRAM (slightly though) and burns extra compute for every guess it makes. N-gram Speculative Decoding gives you a massive speed boost for exactly 0 memory cost and minimal compute. And it's faster than MTP when it works. Here is how it actually works under the hood: Standard autoregressive decoding is slow because it predicts one token at a time. If you ask an agent to format a long JSON object or update one line in an HTML file, it runs heavy matrix multiplications to calculate the probability of every single bracket, space, and letter from scratch. N-gram changes the game. It acts as a lightweight caching system. Instead of running heavy neural network math to guess the next word, it uses a simple hash table. Whenever the LLM starts outputting a sequence of tokens that already exists anywhere in its context window, N-gram instantly recognizes the pattern. Because it is just doing lightning fast string matching, the compute cost is practically zero. It "fast forwards" through the text, drafting the boilerplate instantly from memory, and the main model just verifies it in parallel. Pure speed. Using quantized GGUFs from Unsloth via HuggingFace, I spun up DeepMind’s massive Gemma 4 26B A4B QAT MoE on a free Colab instance to test this. Just look at the raw benchmark data on code editing task: Without N-gram: [ Prompt: 638.6 t/s | Generation: 45.9 t/s ] With N-gram: [ Prompt: 601.9 t/s | Generation: 107.1 t/s ] Here is the exact llama.cpp CLI command to activate it. Notice we don't even need the --model-draft flag: ./llama-cli -m gemma-4-26B-A4B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf -cnv -n 6000 -c 12000 -ngl 99 -fa on --spec-type ngram-mod Stop waiting for your GPU to re calculate words it already knows. I’ve built a free, interactive, cell by cell Google Colab notebook that lets you test this live in your browser. You can literally chat with the model and watch the text generation speed absolutely fly on the second turn when you ask it to edit a file. There are additional parameters for ngram-mod that you can tune once you get it working with the single flag. Link to the free Colab Notebook is in the comments below. It walks you through the entire stack: pulling pre built llama.cpp CUDA binaries for Linux, fetching GGUFs from HuggingFace, and spinning up the inference engine with ngram-mod from scratch. Let me know if you have already tried ngram-mod

If you are running local LLMs without N-gram speculative decoding, you are wasting massive amounts of compute. Whether your AI is editing a document, outputting structured JSON, or rewriting boilerplate templates, a huge chunk of the text it generates is highly repetitive or already exists right there in the prompt. Standard decoding wastes expensive GPU compute cycles "re thinking" every single token. By adding one hidden flag in llama.cpp, you can instantly fast forward through the repetition. Zero draft models. Zero extra VRAM. And virtually zero compute overhead. Google Colab hands you an enterprise grade NVIDIA Tesla T4 GPU with 16GB of VRAM for free. It’s the perfect Ubuntu Linux sandbox to build a bleeding edge inference engine from scratch. Recently, I showed you how to double your local speeds using MTP (Multi Token Prediction). But MTP requires a secondary neural network draft model. That eats into your precious VRAM (slightly though) and burns extra compute for every guess it makes. N-gram Speculative Decoding gives you a massive speed boost for exactly 0 memory cost and minimal compute. And it's faster than MTP when it works. Here is how it actually works under the hood: Standard autoregressive decoding is slow because it predicts one token at a time. If you ask an agent to format a long JSON object or update one line in an HTML file, it runs heavy matrix multiplications to calculate the probability of every single bracket, space, and letter from scratch. N-gram changes the game. It acts as a lightweight caching system. Instead of running heavy neural network math to guess the next word, it uses a simple hash table. Whenever the LLM starts outputting a sequence of tokens that already exists anywhere in its context window, N-gram instantly recognizes the pattern. Because it is just doing lightning fast string matching, the compute cost is practically zero. It "fast forwards" through the text, drafting the boilerplate instantly from memory, and the main model just verifies it in parallel. Pure speed. Using quantized GGUFs from Unsloth via HuggingFace, I spun up DeepMind’s massive Gemma 4 26B A4B QAT MoE on a free Colab instance to test this. Just look at the raw benchmark data on code editing task: Without N-gram: [ Prompt: 638.6 t/s | Generation: 45.9 t/s ] With N-gram: [ Prompt: 601.9 t/s | Generation: 107.1 t/s ] Here is the exact llama.cpp CLI command to activate it. Notice we don't even need the --model-draft flag: ./llama-cli -m gemma-4-26B-A4B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf -cnv -n 6000 -c 12000 -ngl 99 -fa on --spec-type ngram-mod Stop waiting for your GPU to re calculate words it already knows. I’ve built a free, interactive, cell by cell Google Colab notebook that lets you test this live in your browser. You can literally chat with the model and watch the text generation speed absolutely fly on the second turn when you ask it to edit a file. There are additional parameters for ngram-mod that you can tune once you get it working with the single flag. Link to the free Colab Notebook is in the comments below. It walks you through the entire stack: pulling pre built llama.cpp CUDA binaries for Linux, fetching GGUFs from HuggingFace, and spinning up the inference engine with ngram-mod from scratch. Let me know if you have already tried ngram-mod

Alok

32,517 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

I have waited to publish the Pixel 11 Pro XL Performance and Gaming experience, and there is a slight difference in its performance between when it was launched and now. 🧵 (1/2) The Pixel 11 Pro XL is fast and smooth in real-life usage during normal day-to-day tasks, but heavy tasks and gaming need much improvement. There are improvements in Genshin Impact because, at the time of launch, it was not playable, but now it's playable. Let's talk in detail: Starting with the daily tasks, like app opening and switching between apps, is smooth and fast and easily comparable with other Flagships. The camera shutter button is responsive and quick, and this new Chipset looks efficient too because it doesn't heat up in day-to-day tasks and has less energy consumption. RAM management is also good; it easily keeps apps running in the background. But things get a little messy when you do heavy tasks on it, which is now a habit for almost every Pixel device. When you do heavy things like heavy editing and video rendering at very high quality, it feels slow compared to other Flagships, and the gaming experience is not comparable with them because Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 devices' gaming experience is on another level. Benchmarks Note: All benchmarks were conducted at room temperature around 27°C, in a non-air-conditioned room. Pixel 11 Pro XL features Tensor G6 3nm Chipset, which is paired with IMG CXTP 48 1536 GPU, UFS 4.0 Storage, and up to 16GB LPDDR5X RAM. The device scores 1.9 million in AnTuTu, reaching around 36°C and consuming 4% battery. During a 30-minute throttling test, the device throttled to 68%, and the temperature was around 34°C. Geekbench Scores: CPU Scores: - Single Core: 2287 - Multi-core: 6709 - GPU Score: 3259 AI Scores: - AITuTu Score: 127K 3DMark Stress Test 20 minutes each: Wild Life Stress Test Highest: 13655 | Lowest: 10766 Stability: 78% Wild Life Extreme Stress Test Highest: 3467 | Lowest: 2861 Stability: 81% Steel Nomad Light Stress Test Highest: 1118 | Lowest: 1048 Stability: 93% These 3DMark scores are not impressive but quite stable. The maximum temperature the device reached after these extreme stress tests was 43°C, which is acceptable and good because these tests demand more power and hardware output. The Pixel 11 Pro XL's performance is improved compared to its predecessor but is not comparable with other Flagship devices.

I have waited to publish the Pixel 11 Pro XL Performance and Gaming experience, and there is a slight difference in its performance between when it was launched and now. 🧵 (1/2) The Pixel 11 Pro XL is fast and smooth in real-life usage during normal day-to-day tasks, but heavy tasks and gaming need much improvement. There are improvements in Genshin Impact because, at the time of launch, it was not playable, but now it's playable. Let's talk in detail: Starting with the daily tasks, like app opening and switching between apps, is smooth and fast and easily comparable with other Flagships. The camera shutter button is responsive and quick, and this new Chipset looks efficient too because it doesn't heat up in day-to-day tasks and has less energy consumption. RAM management is also good; it easily keeps apps running in the background. But things get a little messy when you do heavy tasks on it, which is now a habit for almost every Pixel device. When you do heavy things like heavy editing and video rendering at very high quality, it feels slow compared to other Flagships, and the gaming experience is not comparable with them because Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 devices' gaming experience is on another level. Benchmarks Note: All benchmarks were conducted at room temperature around 27°C, in a non-air-conditioned room. Pixel 11 Pro XL features Tensor G6 3nm Chipset, which is paired with IMG CXTP 48 1536 GPU, UFS 4.0 Storage, and up to 16GB LPDDR5X RAM. The device scores 1.9 million in AnTuTu, reaching around 36°C and consuming 4% battery. During a 30-minute throttling test, the device throttled to 68%, and the temperature was around 34°C. Geekbench Scores: CPU Scores: - Single Core: 2287 - Multi-core: 6709 - GPU Score: 3259 AI Scores: - AITuTu Score: 127K 3DMark Stress Test 20 minutes each: Wild Life Stress Test Highest: 13655 | Lowest: 10766 Stability: 78% Wild Life Extreme Stress Test Highest: 3467 | Lowest: 2861 Stability: 81% Steel Nomad Light Stress Test Highest: 1118 | Lowest: 1048 Stability: 93% These 3DMark scores are not impressive but quite stable. The maximum temperature the device reached after these extreme stress tests was 43°C, which is acceptable and good because these tests demand more power and hardware output. The Pixel 11 Pro XL's performance is improved compared to its predecessor but is not comparable with other Flagship devices.

Abhishek Yadav

20,500 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Announcing DreamDojo: our open-source, interactive world model that takes robot motor controls and generates the future in pixels. No engine, no meshes, no hand-authored dynamics. It's Simulation 2.0. Time for robotics to take the bitter lesson pill. Real-world robot learning is bottlenecked by time, wear, safety, and resets. If we want Physical AI to move at pretraining speed, we need a simulator that adapts to pretraining scale with as little human engineering as possible. Our key insights: (1) human egocentric videos are a scalable source of first-person physics; (2) latent actions make them "robot-readable" across different hardware; (3) real-time inference unlocks live teleop, policy eval, and test-time planning *inside* a dream. We pre-train on 44K hours of human videos: cheap, abundant, and collected with zero robot-in-the-loop. Humans have already explored the combinatorics: we grasp, pour, fold, assemble, fail, retry—across cluttered scenes, shifting viewpoints, changing light, and hour-long task chains—at a scale no robot fleet could match. The missing piece: these videos have no action labels. So we introduce latent actions: a unified representation inferred directly from videos that captures "what changed between world states" without knowing the underlying hardware. This lets us train on any first-person video as if it came with motor commands attached. As a result, DreamDojo generalizes zero-shot to objects and environments never seen in any robot training set, because humans saw them first. Next, we post-train onto each robot to fit its specific hardware. Think of it as separating "how the world looks and behaves" from "how this particular robot actuates." The base model follows the general physical rules, then "snaps onto" the robot's unique mechanics. It's kind of like loading a new character and scene assets into Unreal Engine, but done through gradient descent and generalizes far beyond the post-training dataset. A world simulator is only useful if it runs fast enough to close the loop. We train a real-time version of DreamDojo that runs at 10 FPS, stable for over a minute of continuous rollout. This unlocks exciting possibilities: - Live teleoperation *inside* a dream. Connect a VR controller, stream actions into DreamDojo, and teleop a virtual robot in real time. We demo this on Unitree G1 with a PICO headset and one RTX 5090. - Policy evaluation. You can benchmark a policy checkpoint in DreamDojo instead of the real world. The simulated success rates strongly correlate with real-world results - accurate enough to rank checkpoints without burning a single motor. - Model-based planning. Sample multiple action proposals → simulate them all in parallel → pick the best future. Gains +17% real-world success out of the box on a fruit packing task. We open-source everything!! Weights, code, post-training dataset, eval set, and whitepaper with tons of details to reproduce. DreamDojo is based on NVIDIA Cosmos, which is open-weight too. 2026 is the year of World Models for physical AI. We want you to build with us. Happy scaling! Links in thread:

Announcing DreamDojo: our open-source, interactive world model that takes robot motor controls and generates the future in pixels. No engine, no meshes, no hand-authored dynamics. It's Simulation 2.0. Time for robotics to take the bitter lesson pill. Real-world robot learning is bottlenecked by time, wear, safety, and resets. If we want Physical AI to move at pretraining speed, we need a simulator that adapts to pretraining scale with as little human engineering as possible. Our key insights: (1) human egocentric videos are a scalable source of first-person physics; (2) latent actions make them "robot-readable" across different hardware; (3) real-time inference unlocks live teleop, policy eval, and test-time planning inside a dream. We pre-train on 44K hours of human videos: cheap, abundant, and collected with zero robot-in-the-loop. Humans have already explored the combinatorics: we grasp, pour, fold, assemble, fail, retry—across cluttered scenes, shifting viewpoints, changing light, and hour-long task chains—at a scale no robot fleet could match. The missing piece: these videos have no action labels. So we introduce latent actions: a unified representation inferred directly from videos that captures "what changed between world states" without knowing the underlying hardware. This lets us train on any first-person video as if it came with motor commands attached. As a result, DreamDojo generalizes zero-shot to objects and environments never seen in any robot training set, because humans saw them first. Next, we post-train onto each robot to fit its specific hardware. Think of it as separating "how the world looks and behaves" from "how this particular robot actuates." The base model follows the general physical rules, then "snaps onto" the robot's unique mechanics. It's kind of like loading a new character and scene assets into Unreal Engine, but done through gradient descent and generalizes far beyond the post-training dataset. A world simulator is only useful if it runs fast enough to close the loop. We train a real-time version of DreamDojo that runs at 10 FPS, stable for over a minute of continuous rollout. This unlocks exciting possibilities: - Live teleoperation inside a dream. Connect a VR controller, stream actions into DreamDojo, and teleop a virtual robot in real time. We demo this on Unitree G1 with a PICO headset and one RTX 5090. - Policy evaluation. You can benchmark a policy checkpoint in DreamDojo instead of the real world. The simulated success rates strongly correlate with real-world results - accurate enough to rank checkpoints without burning a single motor. - Model-based planning. Sample multiple action proposals → simulate them all in parallel → pick the best future. Gains +17% real-world success out of the box on a fruit packing task. We open-source everything!! Weights, code, post-training dataset, eval set, and whitepaper with tons of details to reproduce. DreamDojo is based on NVIDIA Cosmos, which is open-weight too. 2026 is the year of World Models for physical AI. We want you to build with us. Happy scaling! Links in thread:

Jim Fan

231,019 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

So as it turns out... Diddy Kong Racing has some really badass reverb DSP effects that get applied to sounds emitted while driving within tunnels or enclosed spaces. SO WHAT ABOUT ON THE SEGA DREAMCAST? Well, check out this direct hardware capture, and listen very closely to what honking the horn sounds like as I drive through the tunnel! But we're already essentially emulating the N64's RSP coprocessor with DKR DC, which was handling audio tasks such as ADPCM decoding, mixing, resampling, and more... purely in software on the SH4. The SH4 is also responsible for all TnL on the Dreamcast, so it's doing graphics, gameplay, and now audio processing, PLUS DSP effects? And we're trying to hit a solid 30FPS target? How tf we planning to pull that one off? ...with GAINZ, of course! This one was pretty insane. The algorithm on the left is the actual fixed-precision loop which gets run by a DSP, essentially applying a function of some coefficients, a gain, and the value of the previous sample to the compute the value of the current sample. Since sample N depends on sample N - 1, the loop is fundamentally sequential, plus the values are all integer-based with fixed-precision, not acceleratable floats for our FPU... So check mate? We're fucked? I guess Bruce is gonna wind up dropping reverb to improve FPS after all? NOT SO FAST. As it turns out, I was able to still achieve a 1.5x speedup over the standard implementation, leveraging every trick I've ever known for the SH4's FPU with SH4ZAM vector math library. 1) All arithmetic and intermediate values went from integers to floats, so that they can use the SH4's FPU. 2) I was able to tease out the independent values and cofactors used for calculating FOUR samples at once by unrolling the loop to 4 iterations, and preloading the XMTRX 4x4 matrix back-bank with a lower-triangular transform matrix containing the cofactors. 3) I was able to cram 4 samples at a time into a 4D vector, which I then transform against the constant XMTRX cofactors with shz_xmtrx_transform_vec4(), which results in only single ASM instruction, FTRV, getting emitted to transform the 4D vector by the entire 4x4 XMTRX, thus doing the majority of the work to calculate 4 freaking output samples with ONE instruction. 4) I was able to strategically prefetch both the source and destination buffers while doing FPU work, in order to keep the caches fed. 5) The clamping... was the trickiest part. I had to calculate all 4 output values WITHOUT the clamping, then check for any required clamping post-transform.. but the problem is that if sample N gets clamped, then the value of sample N + 1 will change as well... and we just computed 4 nonclamped results in parallel... By abusing the goto statement and labels, I was able to efficiently jump to a label which would clamp all of the values following a component that was found to require clamping, but avoiding recomputing and reclamping the previously assessed values that were within the clamping threshold. The result? Yet again, the 200Mhz SH4 has carried another load that it was never intended to bear... and it looks like we WILL be keeping reverb in Diddy Kong Racing for the Sega Dreamcast! 💪

So as it turns out... Diddy Kong Racing has some really badass reverb DSP effects that get applied to sounds emitted while driving within tunnels or enclosed spaces. SO WHAT ABOUT ON THE SEGA DREAMCAST? Well, check out this direct hardware capture, and listen very closely to what honking the horn sounds like as I drive through the tunnel! But we're already essentially emulating the N64's RSP coprocessor with DKR DC, which was handling audio tasks such as ADPCM decoding, mixing, resampling, and more... purely in software on the SH4. The SH4 is also responsible for all TnL on the Dreamcast, so it's doing graphics, gameplay, and now audio processing, PLUS DSP effects? And we're trying to hit a solid 30FPS target? How tf we planning to pull that one off? ...with GAINZ, of course! This one was pretty insane. The algorithm on the left is the actual fixed-precision loop which gets run by a DSP, essentially applying a function of some coefficients, a gain, and the value of the previous sample to the compute the value of the current sample. Since sample N depends on sample N - 1, the loop is fundamentally sequential, plus the values are all integer-based with fixed-precision, not acceleratable floats for our FPU... So check mate? We're fucked? I guess Bruce is gonna wind up dropping reverb to improve FPS after all? NOT SO FAST. As it turns out, I was able to still achieve a 1.5x speedup over the standard implementation, leveraging every trick I've ever known for the SH4's FPU with SH4ZAM vector math library. 1) All arithmetic and intermediate values went from integers to floats, so that they can use the SH4's FPU. 2) I was able to tease out the independent values and cofactors used for calculating FOUR samples at once by unrolling the loop to 4 iterations, and preloading the XMTRX 4x4 matrix back-bank with a lower-triangular transform matrix containing the cofactors. 3) I was able to cram 4 samples at a time into a 4D vector, which I then transform against the constant XMTRX cofactors with shz_xmtrx_transform_vec4(), which results in only single ASM instruction, FTRV, getting emitted to transform the 4D vector by the entire 4x4 XMTRX, thus doing the majority of the work to calculate 4 freaking output samples with ONE instruction. 4) I was able to strategically prefetch both the source and destination buffers while doing FPU work, in order to keep the caches fed. 5) The clamping... was the trickiest part. I had to calculate all 4 output values WITHOUT the clamping, then check for any required clamping post-transform.. but the problem is that if sample N gets clamped, then the value of sample N + 1 will change as well... and we just computed 4 nonclamped results in parallel... By abusing the goto statement and labels, I was able to efficiently jump to a label which would clamp all of the values following a component that was found to require clamping, but avoiding recomputing and reclamping the previously assessed values that were within the clamping threshold. The result? Yet again, the 200Mhz SH4 has carried another load that it was never intended to bear... and it looks like we WILL be keeping reverb in Diddy Kong Racing for the Sega Dreamcast! 💪

Falco Girgis

14,959 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

🎉 new skill unlocked: 20s uninterrupted, unstitched, single render from our new ai video engine: Nami. This is my birb (#7531) from the Moonbirds collection, idling in the library. patent: "Intra-Latent Semantic Injection via Cross-Spatial Encoding and Decoding during Multi-Pass Inference for Generative AI Video Creation" At Scrypted we've been quietly working on an agentic generative AI stack for two years: • integrating and testing w/ partners across the games & entertainment sectors • stealthily building a community of early believers through AVB • showcasing some of what we're doing with amazing projects like H011yw00d Agent. -- about Nami -- Nami is an agentic orchestration layer for AI video models: it unlocks their inner superpowers without making them rely on custom LoRAs or fine-tunings. Instead of throwing raw training power and tens of millions of dollars at training yet another ai video model: we figured out new ways to use what we have. Nami harnesses a multi-agent system to perform the work needed in taking a simple prompt or image and turning it into something bigger - much bigger. The agentic steps are allowed to manipulate latent space, digging into tensors, yet doing so in semantically aware chunks - meaning that Nami inherently supports video generation of arbitrary length, though it's bound to O(n) rendering time. (We do have some cool sharding tech that allows us to cut the generative time in half for a reference pose idle-animation like this demo). It's also fairly agnostic, picking and choosing the right tools for the job, and plays really well with emerging tech like FLUX Kontext, FramePack, or <- without being limited by any of them. -- use cases -- Even just a year or two ago the 20 second render below would cost a company, paying an agency, around $10k start-to-finish. This one cost me $6.25 on our dev hardware in an unoptimized environment. There's something mind-blowing about the state-of-the-art when we reduce costs to 0.0625% - less than 1% - of what we used to pay. It's also empowering. For creators. Game developers. Content influencers: you name it. -- superpowers -- 1. it does the things you ask for, in the order you asked for it 2. consistency is king 3. single-shot text or image-to-video 4. future videos can reference previous ones to seamlessly maintain style 5. semantic stitching: can't wait to showcase this -- gtm -- We think Generative AI Video, like image generation, like text, like games, should be a publicly accessible common good. We believe democratizing access to Nami in web3, via x402 payments proposed by Coinbase Wallet, or in World's mini-apps, is a bold step forward for digital freedom. Permissionless, decentralized, generative ai video. Naturally, we'll also soon release a web platform for using Nami in a traditionally SaaSy way: bring your own images, videos, or prompts and we'll take care of the rest. In the mid-term, Scrypted is building a stack of agentic skills (we call it AVB) and making them available to projects like H011yw00d Agent on Virtuals Protocol and other platforms. -- long-term vision -- Scrypted's mission is to decentralize the things that can't be decentralized. We participated in a16z crypto's CSX (London 2024) during our pre-seed specifically to research a new consensus protocol for hard things like AI video and AI agents: where there's no "one right answer". When Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKP) can't secure it, and Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) are too small, we've got you covered with our upcoming Inori Network. -- how you can help -- 1. Are you a GPU farm? We're gonna need more flops. 2. Do you represent an L1 or L2? We want to build bridges. 3. Do you represent a Wallet or App creator? Let's get an endpoint exposed. 4. Are you an investor? Let's chat. 5. Like, repost, share! -- team background -- We come from a background of AI in the Video Game industry with each founder having over 20 years of experience at companies like Electronic Arts & Square Enix. -- contact -- DMs are open, reach out if you want to be an early tester for your site, game, collection, or project! -- try it out -- Go anywhere on X and tag H011yw00d Agent with a prompt and she'll give you a free 2 second render. Have fun making cinematic shorts or meme videos! -- thanks -- AWS Startups has been an incredible help scaling our prototypes. Also, shout out to all loyal beans 🫘 in the Autonomous Virtuals Beings (AVB) community. Nami has a very important role in the upcoming XP agent platform, can't wait to show you all. AVbeings

🎉 new skill unlocked: 20s uninterrupted, unstitched, single render from our new ai video engine: Nami. This is my birb (#7531) from the Moonbirds collection, idling in the library. patent: "Intra-Latent Semantic Injection via Cross-Spatial Encoding and Decoding during Multi-Pass Inference for Generative AI Video Creation" At Scrypted we've been quietly working on an agentic generative AI stack for two years: • integrating and testing w/ partners across the games & entertainment sectors • stealthily building a community of early believers through AVB • showcasing some of what we're doing with amazing projects like H011yw00d Agent. -- about Nami -- Nami is an agentic orchestration layer for AI video models: it unlocks their inner superpowers without making them rely on custom LoRAs or fine-tunings. Instead of throwing raw training power and tens of millions of dollars at training yet another ai video model: we figured out new ways to use what we have. Nami harnesses a multi-agent system to perform the work needed in taking a simple prompt or image and turning it into something bigger - much bigger. The agentic steps are allowed to manipulate latent space, digging into tensors, yet doing so in semantically aware chunks - meaning that Nami inherently supports video generation of arbitrary length, though it's bound to O(n) rendering time. (We do have some cool sharding tech that allows us to cut the generative time in half for a reference pose idle-animation like this demo). It's also fairly agnostic, picking and choosing the right tools for the job, and plays really well with emerging tech like FLUX Kontext, FramePack, or <- without being limited by any of them. -- use cases -- Even just a year or two ago the 20 second render below would cost a company, paying an agency, around $10k start-to-finish. This one cost me $6.25 on our dev hardware in an unoptimized environment. There's something mind-blowing about the state-of-the-art when we reduce costs to 0.0625% - less than 1% - of what we used to pay. It's also empowering. For creators. Game developers. Content influencers: you name it. -- superpowers -- 1. it does the things you ask for, in the order you asked for it 2. consistency is king 3. single-shot text or image-to-video 4. future videos can reference previous ones to seamlessly maintain style 5. semantic stitching: can't wait to showcase this -- gtm -- We think Generative AI Video, like image generation, like text, like games, should be a publicly accessible common good. We believe democratizing access to Nami in web3, via x402 payments proposed by Coinbase Wallet, or in World's mini-apps, is a bold step forward for digital freedom. Permissionless, decentralized, generative ai video. Naturally, we'll also soon release a web platform for using Nami in a traditionally SaaSy way: bring your own images, videos, or prompts and we'll take care of the rest. In the mid-term, Scrypted is building a stack of agentic skills (we call it AVB) and making them available to projects like H011yw00d Agent on Virtuals Protocol and other platforms. -- long-term vision -- Scrypted's mission is to decentralize the things that can't be decentralized. We participated in a16z crypto's CSX (London 2024) during our pre-seed specifically to research a new consensus protocol for hard things like AI video and AI agents: where there's no "one right answer". When Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKP) can't secure it, and Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) are too small, we've got you covered with our upcoming Inori Network. -- how you can help -- 1. Are you a GPU farm? We're gonna need more flops. 2. Do you represent an L1 or L2? We want to build bridges. 3. Do you represent a Wallet or App creator? Let's get an endpoint exposed. 4. Are you an investor? Let's chat. 5. Like, repost, share! -- team background -- We come from a background of AI in the Video Game industry with each founder having over 20 years of experience at companies like Electronic Arts & Square Enix. -- contact -- DMs are open, reach out if you want to be an early tester for your site, game, collection, or project! -- try it out -- Go anywhere on X and tag H011yw00d Agent with a prompt and she'll give you a free 2 second render. Have fun making cinematic shorts or meme videos! -- thanks -- AWS Startups has been an incredible help scaling our prototypes. Also, shout out to all loyal beans 🫘 in the Autonomous Virtuals Beings (AVB) community. Nami has a very important role in the upcoming XP agent platform, can't wait to show you all. AVbeings

Tim Cotten

12,787 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Deepseek V4 Flash 0731 (Q2) - 12 tokens/sec - Single RTX 4090 - 650+ tokens/sec prefill - 250k context - no kv cache quantization! DeepSeek just dropped the official V4 Flash 0731 two days ago with a massive agent capabilities upgrade. The official benchmarks are literally crushing their own V4-Pro-Preview on agentic tasks like Terminal Bench 2.1 and DeepSWE. Unsloth AI said they couldn't wait to bring it to local devices, and they delivered. If you thought my 118B Poolside Laguna S 2.1 MoE run last week on a single GPU was wild, hold onto your hardware. I just successfully ran Unsloth’s brand new 91GB DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 (UD-IQ2_M) GGUF entirely locally. And I pushed it to a mind-bending 250,000 context window. The VRAM ceiling is an illusion if you know how to optimize llama.cpp. Here are the benchmarks and the cheat codes to run a local frontier class model yourself. For the hardware and setup, I used a single NVIDIA RTX 4090 (24GB VRAM) hooked up via a PCIe 4 bus, running Ubuntu 22.04 LTS and CUDA 13.0. You don't need a massive enterprise server for this, if you have more than 80 GB of standard DDR4 RAM and a 24GB card like an RTX 3090 or 4090, you can run this exact stack yourself. All benchmarks were run using a massive 28k token prompt to truly stress test the prefill limits. no kv cache quantization THE BENCHMARKS (Scaling Context): # 80k Context (Baseline: -b 2048 -ub 2048): Prefill: 465.43 t/s | Decode: 13.00 t/s | VRAM: 22.87 GB # 80k Context (Optimized: -b 4096 -ub 4096): Prefill: 643.15 t/s | Decode: 12.20 t/s | VRAM: 23.00 GB (Notice how doubling the batch flags spiked my prefill throughput by nearly 200 t/s with almost zero VRAM penalty) # 180k Context (-b 4096 -ub 4096): Prefill: 629.18 t/s | Decode: 11.92 t/s | VRAM: 23.40 GB # 250k Context MAXIMUM (-b 4096 -ub 4096): Prefill: 619.02 t/s | Decode: 11.54 t/s | VRAM: 23.40 GB # THE SECRET SAUCE (Why this works): Unsloth’s UD-IQ2_M quant is ~91GB across 3 files. Since I only have 24GB of VRAM, the PCIe 4 bus and system RAM have to do the heavy lifting. The magic bullet is the --no-mmap flag. By completely bypassing OS disk paging, I forced llama.cpp to load the massive model weights directly into the system RAM upfront. Combined with Flash Attention (-fa on) and exactly 12 CPU threads (--threads 12), I maintained an incredibly stable 11.5+ tokens/sec decode speed even at a quarter million token context. # THE EXACT COMMAND: ./build/bin/llama-server -m /workspace/models/DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ2_M-00001-of-00003.gguf -c 250000 -fa on --port 8080 --threads 12 -b 4096 -ub 4096 --no-mmap -v Local conversational and agentic coding AI is fully here. You don’t need an API or an H100 cluster. Qwen 3.8 27b drops next week making the 24GB VRAM tier even more worthwhile. What does your current local AI rig look like, and what's the craziest model you've managed to squeeze into it? Official huggingface GGUF links from Unsloth and performance graphs are dropped in the replies below!

Alok

46,100 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

$AMD's heading to $5T MC LT| Lowest $/M tokens 🧵 The real reason why Institutions are FOMOing into AMD while other Semi stocks are underperforming ($NVDA $AVGO) Not Financial Advice! DYOR! Under Dr. Lisa Su’s leadership, AMD has transformed from a distant challenger into a formidable force in AI infrastructure, delivering the industry’s most compelling TCO story for high-volume inference. Her clear vision open ecosystems, aggressive annual roadmaps, rack-scale innovation, and relentless focus on tokens-per-dollar has positioned AMD’s Helios racks as the go-to solution for hyperscalers and AI natives struggling with exploding token costs, collapsing the cost down to $0.0003-$0.0005/M tokens. I will link various threads on this analysis to supply chain and wafer ratio if you are interested in understanding the full picture. In the last 3-4 months, explosive Agentic AI demand significantly increased Inference demand for Agentic AI models with 5-10 agents. If you are a listener of CNBC or Bloomberg, u should know enterprises and companies are complaining abt cost of token, and how it starts to spike up way too much to make sense. The fact that most data center today are run by $NVDA Chips, where the cost is way too high for Training or Inference. 1. Token cost Here are some quick comp, so u understand why $META OpenAI Anthropic $MSFT $AMZN Softbank $GOOGL and many more small to medium AI Natives are buying AMD CPUs and GPUs as much as they want, or pretty much AMD chips are sold out for the next 3-5 years. Inference (Cost per Million Tokens) ~$NVDA B200 / HGX: ~$0.02–$0.08 on optimized workloads (FP4/MXFP4, speculative decoding). Significant improvement over Hopper but still premium-priced. GB200 NVL72 rack-scale: $0.05–$0.25+ ~$AMD Helios Racks: $0.0003-$0.0005 per M tokens, dramatically lower than NVIDIA equivalents in owned infra. MI355X node-level: Up to 40% more tokens per dollar vs. competing solutions ( B200), driven by higher memory capacity (up to 288GB+ HBM), strong bandwidth, and lower acquisition costs. Training ~$NVDA Rubin Rack is estimated $0.7-$1.2/M Tokens ~$AMD Helios Rack is estimated $0.65-$1.0/M Tokens 2. Why Hyperscalers and AI Natives Are Choosing AMD Token consumption (especially Agentic) is outpacing even NVIDIA’s efficiency gains, making diversification mandatory for economic viability. Massive deals reflect this reality like $META, OpenAI, $MSFT, Softbank, $AMZN, Oracle, LumaAI, G42... Dr. Lisa Su’s Vision in Action: Since taking the helm, Su has driven AMD’s turnaround with disciplined execution, annual GPU cadence (MI300 → MI350 → MI400), full-stack software (ROCm 7), open ecosystems (UALink, OCP designs), and customer-centric rack-scale solutions like Helios. Her emphasis on “tokens per dollar” and TCO has turned AMD into the pragmatic choice for sustainable AI scaling. Power/Energy Efficiency: ~Helios Rack-level is estimated at 120kW-140kW with 50% more HBM4 where Inference and Training cost matter ~Rubin Rack-Level is estimated at 160kW-230kw AMD Helios shines in owned TCO, memory density, and energy flexibility at hyperscale. Cost to build 1GW data center 1GW Helios Rack full build is estimated $30-$35B 1GW Rubin Rack full build is estimated $45-$55B 3. Superior CPUs to pair with GPUs on massive scale 5-10-20GW Agentic AI. autonomous, multi-step workflows with orchestration, tool use, parallel agents, data movement, and enterprise integration has dramatically increased the importance of strong host CPUs alongside GPUs. This shifts the CPU-to-GPU ratio higher and makes balanced systems critical toward 1:1 to 5:1 as enterprises testing more than 5-10 agents. AMD EPYC Venice excels ~Leadership core density (up to 256 Zen 6 cores per socket) for running many agents in parallel, orchestration layers, and high-throughput control-plane tasks. ~Superior performance-per-core and power efficiency ( up to 2.1x higher perf/core and 2.26x better SPECpower vs. NVIDIA Grace in benchmarks). ~Tight integration in Helios: One Venice CPU + multiple MI450 GPUs per node, enabling efficient data feeding to GPUs ("zero-copy"), parallel execution, and full rack utilization for complex agentic loops. Hyperscalers (Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Softbank) and AI natives (OpenAI, Anthropic...) are adopting high-core EPYC at scale specifically for these agentic demands, as CPUs now handle a larger share of non-model work (orchestration, policy enforcement, tool calls). This complements AMD’s lower-cost GPUs for overall TCO wins. Conclusion: NVIDIA’s Vera Rubin cannot compete with a 2 years old EPYC Turin, but AMD under Dr. Lisa Su has engineered the lowest cost-per-million-tokens, highly competitive energy-efficient solutions, and superior CPU orchestration for agentic AI at scale with Helios. Dr. Su has championed this shift since at least 2023, foreseeing the rise of agentic workflows that demand far more orchestration, parallel agents, and balanced compute well before the industry fully embraced it. Her long-term vision of AI moving from simple prompts to always-on, multi-agent systems has driven AMD’s investments in high-core EPYC CPUs and integrated rack-scale solutions, perfectly positioning the company for today’s realities. Hyperscalers and AI natives effectively have no choice but to buy more AMD system for Agentic AI as leadership in economical, power-aware, high-volume internal + agentic use. However, due to supply constraints where Supply is far behind Demand, this makes multi-vendor reality along with in-house chips drive faster industry progress, lower overall costs, and better sustainability. Not Financial Advice! DYOR! Video source: Microsoft Build 2026

$AMD's heading to $5T MC LT| Lowest $/M tokens 🧵 The real reason why Institutions are FOMOing into AMD while other Semi stocks are underperforming ($NVDA $AVGO) Not Financial Advice! DYOR! Under Dr. Lisa Su’s leadership, AMD has transformed from a distant challenger into a formidable force in AI infrastructure, delivering the industry’s most compelling TCO story for high-volume inference. Her clear vision open ecosystems, aggressive annual roadmaps, rack-scale innovation, and relentless focus on tokens-per-dollar has positioned AMD’s Helios racks as the go-to solution for hyperscalers and AI natives struggling with exploding token costs, collapsing the cost down to $0.0003-$0.0005/M tokens. I will link various threads on this analysis to supply chain and wafer ratio if you are interested in understanding the full picture. In the last 3-4 months, explosive Agentic AI demand significantly increased Inference demand for Agentic AI models with 5-10 agents. If you are a listener of CNBC or Bloomberg, u should know enterprises and companies are complaining abt cost of token, and how it starts to spike up way too much to make sense. The fact that most data center today are run by $NVDA Chips, where the cost is way too high for Training or Inference. 1. Token cost Here are some quick comp, so u understand why $META OpenAI Anthropic $MSFT $AMZN Softbank $GOOGL and many more small to medium AI Natives are buying AMD CPUs and GPUs as much as they want, or pretty much AMD chips are sold out for the next 3-5 years. Inference (Cost per Million Tokens) ~$NVDA B200 / HGX: ~$0.02–$0.08 on optimized workloads (FP4/MXFP4, speculative decoding). Significant improvement over Hopper but still premium-priced. GB200 NVL72 rack-scale: $0.05–$0.25+ ~$AMD Helios Racks: $0.0003-$0.0005 per M tokens, dramatically lower than NVIDIA equivalents in owned infra. MI355X node-level: Up to 40% more tokens per dollar vs. competing solutions ( B200), driven by higher memory capacity (up to 288GB+ HBM), strong bandwidth, and lower acquisition costs. Training ~$NVDA Rubin Rack is estimated $0.7-$1.2/M Tokens ~$AMD Helios Rack is estimated $0.65-$1.0/M Tokens 2. Why Hyperscalers and AI Natives Are Choosing AMD Token consumption (especially Agentic) is outpacing even NVIDIA’s efficiency gains, making diversification mandatory for economic viability. Massive deals reflect this reality like $META, OpenAI, $MSFT, Softbank, $AMZN, Oracle, LumaAI, G42... Dr. Lisa Su’s Vision in Action: Since taking the helm, Su has driven AMD’s turnaround with disciplined execution, annual GPU cadence (MI300 → MI350 → MI400), full-stack software (ROCm 7), open ecosystems (UALink, OCP designs), and customer-centric rack-scale solutions like Helios. Her emphasis on “tokens per dollar” and TCO has turned AMD into the pragmatic choice for sustainable AI scaling. Power/Energy Efficiency: ~Helios Rack-level is estimated at 120kW-140kW with 50% more HBM4 where Inference and Training cost matter ~Rubin Rack-Level is estimated at 160kW-230kw AMD Helios shines in owned TCO, memory density, and energy flexibility at hyperscale. Cost to build 1GW data center 1GW Helios Rack full build is estimated $30-$35B 1GW Rubin Rack full build is estimated $45-$55B 3. Superior CPUs to pair with GPUs on massive scale 5-10-20GW Agentic AI. autonomous, multi-step workflows with orchestration, tool use, parallel agents, data movement, and enterprise integration has dramatically increased the importance of strong host CPUs alongside GPUs. This shifts the CPU-to-GPU ratio higher and makes balanced systems critical toward 1:1 to 5:1 as enterprises testing more than 5-10 agents. AMD EPYC Venice excels ~Leadership core density (up to 256 Zen 6 cores per socket) for running many agents in parallel, orchestration layers, and high-throughput control-plane tasks. ~Superior performance-per-core and power efficiency ( up to 2.1x higher perf/core and 2.26x better SPECpower vs. NVIDIA Grace in benchmarks). ~Tight integration in Helios: One Venice CPU + multiple MI450 GPUs per node, enabling efficient data feeding to GPUs ("zero-copy"), parallel execution, and full rack utilization for complex agentic loops. Hyperscalers (Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Softbank) and AI natives (OpenAI, Anthropic...) are adopting high-core EPYC at scale specifically for these agentic demands, as CPUs now handle a larger share of non-model work (orchestration, policy enforcement, tool calls). This complements AMD’s lower-cost GPUs for overall TCO wins. Conclusion: NVIDIA’s Vera Rubin cannot compete with a 2 years old EPYC Turin, but AMD under Dr. Lisa Su has engineered the lowest cost-per-million-tokens, highly competitive energy-efficient solutions, and superior CPU orchestration for agentic AI at scale with Helios. Dr. Su has championed this shift since at least 2023, foreseeing the rise of agentic workflows that demand far more orchestration, parallel agents, and balanced compute well before the industry fully embraced it. Her long-term vision of AI moving from simple prompts to always-on, multi-agent systems has driven AMD’s investments in high-core EPYC CPUs and integrated rack-scale solutions, perfectly positioning the company for today’s realities. Hyperscalers and AI natives effectively have no choice but to buy more AMD system for Agentic AI as leadership in economical, power-aware, high-volume internal + agentic use. However, due to supply constraints where Supply is far behind Demand, this makes multi-vendor reality along with in-house chips drive faster industry progress, lower overall costs, and better sustainability. Not Financial Advice! DYOR! Video source: Microsoft Build 2026

Mike

145,992 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

$MU $SNDK $LITE $VRT NVIDIA and Groq: 2nd and 3rd Order Strategic Infrastructure Effects and Market Implications Public reporting indicates NVIDIA has agreed to acquire Groq for approximately $20,000,000,000 in cash, while excluding Groq’s nascent cloud business from the transaction perimeter. The reported carve-out materially constrains the immediate, direct linkage from the acquisition to incremental, NVIDIA-controlled data center capacity build-out because GroqCloud appears to be the principal channel through which Groq hardware is currently monetized at scale as a service. The infrastructure-market implications therefore depend primarily on post-close product strategy: whether NVIDIA (1) commercializes Groq silicon as a distinct inference product line and drives broad deployment through OEM/ODM channels and partners, (2) uses the acquisition mainly to absorb IP and talent while de-emphasizing standalone Groq hardware volumes, or (3) uses Groq technology to reshape NVIDIA’s own inference systems and networking roadmaps. The dominant transmission mechanism into memory, networking, and facility infrastructure markets is the degree to which NVIDIA shifts incremental inference deployments away from GPU architectures that are tightly coupled to external high-bandwidth memory (HBM) and toward Groq’s current architecture, which emphasizes large on-chip SRAM, deterministic compiler-scheduled execution, and direct chip-to-chip connectivity. Independent and company-published materials describe Groq’s current-generation approach as having no external memory, keeping weights and KV cache on-chip during processing, and requiring model sharding across multiple chips due to limited on-chip SRAM per device. That architectural choice is directionally HBM-negative on a per-accelerator basis and ambiguous for DRAM, NAND, networking, power, and cooling on a per-token basis because the design can reduce memory wall losses and tail-latency overhead while potentially increasing the number of chips and interconnect endpoints required to serve large models and long-context workloads. HBM implications are the most mechanically straightforward but should be framed as second-derivative rather than absolute. If Groq-class inference silicon meaningfully displaces NVIDIA GPU-based inference deployments, incremental HBM bit demand tied to inference growth could be reduced relative to a GPU-only baseline because Groq’s current approach does not appear to attach HBM stacks to each accelerator. However, current market structure suggests HBM remains supply-constrained and is being pulled by multiple vectors including continued GPU training scale and high-capacity inference configurations, with leading suppliers signaling tight conditions extending beyond 2026. In that environment, reduced inference-driven HBM intensity could primarily reallocate scarce HBM supply toward higher-end training and premium inference GPUs rather than creating an outright volume collapse, preserving high utilization of HBM capacity while potentially affecting the slope of pricing power and capacity expansion urgency over a multi-year horizon. The key downside scenario for the HBM complex would be a durable architectural bifurcation where “good-enough” inference shifts disproportionately to HBM-less ASICs across a broad swath of deployments (latency-sensitive, batch-1, cost-per-token optimized), while training remains GPU-HBM dominated; such a split would reduce the portion of future inference compute that naturally monetizes through HBM content and could compress the incremental HBM-per-AI-dollar ratio. The key upside/neutral scenario for HBM is that the supply chain remains fully allocated regardless, with NVIDIA using any “freed” HBM to ship more high-end GPUs into training and long-context inference, especially as roadmaps increase HBM per GPU, sustaining robust aggregate bit demand even if inference becomes more heterogeneous. Conventional DRAM implications split into 2 channels: (1) DRAM wafer capacity diversion into HBM and (2) DDR content per server in AI clusters. Supplier commentary indicates that AI-driven memory demand is supporting elevated DRAM markets more broadly, and HBM production is resource-intensive versus conventional DRAM, tightening supply for DDR products in parallel. A meaningful NVIDIA pivot to an inference architecture that reduces HBM dependence could, at the margin, ease the most acute HBM-driven bottlenecks and allow memory manufacturers more flexibility in balancing DRAM mix, which could be modestly DDR-positive on the supply side (less crowding-out) even if it is DDR-neutral or slightly negative on the demand side (if per-node CPU/DDR requirements decline due to more efficient accelerator utilization). The dominant practical outcome is likely that DDR demand remains supported by broad AI server proliferation and increasing memory footprints at the system level (CPUs, networking stacks, caching layers, retrieval-augmented pipelines), while HBM remains the premium profit pool; therefore, any HBM displacement that increases total server volumes could indirectly keep DDR demand resilient even if DDR per accelerator is not rising materially. NAND flash implications are comparatively indirect and volume-driven rather than architecture-driven. Inference clusters require SSD capacity for model storage, container images, logging, and increasingly for fast local retrieval indices and embedding stores, but the storage footprint per unit of compute is typically smaller than in training pipelines that stage large datasets and checkpoints. If NVIDIA uses Groq to lower inference cost and latency enough to expand the total number of inference deployment locations (regional colocation, enterprise on-prem, sovereign footprints), aggregate SSD attach could rise through geographic fragmentation and replication of model artifacts across more sites, even if per-site storage is modest. The NAND effect is therefore likely to be demand-broadening and mix-positive (datacenter SSDs) but not a primary swing factor versus the macro AI capex cycle and consumer/device cycles. Hard disk drive (HDD) markets should see negligible direct sensitivity because nearline HDD demand is driven by bulk storage and cloud archiving economics, while inference acceleration choices primarily reshape compute and network layers; any HDD benefit would be a tertiary function of overall data center square footage expansion rather than a direct consequence of Groq silicon displacing GPUs. Optical networking implications require separating (1) intra-cluster back-end fabrics that connect accelerators and (2) front-end / data center interconnect (DCI) that connects sites and regions. Groq’s own positioning and third-party reporting suggest scaling beyond a single node or rack relies on high-bandwidth fabrics and, in some described configurations, optical interconnect scaling across hundreds of chips. If NVIDIA commercializes Groq at scale, 2 offsetting forces emerge: lower cost-per-token and improved latency could expand inference throughput and drive more east-west traffic, increasing demand for high-speed switching and optics; conversely, if Groq delivers materially higher utilization and tokens per unit of network bandwidth for certain workloads, the network required per served token could decline. Public NVIDIA materials already indicate an aggressive photonics roadmap aimed at scaling AI factories, including co-packaged optics (CPO) switches and explicit collaboration with Coherent and Lumentum in the silicon photonics supply chain. That linkage is important because it suggests that, independent of Groq, NVIDIA is already pushing optics integration deeper into the switch package to reduce power and increase resiliency; Groq increases the strategic incentive to reduce network power and latency if inference becomes even more distributed and latency-sensitive. For Lumentum and Coherent specifically, the net implication is less about “more optics versus fewer optics” and more about a shift in optics form factor and value capture. Co-packaged optics can reduce reliance on pluggable transceivers in some switch architectures while increasing demand for integrated photonic engines, lasers, fiber attach, packaging processes, and component-level supply. NVIDIA’s own announcements explicitly position Coherent and Lumentum as collaborators in creating the integrated silicon/optics process and supply chain for photonics switches. If Groq accelerates the transition to very large-scale fabrics (more endpoints, higher port speeds, tighter power envelopes), that tends to pull forward CPO adoption and amplifies demand for the underlying photonics components even if the conventional pluggable module TAM is structurally pressured over time. If Groq instead pushes inference toward smaller, more localized pods (closer to users, more regional colocation), that can be optics-positive for DCI and metro connectivity because more sites must be interconnected at high bandwidth with low latency, favoring coherent optics and high-speed interconnect between facilities. The principal risk for optics suppliers is timing and margin structure: a faster move to NVIDIA-driven integrated photonics could concentrate bargaining power and compress margins for commoditized transceiver modules while favoring suppliers with differentiated lasers, integration capability, and qualification depth in NVIDIA’s CPO ecosystem. AEC and copper interconnect implications hinge on whether Groq deployment increases the density of short-reach links inside racks and rows. High-speed copper remains structurally advantaged at very short distances on cost, power, and serviceability, but reaches become constrained as lane speeds and aggregate bandwidth rise, creating a role for active electrical cables (AECs), retimers, and signal-conditioning silicon. Credo explicitly positions its AEC products as enabling reliable lossless 800G connectivity for AI clusters, and the company has highlighted participation at NVIDIA GTC with content focused on extending PCIe/CXL using AECs, indicating relevance to next-generation system topologies that require longer reach and higher signal integrity than passive copper can deliver. If NVIDIA turns Groq into a widely deployed inference card or chassis product, the likely near-term effect is AEC-positive because (1) more inference throughput tends to increase top-of-rack connectivity requirements, (2) distributing inference across more racks and sites increases short-reach links per unit of delivered service, and (3) PCIe-attached accelerator architectures tend to require robust signal conditioning as systems move to PCIe 6.x and beyond. Groq workshop materials explicitly reference GroqCard and GroqNode form factors, reinforcing that PCIe-attached deployment has been central to Groq’s current packaging strategy. The main countervailing risk is that Groq’s deterministic chip-to-chip fabric could be implemented primarily through backplanes and direct board-level connectivity that reduces the need for merchant AECs inside the box; in that case, incremental AEC demand would concentrate more in rack-to-switch and node-to-fabric links rather than within-chassis chip fabrics. Astera Labs implications are connectivity-architecture sensitive and, on balance, skew positive if NVIDIA increases heterogeneity and disaggregation in AI systems. NVIDIA has publicly positioned NVLink Fusion as a pathway for partners to build semi-custom AI infrastructure and has explicitly identified Astera Labs as a partner in that ecosystem, with Astera describing NVLink-related solutions expanding its connectivity platform across PCIe, CXL, and Ethernet plus fleet observability software. A Groq acquisition increases the probability that NVIDIA offers a broader menu of accelerators (training GPUs, inference-focused ASICs) and therefore increases the importance of scalable, high-reliability connectivity, retiming, switching, and telemetry across mixed topologies. If Groq silicon remains PCIe-attached in many deployments, PCIe 6.x retimers/switches and active cable modules become more central, aligning with Astera’s core portfolio. If NVIDIA instead integrates Groq concepts into scale-up fabrics (NVLink-like domains) or uses Groq to expand into inference “appliances” that must be rapidly deployed in colocation environments, the need for standard-compliant, serviceable connectivity with strong RAS/telemetry increases, again aligning with Astera’s positioning. Power equipment and cooling implications for Vertiv and adjacent suppliers should be viewed through the lens of rack power density, cooling modality (air vs liquid), and site deployment model (hyperscale campuses vs distributed colocation/enterprise). Groq claims its LPU and rack designs are “air-cooled by design” and require no complex cooling and power infrastructure, and third-party reporting has described Groq’s approach as relying on parallelism across many lower-power units rather than extreme per-chip performance. If NVIDIA scales Groq as a mainstream inference platform, the mix of data center cooling spend could shift modestly away from the highest-density liquid-cooled racks toward more air-cooled or hybrid deployments, particularly for inference pods placed in existing facilities that cannot easily retrofit for very high rack heat flux. That would be a mix headwind for suppliers most levered exclusively to high-end liquid cooling attachments per rack, but it is not necessarily a volume headwind for Vertiv given the company’s broad exposure to both power and cooling infrastructure and the likelihood that total AI deployment locations expand. Vertiv’s own industry commentary emphasizes that AI racks require higher power-density UPS, batteries, power distribution equipment, and switchgear capable of handling rapid load transients, and that hybrid cooling systems will evolve across deployment environments. Those statements align with a world where inference growth increases the count of powered racks and raises the operational complexity of power delivery even if per-rack density is lower than the most extreme training clusters. The most material infrastructure impact may occur outside the rack and upstream of the data hall: grid interconnects, substations, transformers, switchgear, generators, and utility-scale generation additions. Recent regulatory actions in the U.S. highlight that projected data center demand is already driving large planned increases in electricity generation capacity, underscoring that power availability is a binding constraint. In that context, an inference architecture that lowers joules per token could reduce the power required per unit of inference delivered, but it can also accelerate demand by lowering cost and improving latency, increasing the total volume of inference served (a classic rebound effect). The net outcome is likely continued, elevated demand for power infrastructure even if efficiency improves, with the key swing factor being whether AI capex remains on a multi-year growth trajectory or enters a digestion phase. Other data center infrastructure implications include server/ODM mix, facility design standardization, and networking architecture choices. If NVIDIA positions Groq-based inference as a broadly distributable “standard server + accelerator” solution rather than as an integrated, liquid-cooled rack like GB200 NVL72, spend could shift toward more conventional air-cooled server designs, higher unit volumes of mainstream racks, and faster deployment in colocation footprints, increasing demand for modular power rooms, busways, and rapidly deployable cooling solutions. If NVIDIA instead integrates Groq into its “AI factory” paradigm, the primary effect is likely acceleration of dense back-end fabric build-outs and a faster push toward photonics switching, increasing demand for fiber plant, connectors, and integrated optics supply chains while potentially compressing the lifecycle of transitional architectures based on pluggable optics and mid-reach copper. NVIDIA’s stated roadmap toward co-packaged optics and silicon photonics switches is already oriented toward scaling to very large GPU counts; adding a high-end inference ASIC increases the strategic importance of power-efficient, low-latency fabrics because inference economics become increasingly sensitive to network overhead as compute cost declines. Across the covered segments, the most defensible base case is limited near-term dislocation and a medium-term increase in uncertainty around memory intensity per unit of inference growth. HBM faces the clearest relative risk from an HBM-less inference platform, but supply tightness and GPU training roadmaps reduce the probability of an absolute demand shock over the next 12–24 months. Optical, AEC/copper, and power/cooling are more likely to remain volume-supported because they scale with endpoint count, deployment fragmentation, and total data center footprint, and those tend to rise when inference becomes cheaper and more widely deployed. The highest-conviction second-order effect is a shift in infrastructure mix: incrementally more distributed inference deployments (favoring colocation power/cooling standardization, DCI optics, and serviceable short-reach interconnect) and a gradual migration from pluggable optics toward integrated photonics in back-end fabrics (favoring suppliers positioned in the CPO ecosystem).

$MU $SNDK $LITE $VRT NVIDIA and Groq: 2nd and 3rd Order Strategic Infrastructure Effects and Market Implications Public reporting indicates NVIDIA has agreed to acquire Groq for approximately $20,000,000,000 in cash, while excluding Groq’s nascent cloud business from the transaction perimeter. The reported carve-out materially constrains the immediate, direct linkage from the acquisition to incremental, NVIDIA-controlled data center capacity build-out because GroqCloud appears to be the principal channel through which Groq hardware is currently monetized at scale as a service. The infrastructure-market implications therefore depend primarily on post-close product strategy: whether NVIDIA (1) commercializes Groq silicon as a distinct inference product line and drives broad deployment through OEM/ODM channels and partners, (2) uses the acquisition mainly to absorb IP and talent while de-emphasizing standalone Groq hardware volumes, or (3) uses Groq technology to reshape NVIDIA’s own inference systems and networking roadmaps. The dominant transmission mechanism into memory, networking, and facility infrastructure markets is the degree to which NVIDIA shifts incremental inference deployments away from GPU architectures that are tightly coupled to external high-bandwidth memory (HBM) and toward Groq’s current architecture, which emphasizes large on-chip SRAM, deterministic compiler-scheduled execution, and direct chip-to-chip connectivity. Independent and company-published materials describe Groq’s current-generation approach as having no external memory, keeping weights and KV cache on-chip during processing, and requiring model sharding across multiple chips due to limited on-chip SRAM per device. That architectural choice is directionally HBM-negative on a per-accelerator basis and ambiguous for DRAM, NAND, networking, power, and cooling on a per-token basis because the design can reduce memory wall losses and tail-latency overhead while potentially increasing the number of chips and interconnect endpoints required to serve large models and long-context workloads. HBM implications are the most mechanically straightforward but should be framed as second-derivative rather than absolute. If Groq-class inference silicon meaningfully displaces NVIDIA GPU-based inference deployments, incremental HBM bit demand tied to inference growth could be reduced relative to a GPU-only baseline because Groq’s current approach does not appear to attach HBM stacks to each accelerator. However, current market structure suggests HBM remains supply-constrained and is being pulled by multiple vectors including continued GPU training scale and high-capacity inference configurations, with leading suppliers signaling tight conditions extending beyond 2026. In that environment, reduced inference-driven HBM intensity could primarily reallocate scarce HBM supply toward higher-end training and premium inference GPUs rather than creating an outright volume collapse, preserving high utilization of HBM capacity while potentially affecting the slope of pricing power and capacity expansion urgency over a multi-year horizon. The key downside scenario for the HBM complex would be a durable architectural bifurcation where “good-enough” inference shifts disproportionately to HBM-less ASICs across a broad swath of deployments (latency-sensitive, batch-1, cost-per-token optimized), while training remains GPU-HBM dominated; such a split would reduce the portion of future inference compute that naturally monetizes through HBM content and could compress the incremental HBM-per-AI-dollar ratio. The key upside/neutral scenario for HBM is that the supply chain remains fully allocated regardless, with NVIDIA using any “freed” HBM to ship more high-end GPUs into training and long-context inference, especially as roadmaps increase HBM per GPU, sustaining robust aggregate bit demand even if inference becomes more heterogeneous. Conventional DRAM implications split into 2 channels: (1) DRAM wafer capacity diversion into HBM and (2) DDR content per server in AI clusters. Supplier commentary indicates that AI-driven memory demand is supporting elevated DRAM markets more broadly, and HBM production is resource-intensive versus conventional DRAM, tightening supply for DDR products in parallel. A meaningful NVIDIA pivot to an inference architecture that reduces HBM dependence could, at the margin, ease the most acute HBM-driven bottlenecks and allow memory manufacturers more flexibility in balancing DRAM mix, which could be modestly DDR-positive on the supply side (less crowding-out) even if it is DDR-neutral or slightly negative on the demand side (if per-node CPU/DDR requirements decline due to more efficient accelerator utilization). The dominant practical outcome is likely that DDR demand remains supported by broad AI server proliferation and increasing memory footprints at the system level (CPUs, networking stacks, caching layers, retrieval-augmented pipelines), while HBM remains the premium profit pool; therefore, any HBM displacement that increases total server volumes could indirectly keep DDR demand resilient even if DDR per accelerator is not rising materially. NAND flash implications are comparatively indirect and volume-driven rather than architecture-driven. Inference clusters require SSD capacity for model storage, container images, logging, and increasingly for fast local retrieval indices and embedding stores, but the storage footprint per unit of compute is typically smaller than in training pipelines that stage large datasets and checkpoints. If NVIDIA uses Groq to lower inference cost and latency enough to expand the total number of inference deployment locations (regional colocation, enterprise on-prem, sovereign footprints), aggregate SSD attach could rise through geographic fragmentation and replication of model artifacts across more sites, even if per-site storage is modest. The NAND effect is therefore likely to be demand-broadening and mix-positive (datacenter SSDs) but not a primary swing factor versus the macro AI capex cycle and consumer/device cycles. Hard disk drive (HDD) markets should see negligible direct sensitivity because nearline HDD demand is driven by bulk storage and cloud archiving economics, while inference acceleration choices primarily reshape compute and network layers; any HDD benefit would be a tertiary function of overall data center square footage expansion rather than a direct consequence of Groq silicon displacing GPUs. Optical networking implications require separating (1) intra-cluster back-end fabrics that connect accelerators and (2) front-end / data center interconnect (DCI) that connects sites and regions. Groq’s own positioning and third-party reporting suggest scaling beyond a single node or rack relies on high-bandwidth fabrics and, in some described configurations, optical interconnect scaling across hundreds of chips. If NVIDIA commercializes Groq at scale, 2 offsetting forces emerge: lower cost-per-token and improved latency could expand inference throughput and drive more east-west traffic, increasing demand for high-speed switching and optics; conversely, if Groq delivers materially higher utilization and tokens per unit of network bandwidth for certain workloads, the network required per served token could decline. Public NVIDIA materials already indicate an aggressive photonics roadmap aimed at scaling AI factories, including co-packaged optics (CPO) switches and explicit collaboration with Coherent and Lumentum in the silicon photonics supply chain. That linkage is important because it suggests that, independent of Groq, NVIDIA is already pushing optics integration deeper into the switch package to reduce power and increase resiliency; Groq increases the strategic incentive to reduce network power and latency if inference becomes even more distributed and latency-sensitive. For Lumentum and Coherent specifically, the net implication is less about “more optics versus fewer optics” and more about a shift in optics form factor and value capture. Co-packaged optics can reduce reliance on pluggable transceivers in some switch architectures while increasing demand for integrated photonic engines, lasers, fiber attach, packaging processes, and component-level supply. NVIDIA’s own announcements explicitly position Coherent and Lumentum as collaborators in creating the integrated silicon/optics process and supply chain for photonics switches. If Groq accelerates the transition to very large-scale fabrics (more endpoints, higher port speeds, tighter power envelopes), that tends to pull forward CPO adoption and amplifies demand for the underlying photonics components even if the conventional pluggable module TAM is structurally pressured over time. If Groq instead pushes inference toward smaller, more localized pods (closer to users, more regional colocation), that can be optics-positive for DCI and metro connectivity because more sites must be interconnected at high bandwidth with low latency, favoring coherent optics and high-speed interconnect between facilities. The principal risk for optics suppliers is timing and margin structure: a faster move to NVIDIA-driven integrated photonics could concentrate bargaining power and compress margins for commoditized transceiver modules while favoring suppliers with differentiated lasers, integration capability, and qualification depth in NVIDIA’s CPO ecosystem. AEC and copper interconnect implications hinge on whether Groq deployment increases the density of short-reach links inside racks and rows. High-speed copper remains structurally advantaged at very short distances on cost, power, and serviceability, but reaches become constrained as lane speeds and aggregate bandwidth rise, creating a role for active electrical cables (AECs), retimers, and signal-conditioning silicon. Credo explicitly positions its AEC products as enabling reliable lossless 800G connectivity for AI clusters, and the company has highlighted participation at NVIDIA GTC with content focused on extending PCIe/CXL using AECs, indicating relevance to next-generation system topologies that require longer reach and higher signal integrity than passive copper can deliver. If NVIDIA turns Groq into a widely deployed inference card or chassis product, the likely near-term effect is AEC-positive because (1) more inference throughput tends to increase top-of-rack connectivity requirements, (2) distributing inference across more racks and sites increases short-reach links per unit of delivered service, and (3) PCIe-attached accelerator architectures tend to require robust signal conditioning as systems move to PCIe 6.x and beyond. Groq workshop materials explicitly reference GroqCard and GroqNode form factors, reinforcing that PCIe-attached deployment has been central to Groq’s current packaging strategy. The main countervailing risk is that Groq’s deterministic chip-to-chip fabric could be implemented primarily through backplanes and direct board-level connectivity that reduces the need for merchant AECs inside the box; in that case, incremental AEC demand would concentrate more in rack-to-switch and node-to-fabric links rather than within-chassis chip fabrics. Astera Labs implications are connectivity-architecture sensitive and, on balance, skew positive if NVIDIA increases heterogeneity and disaggregation in AI systems. NVIDIA has publicly positioned NVLink Fusion as a pathway for partners to build semi-custom AI infrastructure and has explicitly identified Astera Labs as a partner in that ecosystem, with Astera describing NVLink-related solutions expanding its connectivity platform across PCIe, CXL, and Ethernet plus fleet observability software. A Groq acquisition increases the probability that NVIDIA offers a broader menu of accelerators (training GPUs, inference-focused ASICs) and therefore increases the importance of scalable, high-reliability connectivity, retiming, switching, and telemetry across mixed topologies. If Groq silicon remains PCIe-attached in many deployments, PCIe 6.x retimers/switches and active cable modules become more central, aligning with Astera’s core portfolio. If NVIDIA instead integrates Groq concepts into scale-up fabrics (NVLink-like domains) or uses Groq to expand into inference “appliances” that must be rapidly deployed in colocation environments, the need for standard-compliant, serviceable connectivity with strong RAS/telemetry increases, again aligning with Astera’s positioning. Power equipment and cooling implications for Vertiv and adjacent suppliers should be viewed through the lens of rack power density, cooling modality (air vs liquid), and site deployment model (hyperscale campuses vs distributed colocation/enterprise). Groq claims its LPU and rack designs are “air-cooled by design” and require no complex cooling and power infrastructure, and third-party reporting has described Groq’s approach as relying on parallelism across many lower-power units rather than extreme per-chip performance. If NVIDIA scales Groq as a mainstream inference platform, the mix of data center cooling spend could shift modestly away from the highest-density liquid-cooled racks toward more air-cooled or hybrid deployments, particularly for inference pods placed in existing facilities that cannot easily retrofit for very high rack heat flux. That would be a mix headwind for suppliers most levered exclusively to high-end liquid cooling attachments per rack, but it is not necessarily a volume headwind for Vertiv given the company’s broad exposure to both power and cooling infrastructure and the likelihood that total AI deployment locations expand. Vertiv’s own industry commentary emphasizes that AI racks require higher power-density UPS, batteries, power distribution equipment, and switchgear capable of handling rapid load transients, and that hybrid cooling systems will evolve across deployment environments. Those statements align with a world where inference growth increases the count of powered racks and raises the operational complexity of power delivery even if per-rack density is lower than the most extreme training clusters. The most material infrastructure impact may occur outside the rack and upstream of the data hall: grid interconnects, substations, transformers, switchgear, generators, and utility-scale generation additions. Recent regulatory actions in the U.S. highlight that projected data center demand is already driving large planned increases in electricity generation capacity, underscoring that power availability is a binding constraint. In that context, an inference architecture that lowers joules per token could reduce the power required per unit of inference delivered, but it can also accelerate demand by lowering cost and improving latency, increasing the total volume of inference served (a classic rebound effect). The net outcome is likely continued, elevated demand for power infrastructure even if efficiency improves, with the key swing factor being whether AI capex remains on a multi-year growth trajectory or enters a digestion phase. Other data center infrastructure implications include server/ODM mix, facility design standardization, and networking architecture choices. If NVIDIA positions Groq-based inference as a broadly distributable “standard server + accelerator” solution rather than as an integrated, liquid-cooled rack like GB200 NVL72, spend could shift toward more conventional air-cooled server designs, higher unit volumes of mainstream racks, and faster deployment in colocation footprints, increasing demand for modular power rooms, busways, and rapidly deployable cooling solutions. If NVIDIA instead integrates Groq into its “AI factory” paradigm, the primary effect is likely acceleration of dense back-end fabric build-outs and a faster push toward photonics switching, increasing demand for fiber plant, connectors, and integrated optics supply chains while potentially compressing the lifecycle of transitional architectures based on pluggable optics and mid-reach copper. NVIDIA’s stated roadmap toward co-packaged optics and silicon photonics switches is already oriented toward scaling to very large GPU counts; adding a high-end inference ASIC increases the strategic importance of power-efficient, low-latency fabrics because inference economics become increasingly sensitive to network overhead as compute cost declines. Across the covered segments, the most defensible base case is limited near-term dislocation and a medium-term increase in uncertainty around memory intensity per unit of inference growth. HBM faces the clearest relative risk from an HBM-less inference platform, but supply tightness and GPU training roadmaps reduce the probability of an absolute demand shock over the next 12–24 months. Optical, AEC/copper, and power/cooling are more likely to remain volume-supported because they scale with endpoint count, deployment fragmentation, and total data center footprint, and those tend to rise when inference becomes cheaper and more widely deployed. The highest-conviction second-order effect is a shift in infrastructure mix: incrementally more distributed inference deployments (favoring colocation power/cooling standardization, DCI optics, and serviceable short-reach interconnect) and a gradual migration from pluggable optics toward integrated photonics in back-end fabrics (favoring suppliers positioned in the CPO ecosystem).

TheValueist

76,267 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

$AMD $5 Trillion MC Is Inevitable Long Term👑 This thread will focus more on Inference! 2026 EPYC "Venice" $TSM 2nm to save Large GW Scale Inference by 40% more than Prior Turin gen. Context: EPYC Turin achieves ~$0.001 per million tokens for batch inference vs $0.02-$0.12/ million tokens as I wrote the thread below. Venice is going to lower cost down to $0.0005-$0.0006/Million Tokens. OpenAI spent roughly $20B on Inference and Training, where 80-90% of that was for Inference per Analysts. AKA Renting Compute is Expensive AF! In this thread, I want to focus on why most analysts and investors are underestimating the role EPYC "Venice" and future Gen on overall Data center revenue. And $TSM ramping up 2nm supply early is a confirmation that AMD will be a major buyer long term. I will also link the thread the Gap between AMD Analysts & Reality and 2nm Ramp Thread so you have more comprehensive view of what I'm writing here. Before I go into detail this is my 2026 Projection: AI GPUs: $35-$50B EPYC Data Center: $15B-$17B Client Segment: $12-$13B Gaming: $6B Embedded: $4B-$5B Total Revenue $70-$100B Non-GAAP net income $18B-$25B Non-GAAP EPS $10.97-$15.40 Foward P/E 55x-70x= $603-$1,078 AMD's Analysts are projecting $0 Revenue for MI450 and sluggish EPYC Growth. Meaning, all analysts are either full of 💩 or Sexist, you decide! Analysts are also projecting 0% growth on AMD "Secret Weapon" Chip as $MSFT said we are at significant Windows refresh and upgrade cycle. Do you think TSMC would allocate more 2nm supply to $AMD at $0 MI450 revenue and sluggish EPYC? 1. EPYC is going to be the leader in lowest Inference! Current Turin cost saving is 95% vs $NVDA or 98-99% on Inference cost when you factor in renting Inference compute from Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, or $NVDA Neocloud pets. TSMC claimed: 10-15% higher performance at iso-power, 25-30% lower power at iso-speed, and ~15% higher transistor density compared to 3nm. This reduces operational expenses (energy, cooling) while increasing throughput per chip. EPYC Turin achieves ~$0.001 per million tokens for batch inference (via vLLM on models like Llama 3 70B), driven by high core counts and low hardware costs. EPYC Venice offers ~1.7x overall performance and up to 70% more compute capability per core, with up to 256 cores (512 threads). Enhanced vector/AI instructions and open-source firmware (openSIL) optimize for inference workloads. AMD Incorporates AI Engines (now part of AMD's XDNA) for on-chip acceleration, improving efficiency for low-latency and edge inference. This reduces reliance on discrete GPUs, lowering system complexity and TCO. Venice SKUs are projected at $3,000-$15,000 ($5,000 for 256-core flagship), far below NVIDIA Rubin ($50,000-$90,000) or AMD's own MI450 GPUs ($40,000-$50,000). High memory bandwidth (up to 1.6 TB/s) supports efficient batch inference. Venice is designed exactly for Large customers that want to lower Inference Cost and MI450 Helios is for Customers that want Training at lowest TCO, TDP as well as lower Upfront 1GW scale(Full build $35-$40B vs $NVDA $55B-$80B). 2. Real World Example: OpenAI's 2025 inference spend reached ~$20B, escalating to even higher total compute rental (mostly inference) amid token volume growth(from video generating). By 2026, with usage doubling (consistent with industry trends: token demand grows 2-5x YoY), assume OpenAI processes ~1,800 billion million-tokens annually $NVDA Blackwell at $0.02-$0.12 is $36B(most optimized) Rubin is projected to be at $0.01/million tokens or $18B annual Inference Cost vs $AMD Venice $0.0005/million tokens or $0.9B annual Inference Cost => Massive saving for OpenAI or anyone that are paying 80-90% Annual Bill for Inference compute. In short, it is unsustainable to pay this much rent vs owning for all current AI players for the medium to long term. Rubin excels in low-latency decode (if Groq integration from $20B deal in 2027-2028), but Venice dominates batch (80% of inference by 2030). Actual savings depend on deployment scale (OpenAI's 6GW AMD plans), electricity rates, and software maturity. If Rubin only hits $0.03, savings swell to $53.1B vs. $17.1B. 3. Will running Inference on Venice and future Gen slow down response generation in 2026 and beyond? Human perception of "fast enough" for chat, agents, search augmentation, summarization, coding assistance is roughly Meaning, EPYC may generate $100B a year on data center revenue, Hence $MSFT $AMZN $META $GOOGL OpenAI xAI and 42+ Countries are leaning AMD for Inference, because the cost saving is MASSIVE! 4. Regular users (you, me, people using ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok, Perplexity...) are extremely unlikely to notice any slowdown and in many cases might even experience slightly faster or more consistent response times if the industry heavily shifts toward AMD EPYC for inference. What actually happens when companies save massively on inference? When OpenAI , Anthropic , Gemini , Grok Meta .... save billions on the batch/enterprise/RAG layer using EPYC Venice, they typically do one or more of these things with the savings, none of which make your chat slower but enhancing their bottom line(Profit) ~Keep prices the same → make more profit ~Lower subscription prices / increase free tier limits ~Train bigger & better models more frequently ~Offer longer context windows ~Add more reasoning steps / tool calls / agents per query ~Improve multimodal capabilities ~Build more data centers / reduce throttling during peaks In practice the consumer experience usually gets better, not worse, when inference becomes dramatically cheaper. Prime example is $META leaning AMD heavily or currently AMD largest customer. or Grok 2 to Grok 3 heavily used AMD for Inference saving. And most Grok Users reported Groke responses snappier, not slower. 5. What does this mean for potential Revenue? Noted that TSMC is massively ramping 2nm supply for $AMD both MI450 and EPYC. EPYC Conservative projection: FY2025: $10.5B(best Est) FY2026: $16B FY2027: $29B FY2028: $49B FY2029: $75B FY2030: $100B Large customers: $META OpenAI $MSFT $AMZN $GOOGL xAI (Apple?) Smaller customer: $DELL $HPE $SMCI and 42+ other countries. The roadmap to $5 Trillion is very much inevitable as Inference Cost from Renting or owning $NVDA are too high, but $NVDA will still dominate Training market share, where MI families are likely to take 15-20% market share, but the TAM is also expanding Rapidly. Most Institutions are projecting $2-$3Trillion TAM by 2030. $NVDA said $4 Trillion. Dr. Lisa Su said $1 Trillion+ by 2030. So you decide on how much TAM. If you enjoy this kind of analysis, Slap the Like/Repost and Bookmark to please the X Algo as it is Free.99! If you want to support my work further, consider subscribe to see more in-depth analysis! Alright, that is it. Not Financial Advice!

$AMD $5 Trillion MC Is Inevitable Long Term👑 This thread will focus more on Inference! 2026 EPYC "Venice" $TSM 2nm to save Large GW Scale Inference by 40% more than Prior Turin gen. Context: EPYC Turin achieves ~$0.001 per million tokens for batch inference vs $0.02-$0.12/ million tokens as I wrote the thread below. Venice is going to lower cost down to $0.0005-$0.0006/Million Tokens. OpenAI spent roughly $20B on Inference and Training, where 80-90% of that was for Inference per Analysts. AKA Renting Compute is Expensive AF! In this thread, I want to focus on why most analysts and investors are underestimating the role EPYC "Venice" and future Gen on overall Data center revenue. And $TSM ramping up 2nm supply early is a confirmation that AMD will be a major buyer long term. I will also link the thread the Gap between AMD Analysts & Reality and 2nm Ramp Thread so you have more comprehensive view of what I'm writing here. Before I go into detail this is my 2026 Projection: AI GPUs: $35-$50B EPYC Data Center: $15B-$17B Client Segment: $12-$13B Gaming: $6B Embedded: $4B-$5B Total Revenue $70-$100B Non-GAAP net income $18B-$25B Non-GAAP EPS $10.97-$15.40 Foward P/E 55x-70x= $603-$1,078 AMD's Analysts are projecting $0 Revenue for MI450 and sluggish EPYC Growth. Meaning, all analysts are either full of 💩 or Sexist, you decide! Analysts are also projecting 0% growth on AMD "Secret Weapon" Chip as $MSFT said we are at significant Windows refresh and upgrade cycle. Do you think TSMC would allocate more 2nm supply to $AMD at $0 MI450 revenue and sluggish EPYC? 1. EPYC is going to be the leader in lowest Inference! Current Turin cost saving is 95% vs $NVDA or 98-99% on Inference cost when you factor in renting Inference compute from Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, or $NVDA Neocloud pets. TSMC claimed: 10-15% higher performance at iso-power, 25-30% lower power at iso-speed, and ~15% higher transistor density compared to 3nm. This reduces operational expenses (energy, cooling) while increasing throughput per chip. EPYC Turin achieves ~$0.001 per million tokens for batch inference (via vLLM on models like Llama 3 70B), driven by high core counts and low hardware costs. EPYC Venice offers ~1.7x overall performance and up to 70% more compute capability per core, with up to 256 cores (512 threads). Enhanced vector/AI instructions and open-source firmware (openSIL) optimize for inference workloads. AMD Incorporates AI Engines (now part of AMD's XDNA) for on-chip acceleration, improving efficiency for low-latency and edge inference. This reduces reliance on discrete GPUs, lowering system complexity and TCO. Venice SKUs are projected at $3,000-$15,000 ($5,000 for 256-core flagship), far below NVIDIA Rubin ($50,000-$90,000) or AMD's own MI450 GPUs ($40,000-$50,000). High memory bandwidth (up to 1.6 TB/s) supports efficient batch inference. Venice is designed exactly for Large customers that want to lower Inference Cost and MI450 Helios is for Customers that want Training at lowest TCO, TDP as well as lower Upfront 1GW scale(Full build $35-$40B vs $NVDA $55B-$80B). 2. Real World Example: OpenAI's 2025 inference spend reached ~$20B, escalating to even higher total compute rental (mostly inference) amid token volume growth(from video generating). By 2026, with usage doubling (consistent with industry trends: token demand grows 2-5x YoY), assume OpenAI processes ~1,800 billion million-tokens annually $NVDA Blackwell at $0.02-$0.12 is $36B(most optimized) Rubin is projected to be at $0.01/million tokens or $18B annual Inference Cost vs $AMD Venice $0.0005/million tokens or $0.9B annual Inference Cost => Massive saving for OpenAI or anyone that are paying 80-90% Annual Bill for Inference compute. In short, it is unsustainable to pay this much rent vs owning for all current AI players for the medium to long term. Rubin excels in low-latency decode (if Groq integration from $20B deal in 2027-2028), but Venice dominates batch (80% of inference by 2030). Actual savings depend on deployment scale (OpenAI's 6GW AMD plans), electricity rates, and software maturity. If Rubin only hits $0.03, savings swell to $53.1B vs. $17.1B. 3. Will running Inference on Venice and future Gen slow down response generation in 2026 and beyond? Human perception of "fast enough" for chat, agents, search augmentation, summarization, coding assistance is roughly Meaning, EPYC may generate $100B a year on data center revenue, Hence $MSFT $AMZN $META $GOOGL OpenAI xAI and 42+ Countries are leaning AMD for Inference, because the cost saving is MASSIVE! 4. Regular users (you, me, people using ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok, Perplexity...) are extremely unlikely to notice any slowdown and in many cases might even experience slightly faster or more consistent response times if the industry heavily shifts toward AMD EPYC for inference. What actually happens when companies save massively on inference? When OpenAI , Anthropic , Gemini , Grok Meta .... save billions on the batch/enterprise/RAG layer using EPYC Venice, they typically do one or more of these things with the savings, none of which make your chat slower but enhancing their bottom line(Profit) ~Keep prices the same → make more profit ~Lower subscription prices / increase free tier limits ~Train bigger & better models more frequently ~Offer longer context windows ~Add more reasoning steps / tool calls / agents per query ~Improve multimodal capabilities ~Build more data centers / reduce throttling during peaks In practice the consumer experience usually gets better, not worse, when inference becomes dramatically cheaper. Prime example is $META leaning AMD heavily or currently AMD largest customer. or Grok 2 to Grok 3 heavily used AMD for Inference saving. And most Grok Users reported Groke responses snappier, not slower. 5. What does this mean for potential Revenue? Noted that TSMC is massively ramping 2nm supply for $AMD both MI450 and EPYC. EPYC Conservative projection: FY2025: $10.5B(best Est) FY2026: $16B FY2027: $29B FY2028: $49B FY2029: $75B FY2030: $100B Large customers: $META OpenAI $MSFT $AMZN $GOOGL xAI (Apple?) Smaller customer: $DELL $HPE $SMCI and 42+ other countries. The roadmap to $5 Trillion is very much inevitable as Inference Cost from Renting or owning $NVDA are too high, but $NVDA will still dominate Training market share, where MI families are likely to take 15-20% market share, but the TAM is also expanding Rapidly. Most Institutions are projecting $2-$3Trillion TAM by 2030. $NVDA said $4 Trillion. Dr. Lisa Su said $1 Trillion+ by 2030. So you decide on how much TAM. If you enjoy this kind of analysis, Slap the Like/Repost and Bookmark to please the X Algo as it is Free.99! If you want to support my work further, consider subscribe to see more in-depth analysis! Alright, that is it. Not Financial Advice!

Mike

102,223 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

A tricky LLM interview question: You're serving a reasoning model on vLLM, and it keeps running out of GPU memory on long traces. So you add KV cache compression and evict 90% of the cached tokens. VRAM usage stays as is and GPU still runs out of memory. Why? (answer below) Evicting 90% of the KV cache can free almost none of the memory it was using. This sounds counterintuitive, but it follows directly from how production servers store the cache today. The KV cache grows with every token a model generates. Each token appends its key and value vectors across every layer, and nothing is freed while generation continues. This is the dominant memory cost for reasoning models. If a 32K-token CoT caches ~32K tokens of KV vectors, a Qwen3-32B with 4-bit weights will run out-of-memory around 24K tokens on a 24GB GPU. One obvious solution is to keep the important tokens and drop the rest, since attention is sparse enough to allow it. But this does not solve the memory problem yet. The reason is paged attention, which is the memory manager behind vLLM and most production servers. Under the hood, it splits GPU memory into fixed physical blocks, each one holds the KV for about 16 tokens. This block returns to the allocator only when every slot inside it is empty. Since the eviction logic selects tokens by importance, and such tokens are scattered across blocks... ...so despite eviction, almost every block is left with at least some survivor tokens. For instance, if the logic evicts 14k of 16k tokens across 1,000 blocks, most likely every block will still have a token. This means the allocator frees almost nothing. Placing the new tokens into those freed slots is not ideal because it breaks the cache's layout. Say token 16,001 arrives, and it's placed in the slot the 40th token used to hold. The cache now reads position 38, then 16,001, then 41, so the cache is no longer in token order. Attention can still compute the right answer from that, but only if every slot now carries a separate note recording which position it actually holds. This introduces another bookkeeping cost that an in-order layout inherently avoids. So the cache is logically 90% smaller and still physically the same size. Many compression results miss this because they measure on pre-allocated contiguous tensors rather than a paged server. There's another problem. Eviction methods pick which tokens to keep by looking at the attention scores themselves (as expected). But fast attention kernels used in production, like FlashAttention, never save those scores. They compute attention in small pieces and throw the full score grid away as they go, which is also why they're fast. So the exact signal eviction methods need isn't available in memory. The workaround is to fall back to eager attention and build the full matrix, which gives up the speed FlashAttention was there to provide. NVIDIA published a method called TriAttention to solve both these problems. It never needs attention scores. Instead, it scores tokens from the geometry of the model's key and query vectors before RoPE is applied, where those vectors sit in stable clusters. For the memory problem, it runs a compaction pass every 128 decoded tokens. The surviving tokens slide forward to close the holes eviction creates, so whole blocks empty out and return to the allocator while the cache stays in token order. On long reasoning traces, the approach matches full-attention accuracy while decoding 2.5x faster and using 10.7x less KV memory. KV cache compression is a big infrastructure problem. The number that decides whether it works is the count of freed blocks, not the count of evicted tokens. You can find the NVIDIA write-up here: I wrote a first-principles breakdown of how the KV cache works. It walks through why the model stores keys and values at all, why the cache grows with every token, and a comparison of LLM generation speed with and without KV caching. Read it below.

A tricky LLM interview question: You're serving a reasoning model on vLLM, and it keeps running out of GPU memory on long traces. So you add KV cache compression and evict 90% of the cached tokens. VRAM usage stays as is and GPU still runs out of memory. Why? (answer below) Evicting 90% of the KV cache can free almost none of the memory it was using. This sounds counterintuitive, but it follows directly from how production servers store the cache today. The KV cache grows with every token a model generates. Each token appends its key and value vectors across every layer, and nothing is freed while generation continues. This is the dominant memory cost for reasoning models. If a 32K-token CoT caches ~32K tokens of KV vectors, a Qwen3-32B with 4-bit weights will run out-of-memory around 24K tokens on a 24GB GPU. One obvious solution is to keep the important tokens and drop the rest, since attention is sparse enough to allow it. But this does not solve the memory problem yet. The reason is paged attention, which is the memory manager behind vLLM and most production servers. Under the hood, it splits GPU memory into fixed physical blocks, each one holds the KV for about 16 tokens. This block returns to the allocator only when every slot inside it is empty. Since the eviction logic selects tokens by importance, and such tokens are scattered across blocks... ...so despite eviction, almost every block is left with at least some survivor tokens. For instance, if the logic evicts 14k of 16k tokens across 1,000 blocks, most likely every block will still have a token. This means the allocator frees almost nothing. Placing the new tokens into those freed slots is not ideal because it breaks the cache's layout. Say token 16,001 arrives, and it's placed in the slot the 40th token used to hold. The cache now reads position 38, then 16,001, then 41, so the cache is no longer in token order. Attention can still compute the right answer from that, but only if every slot now carries a separate note recording which position it actually holds. This introduces another bookkeeping cost that an in-order layout inherently avoids. So the cache is logically 90% smaller and still physically the same size. Many compression results miss this because they measure on pre-allocated contiguous tensors rather than a paged server. There's another problem. Eviction methods pick which tokens to keep by looking at the attention scores themselves (as expected). But fast attention kernels used in production, like FlashAttention, never save those scores. They compute attention in small pieces and throw the full score grid away as they go, which is also why they're fast. So the exact signal eviction methods need isn't available in memory. The workaround is to fall back to eager attention and build the full matrix, which gives up the speed FlashAttention was there to provide. NVIDIA published a method called TriAttention to solve both these problems. It never needs attention scores. Instead, it scores tokens from the geometry of the model's key and query vectors before RoPE is applied, where those vectors sit in stable clusters. For the memory problem, it runs a compaction pass every 128 decoded tokens. The surviving tokens slide forward to close the holes eviction creates, so whole blocks empty out and return to the allocator while the cache stays in token order. On long reasoning traces, the approach matches full-attention accuracy while decoding 2.5x faster and using 10.7x less KV memory. KV cache compression is a big infrastructure problem. The number that decides whether it works is the count of freed blocks, not the count of evicted tokens. You can find the NVIDIA write-up here: I wrote a first-principles breakdown of how the KV cache works. It walks through why the model stores keys and values at all, why the cache grows with every token, and a comparison of LLM generation speed with and without KV caching. Read it below.

Avi Chawla

273,791 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

$AMD| The FOMO to buy AMD Chips is NOW 🧵 Not Financial Advice! DYOR! Research Purpose Only! The Inference Queen is the biggest winner in Agentic AI where all other CPUs are struggling to compete with a 2yr old EPYC Turin and EPYC Venice is in mass production phase. AMD stresses deployability today on standard x86 platforms (no proprietary architectures required), full software compatibility, and open standards. This positions Venice + Helios as a practical, high-density alternative to competing solutions while underscoring that agentic AI shifts the balance toward CPU-rich racks alongside GPUs, and most importantly, lowering the cost of token to accelerate adoption and innovation. Context: The Wall Street Journal yesterday came out with an article that OpenAI is condiering drasstically lowering the token prices to win more customers from Anthropic. The narrative "they" are trying to exacerbate the current AI selloff won't last long. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what is going on, or what I already discussed for months and years. Followers and Subscribers already knew this for years, that this day would come, where token cost will bcome the central discussion among enterprises as there is no such thing as unlimited budget or Tokenmaxxing when they use $NVDA chips or In-house Hyperscalers chips. I will link various threads if you are interested in understanding the full picture from supply chain to recent TSMC Rapid 2nm expansion up to 12 Fabs total by 2027/2028. Hyperscalers and AI natives effectively have no choice but to buy more AMD system for Agentic AI as leadership in economical, power-aware, high-volume internal + agentic use. However, due to supply constraints where Supply is far behind Demand, this makes multi-vendor reality along with in-house chips drive faster industry progress, lower overall costs, and better sustainability. NVIDIA’s Vera Rubin cannot compete with a 2 years old EPYC Turin, but AMD under Dr. Lisa Su has engineered the lowest cost-per-million-tokens, highly competitive energy-efficient solutions, and superior CPU orchestration for agentic AI at scale with Helios. Dr. Su has championed this shift since at least 2023, foreseeing the rise of agentic workflows that demand far more orchestration, parallel agents, and balanced compute well before the industry fully embraced it. Her long-term vision of AI moving from simple prompts to always on, multi-agent systems has driven AMD’s investments in high-core EPYC CPUs and integrated rack-scale solutions, perfectly positioning the company for today’s realities. The OpenAI-AMD 1GW Helios deployment (starting H2 2026) represents a pivotal vertical integration move that directly supercharges the inference economics. This isn't incremental; it's a structural shift toward ownership of massive, optimized rack-scale capacity, enabling the lowest token costs and triggering the enterprise adoption flywheel. We need to be honest, $AMD is the only company that made a big bet on Inference since the day Chatgpt became sensational where $NVDA and others were betting big on Training. At the end of the day, Token bill from Anthropic has to obey economics. Meaning the bills rise, companies have to get more out of it to justify the cost. It cannot be an unlimited inference budget, and it has to show up on efficiency, profitability and operating leverage. 1. Tokenomics After you understand this, you will understand why Citi cited Anthropic is likely to sign a deal with $AMD along with Hyperscalers, AI Labs, Sovereign AI like Softbank 5GW in France and many other countries. However, OpenAI and $META are now wanting faster deployment, and they are AMD shareholders now, they have prioritized allocation. Anthropic and Hyperscalers just cannot compete when Helios Rack lower token cost to$0.0003–$0.0005 per million tokens at GW scale. Cost to build 1GW data center 1GW Helios Rack full build is estimated $30-$35B 1GW Rubin Rack full build is estimated $45-$55B Inference (Cost per Million Tokens) ~$NVDA B200 / HGX: ~$0.02–$0.08 on optimized workloads (FP4/MXFP4, speculative decoding). Significant improvement over Hopper but still premium-priced. GB200 NVL72 rack-scale: $0.05–$0.25+ ~$AMD Helios Racks: $0.0003-$0.0005 per M tokens, dramatically lower than NVIDIA equivalents in owned infra. MI355X node-level: Up to 40% more tokens per dollar vs. competing solutions ( B200), driven by higher memory capacity (up to 288GB+ HBM), strong bandwidth, and lower acquisition costs. Training ~$NVDA Rubin Rack is estimated $0.7-$1.2/M Tokens ~$AMD Helios Rack is estimated $0.65-$1.0/M Tokens Now, OpenAI, META and Hyperscalers can lower Inference cost even further with $AMD EPYC Venice "dense rack" or Agentic AI Rack. AMD published a detailed technical blog emphasizing that the future of agentic AI autonomous, multi-step AI systems requiring heavy orchestration, databases, caching, APIs, and control planes demands massive CPU-dense rack-scale infrastructure, not just GPUs. The catalyst prominently positions their upcoming 6th Gen EPYC "Venice" processors as the key enabler for next-generation dense racks, delivering leadership throughput under real-world power, cooling, and density constraints. ~EPYC Venice (Zen 6 architecture, up to 256 cores / 512 threads per socket) is projected to deliver exceptional rack-level performance. In AMD’s modeled 100 kW rack comparisons, Venice-powered systems are expected to achieve ~3.30x the throughput of NVIDIA’s Vera (88-core Olympus) baseline across a broad mix of agentic-supporting workloads. ~This builds on current-generation 5th Gen EPYC "Turin" (up to 192 cores), which already delivers ~2.37x rack throughput vs. Vera and ~1.6x vs. Intel’s Xeon 6980P (128 cores). ~ Liquid-cooled Turin deployments already support >27,000 CPU cores per rack today. Venice is architected to push this beyond 36,000 cores in the same rack class, dramatically increasing concurrent agent capacity and overall infrastructure efficiency. 2. Ownership vs renting compute from Hyperscalers matter to OpenAI and only owning $AMD chips can meaningfully lower token cost for enterprises. ~Eliminates cloud overhead: No provider margins, utilization buffers, or egress fees. Direct control over power contracts, cooling, scheduling, and orchestration at dedicated facilities. ~Helios optimizations at GW scale: Rack-level density (1.4+ exaFLOPS FP8 per rack), high HBM4 bandwidth, EPYC orchestration for agentic workloads, and superior TCO/TDP. AMD's long-standing focus on tokens per dollar/watt shines here 20-40%+ efficiency edges in inference-heavy scenarios. ~At 1GW+ optimized deployment, inference hits $0.0003–$0.0005 per million tokens (community/analyst models tied to Helios metrics). This is dramatically lower than typical rented/cloud equivalents, especially for high-volume output tokens in agentic flows. High token bills today, enterprises running heavy agentic/coding/analysis workloads can face $50-100M+/month at current API rates (flagship models $5-30+/M output, scaled to massive volumes). Post-Helios compression, same volume will drop to $10-15M/month (or better) via lower underlying costs passed through as pricing flexibility, volume tiers, caching, or batch discounts. ROI thresholds collapse. More companies greenlight pilots → production → massive scaling. Agentic AI (autonomous workflows) multiplies token demand exponentially, but affordability removes the friction. OpenAI gains flexibility, Unlike more cloud-dependent rivals (Anthropic), they can lower effective pricing, offer aggressive enterprise bundles, or absorb volume without margin destruction directly tackling "high token bill" complaints while maintaining profitability as usage explodes. 3. Agentic AI Models shifted CPU:GPU Ratio to 1:1 toward 3-5:1 with Explosively Token-Hungry Workloads Agentic AI (autonomous, multi-step agents with planning, tool use, iteration, and self-correction) is fundamentally more compute and token intensive than conversational or single-turn generative AI. Agentic AI. autonomous, multi-step workflows with orchestration, tool use, parallel agents, data movement, and enterprise integration has dramatically increased the importance of strong host CPUs alongside GPUs. This shifts the CPU-to-GPU ratio higher and makes balanced systems critical toward 1:1 to 5:1 as enterprises testing more than 5-10 agents. AMD EPYC Venice excels ~Leadership core density (up to 256 Zen 6 cores per socket) for running many agents in parallel, orchestration layers, and high-throughput control-plane tasks. ~Superior performance-per-core and power efficiency ( up to 2.1x higher perf/core and 2.26x better SPECpower vs. NVIDIA Grace in benchmarks). ~Tight integration in Helios: One Venice CPU + multiple MI450 GPUs per node, enabling efficient data feeding to GPUs ("zero-copy"), parallel execution, and full rack utilization for complex agentic loops. Hyperscalers (Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Softbank) and AI natives (OpenAI, Anthropic...) are adopting high-core EPYC at scale specifically for these agentic demands, as CPUs now handle a larger share of non-model work (orchestration, policy enforcement, tool calls). This complements AMD’s lower-cost GPUs for overall TCO wins. ~Agents often generate 10–100x+ more tokens per task due to iterative reasoning chains, multiple tool calls, verification loops, and long-context orchestration. ~Goldman Sachs forecasts token consumption multiplying 24x by 2030 (to 120 quadrillion tokens/month) largely driven by agentic adoption in consumer and enterprise. ~Enterprise data shows agent-pattern workloads growing at 680% annualized rates, projected to surpass conversational AI in token volume by Q3 2026. ~Daily enterprise agent token consumption is already in the billions, with complex workflows (coding, workflows, analysis) amplifying this dramatically. 4. Competitive Edge: Winning Customers from Anthropic Anthropic’s Claude models (especially Opus/Sonnet) excel in complex reasoning and agentic coding, commanding premium positioning. However, their higher underlying costs (heavier reliance on third-party cloud with margins) limit pricing flexibility compared to OpenAI’s owned Helios capacity. Anthropic is on track to generate $10.9 billion in Q2 revenue. The company expects to achieve its first-ever quarterly adjusted operating profit of $559 million. However, sustaining full-year profitability remains challenging due to immense computing and model training costs The truth is, Anthropic has no choice but to buy as much $AMD chips as possible if they want to compete with OpenAI or get investors attention. This 5% adjusted operating profit to revenue ratio is just pathetic. Current pricing dynamics (2026): OpenAI already undercuts on many tiers ( flagship output tokens significantly cheaper than equivalent Claude Opus). Nano/mini models offer 5–10x advantages for volume work. Anthropic holds edges in long-context flat pricing and certain reasoning quality. OpenAI after Helios Rack Ownership, At $0.0003–$0.0005/M effective costs, OpenAI gains massive headroom to: ~Aggressively discount high-volume agentic tiers or bundles. ~Offer “unlimited” enterprise plans or usage-based models that Anthropic struggles to match without margin erosion. ~Target cost-sensitive, high-throughput agent deployments (dev tools, automation platforms) where token bills explode. Enterprises facing $ millions in monthly agentic bills will migrate to the provider delivering better economics at scale. OpenAI’s combination of strong models (o-series reasoning) + lowest TCO positions it to erode Anthropic’s enterprise share, especially as agentic becomes the dominant token consumer. Cheaper tokens expand the total addressable market dramatically. This feeds the data/model improvement loop, justifying further capex. AMD benefits from proven scale pulling in more customers (Meta, Oracle, Microsfot, Amazon, Softbank, TensorWave, LumaAI ... already aligned on Helios). Conclusion: Dr. Lisa Su has been laser focused on inference economics since at least 2022–2023, repeatedly emphasizing that the real battleground for AI scalability would be TCO, power efficiency (TDP), and ultimately tokens per dollar and per watt not just raw training FLOPS. While many viewed inference as a secondary, commoditized workload, Dr. Su architected AMD’s roadmap around rack-scale systems optimized for high-volume, sustained inference that would dominate as models matured and usage exploded. Helios represents the culmination of that multi-year bet: a fully integrated, open platform designed precisely for the economics of massive token throughput. This deep, strategic partnership with OpenAI starting with the 1GW Helios deployment in H2 2026 and scaling to 6GW, is the embodiment of that shared vision. Both companies foresaw a future where agentic AI models evolve to become extraordinarily token-hungry: autonomous agents executing complex, iterative workflows with planning, tool use, verification loops, and long-context reasoning. These workloads can consume 100x+ more tokens per task than traditional chat or single-turn generation, driving exponential demand as capabilities improve and enterprises deploy them at scale. By owning and optimizing this massive Helios capacity at GW scale, OpenAI achieves inference costs as low as $0.0003–$0.0005 per million tokens. This structural cost advantage allows OpenAI to absorb the coming token explosion profitably, dramatically lower effective pricing for enterprises, and win high-volume agentic workloads from higher-cost competitors like Anthropic. What was once a prohibitive monthly token bill becomes an affordable accelerator for productivity and innovation. The OpenAI-AMD alliance validates Dr. Su’s prescient strategy and turns the Agentic flywheel into reality: Collapsing inference costs → explosive token consumption → richer data and better models → accelerate greater demand. This partnership doesn’t just address today’s economics, it positions both leaders at the center of the infrastructure buildout that will power AI’s next decade. By delivering the lowest inference economics at scale, OpenAI not only solves enterprise bill pain but gains a decisive weapon to win share from higher-cost rivals like Anthropic. And that is why OpenAI and $META will deploy EPYC Dense Rack Not Financial Advice! DYOR! Research Purpose Only!

$AMD| The FOMO to buy AMD Chips is NOW 🧵 Not Financial Advice! DYOR! Research Purpose Only! The Inference Queen is the biggest winner in Agentic AI where all other CPUs are struggling to compete with a 2yr old EPYC Turin and EPYC Venice is in mass production phase. AMD stresses deployability today on standard x86 platforms (no proprietary architectures required), full software compatibility, and open standards. This positions Venice + Helios as a practical, high-density alternative to competing solutions while underscoring that agentic AI shifts the balance toward CPU-rich racks alongside GPUs, and most importantly, lowering the cost of token to accelerate adoption and innovation. Context: The Wall Street Journal yesterday came out with an article that OpenAI is condiering drasstically lowering the token prices to win more customers from Anthropic. The narrative "they" are trying to exacerbate the current AI selloff won't last long. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what is going on, or what I already discussed for months and years. Followers and Subscribers already knew this for years, that this day would come, where token cost will bcome the central discussion among enterprises as there is no such thing as unlimited budget or Tokenmaxxing when they use $NVDA chips or In-house Hyperscalers chips. I will link various threads if you are interested in understanding the full picture from supply chain to recent TSMC Rapid 2nm expansion up to 12 Fabs total by 2027/2028. Hyperscalers and AI natives effectively have no choice but to buy more AMD system for Agentic AI as leadership in economical, power-aware, high-volume internal + agentic use. However, due to supply constraints where Supply is far behind Demand, this makes multi-vendor reality along with in-house chips drive faster industry progress, lower overall costs, and better sustainability. NVIDIA’s Vera Rubin cannot compete with a 2 years old EPYC Turin, but AMD under Dr. Lisa Su has engineered the lowest cost-per-million-tokens, highly competitive energy-efficient solutions, and superior CPU orchestration for agentic AI at scale with Helios. Dr. Su has championed this shift since at least 2023, foreseeing the rise of agentic workflows that demand far more orchestration, parallel agents, and balanced compute well before the industry fully embraced it. Her long-term vision of AI moving from simple prompts to always on, multi-agent systems has driven AMD’s investments in high-core EPYC CPUs and integrated rack-scale solutions, perfectly positioning the company for today’s realities. The OpenAI-AMD 1GW Helios deployment (starting H2 2026) represents a pivotal vertical integration move that directly supercharges the inference economics. This isn't incremental; it's a structural shift toward ownership of massive, optimized rack-scale capacity, enabling the lowest token costs and triggering the enterprise adoption flywheel. We need to be honest, $AMD is the only company that made a big bet on Inference since the day Chatgpt became sensational where $NVDA and others were betting big on Training. At the end of the day, Token bill from Anthropic has to obey economics. Meaning the bills rise, companies have to get more out of it to justify the cost. It cannot be an unlimited inference budget, and it has to show up on efficiency, profitability and operating leverage. 1. Tokenomics After you understand this, you will understand why Citi cited Anthropic is likely to sign a deal with $AMD along with Hyperscalers, AI Labs, Sovereign AI like Softbank 5GW in France and many other countries. However, OpenAI and $META are now wanting faster deployment, and they are AMD shareholders now, they have prioritized allocation. Anthropic and Hyperscalers just cannot compete when Helios Rack lower token cost to$0.0003–$0.0005 per million tokens at GW scale. Cost to build 1GW data center 1GW Helios Rack full build is estimated $30-$35B 1GW Rubin Rack full build is estimated $45-$55B Inference (Cost per Million Tokens) ~$NVDA B200 / HGX: ~$0.02–$0.08 on optimized workloads (FP4/MXFP4, speculative decoding). Significant improvement over Hopper but still premium-priced. GB200 NVL72 rack-scale: $0.05–$0.25+ ~$AMD Helios Racks: $0.0003-$0.0005 per M tokens, dramatically lower than NVIDIA equivalents in owned infra. MI355X node-level: Up to 40% more tokens per dollar vs. competing solutions ( B200), driven by higher memory capacity (up to 288GB+ HBM), strong bandwidth, and lower acquisition costs. Training ~$NVDA Rubin Rack is estimated $0.7-$1.2/M Tokens ~$AMD Helios Rack is estimated $0.65-$1.0/M Tokens Now, OpenAI, META and Hyperscalers can lower Inference cost even further with $AMD EPYC Venice "dense rack" or Agentic AI Rack. AMD published a detailed technical blog emphasizing that the future of agentic AI autonomous, multi-step AI systems requiring heavy orchestration, databases, caching, APIs, and control planes demands massive CPU-dense rack-scale infrastructure, not just GPUs. The catalyst prominently positions their upcoming 6th Gen EPYC "Venice" processors as the key enabler for next-generation dense racks, delivering leadership throughput under real-world power, cooling, and density constraints. ~EPYC Venice (Zen 6 architecture, up to 256 cores / 512 threads per socket) is projected to deliver exceptional rack-level performance. In AMD’s modeled 100 kW rack comparisons, Venice-powered systems are expected to achieve ~3.30x the throughput of NVIDIA’s Vera (88-core Olympus) baseline across a broad mix of agentic-supporting workloads. ~This builds on current-generation 5th Gen EPYC "Turin" (up to 192 cores), which already delivers ~2.37x rack throughput vs. Vera and ~1.6x vs. Intel’s Xeon 6980P (128 cores). ~ Liquid-cooled Turin deployments already support >27,000 CPU cores per rack today. Venice is architected to push this beyond 36,000 cores in the same rack class, dramatically increasing concurrent agent capacity and overall infrastructure efficiency. 2. Ownership vs renting compute from Hyperscalers matter to OpenAI and only owning $AMD chips can meaningfully lower token cost for enterprises. ~Eliminates cloud overhead: No provider margins, utilization buffers, or egress fees. Direct control over power contracts, cooling, scheduling, and orchestration at dedicated facilities. ~Helios optimizations at GW scale: Rack-level density (1.4+ exaFLOPS FP8 per rack), high HBM4 bandwidth, EPYC orchestration for agentic workloads, and superior TCO/TDP. AMD's long-standing focus on tokens per dollar/watt shines here 20-40%+ efficiency edges in inference-heavy scenarios. ~At 1GW+ optimized deployment, inference hits $0.0003–$0.0005 per million tokens (community/analyst models tied to Helios metrics). This is dramatically lower than typical rented/cloud equivalents, especially for high-volume output tokens in agentic flows. High token bills today, enterprises running heavy agentic/coding/analysis workloads can face $50-100M+/month at current API rates (flagship models $5-30+/M output, scaled to massive volumes). Post-Helios compression, same volume will drop to $10-15M/month (or better) via lower underlying costs passed through as pricing flexibility, volume tiers, caching, or batch discounts. ROI thresholds collapse. More companies greenlight pilots → production → massive scaling. Agentic AI (autonomous workflows) multiplies token demand exponentially, but affordability removes the friction. OpenAI gains flexibility, Unlike more cloud-dependent rivals (Anthropic), they can lower effective pricing, offer aggressive enterprise bundles, or absorb volume without margin destruction directly tackling "high token bill" complaints while maintaining profitability as usage explodes. 3. Agentic AI Models shifted CPU:GPU Ratio to 1:1 toward 3-5:1 with Explosively Token-Hungry Workloads Agentic AI (autonomous, multi-step agents with planning, tool use, iteration, and self-correction) is fundamentally more compute and token intensive than conversational or single-turn generative AI. Agentic AI. autonomous, multi-step workflows with orchestration, tool use, parallel agents, data movement, and enterprise integration has dramatically increased the importance of strong host CPUs alongside GPUs. This shifts the CPU-to-GPU ratio higher and makes balanced systems critical toward 1:1 to 5:1 as enterprises testing more than 5-10 agents. AMD EPYC Venice excels ~Leadership core density (up to 256 Zen 6 cores per socket) for running many agents in parallel, orchestration layers, and high-throughput control-plane tasks. ~Superior performance-per-core and power efficiency ( up to 2.1x higher perf/core and 2.26x better SPECpower vs. NVIDIA Grace in benchmarks). ~Tight integration in Helios: One Venice CPU + multiple MI450 GPUs per node, enabling efficient data feeding to GPUs ("zero-copy"), parallel execution, and full rack utilization for complex agentic loops. Hyperscalers (Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Softbank) and AI natives (OpenAI, Anthropic...) are adopting high-core EPYC at scale specifically for these agentic demands, as CPUs now handle a larger share of non-model work (orchestration, policy enforcement, tool calls). This complements AMD’s lower-cost GPUs for overall TCO wins. ~Agents often generate 10–100x+ more tokens per task due to iterative reasoning chains, multiple tool calls, verification loops, and long-context orchestration. ~Goldman Sachs forecasts token consumption multiplying 24x by 2030 (to 120 quadrillion tokens/month) largely driven by agentic adoption in consumer and enterprise. ~Enterprise data shows agent-pattern workloads growing at 680% annualized rates, projected to surpass conversational AI in token volume by Q3 2026. ~Daily enterprise agent token consumption is already in the billions, with complex workflows (coding, workflows, analysis) amplifying this dramatically. 4. Competitive Edge: Winning Customers from Anthropic Anthropic’s Claude models (especially Opus/Sonnet) excel in complex reasoning and agentic coding, commanding premium positioning. However, their higher underlying costs (heavier reliance on third-party cloud with margins) limit pricing flexibility compared to OpenAI’s owned Helios capacity. Anthropic is on track to generate $10.9 billion in Q2 revenue. The company expects to achieve its first-ever quarterly adjusted operating profit of $559 million. However, sustaining full-year profitability remains challenging due to immense computing and model training costs The truth is, Anthropic has no choice but to buy as much $AMD chips as possible if they want to compete with OpenAI or get investors attention. This 5% adjusted operating profit to revenue ratio is just pathetic. Current pricing dynamics (2026): OpenAI already undercuts on many tiers ( flagship output tokens significantly cheaper than equivalent Claude Opus). Nano/mini models offer 5–10x advantages for volume work. Anthropic holds edges in long-context flat pricing and certain reasoning quality. OpenAI after Helios Rack Ownership, At $0.0003–$0.0005/M effective costs, OpenAI gains massive headroom to: ~Aggressively discount high-volume agentic tiers or bundles. ~Offer “unlimited” enterprise plans or usage-based models that Anthropic struggles to match without margin erosion. ~Target cost-sensitive, high-throughput agent deployments (dev tools, automation platforms) where token bills explode. Enterprises facing $ millions in monthly agentic bills will migrate to the provider delivering better economics at scale. OpenAI’s combination of strong models (o-series reasoning) + lowest TCO positions it to erode Anthropic’s enterprise share, especially as agentic becomes the dominant token consumer. Cheaper tokens expand the total addressable market dramatically. This feeds the data/model improvement loop, justifying further capex. AMD benefits from proven scale pulling in more customers (Meta, Oracle, Microsfot, Amazon, Softbank, TensorWave, LumaAI ... already aligned on Helios). Conclusion: Dr. Lisa Su has been laser focused on inference economics since at least 2022–2023, repeatedly emphasizing that the real battleground for AI scalability would be TCO, power efficiency (TDP), and ultimately tokens per dollar and per watt not just raw training FLOPS. While many viewed inference as a secondary, commoditized workload, Dr. Su architected AMD’s roadmap around rack-scale systems optimized for high-volume, sustained inference that would dominate as models matured and usage exploded. Helios represents the culmination of that multi-year bet: a fully integrated, open platform designed precisely for the economics of massive token throughput. This deep, strategic partnership with OpenAI starting with the 1GW Helios deployment in H2 2026 and scaling to 6GW, is the embodiment of that shared vision. Both companies foresaw a future where agentic AI models evolve to become extraordinarily token-hungry: autonomous agents executing complex, iterative workflows with planning, tool use, verification loops, and long-context reasoning. These workloads can consume 100x+ more tokens per task than traditional chat or single-turn generation, driving exponential demand as capabilities improve and enterprises deploy them at scale. By owning and optimizing this massive Helios capacity at GW scale, OpenAI achieves inference costs as low as $0.0003–$0.0005 per million tokens. This structural cost advantage allows OpenAI to absorb the coming token explosion profitably, dramatically lower effective pricing for enterprises, and win high-volume agentic workloads from higher-cost competitors like Anthropic. What was once a prohibitive monthly token bill becomes an affordable accelerator for productivity and innovation. The OpenAI-AMD alliance validates Dr. Su’s prescient strategy and turns the Agentic flywheel into reality: Collapsing inference costs → explosive token consumption → richer data and better models → accelerate greater demand. This partnership doesn’t just address today’s economics, it positions both leaders at the center of the infrastructure buildout that will power AI’s next decade. By delivering the lowest inference economics at scale, OpenAI not only solves enterprise bill pain but gains a decisive weapon to win share from higher-cost rivals like Anthropic. And that is why OpenAI and $META will deploy EPYC Dense Rack Not Financial Advice! DYOR! Research Purpose Only!

Mike

84,951 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

$AMD $620/share is too conservative for 2026 🧵 Some quick facts before I dive into this super long thread: $META allocated 42% GPUs to $AMD and 58% to $NVDA OpenAI allocated 6GW(38%) to $AMD and 10GW to $NVDA My $620 PT below by end of 2026 was only for 10-15% market share. I believe $AMD is going to have much much higher market share than I projected. The AI accelerator market is exploding, projected to reach $500 billion by 2028(is now heading $1Tril), driven by insatiable demand for training and inference compute in large language models (LLMs), recommendation systems, and autonomous systems. Nvidia ($NVDA) has long held a stranglehold, commanding over 90% market share through its CUDA ecosystem and superior rack-scale solutions. However, AMD is mounting a formidable challenge, leveraging cost advantages, open-source software momentum, and hyperscaler partnerships to erode Nvidia's moat. Recent deals—such as Meta's ($META) allocation of 42% of its GPU capacity to AMD and OpenAI's commitment to 6GW of AMD compute (versus 10GW for Nvidia)—signal a tipping point. At the forefront is AMD's Instinct MI450 series, a next-generation AI GPU slated for H2 2026 launch, which promises "no-excuses" leadership in training, inference, and distributed workloads. This analysis dissects how AMD will capture more market share and why hyperscalers like $Meta , xAI , Oracle , and others are poised to become voracious buyers of the MI450. AMD's AI GPU revenue has surged from negligible levels in 2022 to an estimated $4-5 billion in 2025, capturing ~6% of the data center GPU market. This growth stems from the Instinct MI300X, which offers 141GB of HBM3 memory and competitive FP8/FP16 performance at 20-30% lower cost than Nvidia's H100. Hyperscalers, facing NVIDIA 's overcharging, have turned to AMD for diversification. Meta, for instance, plans 600,000 H100-equivalent GPUs by end-2024, with ~42% (or 250,000+ units) sourced from AMD's MI300 series for inference tasks like image editing and AI assistants. Similarly, OpenAI's recent multi-year deal commits to 6GW of AMD compute—equivalent to ~300,000-400,000 MI450 GPUs—starting with 1GW in 2026, explicitly to counterbalance its 10GW Nvidia allocation. These aren't one-offs. Microsoft Azure, Amazon AWS, and Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI) have integrated MI300X for AI workloads, with Oracle deploying 30,000 MI355X units in zettascale clusters. xAI, Elon Musk Musk's AI venture, ran 30% of Grok-1's production traffic on MI300X GPUs and has confirmed ongoing purchases. Collectively, these partners represent over $400 billion in projected AI infrastructure spend through 2028, with AMD targeting up to 40% market share. For those that subscribed, I wrote a specific thread on how AMD "secret weapon" is going to change the game in 2026 with an improved designs on all its products, yes AMD has patent on it. Software is the linchpin. AMD's ROCm platform, once derided as "half-baked," now supports day-zero integration for Llama-4, DeepSeek V3, and GPT-OSS models—closing the CUDA gap. Benchmarks show MI355X (MI450 precursor) outperforming Nvidia's B200 in inference by 1.5-2x on memory-bound tasks, at 25-35% lower TCO. For training, MI450's rack-scale IF128 configuration (128 GPUs, 1.4 PB/s intra-rack bandwidth) rivals Nvidia's VR200 NVL144, enabling clusters like xAI's Colossus (scaling to 1M GPUs). My below thread projected Etimated conservative FY 25 revenue: $34-$36B Estimated conservative FY 26 revenue: $55B-$62B Below is why $AMD is revenue is going to be much higher after OpenAI deal. 1. OpenAI 1GW in 2026. With high demand for MI355X at $30,000k+ per unit, with MI450 is likely to be sold in the $45k-$55k. We can safely calcuate 1GW would require roughly 400,000 MI450 GPUs. or Roughly ~$20B revenue in 2026 alone from OpenAI. That would mean $AMD would hit $56B just from one partnership(OpenAI) in 2026 2. $META, the biggest spender on AI Infrastructure right now, Daddy Zuckerberg bought 250,000+ MI300, and is buying MI355X for recommendation engines and Llama training. It is very unlikely for Daddy Zuck to slow down AMD Chips, due to its Inference superiority to NVDA Chips. Most likely we will see at least 300,000-400,000 MI355X ordered from now toward end of H1 2025. And another 300,000-500,000 MI450 by H2 2025. Or ~$20B from just Meta in H2 alone, excluded H1. 3. xAI : Musk confirmed "AMD GPUs work very well" for Grok's small/medium models, with 30% of Grok-1 on MI300X. xAI's Colossus (200K+ GPUs, targeting 1M) and Oracle partnership (via OCI's MI355X cluster) position it for MI450 trials in H1 2026. With $6B funding and Grok integration into Oracle services, xAI could allocate 10-20% ($10B-$15B) to MI450 for distributed inference. We haven't heard the detail from Daddy Elon Musk yet, but most likely not going to be spending less than OpenAI or Sam Altman 4. Oracle ($ORCL): A multi-billion-dollar MI355X deal powers OCI's AI superclusters, with $500B+ remaining performance obligations. Larry Ellison's zettascale ambitions and xAI/OpenAI integrations make Oracle a MI450 anchor tenant—projected 50-100k units ($15B+ spend) for enterprise AI platforms. $ORCL is likely to spend more on the new "secret weapon" due to its capability in AI inference and cost advantage for $500B backlog. 5. Others ( Microsoft , Amazon , Saudi+other countries): Microsoft (Azure MI300X for training) and Amazon ($148B 15-year spend) test MI450 via Stargate ($500B with Oracle/SoftBank). Emerging buyers like G42 (5GW UAE campus), Crusoe, and Hot Aisle add 5-10GW demand. These potentially would add $15B-$30B in 2026 alone. We also need to factor in $TSM supply constraint( $NVDA is TSMC favorite), so $AMD market cap/growth is being tamed by TSMC. So what are you saying Mike, well $AMD 2026 revenue could hit $90-$100B by end of 2026 or nearly 185% growth YoYo. So what does that mean for valuation? I have no idea how Mr. Market gonna value AMD in 2026 with 3 digits growth. My Conservative $620 was my best projection until today with OpenAI partnership. I'm telling you as one of the biggest AMD bull, that I will leave it to "smart money" and other investors to do the price discovery while I'm chilling and writing DDs daily. Lastly, AMD's MI450 isn't hype—it's a calibrated strike at Nvidia's vulnerabilities, amplified by hyperscaler bets like Meta's 42% allocation and OpenAI's 6GW lifeline. By prioritizing inference efficiency, rack-scale innovation, and open ecosystems, AMD will siphon 10-15% share in 2026, scaling to 20%+ as TCO trumps CUDA loyalty. Meta, xAI, Oracle et al. aren't passive; they're active co-designers, betting billions on MI450 to fuel AGI pursuits without Nvidia's premium. For investors, this is AMD's inflection Per Dr. Lisa Su Not Financial Advice!

$AMD $620/share is too conservative for 2026 🧵 Some quick facts before I dive into this super long thread: $META allocated 42% GPUs to $AMD and 58% to $NVDA OpenAI allocated 6GW(38%) to $AMD and 10GW to $NVDA My $620 PT below by end of 2026 was only for 10-15% market share. I believe $AMD is going to have much much higher market share than I projected. The AI accelerator market is exploding, projected to reach $500 billion by 2028(is now heading $1Tril), driven by insatiable demand for training and inference compute in large language models (LLMs), recommendation systems, and autonomous systems. Nvidia ($NVDA) has long held a stranglehold, commanding over 90% market share through its CUDA ecosystem and superior rack-scale solutions. However, AMD is mounting a formidable challenge, leveraging cost advantages, open-source software momentum, and hyperscaler partnerships to erode Nvidia's moat. Recent deals—such as Meta's ($META) allocation of 42% of its GPU capacity to AMD and OpenAI's commitment to 6GW of AMD compute (versus 10GW for Nvidia)—signal a tipping point. At the forefront is AMD's Instinct MI450 series, a next-generation AI GPU slated for H2 2026 launch, which promises "no-excuses" leadership in training, inference, and distributed workloads. This analysis dissects how AMD will capture more market share and why hyperscalers like $Meta , xAI , Oracle , and others are poised to become voracious buyers of the MI450. AMD's AI GPU revenue has surged from negligible levels in 2022 to an estimated $4-5 billion in 2025, capturing ~6% of the data center GPU market. This growth stems from the Instinct MI300X, which offers 141GB of HBM3 memory and competitive FP8/FP16 performance at 20-30% lower cost than Nvidia's H100. Hyperscalers, facing NVIDIA 's overcharging, have turned to AMD for diversification. Meta, for instance, plans 600,000 H100-equivalent GPUs by end-2024, with ~42% (or 250,000+ units) sourced from AMD's MI300 series for inference tasks like image editing and AI assistants. Similarly, OpenAI's recent multi-year deal commits to 6GW of AMD compute—equivalent to ~300,000-400,000 MI450 GPUs—starting with 1GW in 2026, explicitly to counterbalance its 10GW Nvidia allocation. These aren't one-offs. Microsoft Azure, Amazon AWS, and Oracle Cloud Infrastructure (OCI) have integrated MI300X for AI workloads, with Oracle deploying 30,000 MI355X units in zettascale clusters. xAI, Elon Musk Musk's AI venture, ran 30% of Grok-1's production traffic on MI300X GPUs and has confirmed ongoing purchases. Collectively, these partners represent over $400 billion in projected AI infrastructure spend through 2028, with AMD targeting up to 40% market share. For those that subscribed, I wrote a specific thread on how AMD "secret weapon" is going to change the game in 2026 with an improved designs on all its products, yes AMD has patent on it. Software is the linchpin. AMD's ROCm platform, once derided as "half-baked," now supports day-zero integration for Llama-4, DeepSeek V3, and GPT-OSS models—closing the CUDA gap. Benchmarks show MI355X (MI450 precursor) outperforming Nvidia's B200 in inference by 1.5-2x on memory-bound tasks, at 25-35% lower TCO. For training, MI450's rack-scale IF128 configuration (128 GPUs, 1.4 PB/s intra-rack bandwidth) rivals Nvidia's VR200 NVL144, enabling clusters like xAI's Colossus (scaling to 1M GPUs). My below thread projected Etimated conservative FY 25 revenue: $34-$36B Estimated conservative FY 26 revenue: $55B-$62B Below is why $AMD is revenue is going to be much higher after OpenAI deal. 1. OpenAI 1GW in 2026. With high demand for MI355X at $30,000k+ per unit, with MI450 is likely to be sold in the $45k-$55k. We can safely calcuate 1GW would require roughly 400,000 MI450 GPUs. or Roughly ~$20B revenue in 2026 alone from OpenAI. That would mean $AMD would hit $56B just from one partnership(OpenAI) in 2026 2. $META, the biggest spender on AI Infrastructure right now, Daddy Zuckerberg bought 250,000+ MI300, and is buying MI355X for recommendation engines and Llama training. It is very unlikely for Daddy Zuck to slow down AMD Chips, due to its Inference superiority to NVDA Chips. Most likely we will see at least 300,000-400,000 MI355X ordered from now toward end of H1 2025. And another 300,000-500,000 MI450 by H2 2025. Or ~$20B from just Meta in H2 alone, excluded H1. 3. xAI : Musk confirmed "AMD GPUs work very well" for Grok's small/medium models, with 30% of Grok-1 on MI300X. xAI's Colossus (200K+ GPUs, targeting 1M) and Oracle partnership (via OCI's MI355X cluster) position it for MI450 trials in H1 2026. With $6B funding and Grok integration into Oracle services, xAI could allocate 10-20% ($10B-$15B) to MI450 for distributed inference. We haven't heard the detail from Daddy Elon Musk yet, but most likely not going to be spending less than OpenAI or Sam Altman 4. Oracle ($ORCL): A multi-billion-dollar MI355X deal powers OCI's AI superclusters, with $500B+ remaining performance obligations. Larry Ellison's zettascale ambitions and xAI/OpenAI integrations make Oracle a MI450 anchor tenant—projected 50-100k units ($15B+ spend) for enterprise AI platforms. $ORCL is likely to spend more on the new "secret weapon" due to its capability in AI inference and cost advantage for $500B backlog. 5. Others ( Microsoft , Amazon , Saudi+other countries): Microsoft (Azure MI300X for training) and Amazon ($148B 15-year spend) test MI450 via Stargate ($500B with Oracle/SoftBank). Emerging buyers like G42 (5GW UAE campus), Crusoe, and Hot Aisle add 5-10GW demand. These potentially would add $15B-$30B in 2026 alone. We also need to factor in $TSM supply constraint( $NVDA is TSMC favorite), so $AMD market cap/growth is being tamed by TSMC. So what are you saying Mike, well $AMD 2026 revenue could hit $90-$100B by end of 2026 or nearly 185% growth YoYo. So what does that mean for valuation? I have no idea how Mr. Market gonna value AMD in 2026 with 3 digits growth. My Conservative $620 was my best projection until today with OpenAI partnership. I'm telling you as one of the biggest AMD bull, that I will leave it to "smart money" and other investors to do the price discovery while I'm chilling and writing DDs daily. Lastly, AMD's MI450 isn't hype—it's a calibrated strike at Nvidia's vulnerabilities, amplified by hyperscaler bets like Meta's 42% allocation and OpenAI's 6GW lifeline. By prioritizing inference efficiency, rack-scale innovation, and open ecosystems, AMD will siphon 10-15% share in 2026, scaling to 20%+ as TCO trumps CUDA loyalty. Meta, xAI, Oracle et al. aren't passive; they're active co-designers, betting billions on MI450 to fuel AGI pursuits without Nvidia's premium. For investors, this is AMD's inflection Per Dr. Lisa Su Not Financial Advice!

Mike

711,006 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

In a newly released technical update, SpaceX's leadership team, which includes communications manager Dan Huot, Director of Satellite Engineering Ian Dahl, and CEO Elon Musk, detailed a highly ambitious infrastructure roadmap to design, manufacture, and operate specialized artificial intelligence computing satellites at scale. Positioned as a major strategic pillar to dramatically elevate civilizational energy and processing capacity on the Kardashev scale, this strategy moves past traditional communications architectures into massive orbital server arrays. Here is the complete breakdown of the core technologies and timelines driving this space-based intelligence revolution: 🛰️ AI1 satellite power and compute capacity Ian Dahl and Elon Musk introduced the baseline performance targets for the first-generation AI1 satellite, explaining how its custom hardware is engineered to operate like an orbital data center server rack. Ian Dahl noted that their direct operational experience with xAI guided them to target a 150-kilowatt peak power capacity. To manage active machine learning workloads continuously, Elon Musk explained that the satellite is optimized to maintain a sustained average compute power envelope of 120 kilowatts, which directly mirrors the real-world performance of a terrestrial NVIDIA server rack. The official presentation slides outline several key operational metrics for this payload configuration: ⚡ The custom architecture delivers a 150 kW peak compute payload. 🔋 The system maintains a 120 kW sustained average compute payload under active workloads. ⚖️ The hardware achieves a highly optimized power-to-weight density of 70 kW per ton. 🔄 The layout features a completely interchangeable compute provider design. "We thought that the right place to start is around the 150 kilowatt peak power level. But as we look at the workloads with our experience with xAI, we see that we can support about 120 kilowatts of average compute. The 150 kilowatt peak power level roughly matches what, say, an NVIDIA GV300 rack would do. A more reasonable operating envelope would be around 120 kilowatts average power, but it can peak up to 150. So it is basically thinking about it as a rack of compute in space." --- 📐 AI1 satellite dimensions and thermal efficiency specs Elon Musk detailed the physical layout of the AI1 satellite, highlighting the massive dimensions required to accommodate its immense power and cooling hardware. He shared specific design criteria, explaining that the engineering relies on a custom 150 kW solar array paired with a high-capacity deployable liquid radiator thermal management system. The technical specifications of this vehicle layout include: 📏 The structural frame features a massive 70-meter wingspan. ↕️ The vehicle spans a total deployed height of 20 meters. ☀️ The onboard solar array delivers an efficiency of 250 W/m² using technology manufactured in Bastrop, Texas. 🌡️ The thermal system utilizes a 110 m² deployable liquid radiator to cleanly dump waste heat. 🔄 The cooling architecture incorporates redundant pumping loops for mission safety. 🛡️ The exterior contains integrated micrometeoroid shielding to protect the fluid lines. 🧭 The double-sided radiators achieve a dissipation rate of 1400 watts per square meter while remaining oriented knife-edge to the sun. "The assumptions here are 250 watts per square meter for the solar array and about 1400 watts per square meter for the radiators. The radiators are double-sided, radiating on both sides, and they're oriented knife-edge to the sun. They have about a 70-meter wingspan, so these are fairly large." --- 🧩 Simplified design architecture built on Starlink V3 tech Elon Musk explained that despite the satellite's imposing size, its internal architecture is fundamentally much simpler than a standard Starlink satellite. Because it lacks heavy phased array and parabolic communications antennas, the entire vehicle layout is completely streamlined around a few essential structural modules: 🎛️ The hardware framework is arranged around a centralized compute module. ☀️ Large deployable solar arrays extend outward to capture orbital energy. 🌡️ A deployable liquid-radiator thermal management system controls active operational temperatures. 🔄 The engineering team heavily leverages the component evolution and manufacturing experience gained from developing the Starlink V3 vehicle platform. "The AI satellite is actually much simpler than a Starlink satellite. A Starlink satellite has gigantic phased array antennas, parabolic antennas, and a lot of laser links, making it much more complicated. An AI satellite is essentially a lot of solar cells, a radiator, and you still need some laser links, but you don't have all of the super complex antennas that you have on a Starlink satellite. A lot of this is technology we've already made for the Starlink V3 satellites." --- 🔌 Interchangeable compute reference designs and high connectivity Elon Musk outlined a modular hardware approach for the satellite's payload, allowing it to house a variety of industry-standard processing units depending on client requirements. This interchangeable compute rack is supported by a high-bandwidth connectivity loop that links separate orbital units together or transmits data directly back to Earth. The core network parameters include: 🧠 Reference designs are fully established to seamlessly accommodate NVIDIA Reuben chips. 💾 The system architecture is built to support alternative setups using NVIDIA GB300 chips. 💻 Custom hardware layouts are explicitly designed to integrate Google TPUs. 🌐 The onboard communications setup delivers roughly 1 terabit of laser link connectivity. ⏱️ The network closes the communication loop directly with the main Starlink constellation at an ultra-low latency of only 3 milliseconds. "Our current reference design is for NVIDIA Reuben chips, or it could be either GB300 or Reuben chips. We'll also have a reference design for TPUs. Essentially, you can put up any existing chips into orbit. There would also be probably something on the order of a terabit of laser link connectivity from the satellite. Then you can connect these racks of compute to each other by the laser links or directly to the Starlink constellations. Light travels 300 kilometers per millisecond, so that's about three milliseconds away." --- 🏭 The "gigasat" AI satellite and solar production hub in Bastrop, Texas Dan Huot highlighted that the primary production hub for this entire hardware ecosystem is anchored at their sprawling complex in Bastrop, Texas, officially designated as the Gigasat factory. Elon Musk verified that construction is already actively underway on the solar manufacturing facility to feed the project's supply line, with plans moving forward to construct the adjacent AI satellite assembly lines. The physical footprint and timeline of this manufacturing hub are defined by the following benchmarks: 🗺️ The company has over 1,000 acres of land currently owned or under contract for the site. 🏢 The manufacturing complex boasts a massive structural building potential exceeding 11 million square feet. ⚙️ The facility will vertically integrate production to manufacture solar ingots, wafers, solar cells, and completed AI satellites. 📅 Both the solar and AI satellite production lines are targeted to be operational at a viable volume by the end of next year. "We're going to be building a lot of satellites and we're going to be building them here in Bastrop. We already have the solar manufacturing facility under construction, and then we will be building out the AI sat production building soon. We expect to have the AI sat production, the solar production, and all of that operating at some reasonable volume by the end of next year." --- 🏢 The 100-million-square-foot "terafab" chip factory Elon Musk revealed a massive, long-term scaling strategy to build an immense chip manufacturing facility dubbed the "terafab" to completely bypass global semiconductor volume constraints. This manufacturing infrastructure is designed to transition the company into next-generation industrial scaling by producing highly specialized computing components at an unprecedented volume. The scale of this infrastructure project is defined by several extraordinary engineering and production benchmarks: 🏭 The colossal factory is projected to span approximately 100 million square feet, making it ten times larger than the current Tesla Gigafactory Texas. ⚡ The facility is structurally engineered to achieve a massive manufacturing output of 1 terawatt per year once fully operational. 📦 This unprecedented physical footprint provides the capacity required to manufacture 1 billion full-reticle equivalent chips annually. 🔌 Each individual chip manufactured by the facility is designed to run at a power capacity of 1 kilowatt. 🇺🇸 The total scaled output of the facility represents an energy footprint that is exactly double the current annual electricity consumption of the entire United States. "In order to get to the next order of magnitude, you need a gigantic chip factory. To give you a sense of scale here, we expect that the terafab is going to be around 100 million square feet, which is 10 times the size of the Tesla Gigafactory Texas. From a logic die standpoint, that's like having a billion chips per year with a kilowatt per reticle, scaling to a terawatt per year. That is twice the current electricity consumption of the United States." --- 📶 Next-generation high-volume Starlink terminals Dan Huot and Elon Musk introduced their next-generation Starlink user terminals, which have been redesigned specifically to achieve massive manufacturing throughput. Elon Musk pointed out that these newer models will be produced in vastly higher volumes than current hardware designs to fulfill their long-term global deployment targets: 📈 The upgraded user hardware is manufactured at a much higher volume capacity than existing units. 🌍 The company's ultimate target is to successfully deploy a few hundred million of these next-generation terminals worldwide. "In fact, these are the new Starlink terminals, which we made in much higher volume than the current terminals. Ultimately, we think there's probably going to be a few hundred million Starlink terminals out there." --- 📈 Aspirational timeline for orbital AI compute scaling Elon Musk laid out an ambitious, multi-year execution timeline detailing how the company plans to progressively scale space-based processing power. The roadmap targets an initial run-rate by the end of next year and sets an aggressive pace to increase total operational capacity sequentially through a structured, multi-phase timeline: 1️⃣ The initial target aims to hit an annualized run-rate of 1 gigawatt of space AI compute by the end of next year. 2️⃣ The capacity scales to an annualized rate of 10 gigawatts within the next two and a half years. 3️⃣ The operational envelope expands to reach 100 gigawatts in three and a half years. 4️⃣ The long-term deployment plan scales directly to a full terawatt capacity per year using the output of the terafab. "The goal is to get to roughly an annualized rate of a gigawatt per year by the end of next year in terms of space AI compute. Then aspirationally, we want to scale that by an order of magnitude per year. In two and a half years, hitting an annualized rate of 10 gigawatts a year in space, and in three and a half years, maybe a hundred gigawatts, going beyond that with the terafab to scale to a terawatt per year." --- 🌕 Ultimate scaling via lunar production and mass drivers Elon Musk explained that scaling three orders of magnitude past a single terawatt forces a transition completely off-planet to avoid the logistical penalty of Earth's deep gravity well. The vision relies on establishing manufacturing infrastructure directly on the moon to leverage localized resource loops and zero-atmosphere physics: 🌙 The company plans to establish localized raw production lines on the moon to fabricate solar panels, photovoltaics, and radiators from lunar materials. ⚡ Manufacturing components locally avoids the massive fuel and mass penalties of transporting heavy structural materials from Earth. 🧲 Because the moon has no atmosphere and only one-sixth of Earth's gravity, the facility will utilize an electromagnetic mass driver to launch completed satellites. 🚀 Operating essentially as a linear electric motor rail gun, this mechanism will shoot fully assembled AI satellites straight into deep space without relying on chemical rockets. "The only way that we can really see that you can achieve that is on the moon with a mass driver, essentially where you do local production of photovoltaics, solar panels, and radiators on the moon. Because the moon has no atmosphere and only one-sixth Earth's gravity, you can accelerate the AI satellites into deep space without a rocket. You can basically shoot them into space using an electromagnetic gun, like a rail gun type—it's basically a linear electric motor."

In a newly released technical update, SpaceX's leadership team, which includes communications manager Dan Huot, Director of Satellite Engineering Ian Dahl, and CEO Elon Musk, detailed a highly ambitious infrastructure roadmap to design, manufacture, and operate specialized artificial intelligence computing satellites at scale. Positioned as a major strategic pillar to dramatically elevate civilizational energy and processing capacity on the Kardashev scale, this strategy moves past traditional communications architectures into massive orbital server arrays. Here is the complete breakdown of the core technologies and timelines driving this space-based intelligence revolution: 🛰️ AI1 satellite power and compute capacity Ian Dahl and Elon Musk introduced the baseline performance targets for the first-generation AI1 satellite, explaining how its custom hardware is engineered to operate like an orbital data center server rack. Ian Dahl noted that their direct operational experience with xAI guided them to target a 150-kilowatt peak power capacity. To manage active machine learning workloads continuously, Elon Musk explained that the satellite is optimized to maintain a sustained average compute power envelope of 120 kilowatts, which directly mirrors the real-world performance of a terrestrial NVIDIA server rack. The official presentation slides outline several key operational metrics for this payload configuration: ⚡ The custom architecture delivers a 150 kW peak compute payload. 🔋 The system maintains a 120 kW sustained average compute payload under active workloads. ⚖️ The hardware achieves a highly optimized power-to-weight density of 70 kW per ton. 🔄 The layout features a completely interchangeable compute provider design. "We thought that the right place to start is around the 150 kilowatt peak power level. But as we look at the workloads with our experience with xAI, we see that we can support about 120 kilowatts of average compute. The 150 kilowatt peak power level roughly matches what, say, an NVIDIA GV300 rack would do. A more reasonable operating envelope would be around 120 kilowatts average power, but it can peak up to 150. So it is basically thinking about it as a rack of compute in space." --- 📐 AI1 satellite dimensions and thermal efficiency specs Elon Musk detailed the physical layout of the AI1 satellite, highlighting the massive dimensions required to accommodate its immense power and cooling hardware. He shared specific design criteria, explaining that the engineering relies on a custom 150 kW solar array paired with a high-capacity deployable liquid radiator thermal management system. The technical specifications of this vehicle layout include: 📏 The structural frame features a massive 70-meter wingspan. ↕️ The vehicle spans a total deployed height of 20 meters. ☀️ The onboard solar array delivers an efficiency of 250 W/m² using technology manufactured in Bastrop, Texas. 🌡️ The thermal system utilizes a 110 m² deployable liquid radiator to cleanly dump waste heat. 🔄 The cooling architecture incorporates redundant pumping loops for mission safety. 🛡️ The exterior contains integrated micrometeoroid shielding to protect the fluid lines. 🧭 The double-sided radiators achieve a dissipation rate of 1400 watts per square meter while remaining oriented knife-edge to the sun. "The assumptions here are 250 watts per square meter for the solar array and about 1400 watts per square meter for the radiators. The radiators are double-sided, radiating on both sides, and they're oriented knife-edge to the sun. They have about a 70-meter wingspan, so these are fairly large." --- 🧩 Simplified design architecture built on Starlink V3 tech Elon Musk explained that despite the satellite's imposing size, its internal architecture is fundamentally much simpler than a standard Starlink satellite. Because it lacks heavy phased array and parabolic communications antennas, the entire vehicle layout is completely streamlined around a few essential structural modules: 🎛️ The hardware framework is arranged around a centralized compute module. ☀️ Large deployable solar arrays extend outward to capture orbital energy. 🌡️ A deployable liquid-radiator thermal management system controls active operational temperatures. 🔄 The engineering team heavily leverages the component evolution and manufacturing experience gained from developing the Starlink V3 vehicle platform. "The AI satellite is actually much simpler than a Starlink satellite. A Starlink satellite has gigantic phased array antennas, parabolic antennas, and a lot of laser links, making it much more complicated. An AI satellite is essentially a lot of solar cells, a radiator, and you still need some laser links, but you don't have all of the super complex antennas that you have on a Starlink satellite. A lot of this is technology we've already made for the Starlink V3 satellites." --- 🔌 Interchangeable compute reference designs and high connectivity Elon Musk outlined a modular hardware approach for the satellite's payload, allowing it to house a variety of industry-standard processing units depending on client requirements. This interchangeable compute rack is supported by a high-bandwidth connectivity loop that links separate orbital units together or transmits data directly back to Earth. The core network parameters include: 🧠 Reference designs are fully established to seamlessly accommodate NVIDIA Reuben chips. 💾 The system architecture is built to support alternative setups using NVIDIA GB300 chips. 💻 Custom hardware layouts are explicitly designed to integrate Google TPUs. 🌐 The onboard communications setup delivers roughly 1 terabit of laser link connectivity. ⏱️ The network closes the communication loop directly with the main Starlink constellation at an ultra-low latency of only 3 milliseconds. "Our current reference design is for NVIDIA Reuben chips, or it could be either GB300 or Reuben chips. We'll also have a reference design for TPUs. Essentially, you can put up any existing chips into orbit. There would also be probably something on the order of a terabit of laser link connectivity from the satellite. Then you can connect these racks of compute to each other by the laser links or directly to the Starlink constellations. Light travels 300 kilometers per millisecond, so that's about three milliseconds away." --- 🏭 The "gigasat" AI satellite and solar production hub in Bastrop, Texas Dan Huot highlighted that the primary production hub for this entire hardware ecosystem is anchored at their sprawling complex in Bastrop, Texas, officially designated as the Gigasat factory. Elon Musk verified that construction is already actively underway on the solar manufacturing facility to feed the project's supply line, with plans moving forward to construct the adjacent AI satellite assembly lines. The physical footprint and timeline of this manufacturing hub are defined by the following benchmarks: 🗺️ The company has over 1,000 acres of land currently owned or under contract for the site. 🏢 The manufacturing complex boasts a massive structural building potential exceeding 11 million square feet. ⚙️ The facility will vertically integrate production to manufacture solar ingots, wafers, solar cells, and completed AI satellites. 📅 Both the solar and AI satellite production lines are targeted to be operational at a viable volume by the end of next year. "We're going to be building a lot of satellites and we're going to be building them here in Bastrop. We already have the solar manufacturing facility under construction, and then we will be building out the AI sat production building soon. We expect to have the AI sat production, the solar production, and all of that operating at some reasonable volume by the end of next year." --- 🏢 The 100-million-square-foot "terafab" chip factory Elon Musk revealed a massive, long-term scaling strategy to build an immense chip manufacturing facility dubbed the "terafab" to completely bypass global semiconductor volume constraints. This manufacturing infrastructure is designed to transition the company into next-generation industrial scaling by producing highly specialized computing components at an unprecedented volume. The scale of this infrastructure project is defined by several extraordinary engineering and production benchmarks: 🏭 The colossal factory is projected to span approximately 100 million square feet, making it ten times larger than the current Tesla Gigafactory Texas. ⚡ The facility is structurally engineered to achieve a massive manufacturing output of 1 terawatt per year once fully operational. 📦 This unprecedented physical footprint provides the capacity required to manufacture 1 billion full-reticle equivalent chips annually. 🔌 Each individual chip manufactured by the facility is designed to run at a power capacity of 1 kilowatt. 🇺🇸 The total scaled output of the facility represents an energy footprint that is exactly double the current annual electricity consumption of the entire United States. "In order to get to the next order of magnitude, you need a gigantic chip factory. To give you a sense of scale here, we expect that the terafab is going to be around 100 million square feet, which is 10 times the size of the Tesla Gigafactory Texas. From a logic die standpoint, that's like having a billion chips per year with a kilowatt per reticle, scaling to a terawatt per year. That is twice the current electricity consumption of the United States." --- 📶 Next-generation high-volume Starlink terminals Dan Huot and Elon Musk introduced their next-generation Starlink user terminals, which have been redesigned specifically to achieve massive manufacturing throughput. Elon Musk pointed out that these newer models will be produced in vastly higher volumes than current hardware designs to fulfill their long-term global deployment targets: 📈 The upgraded user hardware is manufactured at a much higher volume capacity than existing units. 🌍 The company's ultimate target is to successfully deploy a few hundred million of these next-generation terminals worldwide. "In fact, these are the new Starlink terminals, which we made in much higher volume than the current terminals. Ultimately, we think there's probably going to be a few hundred million Starlink terminals out there." --- 📈 Aspirational timeline for orbital AI compute scaling Elon Musk laid out an ambitious, multi-year execution timeline detailing how the company plans to progressively scale space-based processing power. The roadmap targets an initial run-rate by the end of next year and sets an aggressive pace to increase total operational capacity sequentially through a structured, multi-phase timeline: 1️⃣ The initial target aims to hit an annualized run-rate of 1 gigawatt of space AI compute by the end of next year. 2️⃣ The capacity scales to an annualized rate of 10 gigawatts within the next two and a half years. 3️⃣ The operational envelope expands to reach 100 gigawatts in three and a half years. 4️⃣ The long-term deployment plan scales directly to a full terawatt capacity per year using the output of the terafab. "The goal is to get to roughly an annualized rate of a gigawatt per year by the end of next year in terms of space AI compute. Then aspirationally, we want to scale that by an order of magnitude per year. In two and a half years, hitting an annualized rate of 10 gigawatts a year in space, and in three and a half years, maybe a hundred gigawatts, going beyond that with the terafab to scale to a terawatt per year." --- 🌕 Ultimate scaling via lunar production and mass drivers Elon Musk explained that scaling three orders of magnitude past a single terawatt forces a transition completely off-planet to avoid the logistical penalty of Earth's deep gravity well. The vision relies on establishing manufacturing infrastructure directly on the moon to leverage localized resource loops and zero-atmosphere physics: 🌙 The company plans to establish localized raw production lines on the moon to fabricate solar panels, photovoltaics, and radiators from lunar materials. ⚡ Manufacturing components locally avoids the massive fuel and mass penalties of transporting heavy structural materials from Earth. 🧲 Because the moon has no atmosphere and only one-sixth of Earth's gravity, the facility will utilize an electromagnetic mass driver to launch completed satellites. 🚀 Operating essentially as a linear electric motor rail gun, this mechanism will shoot fully assembled AI satellites straight into deep space without relying on chemical rockets. "The only way that we can really see that you can achieve that is on the moon with a mass driver, essentially where you do local production of photovoltaics, solar panels, and radiators on the moon. Because the moon has no atmosphere and only one-sixth Earth's gravity, you can accelerate the AI satellites into deep space without a rocket. You can basically shoot them into space using an electromagnetic gun, like a rail gun type—it's basically a linear electric motor."

Ming

22,203 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

$NVDA $GFS NVIDIA’s reported agreement to acquire Groq for $20B in cash (per CNBC, amplified via Reuters and other wire coverage) represents a materially different strategic posture than NVIDIA’s prior M&A pattern, given both the headline size (largest reported NVIDIA acquisition to date) and the unusual carve-out that Groq’s early-stage cloud business would not be included. Public reporting indicates the information originated from Alex Davis, CEO of Disruptive (lead investor in Groq’s latest financing), and that neither NVIDIA nor Groq had issued an immediate confirmation at the time of publication. The same reporting frames the transaction as coming together quickly, only months after Groq raised $750M at a ~$6.9B valuation, and highlights Groq’s positioning as a high-performance inference chip vendor founded by ex-Google TPU engineers. Groq is best understood as a vertically integrated inference acceleration company whose core asset is an application-specific processor optimized for deterministic, low-latency execution of transformer-style workloads, paired with a compiler-led software stack and a distribution layer (GroqCloud) designed to reduce developer friction via OpenAI-compatible APIs and integrations. Groq brands its architecture as a Language Processing Unit (LPU) and consistently emphasizes that the design target is inference, not training. The company’s own architecture description centers on 1-core execution, large on-chip SRAM used as primary storage (explicitly not cache), a custom compiler that statically schedules compute and communication, and direct chip-to-chip connectivity intended to coordinate multi-chip execution without relying on conventional caching hierarchies or dynamic runtime scheduling. The technical premise is a deliberate inversion of the conventional GPU approach. GPUs deliver throughput via massively parallel, multi-core execution with dynamic scheduling, complex memory hierarchies, and heavy reliance on off-chip HBM bandwidth and sophisticated runtime/kernel optimization. Groq instead argues that inference bottlenecks are driven by latency variance (tail latency), synchronization overhead, and memory access unpredictability inherent in dynamically scheduled, cache-heavy architectures, particularly when workloads are latency sensitive and batch sizes cannot be inflated. Groq’s solution is to move “control” into the compiler: the full execution graph and inter-chip communication schedule are computed ahead of time down to clock-cycle granularity, with deterministic execution designed to reduce run-to-run variance. In Groq’s framing, the removal of caches, reorder buffers, speculative execution overhead, and other sources of contention enables predictable latency and high utilization without per-model kernel engineering typical of GPU tuning cycles. A critical nuance is that Groq’s determinism is not merely a software claim; it is tightly coupled to architectural constraints and system design choices that trade flexibility for predictability. Third-party technical commentary indicates Groq’s chip uses a fully deterministic VLIW-style approach with minimal buffering, no external memory, and heavy dependence on sharding models across many chips because on-chip SRAM capacity is limited. SemiAnalysis describes a ~725 mm^2 die on GlobalFoundries 14nm with ~230MB of SRAM and notes that “no useful models” fit on a single chip, forcing multi-chip partitioning for modern LLMs and driving a system-level design where networking and compilation are first-class scheduling problems rather than ancillary infrastructure. This is consistent with Groq’s own messaging that tensor parallelism across chips is a primary design goal, enabled by large on-chip SRAM and compile-time coordination of compute plus interconnect. The on-chip SRAM emphasis is central to Groq’s latency story and also its most constraining trade-off. Groq claims on-chip SRAM bandwidth “upwards of 80 TB/s” and contrasts that with off-chip HBM bandwidth “about 8 TB/s,” asserting a potential 10x advantage from bandwidth plus reduced trips across chip-to-memory boundaries. While these comparisons are marketing-oriented and depend on workload specifics, the architectural implication is clear: Groq prioritizes ultra-fast local weight/activation access and then scales capacity by adding chips, not by attaching large off-chip memory pools. This design can reduce latency for sequential inference layers and minimize unpredictable stalls, but it pushes complexity into partitioning strategy, interconnect topology, and compiler scheduling, and it increases the number of chips needed for very large parameter counts and large KV-cache footprints. Groq also highlights numeric formats and compiler-driven precision management as a performance lever. In its 2025 technical blog, Groq describes “TruePoint numerics,” including 100-bit intermediate accumulation and selective quantization choices (FP32 for attention-sensitive operations, block floating point for MoE weights, FP8 storage in error-tolerant layers), and claims 2-4x speedups versus BF16 without measurable accuracy degradation on benchmarks such as MMLU and HumanEval. Even if the absolute uplift is workload dependent, the strategic point is that Groq is pursuing performance via end-to-end co-design: precision policy is not just hardware capability (FP8/BF16) but compiler-enforced mapping of precision to error sensitivity, which can matter materially for inference cost-per-token if it reduces memory traffic and boosts throughput without forcing aggressive, accuracy-damaging quantization. Independent performance datapoints indicate Groq has been credible on latency-oriented inference speed, at least for certain regimes. EE Times reported in 2023 that Groq demonstrated Llama-2 70B inference at ~240 tokens/s per user on a cloud-based dev system described as 10 racks and 64 chips, using the company’s 1st-gen silicon introduced several years earlier. Separate Groq commentary around independent benchmarking cites results showing ~241 tokens/s throughput and ~0.8s time to receive 100 output tokens for a Llama-2 70B API configuration, positioning the platform as a step-change in “available speed” for certain interactive use cases. These figures do not settle total cost-of-ownership versus GPUs or hyperscaler ASICs, but they establish that Groq’s system-level architecture can deliver strong single-user throughput and latency on large models when properly partitioned and scheduled. GroqCloud is the commercial wrapper that packages this hardware/software stack as “tokens-as-a-service,” aiming to make Groq adoption feel like switching API endpoints rather than adopting new silicon. Groq’s documentation states its API is designed to be “mostly compatible” with OpenAI client libraries, and its pricing page provides model-specific token rates, published speeds (tokens/s), prompt caching discounts, and batch processing discounts. For example, pricing lists inputs as low as $0.05 per 1M tokens and outputs as low as $0.08 per 1M tokens for certain smaller LLM configurations, with higher prices for larger models and long-context or MoE variants; it also advertises prompt caching with a 50% discount on cached input tokens for certain models and a batch API offering 50% lower cost for asynchronous processing windows. These mechanics are economically important because they demonstrate Groq’s go-to-market is not simply “sell chips,” but “sell predictable unit economics per token,” with tooling (batch, caching) that directly targets inference cost drivers (reused prompts, throughput smoothing, and asynchronous workloads). The cloud footprint and distribution partnerships indicate Groq has been building an inference-native “edge within the cloud” strategy rather than competing head-on with hyperscalers on breadth of services. A 2025 Groq newsroom release describes a European deployment in Helsinki with Equinix, positioned as latency reduction and data governance for European customers, and explicitly references Equinix Fabric enabling private connectivity to GroqCloud over public, private, or sovereign infrastructure. The same release enumerates additional capacity in the U.S. (Equinix, DataBank), Canada (Bell Canada), and Saudi Arabia (HUMAIN), and states these sites collectively served more than 20M tokens/s across Groq’s global network at that time. That supply-side metric matters because it provides a directional sense that Groq is scaling capacity as a network, not merely as a chip vendor. Customer disclosure is inherently limited because Groq is private and many enterprise deployments are not public, but Groq’s marketing materials and partnerships provide signals about demand vectors. The company’s public website displays logos of large consumer and enterprise brands (e.g., Dropbox, Vercel, Chevron, Volkswagen, Canva, Robinhood, Riot Games, Workday, Ramp) and includes a published customer quote claiming a 7.41x chat speed increase and an 89% cost reduction after moving to GroqCloud, followed by a tripling of token consumption. While marketing claims should be treated as case-specific and not generalized, they indicate that Groq is targeting both AI-native developers (who measure success by latency and cost-per-token) and enterprise buyers (who care about predictable performance and governance). Supplier and dependency mapping for Groq spans 3 layers: silicon production, system integration, and cloud infrastructure. On silicon, third-party analysis indicates GlobalFoundries 14nm for the 1st-gen Groq chip, implying a supply chain less constrained by the most capacity-tight leading-edge nodes and advanced packaging bottlenecks that dominate high-end GPU supply (HBM stacks, CoWoS-type packaging constraints). If accurate, this is strategically meaningful because it suggests Groq capacity expansion could be gated more by conventional wafer supply, board assembly, and data center power than by the same HBM/advanced packaging scarcity that has constrained top-tier GPU ramp cycles. On systems and cloud, Groq’s own releases identify colocation and connectivity partners (Equinix, DataBank, Bell Canada) and a Middle East partner (HUMAIN), implying dependencies on data center real estate, power availability, and network connectivity, alongside procurement of standard server components, NICs/switching, racks, and cooling infrastructure. The Groq design narrative also emphasizes air cooling and reduced need for complex power/cooling infrastructure, which—if realized in deployments—can widen the set of feasible hosting locations and lower deployment friction relative to liquid-cooled, very high power density GPU racks. Against that backdrop, the strategic rationale for NVIDIA acquiring Groq can be framed as a set of overlapping objectives: inference silicon optionality, architectural hedging, competitive defense, and supply chain diversification, with the carve-out of GroqCloud signaling a preference to avoid direct cloud competition and to focus on IP and product portfolio control rather than operating a capital-intensive token-serving business. The deal, if confirmed, would occur at a valuation step-up of ~190% versus Groq’s reported ~$6.9B private valuation in the September $750M round, reinforcing that any acquisition logic would be predominantly strategic rather than a conventional financial multiple arbitrage. The most compelling strategic driver is inference. Training has historically been the center of gravity for cutting-edge GPU demand, but inference volume is structurally larger and more distributed as deployments scale, with economics dominated by cost-per-token, latency guarantees, and utilization under spiky demand. Inference workloads also create a strategic vulnerability for NVIDIA: hyperscalers and large platforms can justify bespoke ASICs (TPU, Trainium/Inferentia, Maia-class efforts) because inference is stable, repeatable, and can amortize software investment at massive scale. Groq’s core proposition—deterministic, compiler-scheduled inference with predictable latency—aligns directly with the segment where GPU generality is least valued and where “good enough” programmability plus superior unit economics can win share. Acquiring Groq would allow NVIDIA to own a credible inference-native architecture rather than relying solely on GPUs and software optimization to defend that segment. Competitive defense logic is also plausible. Groq occupies a specific competitive wedge: low-latency, high-throughput interactive inference, delivered via a simple API abstraction that reduces switching cost. That wedge directly pressures GPU inference margins in the long run because it makes inference price/performance comparisons more transparent at the token level, and it targets a developer persona that historically defaulted to CUDA-first ecosystems. Even if NVIDIA’s current-generation systems can achieve very high tokens/s per user with extensive optimization, the strategic risk is that competing architectures normalize the idea that inference is best served by special-purpose silicon with a simpler programming model, weakening CUDA lock-in at the application layer. NVIDIA has actively demonstrated that Blackwell-era systems can exceed 1,000 tokens/s per user in benchmarked configurations, but that performance leadership does not automatically translate to lowest cost-per-token across the full range of batch sizes, latency targets, and deployment environments. Groq’s existence as a credible alternative architecture forces NVIDIA to keep defending inference economics rather than only raw performance leadership. The “technology acquisition” rationale is unusually strong in this specific case because Groq’s differentiator is not a single block of silicon IP but an end-to-end methodology: compiler-led static scheduling, deterministic networking, and a system architecture designed around tensor-parallel inference rather than throughput-maximizing batch inference. NVIDIA’s stack is already compiler-heavy (TensorRT, Triton, CUDA graphs, kernel fusion, speculative decoding techniques), but GPUs remain dynamically scheduled devices with complex memory hierarchies and stochastic latency behaviors under contention. Groq’s approach provides an alternate design point: treating the entire inference execution (compute plus communication) as a statically schedulable program. In principle, that IP could be valuable even if Groq silicon itself is not adopted at massive scale, because it can inform how NVIDIA builds future inference-optimized products, compilers, and networking fabrics, especially as distributed inference with large models makes communication a first-order performance determinant. Supply chain diversification is a non-obvious but potentially important driver. If Groq’s mainstream product generation is truly based on a mature process node and avoids HBM, then the scaling constraints look different than those of state-of-the-art GPUs. NVIDIA’s ability to meet incremental demand has been tightly coupled to advanced packaging and HBM supply, and those constraints can remain binding even when wafer supply is available. An inference ASIC architecture that relies primarily on on-chip SRAM and scales by adding chips—while not costless—could reduce dependence on HBM availability and advanced packaging capacity, enabling NVIDIA to ship “inference capacity” in higher absolute volumes or into geographies and customer segments where the highest-end GPUs are economically or logistically difficult to deploy. This could be particularly relevant for latency-sensitive inference deployed in regional colocation footprints rather than centralized hyperscale campuses. The carve-out of GroqCloud, if accurate, is itself a strategic signal about NVIDIA’s priorities. Operating a token-serving cloud at scale is capital intensive, structurally lower margin than silicon IP rents, and creates channel conflict with hyperscalers and CSP partners who are core NVIDIA customers. NVIDIA has generally positioned its cloud offerings through partnerships rather than as a direct hyperscale competitor. Excluding GroqCloud would preserve neutrality with CSPs and avoid inheriting multi-region data residency obligations and partner contracts, while still allowing NVIDIA to acquire Groq’s silicon, compiler technology, and engineering talent. At the same time, excluding GroqCloud would also mean NVIDIA would not automatically acquire the commercial proof-point of Groq’s unit economics or the customer contracts that validate product-market fit at scale, increasing the importance of diligence on whether Groq’s cloud pricing is structurally profitable or partially subsidized by fundraising. There is also a “preemptive acquisition” angle. The reporting identifies recent investors in Groq’s latest round including large financial institutions and strategic/industry players. In that context, Groq represents an asset that could plausibly have been acquired by a competitor (AMD/Intel) or by a hyperscaler seeking to accelerate inference independence. NVIDIA acquiring Groq could be a defensive move to prevent a credible inference-native architecture from being weaponized by a rival with deep distribution. Even if GroqCloud is carved out, controlling the silicon roadmap and compiler IP would meaningfully constrain Groq’s ability to evolve into a standalone competitor, unless the carved-out entity retains long-term rights to the hardware and software stack. However, the strategic case is not one-sided; there are meaningful risks and potential contradictions that would need to be reconciled for the transaction to be value-accretive on a multi-year horizon. 1st, Groq’s architecture appears to rely on scaling out chip count to achieve capacity, which introduces system cost, networking complexity, and physical footprint considerations. The absence of external memory and limited on-chip SRAM implies very large models require substantial chip parallelism, and the economics then depend heavily on chip cost, yield, power efficiency, and interconnect overhead. SemiAnalysis explicitly frames Groq as trading space for time and raises questions about token economics and whether publicly advertised pricing reflects fully loaded costs or market share capture. 2nd, integration risk is non-trivial. Groq’s compiler-led deterministic model is philosophically and practically different from CUDA’s dominant programming and execution model. A poorly executed integration could create internal product confusion, dilute engineering focus, or alienate developers if the combined stack fragments. 3rd, there is cannibalization risk. If Groq-class inference silicon undercuts GPU inference economics, NVIDIA could face internal margin trade-offs, even if the goal is to defend share against hyperscaler ASICs. Cannibalization can still be rational if it prevents larger share loss, but it would require crisp portfolio segmentation and go-to-market discipline. The presence of NVIDIA’s own rapidly improving inference performance complicates the “need” for Groq but does not eliminate the “option value.” NVIDIA has demonstrated benchmark-leading tokens/s per user on Blackwell-based systems, suggesting that raw interactive throughput is not necessarily the limiting factor for NVIDIA’s product line. The more enduring strategic question is unit economics and architectural control: whether future inference demand is better monetized through general-purpose GPUs plus software optimization, or whether a bifurcated product portfolio (training GPUs plus inference-native ASICs) becomes necessary to defend total AI compute wallet share as hyperscaler ASIC penetration increases. Acquiring Groq could be a decisive move to ensure NVIDIA participates in both regimes rather than betting exclusively on GPUs to win inference forever. What is “special” about Groq’s technology relative to a typical accelerator roadmap is the tight coupling of determinism, compilation, and networking into a single scheduling problem. The LPU narrative emphasizes deterministic compute and networking, static scheduling, and direct chip-to-chip coordination that allows “hundreds” (more precisely, 100s) of chips to behave like a single scheduled resource. The architecture also explicitly targets tensor-parallel, latency-optimized distribution rather than pure data-parallel throughput scaling, which matters for real-time applications where a single response must arrive quickly rather than many requests being processed in bulk. The implication is that Groq is optimized for the time-to-first-token and steady token streaming behavior that defines user experience in interactive LLMs, and it attempts to achieve that without relying on large batch sizes that can degrade latency. From a portfolio manager’s perspective, the most important interpretation is that an NVIDIA-Groq combination would likely be less about “NVIDIA needs more inference speed” and more about controlling the architectural trajectory of inference acceleration and removing a fast-improving, developer-friendly competitor from the market. The carve-out of GroqCloud would reinforce that the transaction is aimed at IP, talent, and product optionality, not acquiring a cloud revenue stream. The valuation step-up implied by $20B versus $6.9B would therefore be justified only if the acquired assets materially reduce long-term competitive risk (hyperscaler ASIC displacement, inference margin compression) or enable new monetization vectors (inference ASIC product line, supply chain de-bottlenecking, improved software determinism) that would be difficult to achieve on a comparable timeline via internal R&D.

$NVDA $GFS NVIDIA’s reported agreement to acquire Groq for $20B in cash (per CNBC, amplified via Reuters and other wire coverage) represents a materially different strategic posture than NVIDIA’s prior M&A pattern, given both the headline size (largest reported NVIDIA acquisition to date) and the unusual carve-out that Groq’s early-stage cloud business would not be included. Public reporting indicates the information originated from Alex Davis, CEO of Disruptive (lead investor in Groq’s latest financing), and that neither NVIDIA nor Groq had issued an immediate confirmation at the time of publication. The same reporting frames the transaction as coming together quickly, only months after Groq raised $750M at a ~$6.9B valuation, and highlights Groq’s positioning as a high-performance inference chip vendor founded by ex-Google TPU engineers. Groq is best understood as a vertically integrated inference acceleration company whose core asset is an application-specific processor optimized for deterministic, low-latency execution of transformer-style workloads, paired with a compiler-led software stack and a distribution layer (GroqCloud) designed to reduce developer friction via OpenAI-compatible APIs and integrations. Groq brands its architecture as a Language Processing Unit (LPU) and consistently emphasizes that the design target is inference, not training. The company’s own architecture description centers on 1-core execution, large on-chip SRAM used as primary storage (explicitly not cache), a custom compiler that statically schedules compute and communication, and direct chip-to-chip connectivity intended to coordinate multi-chip execution without relying on conventional caching hierarchies or dynamic runtime scheduling. The technical premise is a deliberate inversion of the conventional GPU approach. GPUs deliver throughput via massively parallel, multi-core execution with dynamic scheduling, complex memory hierarchies, and heavy reliance on off-chip HBM bandwidth and sophisticated runtime/kernel optimization. Groq instead argues that inference bottlenecks are driven by latency variance (tail latency), synchronization overhead, and memory access unpredictability inherent in dynamically scheduled, cache-heavy architectures, particularly when workloads are latency sensitive and batch sizes cannot be inflated. Groq’s solution is to move “control” into the compiler: the full execution graph and inter-chip communication schedule are computed ahead of time down to clock-cycle granularity, with deterministic execution designed to reduce run-to-run variance. In Groq’s framing, the removal of caches, reorder buffers, speculative execution overhead, and other sources of contention enables predictable latency and high utilization without per-model kernel engineering typical of GPU tuning cycles. A critical nuance is that Groq’s determinism is not merely a software claim; it is tightly coupled to architectural constraints and system design choices that trade flexibility for predictability. Third-party technical commentary indicates Groq’s chip uses a fully deterministic VLIW-style approach with minimal buffering, no external memory, and heavy dependence on sharding models across many chips because on-chip SRAM capacity is limited. SemiAnalysis describes a ~725 mm^2 die on GlobalFoundries 14nm with ~230MB of SRAM and notes that “no useful models” fit on a single chip, forcing multi-chip partitioning for modern LLMs and driving a system-level design where networking and compilation are first-class scheduling problems rather than ancillary infrastructure. This is consistent with Groq’s own messaging that tensor parallelism across chips is a primary design goal, enabled by large on-chip SRAM and compile-time coordination of compute plus interconnect. The on-chip SRAM emphasis is central to Groq’s latency story and also its most constraining trade-off. Groq claims on-chip SRAM bandwidth “upwards of 80 TB/s” and contrasts that with off-chip HBM bandwidth “about 8 TB/s,” asserting a potential 10x advantage from bandwidth plus reduced trips across chip-to-memory boundaries. While these comparisons are marketing-oriented and depend on workload specifics, the architectural implication is clear: Groq prioritizes ultra-fast local weight/activation access and then scales capacity by adding chips, not by attaching large off-chip memory pools. This design can reduce latency for sequential inference layers and minimize unpredictable stalls, but it pushes complexity into partitioning strategy, interconnect topology, and compiler scheduling, and it increases the number of chips needed for very large parameter counts and large KV-cache footprints. Groq also highlights numeric formats and compiler-driven precision management as a performance lever. In its 2025 technical blog, Groq describes “TruePoint numerics,” including 100-bit intermediate accumulation and selective quantization choices (FP32 for attention-sensitive operations, block floating point for MoE weights, FP8 storage in error-tolerant layers), and claims 2-4x speedups versus BF16 without measurable accuracy degradation on benchmarks such as MMLU and HumanEval. Even if the absolute uplift is workload dependent, the strategic point is that Groq is pursuing performance via end-to-end co-design: precision policy is not just hardware capability (FP8/BF16) but compiler-enforced mapping of precision to error sensitivity, which can matter materially for inference cost-per-token if it reduces memory traffic and boosts throughput without forcing aggressive, accuracy-damaging quantization. Independent performance datapoints indicate Groq has been credible on latency-oriented inference speed, at least for certain regimes. EE Times reported in 2023 that Groq demonstrated Llama-2 70B inference at ~240 tokens/s per user on a cloud-based dev system described as 10 racks and 64 chips, using the company’s 1st-gen silicon introduced several years earlier. Separate Groq commentary around independent benchmarking cites results showing ~241 tokens/s throughput and ~0.8s time to receive 100 output tokens for a Llama-2 70B API configuration, positioning the platform as a step-change in “available speed” for certain interactive use cases. These figures do not settle total cost-of-ownership versus GPUs or hyperscaler ASICs, but they establish that Groq’s system-level architecture can deliver strong single-user throughput and latency on large models when properly partitioned and scheduled. GroqCloud is the commercial wrapper that packages this hardware/software stack as “tokens-as-a-service,” aiming to make Groq adoption feel like switching API endpoints rather than adopting new silicon. Groq’s documentation states its API is designed to be “mostly compatible” with OpenAI client libraries, and its pricing page provides model-specific token rates, published speeds (tokens/s), prompt caching discounts, and batch processing discounts. For example, pricing lists inputs as low as $0.05 per 1M tokens and outputs as low as $0.08 per 1M tokens for certain smaller LLM configurations, with higher prices for larger models and long-context or MoE variants; it also advertises prompt caching with a 50% discount on cached input tokens for certain models and a batch API offering 50% lower cost for asynchronous processing windows. These mechanics are economically important because they demonstrate Groq’s go-to-market is not simply “sell chips,” but “sell predictable unit economics per token,” with tooling (batch, caching) that directly targets inference cost drivers (reused prompts, throughput smoothing, and asynchronous workloads). The cloud footprint and distribution partnerships indicate Groq has been building an inference-native “edge within the cloud” strategy rather than competing head-on with hyperscalers on breadth of services. A 2025 Groq newsroom release describes a European deployment in Helsinki with Equinix, positioned as latency reduction and data governance for European customers, and explicitly references Equinix Fabric enabling private connectivity to GroqCloud over public, private, or sovereign infrastructure. The same release enumerates additional capacity in the U.S. (Equinix, DataBank), Canada (Bell Canada), and Saudi Arabia (HUMAIN), and states these sites collectively served more than 20M tokens/s across Groq’s global network at that time. That supply-side metric matters because it provides a directional sense that Groq is scaling capacity as a network, not merely as a chip vendor. Customer disclosure is inherently limited because Groq is private and many enterprise deployments are not public, but Groq’s marketing materials and partnerships provide signals about demand vectors. The company’s public website displays logos of large consumer and enterprise brands (e.g., Dropbox, Vercel, Chevron, Volkswagen, Canva, Robinhood, Riot Games, Workday, Ramp) and includes a published customer quote claiming a 7.41x chat speed increase and an 89% cost reduction after moving to GroqCloud, followed by a tripling of token consumption. While marketing claims should be treated as case-specific and not generalized, they indicate that Groq is targeting both AI-native developers (who measure success by latency and cost-per-token) and enterprise buyers (who care about predictable performance and governance). Supplier and dependency mapping for Groq spans 3 layers: silicon production, system integration, and cloud infrastructure. On silicon, third-party analysis indicates GlobalFoundries 14nm for the 1st-gen Groq chip, implying a supply chain less constrained by the most capacity-tight leading-edge nodes and advanced packaging bottlenecks that dominate high-end GPU supply (HBM stacks, CoWoS-type packaging constraints). If accurate, this is strategically meaningful because it suggests Groq capacity expansion could be gated more by conventional wafer supply, board assembly, and data center power than by the same HBM/advanced packaging scarcity that has constrained top-tier GPU ramp cycles. On systems and cloud, Groq’s own releases identify colocation and connectivity partners (Equinix, DataBank, Bell Canada) and a Middle East partner (HUMAIN), implying dependencies on data center real estate, power availability, and network connectivity, alongside procurement of standard server components, NICs/switching, racks, and cooling infrastructure. The Groq design narrative also emphasizes air cooling and reduced need for complex power/cooling infrastructure, which—if realized in deployments—can widen the set of feasible hosting locations and lower deployment friction relative to liquid-cooled, very high power density GPU racks. Against that backdrop, the strategic rationale for NVIDIA acquiring Groq can be framed as a set of overlapping objectives: inference silicon optionality, architectural hedging, competitive defense, and supply chain diversification, with the carve-out of GroqCloud signaling a preference to avoid direct cloud competition and to focus on IP and product portfolio control rather than operating a capital-intensive token-serving business. The deal, if confirmed, would occur at a valuation step-up of ~190% versus Groq’s reported ~$6.9B private valuation in the September $750M round, reinforcing that any acquisition logic would be predominantly strategic rather than a conventional financial multiple arbitrage. The most compelling strategic driver is inference. Training has historically been the center of gravity for cutting-edge GPU demand, but inference volume is structurally larger and more distributed as deployments scale, with economics dominated by cost-per-token, latency guarantees, and utilization under spiky demand. Inference workloads also create a strategic vulnerability for NVIDIA: hyperscalers and large platforms can justify bespoke ASICs (TPU, Trainium/Inferentia, Maia-class efforts) because inference is stable, repeatable, and can amortize software investment at massive scale. Groq’s core proposition—deterministic, compiler-scheduled inference with predictable latency—aligns directly with the segment where GPU generality is least valued and where “good enough” programmability plus superior unit economics can win share. Acquiring Groq would allow NVIDIA to own a credible inference-native architecture rather than relying solely on GPUs and software optimization to defend that segment. Competitive defense logic is also plausible. Groq occupies a specific competitive wedge: low-latency, high-throughput interactive inference, delivered via a simple API abstraction that reduces switching cost. That wedge directly pressures GPU inference margins in the long run because it makes inference price/performance comparisons more transparent at the token level, and it targets a developer persona that historically defaulted to CUDA-first ecosystems. Even if NVIDIA’s current-generation systems can achieve very high tokens/s per user with extensive optimization, the strategic risk is that competing architectures normalize the idea that inference is best served by special-purpose silicon with a simpler programming model, weakening CUDA lock-in at the application layer. NVIDIA has actively demonstrated that Blackwell-era systems can exceed 1,000 tokens/s per user in benchmarked configurations, but that performance leadership does not automatically translate to lowest cost-per-token across the full range of batch sizes, latency targets, and deployment environments. Groq’s existence as a credible alternative architecture forces NVIDIA to keep defending inference economics rather than only raw performance leadership. The “technology acquisition” rationale is unusually strong in this specific case because Groq’s differentiator is not a single block of silicon IP but an end-to-end methodology: compiler-led static scheduling, deterministic networking, and a system architecture designed around tensor-parallel inference rather than throughput-maximizing batch inference. NVIDIA’s stack is already compiler-heavy (TensorRT, Triton, CUDA graphs, kernel fusion, speculative decoding techniques), but GPUs remain dynamically scheduled devices with complex memory hierarchies and stochastic latency behaviors under contention. Groq’s approach provides an alternate design point: treating the entire inference execution (compute plus communication) as a statically schedulable program. In principle, that IP could be valuable even if Groq silicon itself is not adopted at massive scale, because it can inform how NVIDIA builds future inference-optimized products, compilers, and networking fabrics, especially as distributed inference with large models makes communication a first-order performance determinant. Supply chain diversification is a non-obvious but potentially important driver. If Groq’s mainstream product generation is truly based on a mature process node and avoids HBM, then the scaling constraints look different than those of state-of-the-art GPUs. NVIDIA’s ability to meet incremental demand has been tightly coupled to advanced packaging and HBM supply, and those constraints can remain binding even when wafer supply is available. An inference ASIC architecture that relies primarily on on-chip SRAM and scales by adding chips—while not costless—could reduce dependence on HBM availability and advanced packaging capacity, enabling NVIDIA to ship “inference capacity” in higher absolute volumes or into geographies and customer segments where the highest-end GPUs are economically or logistically difficult to deploy. This could be particularly relevant for latency-sensitive inference deployed in regional colocation footprints rather than centralized hyperscale campuses. The carve-out of GroqCloud, if accurate, is itself a strategic signal about NVIDIA’s priorities. Operating a token-serving cloud at scale is capital intensive, structurally lower margin than silicon IP rents, and creates channel conflict with hyperscalers and CSP partners who are core NVIDIA customers. NVIDIA has generally positioned its cloud offerings through partnerships rather than as a direct hyperscale competitor. Excluding GroqCloud would preserve neutrality with CSPs and avoid inheriting multi-region data residency obligations and partner contracts, while still allowing NVIDIA to acquire Groq’s silicon, compiler technology, and engineering talent. At the same time, excluding GroqCloud would also mean NVIDIA would not automatically acquire the commercial proof-point of Groq’s unit economics or the customer contracts that validate product-market fit at scale, increasing the importance of diligence on whether Groq’s cloud pricing is structurally profitable or partially subsidized by fundraising. There is also a “preemptive acquisition” angle. The reporting identifies recent investors in Groq’s latest round including large financial institutions and strategic/industry players. In that context, Groq represents an asset that could plausibly have been acquired by a competitor (AMD/Intel) or by a hyperscaler seeking to accelerate inference independence. NVIDIA acquiring Groq could be a defensive move to prevent a credible inference-native architecture from being weaponized by a rival with deep distribution. Even if GroqCloud is carved out, controlling the silicon roadmap and compiler IP would meaningfully constrain Groq’s ability to evolve into a standalone competitor, unless the carved-out entity retains long-term rights to the hardware and software stack. However, the strategic case is not one-sided; there are meaningful risks and potential contradictions that would need to be reconciled for the transaction to be value-accretive on a multi-year horizon. 1st, Groq’s architecture appears to rely on scaling out chip count to achieve capacity, which introduces system cost, networking complexity, and physical footprint considerations. The absence of external memory and limited on-chip SRAM implies very large models require substantial chip parallelism, and the economics then depend heavily on chip cost, yield, power efficiency, and interconnect overhead. SemiAnalysis explicitly frames Groq as trading space for time and raises questions about token economics and whether publicly advertised pricing reflects fully loaded costs or market share capture. 2nd, integration risk is non-trivial. Groq’s compiler-led deterministic model is philosophically and practically different from CUDA’s dominant programming and execution model. A poorly executed integration could create internal product confusion, dilute engineering focus, or alienate developers if the combined stack fragments. 3rd, there is cannibalization risk. If Groq-class inference silicon undercuts GPU inference economics, NVIDIA could face internal margin trade-offs, even if the goal is to defend share against hyperscaler ASICs. Cannibalization can still be rational if it prevents larger share loss, but it would require crisp portfolio segmentation and go-to-market discipline. The presence of NVIDIA’s own rapidly improving inference performance complicates the “need” for Groq but does not eliminate the “option value.” NVIDIA has demonstrated benchmark-leading tokens/s per user on Blackwell-based systems, suggesting that raw interactive throughput is not necessarily the limiting factor for NVIDIA’s product line. The more enduring strategic question is unit economics and architectural control: whether future inference demand is better monetized through general-purpose GPUs plus software optimization, or whether a bifurcated product portfolio (training GPUs plus inference-native ASICs) becomes necessary to defend total AI compute wallet share as hyperscaler ASIC penetration increases. Acquiring Groq could be a decisive move to ensure NVIDIA participates in both regimes rather than betting exclusively on GPUs to win inference forever. What is “special” about Groq’s technology relative to a typical accelerator roadmap is the tight coupling of determinism, compilation, and networking into a single scheduling problem. The LPU narrative emphasizes deterministic compute and networking, static scheduling, and direct chip-to-chip coordination that allows “hundreds” (more precisely, 100s) of chips to behave like a single scheduled resource. The architecture also explicitly targets tensor-parallel, latency-optimized distribution rather than pure data-parallel throughput scaling, which matters for real-time applications where a single response must arrive quickly rather than many requests being processed in bulk. The implication is that Groq is optimized for the time-to-first-token and steady token streaming behavior that defines user experience in interactive LLMs, and it attempts to achieve that without relying on large batch sizes that can degrade latency. From a portfolio manager’s perspective, the most important interpretation is that an NVIDIA-Groq combination would likely be less about “NVIDIA needs more inference speed” and more about controlling the architectural trajectory of inference acceleration and removing a fast-improving, developer-friendly competitor from the market. The carve-out of GroqCloud would reinforce that the transaction is aimed at IP, talent, and product optionality, not acquiring a cloud revenue stream. The valuation step-up implied by $20B versus $6.9B would therefore be justified only if the acquired assets materially reduce long-term competitive risk (hyperscaler ASIC displacement, inference margin compression) or enable new monetization vectors (inference ASIC product line, supply chain de-bottlenecking, improved software determinism) that would be difficult to achieve on a comparable timeline via internal R&D.

TheValueist

102,145 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

$Deuterium — a variable almost nobody tracks — regulates cell growth and mitochondrial function. It sits upstream of cancer and everything downstream. Your mitochondria maintain a lower deuterium concentration inside their inner membrane than outside. That gradient is not incidental. It's a feature of normal mitochondrial function. Roman Zubarev — professor of medical proteomics at the Karolinska Institute, trained at Moscow's elite physics institute — has spent years studying what happens when you disturb it. 1. Deuterium As A Cell Growth Regulator Deuterium — heavy hydrogen — regulates cell growth rate in the range of approximately 30–350 ppm. Earth's normal deuterium concentration is around 150 ppm. When cells are deprived of this normal amount, their growth slows down. To test this, Zubarev’s lab used A549 lung cancer cells — currently the most widely used cell line in biology — and exposed them to deuterium-depleted water at about 80 ppm. The result? Cancer cell growth rate dropped by 30%. Once deuterium concentrations step outside of that 30–350 ppm regulatory window, the effects stop being regulatory and start becoming highly detrimental. For example Mars carries approximately 750–1,050 ppm of deuterium—roughly 5 to 7 times Earth's natural concentration. When terrestrial organisms are exposed to Martian deuterium levels, they show significant survival decline. Zubarev’s team conducted a two-year experiment growing small shrimp in isolated environments where the water was modified to contain ~600 ppm of deuterium. They found that the survival rates of the shrimp significantly declined compared to those grown in normal water. 2. The Mitochondrial Mechanism — How Deuterium Depleted Water (DDW) Actually Works Alongside the well-known proton gradient, there is also a deuterium gradient across the inner mitochondrial membrane. Normally, the concentration of deuterium is lower inside the membrane than it is outside. Mitochondrial lipids are naturally deuterium-depleted. When cells are placed in 80 ppm deuterium-depleted water — lower than the normal ~150 ppm outside — the gradient reverses. More deuterium inside the membrane than outside. So how does this reversal suppress growth? This reversal upsets reactive oxygen species (ROS) production. To try and restore equilibrium, the mitochondria rapidly increase their production of ROS. This sudden spike in ROS induces oxidative stress within the cell, which the researchers identified as the primary molecular mechanism that ultimately suppresses the growth of the cells. This is the anti-cancer mechanism. Zubarev: "We have not invented this mechanism — it's very well known." To prove that DDW suppresses cancer cell growth by inducing oxidative stress they added NAC — N-acetylcysteine, a standard antioxidant — to DDW-treated cancer cells. If DDW works through ROS, an antioxidant should cancel the effect. The result? At approximately 2 millimolar NAC, the DDW anti-cancer effect was statistically eliminated. Then they tested the reverse. They combined DDW with auranofin — a drug that induces oxidative stress. If both work through ROS, combining them should produce synergistic effect. The result? At low to medium concentrations, adding the drug to the DDW created a "double whammy effect" where the cell count went down even further. However, at very high concentrations of the drug, the effect of the DDW diminished, which Zubarev explains makes sense because a cell does not need two overwhelming sources of reactive oxygen species to die. Three-layer validation. Published in Molecular and Cellular Proteomics — the top proteomics journal. 3. The Antioxidant Implication Standard health messaging treats ROS as purely bad. Antioxidants good. Oxidative stress bad. Zubarev's data complicates this directly. DDW works by increasing ROS in cancer cells. Antioxidants statistically cancelled the therapeutic effect. Auranofin — an oxidative stress inducer — synergized with DDW against cancer. Important caveat: this finding is in cancer cells, not in healthy humans. Zubarev notes that normal human cells react differently, stating that normal human cells are much less sensitive to DDW. Therefore, the induction of ROS to slow down growth is a therapeutic mechanism specifically observed in fast-growing cancer cells, not a general effect reported for healthy cells. But the blanket "antioxidants are good" narrative fails here. Context determines whether ROS is friend or enemy. 4. You Are Not What You Eat The standard model of nutrition assumes the body passively absorbs its dietary inputs — including isotopic composition. Zubarev's data shows the opposite. The body actively resists changes to its internal isotopic composition. It defends a specific ratio the way it defends pH or temperature. Isotopes modulate their own fractionation — the biological system selectively processes and separates heavy and light isotopes to maintain equilibrium. The isotopic quality of what you eat and drink is a regulated biological input — not a passive one. For example, the deuterium levels found in the proline, hydroxyproline, and collagen of seals are twice as high as the deuterium levels in the surrounding seawater. Because the isotopic concentration in the seals' biological building blocks is double that of their environment, there is no way to attribute this composition simply to their food. 5. Isotopic Resonance — The Order Underlying Life Plot the isotopic masses and abundances of the elements that make up biological molecules — hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen. You'd expect random scatter, a scattered "galaxy" of dots. Instead you find a precise line. Zubarev calls it isotopic resonance. At natural isotopic abundances, biological molecules cluster in a specific ratio that produces the simplest, most efficient molecular conformations. That ratio is the point at which life's chemistry runs fastest. The probability of this pattern appearing by chance is astronomically small. Zubarev — a physicist trained in probability — cannot dismiss it: "This is the line of God, if you want." Life doesn't exist here just because of liquid water and moderate temperature. It exists here because Earth's isotopic composition happens to hit the resonance at which life's machinery runs. Disturb that composition — and the system works to defend it. The isotopic quality of your water, your food, and your environment is not a background variable. It is the upstream input everything else depends on.$

Deuterium — a variable almost nobody tracks — regulates cell growth and mitochondrial function. It sits upstream of cancer and everything downstream. Your mitochondria maintain a lower deuterium concentration inside their inner membrane than outside. That gradient is not incidental. It's a feature of normal mitochondrial function. Roman Zubarev — professor of medical proteomics at the Karolinska Institute, trained at Moscow's elite physics institute — has spent years studying what happens when you disturb it. 1. Deuterium As A Cell Growth Regulator Deuterium — heavy hydrogen — regulates cell growth rate in the range of approximately 30–350 ppm. Earth's normal deuterium concentration is around 150 ppm. When cells are deprived of this normal amount, their growth slows down. To test this, Zubarev’s lab used A549 lung cancer cells — currently the most widely used cell line in biology — and exposed them to deuterium-depleted water at about 80 ppm. The result? Cancer cell growth rate dropped by 30%. Once deuterium concentrations step outside of that 30–350 ppm regulatory window, the effects stop being regulatory and start becoming highly detrimental. For example Mars carries approximately 750–1,050 ppm of deuterium—roughly 5 to 7 times Earth's natural concentration. When terrestrial organisms are exposed to Martian deuterium levels, they show significant survival decline. Zubarev’s team conducted a two-year experiment growing small shrimp in isolated environments where the water was modified to contain ~600 ppm of deuterium. They found that the survival rates of the shrimp significantly declined compared to those grown in normal water. 2. The Mitochondrial Mechanism — How Deuterium Depleted Water (DDW) Actually Works Alongside the well-known proton gradient, there is also a deuterium gradient across the inner mitochondrial membrane. Normally, the concentration of deuterium is lower inside the membrane than it is outside. Mitochondrial lipids are naturally deuterium-depleted. When cells are placed in 80 ppm deuterium-depleted water — lower than the normal ~150 ppm outside — the gradient reverses. More deuterium inside the membrane than outside. So how does this reversal suppress growth? This reversal upsets reactive oxygen species (ROS) production. To try and restore equilibrium, the mitochondria rapidly increase their production of ROS. This sudden spike in ROS induces oxidative stress within the cell, which the researchers identified as the primary molecular mechanism that ultimately suppresses the growth of the cells. This is the anti-cancer mechanism. Zubarev: "We have not invented this mechanism — it's very well known." To prove that DDW suppresses cancer cell growth by inducing oxidative stress they added NAC — N-acetylcysteine, a standard antioxidant — to DDW-treated cancer cells. If DDW works through ROS, an antioxidant should cancel the effect. The result? At approximately 2 millimolar NAC, the DDW anti-cancer effect was statistically eliminated. Then they tested the reverse. They combined DDW with auranofin — a drug that induces oxidative stress. If both work through ROS, combining them should produce synergistic effect. The result? At low to medium concentrations, adding the drug to the DDW created a "double whammy effect" where the cell count went down even further. However, at very high concentrations of the drug, the effect of the DDW diminished, which Zubarev explains makes sense because a cell does not need two overwhelming sources of reactive oxygen species to die. Three-layer validation. Published in Molecular and Cellular Proteomics — the top proteomics journal. 3. The Antioxidant Implication Standard health messaging treats ROS as purely bad. Antioxidants good. Oxidative stress bad. Zubarev's data complicates this directly. DDW works by increasing ROS in cancer cells. Antioxidants statistically cancelled the therapeutic effect. Auranofin — an oxidative stress inducer — synergized with DDW against cancer. Important caveat: this finding is in cancer cells, not in healthy humans. Zubarev notes that normal human cells react differently, stating that normal human cells are much less sensitive to DDW. Therefore, the induction of ROS to slow down growth is a therapeutic mechanism specifically observed in fast-growing cancer cells, not a general effect reported for healthy cells. But the blanket "antioxidants are good" narrative fails here. Context determines whether ROS is friend or enemy. 4. You Are Not What You Eat The standard model of nutrition assumes the body passively absorbs its dietary inputs — including isotopic composition. Zubarev's data shows the opposite. The body actively resists changes to its internal isotopic composition. It defends a specific ratio the way it defends pH or temperature. Isotopes modulate their own fractionation — the biological system selectively processes and separates heavy and light isotopes to maintain equilibrium. The isotopic quality of what you eat and drink is a regulated biological input — not a passive one. For example, the deuterium levels found in the proline, hydroxyproline, and collagen of seals are twice as high as the deuterium levels in the surrounding seawater. Because the isotopic concentration in the seals' biological building blocks is double that of their environment, there is no way to attribute this composition simply to their food. 5. Isotopic Resonance — The Order Underlying Life Plot the isotopic masses and abundances of the elements that make up biological molecules — hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen. You'd expect random scatter, a scattered "galaxy" of dots. Instead you find a precise line. Zubarev calls it isotopic resonance. At natural isotopic abundances, biological molecules cluster in a specific ratio that produces the simplest, most efficient molecular conformations. That ratio is the point at which life's chemistry runs fastest. The probability of this pattern appearing by chance is astronomically small. Zubarev — a physicist trained in probability — cannot dismiss it: "This is the line of God, if you want." Life doesn't exist here just because of liquid water and moderate temperature. It exists here because Earth's isotopic composition happens to hit the resonance at which life's machinery runs. Disturb that composition — and the system works to defend it. The isotopic quality of your water, your food, and your environment is not a background variable. It is the upstream input everything else depends on.

no.mind

29,918 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

A 17-year-old is making $120,000/month on TikTok Shop with $2 ad creative. Not $2 per ad. $2 total. That's his entire monthly creative budget. Pause at 0:26. The screen recording opens on what looks like a normal high school bedroom. A backpack on the floor. A pair of soccer cleats next to the door. A whiteboard on the wall that says "WEEK 47" in red marker with a list of product launches underneath. The MacBook on the desk has Spotify playing in the corner and three Chrome tabs open across the top. Tab 1 is TikTok Shop Seller Center. Tab 2 is a custom Lovable dashboard. Tab 3 is Claude. The Seller Center shows today's revenue ticking up in real time. $3,847 by 11am. $4,210 by noon. The product being sold is a $42 ergonomic kitchen tool - specifically, a magnetic spice rack that mounts under cabinets. He's never held one in his hands. He doesn't know the supplier. The supplier ships directly from Yiwu, China to customers in the US. He never touches the inventory, the fulfillment, or the customer service. His job is the ads. He uploaded 1,847 TikTok product videos in the last 11 months. He didn't film a single one. He didn't pay a creator. He didn't rent a studio. He didn't buy props. The 1,847 videos cost him exactly $24 to produce. Here's the play. The TikTok Shop algorithm rewards volume over polish. A product with 50 different videos posted by 50 different "creators" outperforms a product with 5 highly produced ads every time, because TikTok's recommendation engine treats each video as an independent shot at the algorithm. More shots = more chances at virality. Most operators in the niche cap their video output at 30-50 per month because that's the labor ceiling for hand-edited content with paid UGC creators. He doesn't have a labor ceiling. His pipeline is fully synthetic. The workflow: Product selection. He uses a Claude-powered scraper that pulls TikTok Shop's top 500 products by daily revenue and filters for SKUs in the $25-$80 range with under 12 active sellers. The sweet spot is products with proven demand but undersaturated supplier competition. He picks 1-2 new products per week. Creator generation. He has 47 AI "creators" built in Higgsfield Soul ID. Each one is a different persona - gym girl, mom, college student, dad, grandma, teenager, finance bro. The personas don't get their own accounts. They're used as faces in product demo videos. Different faces in different videos to prevent the algorithm from clustering his content as "same creator." Script generation. Claude writes 15-25 script variants per product. Each script is 18-22 seconds, hook in the first 1.4 seconds, demonstration in seconds 2-12, call to action in seconds 13-22. The hooks rotate - "wait until you see this," "I cannot believe this works," "my mom has been using this wrong for 30 years." Video generation. Higgsfield Seedance generates the video. He drops in the product image (pulled from the supplier's Alibaba listing) and the AI creator persona. Higgsfield composites them - the persona "holds" the product, demonstrates it, reacts to it. Generation time per video: 3-4 minutes. Posting. He posts each video to 11 different TikTok accounts - one main TikTok Shop seller account, 10 "burner creator" accounts that all link back to the same Shop product. The 10 burners are seeded with 50-200 followers each over 8 months of slow account warming. They look like real creator accounts. Boosting. TikTok Spark Ads on the top 3 videos per product per week. Boost budget: $30-$200 per video. The boosts are the only real cost. Ad creative is free. The "$2 total monthly creative budget" line refers to the creative cost - the synthetic video production. The $30-$200 boost spend is paid ad amplification, which is separate. He spent roughly $14,000 in TikTok Spark Ads last month. The creative inside those ads cost him $2 total - the marginal cost of Higgsfield credits for the videos he eventually ran as paid ads. Compared to the industry standard - agencies charging $400-$1,200 per UGC video and DTC brands spending $20K-$60K/month on creative production - his cost structure is functionally an arbitrage on production cost. Last month's TikTok Shop revenue: $342,000 GMV. His take after platform fees, supplier costs, ad spend, and platform commissions: $124,000 net. The month before, $108,000. The month before that, $94,000. The month before that, $73,000. His Stripe payouts since January: roughly $740,000. His total fixed costs: $190/month - Claude API, Higgsfield Pro, the Lovable dashboard, his TikTok Shop seller account fees, and the supplier coordination tool that auto-fulfills orders from China. His variable cost is the ad boost spend, which scales 1:1 with revenue. Effective gross margin on the operation: 41%. Net margin after all costs: 34%. He's been doing this since January. Here's where the post earns its real insight. Most TikTok Shop operators get stuck at $5K-$15K/month because they hit the labor ceiling. Hand-editing 30 videos a month with paid UGC creators caps them at one or two products and prevents them from scaling horizontally. The kid's edge isn't a better product, a better supplier, or better ad targeting. His edge is the production volume that AI unlocks. He runs 6 active products simultaneously. Most TikTok Shop operators run 1-2. His total monthly video output is 168 videos. The industry average is 22. He's not winning at the product level - he's winning at the throughput level. The math on a per-product basis is identical to what any operator can do. He just runs the math 6 times in parallel with 8x the creative volume. Someone in the replies asked the obvious question - what happens when TikTok cracks down on AI-generated UGC? He responded: "They already did. As of August, TikTok requires AI-generated content to be labeled. I label every video. Conversion rates dropped 11% in the first month after I started labeling. They've fully recovered since. Buyers don't care that the demo is AI. They care that the product solves their problem. The label disclosure became a non-event within 90 days." Someone tried to replicate the model. They built 12 AI creators, generated 80 videos, posted them across 4 accounts, and made $2,400 in revenue in their first month. They posted a teardown asking what was missing. He replied: "You're running 80 videos across 4 products. I run 168 videos across 6 products. The math doesn't work at small volume. The algorithm is a slot machine. You don't beat it with better pulls - you beat it with more pulls. Scale the throughput first. Optimization comes after you've crossed the noise floor." His older brother handles the LLC, the Stripe account, the supplier contracts, and the tax filings. The brother is 21, in his last year of college, and takes 5% of net. The brother knows the kid is making "good money" but doesn't know the magnitude - the kid sends monthly summaries that under-report the numbers by 40% to manage his brother's reactions. His parents think he's "doing something with TikTok" and assume he's clearing $3,000-$5,000 a month. He's currently sitting on $640,000 in his brokerage account. The whole operation runs from a Mac mini and a $189 ring light he bought as a prop he's never used (the AI creators don't need physical lighting). His total invested capital before he started: $1,840. He's 17. He's been doing this for 11 months. He's on track to clear $1.8M by his 18th birthday. By the time he applies to college, he'll have built and exited his first business - he plans to sell the operation to a TikTok agency for -$6M at the 18-month mark. Last week he launched product #14 - a portable phone fan that clips to your case. He generated 47 videos in 3 days. The product's hitting $1,200/day in revenue and climbing. Somewhere, a 28-year-old TikTok Shop agency operator with a 6-person team and a $32,000/month payroll is wondering why their best clients keep churning. Why every product they pitch has 40+ competitors selling it within 6 weeks. He isn't competing with bigger sellers. He isn't competing with TikTok agencies. He's competing with a 17-year-old who never paid for creative.

A 17-year-old is making $120,000/month on TikTok Shop with $2 ad creative. Not $2 per ad. $2 total. That's his entire monthly creative budget. Pause at 0:26. The screen recording opens on what looks like a normal high school bedroom. A backpack on the floor. A pair of soccer cleats next to the door. A whiteboard on the wall that says "WEEK 47" in red marker with a list of product launches underneath. The MacBook on the desk has Spotify playing in the corner and three Chrome tabs open across the top. Tab 1 is TikTok Shop Seller Center. Tab 2 is a custom Lovable dashboard. Tab 3 is Claude. The Seller Center shows today's revenue ticking up in real time. $3,847 by 11am. $4,210 by noon. The product being sold is a $42 ergonomic kitchen tool - specifically, a magnetic spice rack that mounts under cabinets. He's never held one in his hands. He doesn't know the supplier. The supplier ships directly from Yiwu, China to customers in the US. He never touches the inventory, the fulfillment, or the customer service. His job is the ads. He uploaded 1,847 TikTok product videos in the last 11 months. He didn't film a single one. He didn't pay a creator. He didn't rent a studio. He didn't buy props. The 1,847 videos cost him exactly $24 to produce. Here's the play. The TikTok Shop algorithm rewards volume over polish. A product with 50 different videos posted by 50 different "creators" outperforms a product with 5 highly produced ads every time, because TikTok's recommendation engine treats each video as an independent shot at the algorithm. More shots = more chances at virality. Most operators in the niche cap their video output at 30-50 per month because that's the labor ceiling for hand-edited content with paid UGC creators. He doesn't have a labor ceiling. His pipeline is fully synthetic. The workflow: Product selection. He uses a Claude-powered scraper that pulls TikTok Shop's top 500 products by daily revenue and filters for SKUs in the $25-$80 range with under 12 active sellers. The sweet spot is products with proven demand but undersaturated supplier competition. He picks 1-2 new products per week. Creator generation. He has 47 AI "creators" built in Higgsfield Soul ID. Each one is a different persona - gym girl, mom, college student, dad, grandma, teenager, finance bro. The personas don't get their own accounts. They're used as faces in product demo videos. Different faces in different videos to prevent the algorithm from clustering his content as "same creator." Script generation. Claude writes 15-25 script variants per product. Each script is 18-22 seconds, hook in the first 1.4 seconds, demonstration in seconds 2-12, call to action in seconds 13-22. The hooks rotate - "wait until you see this," "I cannot believe this works," "my mom has been using this wrong for 30 years." Video generation. Higgsfield Seedance generates the video. He drops in the product image (pulled from the supplier's Alibaba listing) and the AI creator persona. Higgsfield composites them - the persona "holds" the product, demonstrates it, reacts to it. Generation time per video: 3-4 minutes. Posting. He posts each video to 11 different TikTok accounts - one main TikTok Shop seller account, 10 "burner creator" accounts that all link back to the same Shop product. The 10 burners are seeded with 50-200 followers each over 8 months of slow account warming. They look like real creator accounts. Boosting. TikTok Spark Ads on the top 3 videos per product per week. Boost budget: $30-$200 per video. The boosts are the only real cost. Ad creative is free. The "$2 total monthly creative budget" line refers to the creative cost - the synthetic video production. The $30-$200 boost spend is paid ad amplification, which is separate. He spent roughly $14,000 in TikTok Spark Ads last month. The creative inside those ads cost him $2 total - the marginal cost of Higgsfield credits for the videos he eventually ran as paid ads. Compared to the industry standard - agencies charging $400-$1,200 per UGC video and DTC brands spending $20K-$60K/month on creative production - his cost structure is functionally an arbitrage on production cost. Last month's TikTok Shop revenue: $342,000 GMV. His take after platform fees, supplier costs, ad spend, and platform commissions: $124,000 net. The month before, $108,000. The month before that, $94,000. The month before that, $73,000. His Stripe payouts since January: roughly $740,000. His total fixed costs: $190/month - Claude API, Higgsfield Pro, the Lovable dashboard, his TikTok Shop seller account fees, and the supplier coordination tool that auto-fulfills orders from China. His variable cost is the ad boost spend, which scales 1:1 with revenue. Effective gross margin on the operation: 41%. Net margin after all costs: 34%. He's been doing this since January. Here's where the post earns its real insight. Most TikTok Shop operators get stuck at $5K-$15K/month because they hit the labor ceiling. Hand-editing 30 videos a month with paid UGC creators caps them at one or two products and prevents them from scaling horizontally. The kid's edge isn't a better product, a better supplier, or better ad targeting. His edge is the production volume that AI unlocks. He runs 6 active products simultaneously. Most TikTok Shop operators run 1-2. His total monthly video output is 168 videos. The industry average is 22. He's not winning at the product level - he's winning at the throughput level. The math on a per-product basis is identical to what any operator can do. He just runs the math 6 times in parallel with 8x the creative volume. Someone in the replies asked the obvious question - what happens when TikTok cracks down on AI-generated UGC? He responded: "They already did. As of August, TikTok requires AI-generated content to be labeled. I label every video. Conversion rates dropped 11% in the first month after I started labeling. They've fully recovered since. Buyers don't care that the demo is AI. They care that the product solves their problem. The label disclosure became a non-event within 90 days." Someone tried to replicate the model. They built 12 AI creators, generated 80 videos, posted them across 4 accounts, and made $2,400 in revenue in their first month. They posted a teardown asking what was missing. He replied: "You're running 80 videos across 4 products. I run 168 videos across 6 products. The math doesn't work at small volume. The algorithm is a slot machine. You don't beat it with better pulls - you beat it with more pulls. Scale the throughput first. Optimization comes after you've crossed the noise floor." His older brother handles the LLC, the Stripe account, the supplier contracts, and the tax filings. The brother is 21, in his last year of college, and takes 5% of net. The brother knows the kid is making "good money" but doesn't know the magnitude - the kid sends monthly summaries that under-report the numbers by 40% to manage his brother's reactions. His parents think he's "doing something with TikTok" and assume he's clearing $3,000-$5,000 a month. He's currently sitting on $640,000 in his brokerage account. The whole operation runs from a Mac mini and a $189 ring light he bought as a prop he's never used (the AI creators don't need physical lighting). His total invested capital before he started: $1,840. He's 17. He's been doing this for 11 months. He's on track to clear $1.8M by his 18th birthday. By the time he applies to college, he'll have built and exited his first business - he plans to sell the operation to a TikTok agency for -$6M at the 18-month mark. Last week he launched product #14 - a portable phone fan that clips to your case. He generated 47 videos in 3 days. The product's hitting $1,200/day in revenue and climbing. Somewhere, a 28-year-old TikTok Shop agency operator with a 6-person team and a $32,000/month payroll is wondering why their best clients keep churning. Why every product they pitch has 40+ competitors selling it within 6 weeks. He isn't competing with bigger sellers. He isn't competing with TikTok agencies. He's competing with a 17-year-old who never paid for creative.

Ochob

22,053 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

An open-source, onchain creator platform that never says "no" to creativity. If you ask, "Can I build this here?" - the answer is always yes. Learn more about our vision below 🧵 👁 What is TheCreators? 🚪 A collective of artists, builders, and fine memes reshaping the creator economy. We empower creators to go direct-to-market, bypassing traditional gatekeepers. By bringing creativity and commerce onchain, we're unlocking a new era of freedom. But this isn’t new. This is one of the longest plays. - purchased by rskagy.base.eth 👁️🚪 d/acc #BasedCreators ⏹ in 2012 - was a web2 branding and ad agency until 2021 - working for gamestopNFT and onboarding hundreds of thousands of gamestop apes to buy their first NFTs, something changed, leading to a meeting of minds, and a collective mission to deliver on the promises of web3 gaming. to re-convene at a later date, when the time is right. It has since undergone 4 years of trial and error and battle testing to see what works and what doesn't work when it comes to community owned digital worlds. 🌐 Building a Based World What does it mean to build a based world? To us, it means a world where creators own their work, communities thrive and share an ownership stake in their own distribution, and creativity is limitless. Our platform aims to enable anyone to create immersive experiences - games, events, and digital spaces - without barriers. We’re developing: ✅ AI-powered worldbuilding - natural language prompts generate metaverse spaces ✅ Onchain asset discovery, deployment, & interaction from within virtual worlds ✅ No-code & pro-level tools - Unity-based with deep onchain integration ✅ Plug-and-play templates – for rapid creation and customization by novice 3D and game devs. ✅ Maintained by the open source community We're partnered with: 🏰 Guild - enabling their userbase of 4m+ connected wallets to reward their communities with token-gated towns, games, events, drops, & experiences 👏 liquid 💧 / moved to @clanker_world (USED FOR TESTING NOW) - Official metaverse event partner, building Clankercon 2025 for the clanker ecosystem of 100k+ meme token communities 🤖🎮 FARCAST - Superpowering their vision for agentic gaming with minigames and metaverse tech 🐶 Own The Doge 🐶🖼 - Creating lasting, meaningful impact in the world thru memes & onchain culture. Targeting education, gaming, food, & fun. Do Only Good Everyday 🌏 TheCreators is a global movement, with friends in high places ✨ Watch the video in this post to see an overview of one of the first-party games slated to be released on our platform, "Settlers of Ariel," built by TheCreators Studios. Creators will have access to modular templates, AI-assisted customization, and interoperable game elements built by us, and trained using our AI to enable natural language metaverse building. It's all early-stage, but we're moving fast. ClankerCon and other upcoming projects will showcase the first real applications. Then we grow other creators to publish on the platform. ❓How will we select the first creators to be allowed on the platform? What's next? We will be releasing THEO-0, our onchain AI agent as our next development milestone. This agent will actively run a 24/7 campaign to enable people to vouch for their favorite creators via a limited voting process. Vote for creators you like, and they will gain CREATE points, and you will also gain points for voting every day in a streak. Creators with the most points on the leaderboards will be among the first onboarded to the platform, and all creators with points will be invited to take part in Token Generation Events as each season of leaderboards comes to a close. 1. Help us grow as we look forward to launching THEO-0 2. Be ready to start voting for your favorite creators! How do I become a Creator? If you pour your time, energy, and soul into something special - you already are one. If your mission is to reclaim art and culture from corporate algorithms, & make a more based world for our children, you belong here. Join us. 👁🚪

An open-source, onchain creator platform that never says "no" to creativity. If you ask, "Can I build this here?" - the answer is always yes. Learn more about our vision below 🧵 👁 What is TheCreators? 🚪 A collective of artists, builders, and fine memes reshaping the creator economy. We empower creators to go direct-to-market, bypassing traditional gatekeepers. By bringing creativity and commerce onchain, we're unlocking a new era of freedom. But this isn’t new. This is one of the longest plays. - purchased by rskagy.base.eth 👁️🚪 d/acc #BasedCreators ⏹ in 2012 - was a web2 branding and ad agency until 2021 - working for gamestopNFT and onboarding hundreds of thousands of gamestop apes to buy their first NFTs, something changed, leading to a meeting of minds, and a collective mission to deliver on the promises of web3 gaming. to re-convene at a later date, when the time is right. It has since undergone 4 years of trial and error and battle testing to see what works and what doesn't work when it comes to community owned digital worlds. 🌐 Building a Based World What does it mean to build a based world? To us, it means a world where creators own their work, communities thrive and share an ownership stake in their own distribution, and creativity is limitless. Our platform aims to enable anyone to create immersive experiences - games, events, and digital spaces - without barriers. We’re developing: ✅ AI-powered worldbuilding - natural language prompts generate metaverse spaces ✅ Onchain asset discovery, deployment, & interaction from within virtual worlds ✅ No-code & pro-level tools - Unity-based with deep onchain integration ✅ Plug-and-play templates – for rapid creation and customization by novice 3D and game devs. ✅ Maintained by the open source community We're partnered with: 🏰 Guild - enabling their userbase of 4m+ connected wallets to reward their communities with token-gated towns, games, events, drops, & experiences 👏 liquid 💧 / moved to @clanker_world (USED FOR TESTING NOW) - Official metaverse event partner, building Clankercon 2025 for the clanker ecosystem of 100k+ meme token communities 🤖🎮 FARCAST - Superpowering their vision for agentic gaming with minigames and metaverse tech 🐶 Own The Doge 🐶🖼 - Creating lasting, meaningful impact in the world thru memes & onchain culture. Targeting education, gaming, food, & fun. Do Only Good Everyday 🌏 TheCreators is a global movement, with friends in high places ✨ Watch the video in this post to see an overview of one of the first-party games slated to be released on our platform, "Settlers of Ariel," built by TheCreators Studios. Creators will have access to modular templates, AI-assisted customization, and interoperable game elements built by us, and trained using our AI to enable natural language metaverse building. It's all early-stage, but we're moving fast. ClankerCon and other upcoming projects will showcase the first real applications. Then we grow other creators to publish on the platform. ❓How will we select the first creators to be allowed on the platform? What's next? We will be releasing THEO-0, our onchain AI agent as our next development milestone. This agent will actively run a 24/7 campaign to enable people to vouch for their favorite creators via a limited voting process. Vote for creators you like, and they will gain CREATE points, and you will also gain points for voting every day in a streak. Creators with the most points on the leaderboards will be among the first onboarded to the platform, and all creators with points will be invited to take part in Token Generation Events as each season of leaderboards comes to a close. 1. Help us grow as we look forward to launching THEO-0 2. Be ready to start voting for your favorite creators! How do I become a Creator? If you pour your time, energy, and soul into something special - you already are one. If your mission is to reclaim art and culture from corporate algorithms, & make a more based world for our children, you belong here. Join us. 👁🚪

Create on Base ⏹

28,307 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce