Video yรผkleniyor...

Video Yรผklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dรถn

๐—ข๐—ป๐—ฒ ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—บ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐˜† ๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐—ปโ€™๐˜ ๐—ฟ๐˜‚๐—น๐—ฒ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ๐—บ ๐—ฎ๐—น๐—น. We present ๐—Ÿ๐—ผ๐—š๐—ฒ๐—ฅ, a new ๐—ต๐˜†๐—ฏ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ฑ ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—บ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐˜† architecture for long-context geometric reconstruction. LoGeR enables stable reconstruction over up to ๐Ÿญ๐Ÿฌ๐—ธ ๐—ณ๐—ฟ๐—ฎ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐˜€ / ๐—ธ๐—ถ๐—น๐—ผ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ฟ ๐˜€๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐—น๐—ฒ, with ๐—น๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐—ฟ-๐˜๐—ถ๐—บ๐—ฒ ๐˜€๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐—น๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด in sequence length, ๐—ณ๐˜‚๐—น๐—น๐˜† ๐—ณ๐—ฒ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ๐—ณ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐˜„๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ฑ inference, and ๐—ป๐—ผ ๐—ฝ๐—ผ๐˜€๐˜-๐—ผ๐—ฝ๐˜๐—ถ๐—บ๐—ถ๐˜‡๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป. Yet it matches or surpasses strong optimization-based...

junyi42's profile picture

Junyi Zhang

2,909 subscribers

562,599 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 4 ay รถnce โ€ขvia X (Twitter)

EฤŸitimBilim & Teknoloji
LIVE

Anya Rossiโ€ข Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gรถnderinin yorumlarฤฑ burada gรถrรผnecek

Benzer Videolar

$AMD $AMZN partnership will ๐Ÿš€ in 2026 ๐Ÿ”ฅ Amazon/AMD partnership is hidden among hot headlines from OpenAI $NVDA $ORCL... TLDR: Amazon refused to bid up the overpriced $NVDA chips among other hyperscalers, and decided to work closely with $AMD. Amazon is expected to spend up to $10-$20B a year on 2026 EPYC breakthrough Gen and Future Gen. Dr. Su confirmed "we have plenty for other large customers". For its 2026 EPYC "Venice" processors, AMD is using a multi-node manufacturing strategy: the CPU core complex dies (CCDs) are built on TSMC's 2 nm-class node (N2), while the I/O die (IOD) uses the N3P (3 nm) process. Context: Andy Jassy Amazon Web Services has been working with AMD on EPYC processors since November 2018. With this "secret weapon" breakthrough(patented), this long time partnership has expanded to New breakthrough 2026 EPYC Gen. AMD's 6th Gen EPYC "Venice" processors, slated for 2026, introduce New Chiplet design breakthrough. a revolutionary chiplet interconnect fabric that redefines server scalability for AI. This isn't just faster silicon; it's a paradigm shift for AWS, enabling hyper-efficient, rack-scale AI inference that slashes costs and latency while boosting throughput. AMD to benefit AWS's $100B+ AI opportunity along with $ORCL $MSFT $GOOGL $META Saudi, UAE ,38+ countries and startups. In early October, Amazon/AWS announced the new EC2 M8a instances as their latest-generation, general-purpose compute instances now powered by AMD EPYC 9005 "Turin" processors. Amazon announced the M8a as having up to 30% higher performance and up to 19% better price performance over M7a. With my testing of both at 32 vCPUs, the new AMD EPYC Turin instance provided 1.59x the performance over the prior-generation EPYC Genoa instance! How will this impact AWS AI Inference? ~Cost Efficiency: Inference is 80%+ of AI workloads and latency-sensitive (e.g., chatbots need <1s responses). "Secret weapon" enables 35x better inference perf (per AMD's CDNA roadmap tie-in), cutting AWS's energy use by 50%+ in clusters. With $118B 2025 capex, this could save $20โ€“$30B annually in OPEX, boosting margins to 35%-40%. ~Scalability for Agentic AI: Supports "Helios" rack-scale platforms (up to 128 GPUs + EPYC hosts), delivering 3.58x FP6 perf for distributed inference. AWS can run 700K+ more tokens/sec in 1,000-node clusters (via EPYC 9575F boosts), enabling real-time apps like personalized search or fraud detection at enterprise scale. ~Adoption Catalysts: Early partners like Oracle signal broad uptake; AWS's existing AMD instances G4ad with Radeon GPUs) pave the way. By 2026, EPYC could power 40%+ of AWS AI infra, outpacing Nvidia's GPU lock-in via open standards (ROCm 8 software). Lastly, Amazonโ€™s trajectory toward a $320 stock price is not a speculative leap but a grounded projection rooted in its unmatched fundamentals and strategic AI leadership. With Amazon Web Services poised to surpass $100 billion in annual revenue by 2026, driven by explosive AI inference demand, Amazon is redefining cloud computingโ€™s future. The adoption of AMDโ€™s 2026 EPYC processors with "Secret" architecture is a game-changer, slashing costs by up to 50% and boosting inference throughput 3x, enabling AWS to dominate enterprise AI workloads with unmatched efficiency. This technological edge, combined with Amazonโ€™s e-commerce dominance and high-margin advertising growth, supports a valuation rerating to 22x EV/EBITDA, and it is still a discount to historical highs. Trading at $222, $AMZN is undervalued for its 15โ€“20% revenue CAGR and 25%+ EPS growth through 2030.
0:49

$AMD $AMZN partnership will ๐Ÿš€ in 2026 ๐Ÿ”ฅ Amazon/AMD partnership is hidden among hot headlines from OpenAI $NVDA $ORCL... TLDR: Amazon refused to bid up the overpriced $NVDA chips among other hyperscalers, and decided to work closely with $AMD. Amazon is expected to spend up to $10-$20B a year on 2026 EPYC breakthrough Gen and Future Gen. Dr. Su confirmed "we have plenty for other large customers". For its 2026 EPYC "Venice" processors, AMD is using a multi-node manufacturing strategy: the CPU core complex dies (CCDs) are built on TSMC's 2 nm-class node (N2), while the I/O die (IOD) uses the N3P (3 nm) process. Context: Andy Jassy Amazon Web Services has been working with AMD on EPYC processors since November 2018. With this "secret weapon" breakthrough(patented), this long time partnership has expanded to New breakthrough 2026 EPYC Gen. AMD's 6th Gen EPYC "Venice" processors, slated for 2026, introduce New Chiplet design breakthrough. a revolutionary chiplet interconnect fabric that redefines server scalability for AI. This isn't just faster silicon; it's a paradigm shift for AWS, enabling hyper-efficient, rack-scale AI inference that slashes costs and latency while boosting throughput. AMD to benefit AWS's $100B+ AI opportunity along with $ORCL $MSFT $GOOGL $META Saudi, UAE ,38+ countries and startups. In early October, Amazon/AWS announced the new EC2 M8a instances as their latest-generation, general-purpose compute instances now powered by AMD EPYC 9005 "Turin" processors. Amazon announced the M8a as having up to 30% higher performance and up to 19% better price performance over M7a. With my testing of both at 32 vCPUs, the new AMD EPYC Turin instance provided 1.59x the performance over the prior-generation EPYC Genoa instance! How will this impact AWS AI Inference? ~Cost Efficiency: Inference is 80%+ of AI workloads and latency-sensitive (e.g., chatbots need <1s responses). "Secret weapon" enables 35x better inference perf (per AMD's CDNA roadmap tie-in), cutting AWS's energy use by 50%+ in clusters. With $118B 2025 capex, this could save $20โ€“$30B annually in OPEX, boosting margins to 35%-40%. ~Scalability for Agentic AI: Supports "Helios" rack-scale platforms (up to 128 GPUs + EPYC hosts), delivering 3.58x FP6 perf for distributed inference. AWS can run 700K+ more tokens/sec in 1,000-node clusters (via EPYC 9575F boosts), enabling real-time apps like personalized search or fraud detection at enterprise scale. ~Adoption Catalysts: Early partners like Oracle signal broad uptake; AWS's existing AMD instances G4ad with Radeon GPUs) pave the way. By 2026, EPYC could power 40%+ of AWS AI infra, outpacing Nvidia's GPU lock-in via open standards (ROCm 8 software). Lastly, Amazonโ€™s trajectory toward a $320 stock price is not a speculative leap but a grounded projection rooted in its unmatched fundamentals and strategic AI leadership. With Amazon Web Services poised to surpass $100 billion in annual revenue by 2026, driven by explosive AI inference demand, Amazon is redefining cloud computingโ€™s future. The adoption of AMDโ€™s 2026 EPYC processors with "Secret" architecture is a game-changer, slashing costs by up to 50% and boosting inference throughput 3x, enabling AWS to dominate enterprise AI workloads with unmatched efficiency. This technological edge, combined with Amazonโ€™s e-commerce dominance and high-margin advertising growth, supports a valuation rerating to 22x EV/EBITDA, and it is still a discount to historical highs. Trading at $222, $AMZN is undervalued for its 15โ€“20% revenue CAGR and 25%+ EPS growth through 2030.

Mike

511,082 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 9 ay รถnce

$AMD $MSFT Partnership is MASSIVE in 2026 ๐Ÿš€ If you were excited about my thread on $AMD $AMZN AWS long time partnership, you will be even more excited about what Microsoft gonna do with 2026 AMD EPYC "Venice". Historical Context: The relationship between AMD and Microsoft began in the early 2000s, with Microsoft initially focusing on Intel's x86 architecture for its Windows operating system and server products. However, AMD's entry into the server market with its Opteron processors in 2003 marked the beginning of a competitive dynamic that eventually led to collaboration. The partnership intensified with the launch of 3rd Generation EPYC "Milan" in 2021, powering Azure's N2D and C2D VM families. By 2025, Microsoft had integrated 5th Generation EPYC "Turin" into new compute-optimized instances, reflecting a strategic shift towards AMD for cost and performance benefits. This "Secret Weapon" breakthrough will mark another inflection point for AMD Microsoft Azure relationship, will probably be more aggressive than EPYC "Milan" moment in 2021. We can call it EPYC "Venice" moment 2026" 1. Technical performance of AMD EPYC "Venice" (2026) AMD's 6th Gen EPYC "Venice" processors, slated for 2026, introduce New Chiplet design breakthrough. a revolutionary chiplet interconnect fabric that redefines server scalability for AI. This isn't just faster silicon; it's a paradigm shift for Microsoft Azure , enabling hyper-efficient, rack-scale AI inference that slashes costs and latency while boosting throughput. ~Up to 256 Zen 6 cores, a 70% performance increase over "Turin," optimized for AI and HPC. ~Memory and Bandwidth: 1.6 TB/s per socket, doubling "Turin's" capability, with support for MR-DIMM/MCR-DIMM. ~Efficiency: 1,500-1,700W power draw, a 50% reduction, aligning with Microsoft's sustainability initiatives. ~Interconnect: PCIe 6.0 and a new chiplet fabric for rack-scale AI, reducing latency and enhancing scalability. 2. Why $MSFT will adopt $AMD YPYC Share to 50%+ in 2026. AMD EPYC Share: ~30-35% of Azure's x86 CPU-based business while Intel Xeon share is 65% Microsoft's Azure has been progressively integrating AMD EPYC, with "Venice" expected to expand this footprint: A. Dominance of AI Inference Workloads ~AI inference constitutes 80% of AI workloads in cloud environments, with latency-sensitive applications like chatbots, recommendation engines, and fraud detection requiring sub-second response times. ~"Venice's" 35x inference performance uplift directly addresses these requirements, outperforming Intel's offerings and custom Arm solutions in multi-threaded scenarios. B. Cost Efficiency and Operational Savings ~Azure's 2025 capex of $118B is under pressure to deliver returns. "Venice" can reduce operational expenses by $20-30B annually due to its power efficiency and performance gains, improving Azure's margins to 35-40%. ~The cost per inference operation is significantly lower with "Venice," estimated at 24-31% less than Intel-based alternatives, enhancing Azure's competitiveness against AWS and GCP. C. Scalability for Enterprise AI: ~"Venice" supports rack-scale AI deployments, enabling Azure to scale AI services for enterprise customers. For example, a 1,000-node cluster can process 700,000+ tokens per second, crucial for large-scale AI applications like personalized marketing and predictive analytics. ~This scalability is particularly important as Azure aims to capture the $100B+ AI opportunity by 2026, as stated by Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella. D. Reduction of Nvidia Dependency ~While Nvidia ( $NVDA) dominates AI accelerators, AMD's integrated EPYC-GPU solutions (MI450 with "Venice") offer a balanced approach, reducing Azure's reliance on Nvidia's high-cost GPUs. ~"Venice" enables hybrid inference models, where CPU-based inference handles 80% of workloads, and GPU acceleration is reserved for training and complex tasks, optimizing resource allocation. 3. Financial Implication: ~Revenue from Azure could reach $15-18B annually by 2026, part of a total revenue projection of $70-100B ~Profit margins could improve to 55-60%, boosting net income to $20-25B, supported by scale economies and reduced production costs. Intel could respond by giving more aggressive discounts, but this breakthrough has been a decade long of $AMD R&D, or rethinking chiplet design, a complete new approach. "Venice's" lead in AI inference and efficiency is challenging to match. Broader Industry: Other hyperscalers ( Amazon Web Services , GCP) and enterprises will follow Azure's lead, standardizing EPYC technology and pressuring Intel further. This could lead to a broader industry shift towards AMD, enhancing its ecosystem and bargaining power. Conclusion: The strategic adoption of AMD's 6th Generation EPYC "Venice" processors by Microsoft Azure in 2026 marks a pivotal moment in the evolution of cloud computing, particularly for AI inference capabilities. "Venice's" groundbreaking chiplet design, offering a 35x performance uplift for AI inference tasks, a 50% reduction in power consumption, and unparalleled scalability, positions Azure to leapfrog its competitors in the race for AI dominance. This technical superiority, combined with significant cost savings potentially $20-30B annually in operational expenses; aligns perfectly with Microsoft's ambitions to capture the $100B+ Revenue AI opportunity by 2026. The shift to 50% x86 market share for AMD within Azure is not merely a technical transition but a strategic realignment that redefines the competitive landscape. Historically, Microsoft's partnership with AMD has evolved from niche deployments to a core component of Azure's infrastructure, and "Venice" accelerates this trend. The 30-35% AMD EPYC share in 2025 is expected to double, driven by new VM families like C4D and H4D, which will dominate AI-intensive and HPC workloads. This migration is incentivized by "Venice's" efficiency gains, reducing dependency on Intel and Nvidia, and enhancing Azure's sustainability profile. Not Financial Advice!
7:18

$AMD $MSFT Partnership is MASSIVE in 2026 ๐Ÿš€ If you were excited about my thread on $AMD $AMZN AWS long time partnership, you will be even more excited about what Microsoft gonna do with 2026 AMD EPYC "Venice". Historical Context: The relationship between AMD and Microsoft began in the early 2000s, with Microsoft initially focusing on Intel's x86 architecture for its Windows operating system and server products. However, AMD's entry into the server market with its Opteron processors in 2003 marked the beginning of a competitive dynamic that eventually led to collaboration. The partnership intensified with the launch of 3rd Generation EPYC "Milan" in 2021, powering Azure's N2D and C2D VM families. By 2025, Microsoft had integrated 5th Generation EPYC "Turin" into new compute-optimized instances, reflecting a strategic shift towards AMD for cost and performance benefits. This "Secret Weapon" breakthrough will mark another inflection point for AMD Microsoft Azure relationship, will probably be more aggressive than EPYC "Milan" moment in 2021. We can call it EPYC "Venice" moment 2026" 1. Technical performance of AMD EPYC "Venice" (2026) AMD's 6th Gen EPYC "Venice" processors, slated for 2026, introduce New Chiplet design breakthrough. a revolutionary chiplet interconnect fabric that redefines server scalability for AI. This isn't just faster silicon; it's a paradigm shift for Microsoft Azure , enabling hyper-efficient, rack-scale AI inference that slashes costs and latency while boosting throughput. ~Up to 256 Zen 6 cores, a 70% performance increase over "Turin," optimized for AI and HPC. ~Memory and Bandwidth: 1.6 TB/s per socket, doubling "Turin's" capability, with support for MR-DIMM/MCR-DIMM. ~Efficiency: 1,500-1,700W power draw, a 50% reduction, aligning with Microsoft's sustainability initiatives. ~Interconnect: PCIe 6.0 and a new chiplet fabric for rack-scale AI, reducing latency and enhancing scalability. 2. Why $MSFT will adopt $AMD YPYC Share to 50%+ in 2026. AMD EPYC Share: ~30-35% of Azure's x86 CPU-based business while Intel Xeon share is 65% Microsoft's Azure has been progressively integrating AMD EPYC, with "Venice" expected to expand this footprint: A. Dominance of AI Inference Workloads ~AI inference constitutes 80% of AI workloads in cloud environments, with latency-sensitive applications like chatbots, recommendation engines, and fraud detection requiring sub-second response times. ~"Venice's" 35x inference performance uplift directly addresses these requirements, outperforming Intel's offerings and custom Arm solutions in multi-threaded scenarios. B. Cost Efficiency and Operational Savings ~Azure's 2025 capex of $118B is under pressure to deliver returns. "Venice" can reduce operational expenses by $20-30B annually due to its power efficiency and performance gains, improving Azure's margins to 35-40%. ~The cost per inference operation is significantly lower with "Venice," estimated at 24-31% less than Intel-based alternatives, enhancing Azure's competitiveness against AWS and GCP. C. Scalability for Enterprise AI: ~"Venice" supports rack-scale AI deployments, enabling Azure to scale AI services for enterprise customers. For example, a 1,000-node cluster can process 700,000+ tokens per second, crucial for large-scale AI applications like personalized marketing and predictive analytics. ~This scalability is particularly important as Azure aims to capture the $100B+ AI opportunity by 2026, as stated by Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella. D. Reduction of Nvidia Dependency ~While Nvidia ( $NVDA) dominates AI accelerators, AMD's integrated EPYC-GPU solutions (MI450 with "Venice") offer a balanced approach, reducing Azure's reliance on Nvidia's high-cost GPUs. ~"Venice" enables hybrid inference models, where CPU-based inference handles 80% of workloads, and GPU acceleration is reserved for training and complex tasks, optimizing resource allocation. 3. Financial Implication: ~Revenue from Azure could reach $15-18B annually by 2026, part of a total revenue projection of $70-100B ~Profit margins could improve to 55-60%, boosting net income to $20-25B, supported by scale economies and reduced production costs. Intel could respond by giving more aggressive discounts, but this breakthrough has been a decade long of $AMD R&D, or rethinking chiplet design, a complete new approach. "Venice's" lead in AI inference and efficiency is challenging to match. Broader Industry: Other hyperscalers ( Amazon Web Services , GCP) and enterprises will follow Azure's lead, standardizing EPYC technology and pressuring Intel further. This could lead to a broader industry shift towards AMD, enhancing its ecosystem and bargaining power. Conclusion: The strategic adoption of AMD's 6th Generation EPYC "Venice" processors by Microsoft Azure in 2026 marks a pivotal moment in the evolution of cloud computing, particularly for AI inference capabilities. "Venice's" groundbreaking chiplet design, offering a 35x performance uplift for AI inference tasks, a 50% reduction in power consumption, and unparalleled scalability, positions Azure to leapfrog its competitors in the race for AI dominance. This technical superiority, combined with significant cost savings potentially $20-30B annually in operational expenses; aligns perfectly with Microsoft's ambitions to capture the $100B+ Revenue AI opportunity by 2026. The shift to 50% x86 market share for AMD within Azure is not merely a technical transition but a strategic realignment that redefines the competitive landscape. Historically, Microsoft's partnership with AMD has evolved from niche deployments to a core component of Azure's infrastructure, and "Venice" accelerates this trend. The 30-35% AMD EPYC share in 2025 is expected to double, driven by new VM families like C4D and H4D, which will dominate AI-intensive and HPC workloads. This migration is incentivized by "Venice's" efficiency gains, reducing dependency on Intel and Nvidia, and enhancing Azure's sustainability profile. Not Financial Advice!

Mike

141,018 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 9 ay รถnce

๐ŸŽ‰ 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: โ€ข integrating and testing w/ partners across the games & entertainment sectors โ€ข stealthily building a community of early believers through AVB โ€ข 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 Drew Coffman, 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 ๐Ÿซ˜ 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
0:23

๐ŸŽ‰ 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: โ€ข integrating and testing w/ partners across the games & entertainment sectors โ€ข stealthily building a community of early believers through AVB โ€ข 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 Drew Coffman, 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 ๐Ÿซ˜ 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

12,617 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 1 yฤฑl รถnce

$AMD $5 Trillion is Inevitable LT| Agentic AI๐Ÿงต Agentic AI is the new $5 Trillion TAM ๐Ÿšจ๐Ÿšจ๐Ÿšจ This thead will do Comp with $INTC and how to quantify this massive Agentic AI demand spike, and forcing Jensen to rush a CPU design. Global Agentic AI Market size is estimated to be $3-$5Trillion TAM by 2030(McKinsey) Quantifying the demand from agentic AI for AMD involves assessing the broader market growth for agentic systems, their unique computational requirements (particularly for CPUs in orchestration and reasoning tasks), and AMD's positioning very well through products like EPYC processors and partnerships. AMD EPYC Venice is the most superior choice in 2026-2027 for most Agentic AI workloads Agentic AI refers to autonomous AI agents that perform multi-step tasks, involving sequential logic, tool integration, and decision-making workloads that heavily rely on CPUs for handling orchestration, memory management, and context switching, rather than just GPU-parallelized training or batch inference. Agentic AI is often cited as 40-100x more "hungry" than traditional AI due to its continuous, 24/7 operation and complex workflows. This stems from factors like chain-of-thought reasoning (multiple LLM calls per query), API/tool interactions, memory management, and orchestration loops, which can generate 10-100x more tokens and require real-time responsiveness. For example, a single agentic query might trigger 5-20 model inferences, making it 10-20x more compute-intensive than simple chatbots, and the always-on nature compounds this to 40-100x overall. Nvidia's CEO has highlighted this as driving "easily 100x more computation" for inference in agentic/reasoning setups. AMD's EPYC Venice (6th Gen EPYC, codenamed "Venice") and Intel's Xeon 7 Diamond Rapids represent the pinnacle of server CPU technology in 2026, both targeting high-performance data center workloads like AI inference, agentic AI orchestration, cloud computing, and HPC. Venice builds on AMD's Zen 6 architecture, emphasizing core density and efficiency, while Diamond Rapids leverages Intel's Panther Cove P-cores for balanced performance. Both chips adopt similar advancements like 16-channel DDR5 memory and PCIe Gen 6, but differ in core counts, process nodes, and overall design philosophy. Intel has faced acute supply constraints across its Xeon lineup, including legacy nodes (Intel 7/3) and the ramping 18A process for next-gen parts. Intel shortage is expected with lead times up to 6 months or longer. 1. AMD EPYC Venice vs Intel Xeon 7 Diamond Rapids Architecture AMD: Zen 6 chiplet design with 8 CCDs and dual IODs Intel: Panther Cove P-cores; multi-die architecture with 4 compute tiles Core/Thread Count AMD: Up to 256 cores / 512 threads (Zen 6c variant) Intel: Up to 192 cores / 192 threads Process Node AMD: TSMC N2 (2nm) Intel: Intel 18A (1.8nm-class); in-house fab Memory Support AMD: 16-channel DDR5; up to 1.6 TB/s bandwidth. Intel: 16-channel DDR5 ; up to 1.6 TB/s bandwidth I/O and Connectivity AMD: PCIe Gen 6 (up to 128 lanes); twice the CPU-to-GPU bandwidth Intel: PCIe Gen 6 (up to 128 lanes); LGA 9324 socket Power (TDP) AMD: Starting 400-500W, potentially lower due to efficiency gains from TSMC 2nm Intel: Starting 400-500W, as it targets competitive efficiency Performance Projections AMD: Up to 70% uplift vs. 5th Gen Turin (1.7x in multi-threaded/AI tasks) Intel: ~40% faster than Granite Rapids (Xeon 6, 128-core). Lags AMD in per-core perf and 40-50% behind Venice core-for-core comp Target Workloads AMD: AI inference/orchestration, HPC, cloud virtualization. Partnerships Intel: Hyperscale AI, general enterprise. Custom silicon Pricing: AMD: estimated $10k-$20k for top SKUs Intel: estimated $8-$18k Availability: AMD: Significant Ramp H2 2026 due to higher allocation from TSMC Intel: H1-H2 2026 delayed, but trying to catch up Overall: ~Venice's 256 cores provide a 33% edge over Diamond Rapids' 192, making it superior for massively parallel tasks like AI training/inference or virtualization ~TSMC's N2 vs. Intel 18A debates rage on which is "better," but AMD's mature chiplet approach yields better density ( 32 cores/CCD vs. Intel's 48/tile). Venice's redesign reduces latency, aiding agentic AI where CPUs handle orchestration ~ Early projections show Venice widening AMD's lead matching or exceeding Diamond Rapids' perf with fewer watts in multi-threaded benchmarks. Intel's no-SMT design (to prioritize AI) handicaps it vs. AMD's 512 threads, though Clearwater Forest (E-core) could compete in density-focused niches. ~Power & Cooling: Both push above 400-500W, demanding liquid cooling. ~AMD been taking market share now above 40%. AMD EPYC Venice emerges as the superior choice in 2026 for most server workloads. Its higher core/thread count (256/512 vs. 192/192), stronger per-core performance, and architecture optimized for AI-driven tasks (agentic orchestration with GPU integration) provide decisive advantages in throughput, scalability, and efficiency. Projections indicate Venice delivering 1.7x the performance of prior gens while widening the gap over Intel ( 40-70% leads in multi-threaded benchmarks). AMD's fabless model with TSMC ensures reliable scaling, and its ecosystem ( open ROCm) appeals to AI adopters. Intel's Diamond Rapids is competitive in single-threaded enterprise apps and custom hyperscale ( NVLink), with potential fab advantages for supply/security. However, without SMT and lower density, it falls short in core-for-core battlesโ€”exposing Intel to another generation of AMD dominance unless 18A yields surprise efficiency gains. For data centers prioritizing raw compute ( AI, HPC), Venice wins; for Intel-centric ecosystems or specialized I/O, Diamond Rapids holds ground. Real benchmarks post-launch will confirm, but logic points to AMD pulling ahead. 2. Market size , Potential Revenue and Supply Global Agentic AI market size is projected to be $3-$5 Trillion by 2030 according to McKinsey, where consensus points to 40-50% CAGR driven by small to large enterprise demand. I also wrote a full thread on how and why Agentic AI is so explosive that AMD will blow all anlaysts estimate for subscribers. Link below if you are interested. AMD's data center segment hit a record $5.4B in Q4 2025 (up 39% YoY), with EPYC shipments ramping due to agentic demand. With 2GW of deployment in H2 2026, AMD AI data center revenue has $40-$50B+ at the lowest or most conservative projection; or Total Revenue in the $77-$94B For FY2026. However, Agentic AI massive demand spike could send EPYC revenue 3x to 4x in the next few years, potentially surpassing MI series GPU demand as enterprises prioritize CPU-dense Rack setups. This is pushing $NVDA Jensen to rush a CPU design and acquired Groq, a new CPU player due to this massive TAM. Noted that this is just popping just in weeks, highlighting we are just so early in this AI Supercycle and the pace of adoption is insane, and clearly productivity will skyrocket. Why? Because Agentic AI is 24/7 Smart AI agent working for you or your businesses is a mad compelling, and it is estimated to be 40-100x more Inference Hugnry! Many experts already said it is impossible to project this kind of Inference Demand. AI CapEx is expected to ramp up even more in 2027-2028-2029 and 2030 as Global Agentic AI is going to scale to $3-$5 Trillion TAM by 2030. The nature of Agentic is driving higher CPU/GPU ratio, with CPUs handling 50-90% of Agentic workflows. For example, The current Helios Rack: 18 compute trays per rack with 72 GPUs + 18 CPUs. The beauty of this $META and $AMD long term partnership is, that it is absolutely flexible to adjust racks to higher CPU rato or equal to service different needs. Helios rack can be easily swap to 2 GPUs 2CPUs or even CPUs only trays for dedicated orchestration/head nodes. You see, the beauty of this open rack-scale is flexibility and evolvability. If Agentic AI demand pushes much higher, AMD should be able to adjust variant trays without abandoning Heilos Rack. We can't talk just about massive Agentic AI demand without talking about the Supply side or TSMC. TSMC, AMD's primary foundry for advanced nodes ( Zen 6/Venice on N2/2nm), is addressing AI-driven shortages through massive expansions. TSMC accelerates fab construction with up to 10 facilities targeted for 2026. TSMC is accelerating its domestic manufacturing expansion, with industry sources indicating that as many as ten fabs could be under construction or preparing to begin operations across Taiwanโ€™s major science parks. TSMC Capex: $52-56B in 2026 (up 37% YoY), with $45B already approved for new/upgraded capacities. 70-80% for advanced processes (2nm/A16), 10-20% for packaging (CoWoS quadrupling to 120-140K wafers/month by late 2026). In addition, Taiwanese companies (led by TSMC) commit to at least $250B in direct investments in US-based advanced semiconductor, AI, and energy production/innovation capacity.Taiwan provides $250B in government credit guarantees to facilitate additional investments and build a full US semiconductor ecosystem (including industrial parks). TSMC completed a second land purchase in Arizona (January 2026) for gigafab scaling, with an additional $100B+ (potentially four more modules) to further expand and qualify for tariff exemptions. AMD with secured 12GW from OpenAI and $META and massive Agentic AI will mean higher priority acess to 20-30% more wafers on TSMC advanced nodes, as TSMC has multi-year agreements with AMD for AI chips. Dr. C. C. Wei, CEO of TSMC quote: "I spend a lot of time in the last three or four months talking to my customer and then customers. Customer. I want to make sure that my customers demand are real. I talk to those cloud service providers, all of them. Their answer is. I'm quite satisfied with their answer. Actually they show me the evidence that the AI really help their business. So they grow their business successfully and he or she in their financial return. So I also double check their financial status. They are very rich." Amid shortages, the US buildout ensures AMD can ramp production of Instinct GPUs and EPYC CPUs without the constraints hitting competitors like Intel. By diversifying away from Taiwan (85% of advanced nodes today), the agreement mitigates supply disruptions, ensuring stable flows for AMD's chips. Scaling production and securing supply will matter for AMD the most in the next 5-10 years growth. The growth could be 80-100% YoY or higher; or it could be in the 60%. The aggressive TSMC supply ramp is reassuring the higher growth point. Conclusion: AMD stands at a pivotal inflection point in 2026, where the explosive rise of agentic AI demanding 40-100x more inference compute through its 24/7, multi-step orchestration positions the company to potentially triple its EPYC CPU revenue to $45-60B+ by 2028 while scaling Instinct GPUs to tens of billions annually by 2027. Agentic AI demand could push AI CapEx closer to $1 Trillion in 2027, far higher than most estimates. Dr. Lisa Su, AMD's visionary CEO, is masterfully securing supply to harness this massive demand by prioritizing operational execution and deep TSMC collaboration, ensuring readiness for the second-half 2026 AI ramp. Dr. Su has explicitly called out surging EPYC demand for agentic tasks where CPUs power head nodes and traditional workloads alongside GPUs while guiding for data center dominance through proactive capacity planning and partnerships like Nutanix ($150M investment for open agentic platforms) or providing tens of millions CPUs for OpenAI, $META, $ORCL, $AMZN, $MSFT, $GOOGL and others. Her strategy includes multi-year TSMC agreements for advanced nodes (N2 for Venice CPUs and future Instincts), diversifying beyond Taiwan to mitigate risks, and unveiling innovations like the MI455X GPU at CES 2026, which she touted as enabling "the next trillion-dollar market opportunity" in physical AI. Dr. Su's forward-looking vision predicting AI reaching 5 billion users emphasizes "AI everywhere," backed by hardware like Ryzen AI chips, all while declaring demand "going through the roof" and committing to scale without bottlenecks. TSMC's aggressive ramp-up, fueled by $52-56B in 2026 capex (up 37% YoY) and 10+ new fabs across Taiwan, the US (Arizona cluster expanding to 6+ modules with $165B+ investment), Japan, and Europe, provides profound reassurance for AMD's supply stability. The January 2026 US-Taiwan agreement committing $250B in investments and credit guarantees for US reshoring accelerates this, granting tariff relief (15% rates with 1.5-2.5x exemptions) tied to capacity buildouts, enabling TSMC to potentially double output over the decade to meet AI wafer hunger. This translates to 20-30% higher wafer allocations on key nodes, sidestepping Intel-like shortages and empowering Dr. Su's team to deliver on hyperscaler demands without disruption. Ultimately, this synergy cements AMD's leadership in the agentic era, promising sustained growth, $5T+ valuations at scale, and a resilient path forward as AI reshapes the world. This is NOT Financial Advice! Video source: AMD CES 2026
2:49

$AMD $5 Trillion is Inevitable LT| Agentic AI๐Ÿงต Agentic AI is the new $5 Trillion TAM ๐Ÿšจ๐Ÿšจ๐Ÿšจ This thead will do Comp with $INTC and how to quantify this massive Agentic AI demand spike, and forcing Jensen to rush a CPU design. Global Agentic AI Market size is estimated to be $3-$5Trillion TAM by 2030(McKinsey) Quantifying the demand from agentic AI for AMD involves assessing the broader market growth for agentic systems, their unique computational requirements (particularly for CPUs in orchestration and reasoning tasks), and AMD's positioning very well through products like EPYC processors and partnerships. AMD EPYC Venice is the most superior choice in 2026-2027 for most Agentic AI workloads Agentic AI refers to autonomous AI agents that perform multi-step tasks, involving sequential logic, tool integration, and decision-making workloads that heavily rely on CPUs for handling orchestration, memory management, and context switching, rather than just GPU-parallelized training or batch inference. Agentic AI is often cited as 40-100x more "hungry" than traditional AI due to its continuous, 24/7 operation and complex workflows. This stems from factors like chain-of-thought reasoning (multiple LLM calls per query), API/tool interactions, memory management, and orchestration loops, which can generate 10-100x more tokens and require real-time responsiveness. For example, a single agentic query might trigger 5-20 model inferences, making it 10-20x more compute-intensive than simple chatbots, and the always-on nature compounds this to 40-100x overall. Nvidia's CEO has highlighted this as driving "easily 100x more computation" for inference in agentic/reasoning setups. AMD's EPYC Venice (6th Gen EPYC, codenamed "Venice") and Intel's Xeon 7 Diamond Rapids represent the pinnacle of server CPU technology in 2026, both targeting high-performance data center workloads like AI inference, agentic AI orchestration, cloud computing, and HPC. Venice builds on AMD's Zen 6 architecture, emphasizing core density and efficiency, while Diamond Rapids leverages Intel's Panther Cove P-cores for balanced performance. Both chips adopt similar advancements like 16-channel DDR5 memory and PCIe Gen 6, but differ in core counts, process nodes, and overall design philosophy. Intel has faced acute supply constraints across its Xeon lineup, including legacy nodes (Intel 7/3) and the ramping 18A process for next-gen parts. Intel shortage is expected with lead times up to 6 months or longer. 1. AMD EPYC Venice vs Intel Xeon 7 Diamond Rapids Architecture AMD: Zen 6 chiplet design with 8 CCDs and dual IODs Intel: Panther Cove P-cores; multi-die architecture with 4 compute tiles Core/Thread Count AMD: Up to 256 cores / 512 threads (Zen 6c variant) Intel: Up to 192 cores / 192 threads Process Node AMD: TSMC N2 (2nm) Intel: Intel 18A (1.8nm-class); in-house fab Memory Support AMD: 16-channel DDR5; up to 1.6 TB/s bandwidth. Intel: 16-channel DDR5 ; up to 1.6 TB/s bandwidth I/O and Connectivity AMD: PCIe Gen 6 (up to 128 lanes); twice the CPU-to-GPU bandwidth Intel: PCIe Gen 6 (up to 128 lanes); LGA 9324 socket Power (TDP) AMD: Starting 400-500W, potentially lower due to efficiency gains from TSMC 2nm Intel: Starting 400-500W, as it targets competitive efficiency Performance Projections AMD: Up to 70% uplift vs. 5th Gen Turin (1.7x in multi-threaded/AI tasks) Intel: ~40% faster than Granite Rapids (Xeon 6, 128-core). Lags AMD in per-core perf and 40-50% behind Venice core-for-core comp Target Workloads AMD: AI inference/orchestration, HPC, cloud virtualization. Partnerships Intel: Hyperscale AI, general enterprise. Custom silicon Pricing: AMD: estimated $10k-$20k for top SKUs Intel: estimated $8-$18k Availability: AMD: Significant Ramp H2 2026 due to higher allocation from TSMC Intel: H1-H2 2026 delayed, but trying to catch up Overall: ~Venice's 256 cores provide a 33% edge over Diamond Rapids' 192, making it superior for massively parallel tasks like AI training/inference or virtualization ~TSMC's N2 vs. Intel 18A debates rage on which is "better," but AMD's mature chiplet approach yields better density ( 32 cores/CCD vs. Intel's 48/tile). Venice's redesign reduces latency, aiding agentic AI where CPUs handle orchestration ~ Early projections show Venice widening AMD's lead matching or exceeding Diamond Rapids' perf with fewer watts in multi-threaded benchmarks. Intel's no-SMT design (to prioritize AI) handicaps it vs. AMD's 512 threads, though Clearwater Forest (E-core) could compete in density-focused niches. ~Power & Cooling: Both push above 400-500W, demanding liquid cooling. ~AMD been taking market share now above 40%. AMD EPYC Venice emerges as the superior choice in 2026 for most server workloads. Its higher core/thread count (256/512 vs. 192/192), stronger per-core performance, and architecture optimized for AI-driven tasks (agentic orchestration with GPU integration) provide decisive advantages in throughput, scalability, and efficiency. Projections indicate Venice delivering 1.7x the performance of prior gens while widening the gap over Intel ( 40-70% leads in multi-threaded benchmarks). AMD's fabless model with TSMC ensures reliable scaling, and its ecosystem ( open ROCm) appeals to AI adopters. Intel's Diamond Rapids is competitive in single-threaded enterprise apps and custom hyperscale ( NVLink), with potential fab advantages for supply/security. However, without SMT and lower density, it falls short in core-for-core battlesโ€”exposing Intel to another generation of AMD dominance unless 18A yields surprise efficiency gains. For data centers prioritizing raw compute ( AI, HPC), Venice wins; for Intel-centric ecosystems or specialized I/O, Diamond Rapids holds ground. Real benchmarks post-launch will confirm, but logic points to AMD pulling ahead. 2. Market size , Potential Revenue and Supply Global Agentic AI market size is projected to be $3-$5 Trillion by 2030 according to McKinsey, where consensus points to 40-50% CAGR driven by small to large enterprise demand. I also wrote a full thread on how and why Agentic AI is so explosive that AMD will blow all anlaysts estimate for subscribers. Link below if you are interested. AMD's data center segment hit a record $5.4B in Q4 2025 (up 39% YoY), with EPYC shipments ramping due to agentic demand. With 2GW of deployment in H2 2026, AMD AI data center revenue has $40-$50B+ at the lowest or most conservative projection; or Total Revenue in the $77-$94B For FY2026. However, Agentic AI massive demand spike could send EPYC revenue 3x to 4x in the next few years, potentially surpassing MI series GPU demand as enterprises prioritize CPU-dense Rack setups. This is pushing $NVDA Jensen to rush a CPU design and acquired Groq, a new CPU player due to this massive TAM. Noted that this is just popping just in weeks, highlighting we are just so early in this AI Supercycle and the pace of adoption is insane, and clearly productivity will skyrocket. Why? Because Agentic AI is 24/7 Smart AI agent working for you or your businesses is a mad compelling, and it is estimated to be 40-100x more Inference Hugnry! Many experts already said it is impossible to project this kind of Inference Demand. AI CapEx is expected to ramp up even more in 2027-2028-2029 and 2030 as Global Agentic AI is going to scale to $3-$5 Trillion TAM by 2030. The nature of Agentic is driving higher CPU/GPU ratio, with CPUs handling 50-90% of Agentic workflows. For example, The current Helios Rack: 18 compute trays per rack with 72 GPUs + 18 CPUs. The beauty of this $META and $AMD long term partnership is, that it is absolutely flexible to adjust racks to higher CPU rato or equal to service different needs. Helios rack can be easily swap to 2 GPUs 2CPUs or even CPUs only trays for dedicated orchestration/head nodes. You see, the beauty of this open rack-scale is flexibility and evolvability. If Agentic AI demand pushes much higher, AMD should be able to adjust variant trays without abandoning Heilos Rack. We can't talk just about massive Agentic AI demand without talking about the Supply side or TSMC. TSMC, AMD's primary foundry for advanced nodes ( Zen 6/Venice on N2/2nm), is addressing AI-driven shortages through massive expansions. TSMC accelerates fab construction with up to 10 facilities targeted for 2026. TSMC is accelerating its domestic manufacturing expansion, with industry sources indicating that as many as ten fabs could be under construction or preparing to begin operations across Taiwanโ€™s major science parks. TSMC Capex: $52-56B in 2026 (up 37% YoY), with $45B already approved for new/upgraded capacities. 70-80% for advanced processes (2nm/A16), 10-20% for packaging (CoWoS quadrupling to 120-140K wafers/month by late 2026). In addition, Taiwanese companies (led by TSMC) commit to at least $250B in direct investments in US-based advanced semiconductor, AI, and energy production/innovation capacity.Taiwan provides $250B in government credit guarantees to facilitate additional investments and build a full US semiconductor ecosystem (including industrial parks). TSMC completed a second land purchase in Arizona (January 2026) for gigafab scaling, with an additional $100B+ (potentially four more modules) to further expand and qualify for tariff exemptions. AMD with secured 12GW from OpenAI and $META and massive Agentic AI will mean higher priority acess to 20-30% more wafers on TSMC advanced nodes, as TSMC has multi-year agreements with AMD for AI chips. Dr. C. C. Wei, CEO of TSMC quote: "I spend a lot of time in the last three or four months talking to my customer and then customers. Customer. I want to make sure that my customers demand are real. I talk to those cloud service providers, all of them. Their answer is. I'm quite satisfied with their answer. Actually they show me the evidence that the AI really help their business. So they grow their business successfully and he or she in their financial return. So I also double check their financial status. They are very rich." Amid shortages, the US buildout ensures AMD can ramp production of Instinct GPUs and EPYC CPUs without the constraints hitting competitors like Intel. By diversifying away from Taiwan (85% of advanced nodes today), the agreement mitigates supply disruptions, ensuring stable flows for AMD's chips. Scaling production and securing supply will matter for AMD the most in the next 5-10 years growth. The growth could be 80-100% YoY or higher; or it could be in the 60%. The aggressive TSMC supply ramp is reassuring the higher growth point. Conclusion: AMD stands at a pivotal inflection point in 2026, where the explosive rise of agentic AI demanding 40-100x more inference compute through its 24/7, multi-step orchestration positions the company to potentially triple its EPYC CPU revenue to $45-60B+ by 2028 while scaling Instinct GPUs to tens of billions annually by 2027. Agentic AI demand could push AI CapEx closer to $1 Trillion in 2027, far higher than most estimates. Dr. Lisa Su, AMD's visionary CEO, is masterfully securing supply to harness this massive demand by prioritizing operational execution and deep TSMC collaboration, ensuring readiness for the second-half 2026 AI ramp. Dr. Su has explicitly called out surging EPYC demand for agentic tasks where CPUs power head nodes and traditional workloads alongside GPUs while guiding for data center dominance through proactive capacity planning and partnerships like Nutanix ($150M investment for open agentic platforms) or providing tens of millions CPUs for OpenAI, $META, $ORCL, $AMZN, $MSFT, $GOOGL and others. Her strategy includes multi-year TSMC agreements for advanced nodes (N2 for Venice CPUs and future Instincts), diversifying beyond Taiwan to mitigate risks, and unveiling innovations like the MI455X GPU at CES 2026, which she touted as enabling "the next trillion-dollar market opportunity" in physical AI. Dr. Su's forward-looking vision predicting AI reaching 5 billion users emphasizes "AI everywhere," backed by hardware like Ryzen AI chips, all while declaring demand "going through the roof" and committing to scale without bottlenecks. TSMC's aggressive ramp-up, fueled by $52-56B in 2026 capex (up 37% YoY) and 10+ new fabs across Taiwan, the US (Arizona cluster expanding to 6+ modules with $165B+ investment), Japan, and Europe, provides profound reassurance for AMD's supply stability. The January 2026 US-Taiwan agreement committing $250B in investments and credit guarantees for US reshoring accelerates this, granting tariff relief (15% rates with 1.5-2.5x exemptions) tied to capacity buildouts, enabling TSMC to potentially double output over the decade to meet AI wafer hunger. This translates to 20-30% higher wafer allocations on key nodes, sidestepping Intel-like shortages and empowering Dr. Su's team to deliver on hyperscaler demands without disruption. Ultimately, this synergy cements AMD's leadership in the agentic era, promising sustained growth, $5T+ valuations at scale, and a resilient path forward as AI reshapes the world. This is NOT Financial Advice! Video source: AMD CES 2026

Mike

44,460 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 5 ay รถnce

Update on Parallel studios // Parallel TCG The brand-new, overhauled user experience for Parallel TCG is now complete, shaped by community feedback and refined through extensive optimization and game design. A significant amount of work has gone into elevating the game to the standard of world-class traditional TCGs. We are excited to bring it to mainstream mobile distribution platforms in the coming month through a global rollout across iOS and Android alongside the release of the next expansion set, Haven, and Parallel TCG World Championships Season 2. Parallel Colony We presented Colony at GDC in San Francisco at Google Cloud invitation, where it received a very strong response from the market. We are now in the final stages of completing the build and content ahead of a public iOS and Android release, currently targeted for April. Questions have come up around Colonyโ€™s visual resemblance to the lane-runner format often seen in mobile ads. That is a deliberate strategic choice, based on the fact that these formats remain among the few that continue to scale efficiently in mobile user acquisition. At its core, Colony is an AI-driven 4X title built with a deeper level of polish that we believe sets it apart from much of what is currently available in the market. Sanctuary We have slowed development on Sanctuary in order to prioritize the releases of TCG and Colony. Sanctuary remains a long-term project for us, but beyond the playtests we have already run, we are not setting hard timelines or release commitments at this stage. Wayfinder / AI AI is emerging as one of the most important technology shifts globally, driven by the rapid advancement of LLMs and autonomous agents. We believe this transition will create significant new infrastructure needs, and we have a number of internal AI initiatives underway to position ourselves accordingly. More will be shared on these initiatives in due course. Wayfinder Foundation ๐Ÿงญ has shipped several functional upgrades, but we see a much larger opportunity for it to evolve into critical infrastructure for agents. We are also continuing to expand the utility of Prompt and explore adjacent use cases that we believe can unlock meaningful value for the broader market. As capital, attention, and product innovation increasingly converge around AI, our focus is on building tools that can serve as enabling infrastructure for that shift. SDK: Autolab: Cloud agent launcher: Skill: Kaparthys Loop x Defi: Try the Wayfinder skill on your OpenClaw instance today โ€” just paste this to your bot: install the wayfinder openclaw skill by git cloning to our skills directory, read the skill.md and take me through the setup process. Outlook Over the near term, our focus is on execution across both gaming and AI. In gaming, the releases of Parallel TCG and Colony mark major milestones for the company, and we are eager to see how these titles perform from a growth perspective once they are in market. While sentiment across gaming remains soft, we believe differentiated, high-quality products can still find traction. On the AI side, our focus is on finding product-market fit for both Wayfinderโ€™s role in enabling on-chain AI to interact with blockchains and for a new tool we have been developing around broader agent utility. The AI market continues to evolve at an extraordinary pace, and we are actively testing where these products can deliver the strongest utility and market relevance. We have been developing something new that leverages Wayfinder but has broader applicability, and we are actively testing it before bringing it to market. More will be shared as things progress.
0:40

Update on Parallel studios // Parallel TCG The brand-new, overhauled user experience for Parallel TCG is now complete, shaped by community feedback and refined through extensive optimization and game design. A significant amount of work has gone into elevating the game to the standard of world-class traditional TCGs. We are excited to bring it to mainstream mobile distribution platforms in the coming month through a global rollout across iOS and Android alongside the release of the next expansion set, Haven, and Parallel TCG World Championships Season 2. Parallel Colony We presented Colony at GDC in San Francisco at Google Cloud invitation, where it received a very strong response from the market. We are now in the final stages of completing the build and content ahead of a public iOS and Android release, currently targeted for April. Questions have come up around Colonyโ€™s visual resemblance to the lane-runner format often seen in mobile ads. That is a deliberate strategic choice, based on the fact that these formats remain among the few that continue to scale efficiently in mobile user acquisition. At its core, Colony is an AI-driven 4X title built with a deeper level of polish that we believe sets it apart from much of what is currently available in the market. Sanctuary We have slowed development on Sanctuary in order to prioritize the releases of TCG and Colony. Sanctuary remains a long-term project for us, but beyond the playtests we have already run, we are not setting hard timelines or release commitments at this stage. Wayfinder / AI AI is emerging as one of the most important technology shifts globally, driven by the rapid advancement of LLMs and autonomous agents. We believe this transition will create significant new infrastructure needs, and we have a number of internal AI initiatives underway to position ourselves accordingly. More will be shared on these initiatives in due course. Wayfinder Foundation ๐Ÿงญ has shipped several functional upgrades, but we see a much larger opportunity for it to evolve into critical infrastructure for agents. We are also continuing to expand the utility of Prompt and explore adjacent use cases that we believe can unlock meaningful value for the broader market. As capital, attention, and product innovation increasingly converge around AI, our focus is on building tools that can serve as enabling infrastructure for that shift. SDK: Autolab: Cloud agent launcher: Skill: Kaparthys Loop x Defi: Try the Wayfinder skill on your OpenClaw instance today โ€” just paste this to your bot: install the wayfinder openclaw skill by git cloning to our skills directory, read the skill.md and take me through the setup process. Outlook Over the near term, our focus is on execution across both gaming and AI. In gaming, the releases of Parallel TCG and Colony mark major milestones for the company, and we are eager to see how these titles perform from a growth perspective once they are in market. While sentiment across gaming remains soft, we believe differentiated, high-quality products can still find traction. On the AI side, our focus is on finding product-market fit for both Wayfinderโ€™s role in enabling on-chain AI to interact with blockchains and for a new tool we have been developing around broader agent utility. The AI market continues to evolve at an extraordinary pace, and we are actively testing where these products can deliver the strongest utility and market relevance. We have been developing something new that leverages Wayfinder but has broader applicability, and we are actively testing it before bringing it to market. More will be shared as things progress.

//Kalos

14,422 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 4 ay รถnce

Today, weโ€™re announcing Kosmos, our newest AI Scientist, available to use now. Users estimate Kosmos does 6 months of work in a single day. One run can read 1,500 papers and write 42,000 lines of code. At least 79% of its findings are reproducible. Kosmos has made 7 discoveries so far, which we are releasing today, in areas ranging from neuroscience to material science and clinical genetics, in collaboration with our academic beta testers. Three of these discoveries reproduced unpublished findings; four are net new, validated contributions to the scientific literature. AI-accelerated science is here. Our core innovation in Kosmos is the use of a structured, continuously-updated world model. As described in our technical report, Kosmosโ€™ world model allows it to process orders of magnitude more information than could fit into the context of even the longest-context language models, allowing it to synthesize more information and pursue coherent goals over longer time horizons than Robin or any of our other prior agents. In this respect, we believe Kosmos is the most compute-intensive language agent released so far in any field, and by far the most capable AI Scientist available today. The use of a persistent world model also enables single Kosmos trajectories to produce highly complex outputs that require multiple significant logical leaps. As with all of our systems, Kosmos is designed with transparency and verifiability in mind: every conclusion in a Kosmos report can be traced through our platform to the specific lines of code or the specific passages in the scientific literature that inspired it, ensuring that Kosmosโ€™ findings are fully auditable at all times. We are also using this opportunity to announce the launch of Edison Scientific, a new commercial spinout of FutureHouse, which will be focused on commercializing our agents and applying them to automate scientific research in drug discovery and beyond. Edison will be taking over management of the FutureHouse platform, where you can access Kosmos alongside our Literature, Molecules, and Precedent agents (previously Crow, Phoenix, and Owl). Edison will continue to offer free tier usage for casual users and academics, while also offering higher rate limits and additional features for users who need them. You can read more about this spinout on our blog, below. A few important notes if youโ€™re going to try Kosmos. Firstly, Kosmos is different from many other AI tools you might have played with, including our other agents. It is more similar to a Deep Research tool than it is to a chatbot: it takes some time to figure out how to prompt it effectively, and we have tried to include guidelines on this to help (see below). It costs $200/run right now (200 credits per run, and $1/credit), with some free tier usage for academics. This is heavily discounted; people who sign up for Founding Subscriptions now can lock in the $1/credit price indefinitely, but the price ultimately will probably be higher. Again, this is less chatbot and more research tool, something you run on high-value targets as needed. Some caveats are also warranted. Firstly, we find that 80% of Kosmos findings are reproducible, which also means 20% are not -- some things it says will be wrong. Also, Kosmos certainly does produce outputs that are the equivalent to several months of human labor, but it also often goes down rabbit holes or chases statistically significant yet scientifically irrelevant findings. We often run Kosmos multiple times on the same objective in order to sample the various research avenues it can take. There are still a bunch of rough edges on the UI and such, which we are working on. Finally, we are aware that the 6 month figure is much greater than estimates by other AI labs, like METR, about the length of tasks that AI Agents can currently perform. You can read discussion about this in our blog post. Huge congratulations to our team that put this together, led by Ludovico Mitchener and Michaela Hinks: Angela Yiu, Benjamin Chang, Sid Narayanan, Edwin Melville-Green, Albert Bou, Arvis Sulovari, Oz Wassie, Jon Laurent. A particular shout out to Michael Skarlinski and his team that rebuilt the platform for this launch, especially Andy Cai Andy Cai, Richard Magness, Remo Storni, Tyler Nadolski Tyler Nadolski, Mayk Caldas Mayk Caldas, Sam Cox Sam Cox and more. This work would not have been possible without significant contributions from academic collaborators Mathieu Bourdenx, Eric Landsness, Dรกniel Barabรกsi, Nicky Evans, Tonio Buonassisi, Bruna Gomes, Shriya Reddy, Martha Foiani, and Randall Bateman. We also want to thank our numerous supporters, especially Eric Schmidt, who has been a tremendous ally. We will have more to say about our supporters soon!
0:44

Today, weโ€™re announcing Kosmos, our newest AI Scientist, available to use now. Users estimate Kosmos does 6 months of work in a single day. One run can read 1,500 papers and write 42,000 lines of code. At least 79% of its findings are reproducible. Kosmos has made 7 discoveries so far, which we are releasing today, in areas ranging from neuroscience to material science and clinical genetics, in collaboration with our academic beta testers. Three of these discoveries reproduced unpublished findings; four are net new, validated contributions to the scientific literature. AI-accelerated science is here. Our core innovation in Kosmos is the use of a structured, continuously-updated world model. As described in our technical report, Kosmosโ€™ world model allows it to process orders of magnitude more information than could fit into the context of even the longest-context language models, allowing it to synthesize more information and pursue coherent goals over longer time horizons than Robin or any of our other prior agents. In this respect, we believe Kosmos is the most compute-intensive language agent released so far in any field, and by far the most capable AI Scientist available today. The use of a persistent world model also enables single Kosmos trajectories to produce highly complex outputs that require multiple significant logical leaps. As with all of our systems, Kosmos is designed with transparency and verifiability in mind: every conclusion in a Kosmos report can be traced through our platform to the specific lines of code or the specific passages in the scientific literature that inspired it, ensuring that Kosmosโ€™ findings are fully auditable at all times. We are also using this opportunity to announce the launch of Edison Scientific, a new commercial spinout of FutureHouse, which will be focused on commercializing our agents and applying them to automate scientific research in drug discovery and beyond. Edison will be taking over management of the FutureHouse platform, where you can access Kosmos alongside our Literature, Molecules, and Precedent agents (previously Crow, Phoenix, and Owl). Edison will continue to offer free tier usage for casual users and academics, while also offering higher rate limits and additional features for users who need them. You can read more about this spinout on our blog, below. A few important notes if youโ€™re going to try Kosmos. Firstly, Kosmos is different from many other AI tools you might have played with, including our other agents. It is more similar to a Deep Research tool than it is to a chatbot: it takes some time to figure out how to prompt it effectively, and we have tried to include guidelines on this to help (see below). It costs $200/run right now (200 credits per run, and $1/credit), with some free tier usage for academics. This is heavily discounted; people who sign up for Founding Subscriptions now can lock in the $1/credit price indefinitely, but the price ultimately will probably be higher. Again, this is less chatbot and more research tool, something you run on high-value targets as needed. Some caveats are also warranted. Firstly, we find that 80% of Kosmos findings are reproducible, which also means 20% are not -- some things it says will be wrong. Also, Kosmos certainly does produce outputs that are the equivalent to several months of human labor, but it also often goes down rabbit holes or chases statistically significant yet scientifically irrelevant findings. We often run Kosmos multiple times on the same objective in order to sample the various research avenues it can take. There are still a bunch of rough edges on the UI and such, which we are working on. Finally, we are aware that the 6 month figure is much greater than estimates by other AI labs, like METR, about the length of tasks that AI Agents can currently perform. You can read discussion about this in our blog post. Huge congratulations to our team that put this together, led by Ludovico Mitchener and Michaela Hinks: Angela Yiu, Benjamin Chang, Sid Narayanan, Edwin Melville-Green, Albert Bou, Arvis Sulovari, Oz Wassie, Jon Laurent. A particular shout out to Michael Skarlinski and his team that rebuilt the platform for this launch, especially Andy Cai Andy Cai, Richard Magness, Remo Storni, Tyler Nadolski Tyler Nadolski, Mayk Caldas Mayk Caldas, Sam Cox Sam Cox and more. This work would not have been possible without significant contributions from academic collaborators Mathieu Bourdenx, Eric Landsness, Dรกniel Barabรกsi, Nicky Evans, Tonio Buonassisi, Bruna Gomes, Shriya Reddy, Martha Foiani, and Randall Bateman. We also want to thank our numerous supporters, especially Eric Schmidt, who has been a tremendous ally. We will have more to say about our supporters soon!

Sam Rodriques

732,114 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 8 ay รถnce

Grateful for the outpouring the past few days. I canโ€™t tell you how motivating it is to have people care so much about Arc. The encouragement, the criticism, the confusion. Took it all in <3 As a thank you, Iโ€™d like to speak more plainly about whatโ€™s happening and why โ€“ we owe it to you: 1. Every person who joined or invested in our company did so to build products beloved by hundreds of millions of people. โ€œWe want to be to the browser what the iPhone was to the cellphoneโ€ has been our rallying cry since Day One. We knew chance of success was low but the ambition made us leap out of bed every morning. 2. Arc is beloved, popular, and growing (4x daily actives YoY). But itโ€™s now clear that what most people love about the product *is also* what will prevent it from reaching hundreds of millions of people in our target demographic (people who spend hours in their browsers each day for their livelihood). Arc is a niche browser, even if we did not intend for it to be so. 3. Luckily, we architected this company โ€“ from company name to investors and technical architecture โ€“ to support multiple products since Day One. See Arc Search. Our favorite brands have multiple product lines in the same category too (Apple, Nike, Disney). Hence our realization: why keep trying to make Arc something it is not? Nobody who loved Arc wanted Arc Max. Arc members just want it to be more stable, secure, and performant. โ€œLetโ€™s just do that!โ€ 4. With Arc as our beloved but niche browser #1, we asked ourselves a simple question: if we founded the company TODAY (in 2024), with everything that we know, what would the browser of the future look like for hundreds of millions of people? Letโ€™s go build *that* product, alongside Arc. A second browser that is easier to use, more focused, and more powerful. All in order to live up to our founding mission (#1 above). 5. Yet none of this wouldโ€™ve happened if it werenโ€™t for the timing (market timing is most underrated startup ingredient). Mark my words: the Web is going to dramatically change in 2025 โ€“ much more than we all appreciate. Crazy new AI & computer-use models are incoming. I promise you that new browsers will be the story of 2025 (The Browser Company aside). Why? The browser layer is the obvious epicenter of AI & Agents because of its unique context, cookies, & apps. 6. To build a breakthrough consumer product (#1) โ€“ like truly breakthrough โ€“ you need a catalyzing innovation or technology. AI will be that for the next era of browsers, whether we win or someone else does. So why us (other than Arc is niche)? Our belief is that not only do you need the browser layer to win, but โ€œthe hard partโ€ is nailing the interface, the interactions, the storytelling. Thatโ€™s our bread & butter. Thatโ€™s the expertise of our team. Now you can see how these puzzle pieces fit togetherโ€ฆ We built something people love (in Arc) and we intend to stick by it. But we also wonโ€™t lose sight of why our team poured so much blood, sweat and tears over the past 4 years into this company: the mission to build a new interface to the internet used by hundreds of millions of people every day. It truly feels like the moment we were waiting for is here and we wonโ€™t miss it. Everything weโ€™ve done up until this point was for this type of window, even if we couldnโ€™t have predicted it would play out exactly this way. Weโ€™re hopeful that more of you will understand why weโ€™re building this second product soon. I feel confident you will once we can show you more of what weโ€™re dreaming up, and once more of the things weโ€™ve heard and seen in the industry reveal themselves soon. Candidly, we wanted to wait on this announcement but random stuff was leaking and it seemed wrong for you to hear from anyone except us first. Weโ€™ve always been at our best when weโ€™re open & honest. Weโ€™ll continue to be. Finally, THANK YOU, again, for the love & tough love. We donโ€™t take it for granted. We canโ€™t wait to ship, ship, ship in early 2025!
0:57

Grateful for the outpouring the past few days. I canโ€™t tell you how motivating it is to have people care so much about Arc. The encouragement, the criticism, the confusion. Took it all in <3 As a thank you, Iโ€™d like to speak more plainly about whatโ€™s happening and why โ€“ we owe it to you: 1. Every person who joined or invested in our company did so to build products beloved by hundreds of millions of people. โ€œWe want to be to the browser what the iPhone was to the cellphoneโ€ has been our rallying cry since Day One. We knew chance of success was low but the ambition made us leap out of bed every morning. 2. Arc is beloved, popular, and growing (4x daily actives YoY). But itโ€™s now clear that what most people love about the product *is also* what will prevent it from reaching hundreds of millions of people in our target demographic (people who spend hours in their browsers each day for their livelihood). Arc is a niche browser, even if we did not intend for it to be so. 3. Luckily, we architected this company โ€“ from company name to investors and technical architecture โ€“ to support multiple products since Day One. See Arc Search. Our favorite brands have multiple product lines in the same category too (Apple, Nike, Disney). Hence our realization: why keep trying to make Arc something it is not? Nobody who loved Arc wanted Arc Max. Arc members just want it to be more stable, secure, and performant. โ€œLetโ€™s just do that!โ€ 4. With Arc as our beloved but niche browser #1, we asked ourselves a simple question: if we founded the company TODAY (in 2024), with everything that we know, what would the browser of the future look like for hundreds of millions of people? Letโ€™s go build *that* product, alongside Arc. A second browser that is easier to use, more focused, and more powerful. All in order to live up to our founding mission (#1 above). 5. Yet none of this wouldโ€™ve happened if it werenโ€™t for the timing (market timing is most underrated startup ingredient). Mark my words: the Web is going to dramatically change in 2025 โ€“ much more than we all appreciate. Crazy new AI & computer-use models are incoming. I promise you that new browsers will be the story of 2025 (The Browser Company aside). Why? The browser layer is the obvious epicenter of AI & Agents because of its unique context, cookies, & apps. 6. To build a breakthrough consumer product (#1) โ€“ like truly breakthrough โ€“ you need a catalyzing innovation or technology. AI will be that for the next era of browsers, whether we win or someone else does. So why us (other than Arc is niche)? Our belief is that not only do you need the browser layer to win, but โ€œthe hard partโ€ is nailing the interface, the interactions, the storytelling. Thatโ€™s our bread & butter. Thatโ€™s the expertise of our team. Now you can see how these puzzle pieces fit togetherโ€ฆ We built something people love (in Arc) and we intend to stick by it. But we also wonโ€™t lose sight of why our team poured so much blood, sweat and tears over the past 4 years into this company: the mission to build a new interface to the internet used by hundreds of millions of people every day. It truly feels like the moment we were waiting for is here and we wonโ€™t miss it. Everything weโ€™ve done up until this point was for this type of window, even if we couldnโ€™t have predicted it would play out exactly this way. Weโ€™re hopeful that more of you will understand why weโ€™re building this second product soon. I feel confident you will once we can show you more of what weโ€™re dreaming up, and once more of the things weโ€™ve heard and seen in the industry reveal themselves soon. Candidly, we wanted to wait on this announcement but random stuff was leaking and it seemed wrong for you to hear from anyone except us first. Weโ€™ve always been at our best when weโ€™re open & honest. Weโ€™ll continue to be. Finally, THANK YOU, again, for the love & tough love. We donโ€™t take it for granted. We canโ€™t wait to ship, ship, ship in early 2025!

Josh Miller

189,025 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 1 yฤฑl รถnce

$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 Groqโ€™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 NVIDIAโ€™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 Groqโ€™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 Groqโ€™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 Groqโ€™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 โ€œgood-enoughโ€ 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 โ€œfreedโ€ 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. Groqโ€™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 โ€œmore optics versus fewer opticsโ€ 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. NVIDIAโ€™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 NVIDIAโ€™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 Groqโ€™s current packaging strategy. The main countervailing risk is that Groqโ€™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 Asteraโ€™s core portfolio. If NVIDIA instead integrates Groq concepts into scale-up fabrics (NVLink-like domains) or uses Groq to expand into inference โ€œappliancesโ€ that must be rapidly deployed in colocation environments, the need for standard-compliant, serviceable connectivity with strong RAS/telemetry increases, again aligning with Asteraโ€™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 โ€œair-cooled by designโ€ and require no complex cooling and power infrastructure, and third-party reporting has described Groqโ€™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 companyโ€™s broad exposure to both power and cooling infrastructure and the likelihood that total AI deployment locations expand. Vertivโ€™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 โ€œstandard server + acceleratorโ€ 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 โ€œAI factoryโ€ 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. NVIDIAโ€™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 12โ€“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).
9:00

$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 Groqโ€™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 NVIDIAโ€™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 Groqโ€™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 Groqโ€™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 Groqโ€™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 โ€œgood-enoughโ€ 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 โ€œfreedโ€ 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. Groqโ€™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 โ€œmore optics versus fewer opticsโ€ 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. NVIDIAโ€™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 NVIDIAโ€™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 Groqโ€™s current packaging strategy. The main countervailing risk is that Groqโ€™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 Asteraโ€™s core portfolio. If NVIDIA instead integrates Groq concepts into scale-up fabrics (NVLink-like domains) or uses Groq to expand into inference โ€œappliancesโ€ that must be rapidly deployed in colocation environments, the need for standard-compliant, serviceable connectivity with strong RAS/telemetry increases, again aligning with Asteraโ€™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 โ€œair-cooled by designโ€ and require no complex cooling and power infrastructure, and third-party reporting has described Groqโ€™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 companyโ€™s broad exposure to both power and cooling infrastructure and the likelihood that total AI deployment locations expand. Vertivโ€™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 โ€œstandard server + acceleratorโ€ 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 โ€œAI factoryโ€ 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. NVIDIAโ€™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 12โ€“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

76,170 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 7 ay รถnce

$AMD $620/share is too conservative for 2026 ๐Ÿงต 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 dealsโ€”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)โ€”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 computeโ€”equivalent to ~300,000-400,000 MI450 GPUsโ€”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 modelsโ€”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 tenantโ€”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 hypeโ€”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!
1:06

$AMD $620/share is too conservative for 2026 ๐Ÿงต 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 dealsโ€”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)โ€”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 computeโ€”equivalent to ~300,000-400,000 MI450 GPUsโ€”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 modelsโ€”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 tenantโ€”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 hypeโ€”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 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 9 ay รถnce

How to set up Claude Cowork so it actually works like an AI chief of staff (not just another chatbot): 1. Most people open Cowork, type a message, and get generic output. It's not a Claude problem. It's a setup problem. Cowork needs context before it can help you. Who you are. How you work. What you're building. Your team. Your priorities. Give it that, and every session feels like picking up a conversation with an executive assistant. 2. The setup has three layers: a) Global instructions (who you are, how you work, what Claude should never do). b) Connectors (Slack, Gmail, Google Calendar, Notion) c) And a folder structure on your computer that acts as Claude's long-term memory. That combination is what takes it from generic to personalized. 3. Skills are the real leverage. A skill is a markdown file that tells Claude exactly how to do one thing well. Write my newsletter. Coach me on a decision. Review a case study. Each skill lives in its own folder with context, examples, and a definition of what success looks like. 4. We built a CEO coach skill in the video below. Gave it business context, leadership style, company goals. Then tested it with a real decision: should we increase our newsletter from once to twice a week? It came back with trade-offs, second-order consequences, and risk assessment. 5. Then we built a multi-agent advisory board. Five subagents, each with a defined persona: a) the operator b) the skeptic c) the customer advocate d) the finance partner e) the legal/risk advisor. You feed it a decision. Each agent evaluates independently. The main agent synthesizes the feedback. It's like having a board meeting on demand. 6. Third skill: a thought leadership content pipeline. Topic scoring, idea capture, distribution cadence, tone calibration. All built from your actual expertise and audience. Designed so an executive can go from idea to published post without starting from scratch every time. 7. The workspace map is what ties it all together. It's a top-level file that shows Claude how to navigate your entire setup. Which folders exist, what skills live where, how to invoke them. Without it, Claude has to search for everything. With it, Claude goes straight to what it needs. 8. Everything you build is portable. The folder structure works in Cowork, Claude Code, and Codex. Push it to a private GitHub repo and you can access it from your phone through Claude Code, or use Claude Dispatch. 9. The pattern is repeatable. Pick a task you do often. Create a folder. Build a skill. Add examples of what success looks like, and what a bad output looks like. Test it. Workshop it. Move on to the next one. Each skill is like onboarding a new employee who never forgets and never needs to be re-trained. The people who invest in this setup now are the ones who will have a 10x advantage when these tools get even better. And they're getting better fast. I sat down with Alex Lieberman on Human In The Loop and we built all three of these live from scratch. Full breakdown in the video below.. I tried to explain this as clear as possible for my non-developer crowd. Send it to someone who should be using Cowork but isn't yet. Or bookmark it to level up when you're ready. Watch ๐Ÿ‘‡๐Ÿผ
51:23

How to set up Claude Cowork so it actually works like an AI chief of staff (not just another chatbot): 1. Most people open Cowork, type a message, and get generic output. It's not a Claude problem. It's a setup problem. Cowork needs context before it can help you. Who you are. How you work. What you're building. Your team. Your priorities. Give it that, and every session feels like picking up a conversation with an executive assistant. 2. The setup has three layers: a) Global instructions (who you are, how you work, what Claude should never do). b) Connectors (Slack, Gmail, Google Calendar, Notion) c) And a folder structure on your computer that acts as Claude's long-term memory. That combination is what takes it from generic to personalized. 3. Skills are the real leverage. A skill is a markdown file that tells Claude exactly how to do one thing well. Write my newsletter. Coach me on a decision. Review a case study. Each skill lives in its own folder with context, examples, and a definition of what success looks like. 4. We built a CEO coach skill in the video below. Gave it business context, leadership style, company goals. Then tested it with a real decision: should we increase our newsletter from once to twice a week? It came back with trade-offs, second-order consequences, and risk assessment. 5. Then we built a multi-agent advisory board. Five subagents, each with a defined persona: a) the operator b) the skeptic c) the customer advocate d) the finance partner e) the legal/risk advisor. You feed it a decision. Each agent evaluates independently. The main agent synthesizes the feedback. It's like having a board meeting on demand. 6. Third skill: a thought leadership content pipeline. Topic scoring, idea capture, distribution cadence, tone calibration. All built from your actual expertise and audience. Designed so an executive can go from idea to published post without starting from scratch every time. 7. The workspace map is what ties it all together. It's a top-level file that shows Claude how to navigate your entire setup. Which folders exist, what skills live where, how to invoke them. Without it, Claude has to search for everything. With it, Claude goes straight to what it needs. 8. Everything you build is portable. The folder structure works in Cowork, Claude Code, and Codex. Push it to a private GitHub repo and you can access it from your phone through Claude Code, or use Claude Dispatch. 9. The pattern is repeatable. Pick a task you do often. Create a folder. Build a skill. Add examples of what success looks like, and what a bad output looks like. Test it. Workshop it. Move on to the next one. Each skill is like onboarding a new employee who never forgets and never needs to be re-trained. The people who invest in this setup now are the ones who will have a 10x advantage when these tools get even better. And they're getting better fast. I sat down with Alex Lieberman on Human In The Loop and we built all three of these live from scratch. Full breakdown in the video below.. I tried to explain this as clear as possible for my non-developer crowd. Send it to someone who should be using Cowork but isn't yet. Or bookmark it to level up when you're ready. Watch ๐Ÿ‘‡๐Ÿผ

JJ Englert

568,980 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 4 ay รถnce

$AMD| The FOMO to buy AMD Chips is NOW ๐Ÿงต 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. NVIDIAโ€™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 AMDโ€™s investments in high-core EPYC CPUs and integrated rack-scale solutions, perfectly positioning the company for todayโ€™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$0.0003โ€“$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: ~$0.02โ€“$0.08 on optimized workloads (FP4/MXFP4, speculative decoding). Significant improvement over Hopper but still premium-priced. GB200 NVL72 rack-scale: $0.05โ€“$0.25+ ~$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 AMDโ€™s modeled 100 kW rack comparisons, Venice-powered systems are expected to achieve ~3.30x the throughput of NVIDIAโ€™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. Intelโ€™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 $0.0003โ€“$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 โ†’ production โ†’ 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 AMDโ€™s lower-cost GPUs for overall TCO wins. ~Agents often generate 10โ€“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 Anthropicโ€™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 OpenAIโ€™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 5โ€“10x advantages for volume work. Anthropic holds edges in long-context flat pricing and certain reasoning quality. OpenAI after Helios Rack Ownership, At $0.0003โ€“$0.0005/M effective costs, OpenAI gains massive headroom to: ~Aggressively discount high-volume agentic tiers or bundles. ~Offer โ€œunlimitedโ€ 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. OpenAIโ€™s combination of strong models (o-series reasoning) + lowest TCO positions it to erode Anthropicโ€™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 2022โ€“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 AMDโ€™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 $0.0003โ€“$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. Suโ€™s prescient strategy and turns the Agentic flywheel into reality: Collapsing inference costs โ†’ explosive token consumption โ†’ richer data and better models โ†’ accelerate greater demand. This partnership doesnโ€™t just address todayโ€™s economics, it positions both leaders at the center of the infrastructure buildout that will power AIโ€™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!
4:46

$AMD| The FOMO to buy AMD Chips is NOW ๐Ÿงต 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. NVIDIAโ€™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 AMDโ€™s investments in high-core EPYC CPUs and integrated rack-scale solutions, perfectly positioning the company for todayโ€™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$0.0003โ€“$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: ~$0.02โ€“$0.08 on optimized workloads (FP4/MXFP4, speculative decoding). Significant improvement over Hopper but still premium-priced. GB200 NVL72 rack-scale: $0.05โ€“$0.25+ ~$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 AMDโ€™s modeled 100 kW rack comparisons, Venice-powered systems are expected to achieve ~3.30x the throughput of NVIDIAโ€™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. Intelโ€™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 $0.0003โ€“$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 โ†’ production โ†’ 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 AMDโ€™s lower-cost GPUs for overall TCO wins. ~Agents often generate 10โ€“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 Anthropicโ€™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 OpenAIโ€™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 5โ€“10x advantages for volume work. Anthropic holds edges in long-context flat pricing and certain reasoning quality. OpenAI after Helios Rack Ownership, At $0.0003โ€“$0.0005/M effective costs, OpenAI gains massive headroom to: ~Aggressively discount high-volume agentic tiers or bundles. ~Offer โ€œunlimitedโ€ 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. OpenAIโ€™s combination of strong models (o-series reasoning) + lowest TCO positions it to erode Anthropicโ€™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 2022โ€“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 AMDโ€™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 $0.0003โ€“$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. Suโ€™s prescient strategy and turns the Agentic flywheel into reality: Collapsing inference costs โ†’ explosive token consumption โ†’ richer data and better models โ†’ accelerate greater demand. This partnership doesnโ€™t just address todayโ€™s economics, it positions both leaders at the center of the infrastructure buildout that will power AIโ€™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 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 1 ay รถnce

I know your timeline is flooded now with word salads of "insane, HER, 10 features you missed, we're so back". Sit down. Chill. Take a deep breath like Mark does in the demo . Let's think step by step: - Technique-wise, OpenAI has figured out a way to map audio to audio directly as first-class modality, and stream videos to a transformer in real-time. These require some new research on tokenization and architecture, but overall it's a data and system optimization problem (as most things are). High-quality data can come from at least 2 sources: 1) Naturally occurring dialogues on YouTube, podcasts, TV series, movies, etc. Whisper can be trained to identify speaker turns in a dialogue or separate overlapping speeches for automated annotation. 2) Synthetic data. Run the slow 3-stage pipeline using the most powerful models: speech1->text1 (ASR), text1->text2 (LLM), text2->speech2 (TTS). The middle LLM can decide when to stop and also simulate how to resume from interruption. It could output additional "thought traces" that are not verbalized to help generate better reply. Then GPT-4o distills directly from speech1->speech2, with optional auxiliary loss functions based on the 3-stage data. After distillation, these behaviors are now baked into the model without emitting intermediate texts. On the system side: the latency would not meet real-time threshold if every video frame is decompressed into an RGB image. OpenAI has likely developed their own neural-first, streaming video codec to transmit the motion deltas as tokens. The communication protocol and NN inference must be co-optimized. For example, there could be a small and energy-efficient NN running on the edge device that decides to transmit more tokens if the video is interesting, and fewer otherwise. - I didn't expect GPT-4o to be closer to GPT-5, the rumored "Arrakis" model that takes multimodal in and out. In fact, it's likely an early checkpoint of GPT-5 that hasn't finished training yet. The branding betrays a certain insecurity. Ahead of Google I/O, OpenAI would rather beat our mental projection of GPT-4.5 than disappoint by missing the sky-high expectation for GPT-5. A smart move to buy more time. - Notably, the assistant is much more lively and even a bit flirty. GPT-4o is trying (perhaps a bit too hard) to sound like HER. OpenAI is eating Character AI's lunch, with almost 100% overlap in form factor and huge distribution channels. It's a pivot towards more emotional AI with strong personality, which OpenAI seemed to actively suppress in the past. - Whoever wins Apple first wins big time. I see 3 levels of integration with iOS: 1) Ditch Siri. OpenAI distills a smaller-tier, purely on-device GPT-4o for iOS, with optional paid upgrade to use the cloud. 2) Native features to stream the camera or screen into the model. Chip-level support for neural audio/video codec. 3) Integrate with iOS system-level action API and smart home APIs. No one uses Siri Shortcuts, but it's time to resurrect. This could become the AI agent product with a billion users from the get-go. The FSD for smartphones with a Tesla-scale data flywheel.
14:22

I know your timeline is flooded now with word salads of "insane, HER, 10 features you missed, we're so back". Sit down. Chill. Take a deep breath like Mark does in the demo . Let's think step by step: - Technique-wise, OpenAI has figured out a way to map audio to audio directly as first-class modality, and stream videos to a transformer in real-time. These require some new research on tokenization and architecture, but overall it's a data and system optimization problem (as most things are). High-quality data can come from at least 2 sources: 1) Naturally occurring dialogues on YouTube, podcasts, TV series, movies, etc. Whisper can be trained to identify speaker turns in a dialogue or separate overlapping speeches for automated annotation. 2) Synthetic data. Run the slow 3-stage pipeline using the most powerful models: speech1->text1 (ASR), text1->text2 (LLM), text2->speech2 (TTS). The middle LLM can decide when to stop and also simulate how to resume from interruption. It could output additional "thought traces" that are not verbalized to help generate better reply. Then GPT-4o distills directly from speech1->speech2, with optional auxiliary loss functions based on the 3-stage data. After distillation, these behaviors are now baked into the model without emitting intermediate texts. On the system side: the latency would not meet real-time threshold if every video frame is decompressed into an RGB image. OpenAI has likely developed their own neural-first, streaming video codec to transmit the motion deltas as tokens. The communication protocol and NN inference must be co-optimized. For example, there could be a small and energy-efficient NN running on the edge device that decides to transmit more tokens if the video is interesting, and fewer otherwise. - I didn't expect GPT-4o to be closer to GPT-5, the rumored "Arrakis" model that takes multimodal in and out. In fact, it's likely an early checkpoint of GPT-5 that hasn't finished training yet. The branding betrays a certain insecurity. Ahead of Google I/O, OpenAI would rather beat our mental projection of GPT-4.5 than disappoint by missing the sky-high expectation for GPT-5. A smart move to buy more time. - Notably, the assistant is much more lively and even a bit flirty. GPT-4o is trying (perhaps a bit too hard) to sound like HER. OpenAI is eating Character AI's lunch, with almost 100% overlap in form factor and huge distribution channels. It's a pivot towards more emotional AI with strong personality, which OpenAI seemed to actively suppress in the past. - Whoever wins Apple first wins big time. I see 3 levels of integration with iOS: 1) Ditch Siri. OpenAI distills a smaller-tier, purely on-device GPT-4o for iOS, with optional paid upgrade to use the cloud. 2) Native features to stream the camera or screen into the model. Chip-level support for neural audio/video codec. 3) Integrate with iOS system-level action API and smart home APIs. No one uses Siri Shortcuts, but it's time to resurrect. This could become the AI agent product with a billion users from the get-go. The FSD for smartphones with a Tesla-scale data flywheel.

Jim Fan

991,790 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 2 yฤฑl รถnce

Dear ICP community, the Internet Computer has now been running strong for 5 years ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ‘ Here is a celebratory preview of ICP "cloud engines," the sovereign frontier cloud technology the network shall soon provide from Main points: โ€” Cloud engines enable anyone to spin up their own sovereign frontier cloud. The technology involves an extraordinary inventive step, in which cloud is created from a mathematically secure network of nodes. The nodes run as part of the Internet Computer network ( but are selected and configured by the cloud engine's owner. โ€” The frontier cloud provided by engines is strongly focused on enabling AI agents to build and update online applications and services for us. The world is changing fast, and nearly all new online apps and services are already being built with the help of AI, and thus cloud engines target the future of cloud. โ€” Software hosted on cloud engines is tamperproof, which means that it is immune to infrastructure hacks, because it runs inside a mathematically secure network protocol, rather than on computers directly. This means that AI agents, and those building with them, don't need to have a security team in the loop, or to trust someone else's security team. This is crucial, because in the future, non technical people will demand the freedom to build with full automation โ€” where they just need to issue instructions to AI about what to build, and don't need to worry about anything or anyone else. Of course, apps and services running on engines are also vastly safer from the new breed of hacker being enabled by frontier AI. (The cloud engines themselves are also "tamperproof." Even if a hacker gains physical access to some portion of a cloud engine's nodes, and can make arbitrary changes, the computations and data of the hosted apps and services cannot be corrupted or interrupted so long as the network's fault bounds aren't exceeded. The recent hack of Vercel, a major cloud platform, which gave hackers access to the apps it hosted, provides additional perspective on the importance of this advantage.) โ€” Software hosted on cloud engines is guaranteed to run, so long as a sufficient number of the engine's nodes are running. This means that AI can build applications and services without the need to have a human systems admin team constantly tinkering with the underlying platform to keep it running, which is again crucial, because in the future, non technical people will expect the freedom to use AI to build without the support of others. โ€” New frontier programming language technology, in the form of the Motoko language developed by Caffeine Labs, leverages seminal "orthogonal persistence" technology that unifies program logic and data to deliver further unlocks for AI (Motoko is the first computer language being developed that targets agents that are writing software rather than humans engineers per se). Nowadays, AI can build and update production apps at a prodigious rate, even at the speed of conversation. But it can also make mistakes, and there's a risk that an update it creates might be "lossy" in the sense it causes some transformed data to be lost. Again, in this new world, it's both undesirable and impractical for everyone to have to have a systems admin team on-hand to detect lossy updates and roll them back, but Motoko provides a solution: it can detect new software updates are lossy before they are applied, reducing potentially catastrophic errors by AI to harmless coding retries. โ€” Software hosted on cloud engines is "serverless" but unlike traditional serverless software, directly it directly incorporates data through "orthogonal persistence." Another key purpose is simplify backend software logic and fuel the modeling power of AI by increasing abstraction (sorry for the technical language!!!). Put simply, this enables AI to produce more sophisticated backends, faster, and at dramatically lower costs, as measured by the number AI API tokens consumed during coding. (Tip for the technical: orthogonal persistence is a new paradigm where "the program is the database," and data lives inside program variables, which is possible because it's as if hosted software runs forever in persistent memory). โ€” An expanding database of skills at shall make it possible to develop and directly deploy apps and services to your cloud engines directly from Claude Code, Perplexity, Codex and other AI platforms. Further, your account on can be connected, so that new apps and updates created through conversation automatically appear hosted from your cloud engine. In the future, R&D is going to be very seamless. You converse with AI, and your secure and unstoppable apps or services are created or updated. Cloud engines are designed to directly support this "self-writing cloud" future where we can work hands-free. โ€” Tech sovereignty is becoming a huge issue worldwide, with governments and corporations seeking to create sovereign tech stacks owing to geopolitical tensions. Increasingly, people are realizing that tech provided by foreign nations can come with hidden backdoors and kills switches, from the base platform, right up through hosted apps and services. ICP technology is open source, and those building on ICP using AI own their own source code. When you have the source code, you can verify that there are no backdoors, and when you own the source code thanks to AI, you can update it at will, freeing you from vendor lock-in. But cloud engines take sovereignty much further... โ€” You create a cloud engine by selecting the nodes that will be combined. You can choose the class of nodes used, and their number, but more importantly, you can choose who operates the nodes, and where they are located. Almost any configuration is possible, because the Internet Computer scales the security privileges afforded to hosted software within the network according to configuration (software hosted on cloud engines can directly interoperate with software on other engines and traditional subnets, but base restrictions are applied according to security rules). A cloud engine can be created within a region such as Europe, to comply with regs such as GDPR, or completely within a sovereign state like Switzerland or Pakistan. But cloud engines go further still... โ€” Sovereignty is also about freedom from vendor lock-in. Cloud engines are essentially ICP (Internet Computer Protocol) network configurations, and this means the underlying compute nodes they combine can be swapped out without interrupting their hosted apps and services. This is a big deal. In addition, cloud engines now support nodes that are instances running on Big Tech's clouds, in addition to nodes that are dedicated specialized hardware, as per the Gen I and Gen II nodes that dominate the Internet Computer today. For example, it is possible to have an engine running across different AWS data centers, say, and then reconfigure the engine to run across a mixture of AWS, Google, Azure and Hetzner for even more resilience, without the users of hosted apps and services noticing a thing. That's true freedom. โ€” Sovereign AI is becoming increasingly important too, and cloud engines allow special "AI nodes" to be added to them, so that hosted software can perform inference on hardware provisioned by the owner from a location the owner has selected. Even though the AI nodes are only accessible within the cloud engine, they can still benefit from the forthcoming Internet Intelligence Gateway (IG), which will make it possible to validate inference performed on key frontier open weights LLMs, even when the inference is performed on completely independent AI clouds. When the results of inference are received, this technology can verify that neither the prompt+context (input) nor the inference result (output) have been modified, and that the results were produced by the precise LLM expected. This ensures that AI clouds don't cheat by running inference on cheaper models than are being paid for, and bad actors aren't modifying the inputs or outputs to surreptitiously insert advertising into results, say, or change facts, or insert malware when code is being generated. What's super cool about this technology is the cost of the verification is scalable. A very valuable additional security can be achieved with only 1-2% of extra cost. โ€” Scaling apps and services when they hit capacity limits is another thorny problem that cloud engines help the world address. Engines make scaling possible without rewriting or reconfiguring software. The query workload capacity of hosted software can be horizontally scaled simply by adding new nodes to an engine, and nodes can also be added in geographical proximity to demand. Meanwhile, update workload capacity can first be scaled-up by swapping an engine's nodes out for the next class up, and then when no larger class of node is available, horizontally scaled-out by "splitting" the engine into two, which doubles available capacity. (Technical tip: horizontally scaling update capacity by splitting engines requires multi-canister architectures). โ€” For those who have been following how Caffeine builds apps that can efficiently store large numbers of files, I should mention that apps built on cloud engines will also support the new ICP Blob Storage cloud network (since cloud engines currently have up to about 3 TB of memory, which apps storing large amounts of files can easily exceed). We are also working on allowing blob storage nodes to be added to cloud engines, to enable sovereign mass blob storage within an engine, similarly to how AI nodes can be added currently. โ€” Lastly, but certainly not least, I should mention that cloud engines are multi-blockchain capable, and ready for digital assets, thanks to the clever math at their core. For example, an e-commerce service built on a cloud engine can securely accept and custody stablecoin payments, or a multi-chain DEX could be hosted. Further, engines can support software autonomy (software orchestrated and controlled by other autonomous software, in a decentralized way) and can themselves be orchestrated by SNS technology, and thus run autonomously too. Today, though, the focus is on *mainstream* cloud. This year, the cloud industry will generate approximately one trillion dollars in revenue. That number is already huge, but is expected to grow to two trillion dollars by 2030. After years of continuous development, which have seen more than $500m spent on R&D, the Internet Computer network is now tacking directly toward this mainstream cloud market with cloud engine technology. In their first version, cloud engines are not meant to be a cloud panacea. For example, currently they are not ideal for working with big data. You should use something like DataBricks for that. Cloud engines are carefully targeted at enabling AI to produce traditional online applications and services, including SaaS, in a safer and more productive way, which represents a new market segment with tremendous potential. Of course, DFINITY will continue to work relentlessly to push forward ICP's capabilities, so expect further developments. It's worth mentioning that this cloud segment isn't just about creating new apps and services using AI, it's also about replacing legacy systems and apps built on super expensive SaaS services. Caffeine Labs is working to produce technology (Caffeine Snorkel) that can study an enterprise's legacy systems and app built on SaaS, create replacement systems and apps, and migrate the data, while supporting key stakeholders through the process over email and chat, with full automation. Thus the legacy systems and SaaS markets shall also be addressed by cloud engines. Zooming out, and reasoning in a more metaphysical way, we believe, as we always have, that there is room for a new kind of cloud created by mathematical networks, that provides seminal advances in the fields of security and resilience, as well as true sovereignty and freedom from lock-in. That this same technology, with the help of additional technologies like orthogonal persistence and Motoko, enables AI to build for us without the need for so much oversight, and to create more backend sophistication while consuming fewer AI API tokens, enables ICP to bring game-changing advances to the world. Cloud engines will work synergistically with the Intelligence Gateway, which will enable apps and services running on engines to seamlessly leverage AI, wherever that AI is running, while providing verifiability at extremely low cost for open weights frontier models. We believe that cloud engines represent an inflection point in the storied history of the Internet Computer project, and I'm very proud to be sharing the details with you on the network's fifth birthday ๐Ÿ’ช I'll be back with more news soon!!
19:06

Dear ICP community, the Internet Computer has now been running strong for 5 years ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ‘ Here is a celebratory preview of ICP "cloud engines," the sovereign frontier cloud technology the network shall soon provide from Main points: โ€” Cloud engines enable anyone to spin up their own sovereign frontier cloud. The technology involves an extraordinary inventive step, in which cloud is created from a mathematically secure network of nodes. The nodes run as part of the Internet Computer network ( but are selected and configured by the cloud engine's owner. โ€” The frontier cloud provided by engines is strongly focused on enabling AI agents to build and update online applications and services for us. The world is changing fast, and nearly all new online apps and services are already being built with the help of AI, and thus cloud engines target the future of cloud. โ€” Software hosted on cloud engines is tamperproof, which means that it is immune to infrastructure hacks, because it runs inside a mathematically secure network protocol, rather than on computers directly. This means that AI agents, and those building with them, don't need to have a security team in the loop, or to trust someone else's security team. This is crucial, because in the future, non technical people will demand the freedom to build with full automation โ€” where they just need to issue instructions to AI about what to build, and don't need to worry about anything or anyone else. Of course, apps and services running on engines are also vastly safer from the new breed of hacker being enabled by frontier AI. (The cloud engines themselves are also "tamperproof." Even if a hacker gains physical access to some portion of a cloud engine's nodes, and can make arbitrary changes, the computations and data of the hosted apps and services cannot be corrupted or interrupted so long as the network's fault bounds aren't exceeded. The recent hack of Vercel, a major cloud platform, which gave hackers access to the apps it hosted, provides additional perspective on the importance of this advantage.) โ€” Software hosted on cloud engines is guaranteed to run, so long as a sufficient number of the engine's nodes are running. This means that AI can build applications and services without the need to have a human systems admin team constantly tinkering with the underlying platform to keep it running, which is again crucial, because in the future, non technical people will expect the freedom to use AI to build without the support of others. โ€” New frontier programming language technology, in the form of the Motoko language developed by Caffeine Labs, leverages seminal "orthogonal persistence" technology that unifies program logic and data to deliver further unlocks for AI (Motoko is the first computer language being developed that targets agents that are writing software rather than humans engineers per se). Nowadays, AI can build and update production apps at a prodigious rate, even at the speed of conversation. But it can also make mistakes, and there's a risk that an update it creates might be "lossy" in the sense it causes some transformed data to be lost. Again, in this new world, it's both undesirable and impractical for everyone to have to have a systems admin team on-hand to detect lossy updates and roll them back, but Motoko provides a solution: it can detect new software updates are lossy before they are applied, reducing potentially catastrophic errors by AI to harmless coding retries. โ€” Software hosted on cloud engines is "serverless" but unlike traditional serverless software, directly it directly incorporates data through "orthogonal persistence." Another key purpose is simplify backend software logic and fuel the modeling power of AI by increasing abstraction (sorry for the technical language!!!). Put simply, this enables AI to produce more sophisticated backends, faster, and at dramatically lower costs, as measured by the number AI API tokens consumed during coding. (Tip for the technical: orthogonal persistence is a new paradigm where "the program is the database," and data lives inside program variables, which is possible because it's as if hosted software runs forever in persistent memory). โ€” An expanding database of skills at shall make it possible to develop and directly deploy apps and services to your cloud engines directly from Claude Code, Perplexity, Codex and other AI platforms. Further, your account on can be connected, so that new apps and updates created through conversation automatically appear hosted from your cloud engine. In the future, R&D is going to be very seamless. You converse with AI, and your secure and unstoppable apps or services are created or updated. Cloud engines are designed to directly support this "self-writing cloud" future where we can work hands-free. โ€” Tech sovereignty is becoming a huge issue worldwide, with governments and corporations seeking to create sovereign tech stacks owing to geopolitical tensions. Increasingly, people are realizing that tech provided by foreign nations can come with hidden backdoors and kills switches, from the base platform, right up through hosted apps and services. ICP technology is open source, and those building on ICP using AI own their own source code. When you have the source code, you can verify that there are no backdoors, and when you own the source code thanks to AI, you can update it at will, freeing you from vendor lock-in. But cloud engines take sovereignty much further... โ€” You create a cloud engine by selecting the nodes that will be combined. You can choose the class of nodes used, and their number, but more importantly, you can choose who operates the nodes, and where they are located. Almost any configuration is possible, because the Internet Computer scales the security privileges afforded to hosted software within the network according to configuration (software hosted on cloud engines can directly interoperate with software on other engines and traditional subnets, but base restrictions are applied according to security rules). A cloud engine can be created within a region such as Europe, to comply with regs such as GDPR, or completely within a sovereign state like Switzerland or Pakistan. But cloud engines go further still... โ€” Sovereignty is also about freedom from vendor lock-in. Cloud engines are essentially ICP (Internet Computer Protocol) network configurations, and this means the underlying compute nodes they combine can be swapped out without interrupting their hosted apps and services. This is a big deal. In addition, cloud engines now support nodes that are instances running on Big Tech's clouds, in addition to nodes that are dedicated specialized hardware, as per the Gen I and Gen II nodes that dominate the Internet Computer today. For example, it is possible to have an engine running across different AWS data centers, say, and then reconfigure the engine to run across a mixture of AWS, Google, Azure and Hetzner for even more resilience, without the users of hosted apps and services noticing a thing. That's true freedom. โ€” Sovereign AI is becoming increasingly important too, and cloud engines allow special "AI nodes" to be added to them, so that hosted software can perform inference on hardware provisioned by the owner from a location the owner has selected. Even though the AI nodes are only accessible within the cloud engine, they can still benefit from the forthcoming Internet Intelligence Gateway (IG), which will make it possible to validate inference performed on key frontier open weights LLMs, even when the inference is performed on completely independent AI clouds. When the results of inference are received, this technology can verify that neither the prompt+context (input) nor the inference result (output) have been modified, and that the results were produced by the precise LLM expected. This ensures that AI clouds don't cheat by running inference on cheaper models than are being paid for, and bad actors aren't modifying the inputs or outputs to surreptitiously insert advertising into results, say, or change facts, or insert malware when code is being generated. What's super cool about this technology is the cost of the verification is scalable. A very valuable additional security can be achieved with only 1-2% of extra cost. โ€” Scaling apps and services when they hit capacity limits is another thorny problem that cloud engines help the world address. Engines make scaling possible without rewriting or reconfiguring software. The query workload capacity of hosted software can be horizontally scaled simply by adding new nodes to an engine, and nodes can also be added in geographical proximity to demand. Meanwhile, update workload capacity can first be scaled-up by swapping an engine's nodes out for the next class up, and then when no larger class of node is available, horizontally scaled-out by "splitting" the engine into two, which doubles available capacity. (Technical tip: horizontally scaling update capacity by splitting engines requires multi-canister architectures). โ€” For those who have been following how Caffeine builds apps that can efficiently store large numbers of files, I should mention that apps built on cloud engines will also support the new ICP Blob Storage cloud network (since cloud engines currently have up to about 3 TB of memory, which apps storing large amounts of files can easily exceed). We are also working on allowing blob storage nodes to be added to cloud engines, to enable sovereign mass blob storage within an engine, similarly to how AI nodes can be added currently. โ€” Lastly, but certainly not least, I should mention that cloud engines are multi-blockchain capable, and ready for digital assets, thanks to the clever math at their core. For example, an e-commerce service built on a cloud engine can securely accept and custody stablecoin payments, or a multi-chain DEX could be hosted. Further, engines can support software autonomy (software orchestrated and controlled by other autonomous software, in a decentralized way) and can themselves be orchestrated by SNS technology, and thus run autonomously too. Today, though, the focus is on *mainstream* cloud. This year, the cloud industry will generate approximately one trillion dollars in revenue. That number is already huge, but is expected to grow to two trillion dollars by 2030. After years of continuous development, which have seen more than $500m spent on R&D, the Internet Computer network is now tacking directly toward this mainstream cloud market with cloud engine technology. In their first version, cloud engines are not meant to be a cloud panacea. For example, currently they are not ideal for working with big data. You should use something like DataBricks for that. Cloud engines are carefully targeted at enabling AI to produce traditional online applications and services, including SaaS, in a safer and more productive way, which represents a new market segment with tremendous potential. Of course, DFINITY will continue to work relentlessly to push forward ICP's capabilities, so expect further developments. It's worth mentioning that this cloud segment isn't just about creating new apps and services using AI, it's also about replacing legacy systems and apps built on super expensive SaaS services. Caffeine Labs is working to produce technology (Caffeine Snorkel) that can study an enterprise's legacy systems and app built on SaaS, create replacement systems and apps, and migrate the data, while supporting key stakeholders through the process over email and chat, with full automation. Thus the legacy systems and SaaS markets shall also be addressed by cloud engines. Zooming out, and reasoning in a more metaphysical way, we believe, as we always have, that there is room for a new kind of cloud created by mathematical networks, that provides seminal advances in the fields of security and resilience, as well as true sovereignty and freedom from lock-in. That this same technology, with the help of additional technologies like orthogonal persistence and Motoko, enables AI to build for us without the need for so much oversight, and to create more backend sophistication while consuming fewer AI API tokens, enables ICP to bring game-changing advances to the world. Cloud engines will work synergistically with the Intelligence Gateway, which will enable apps and services running on engines to seamlessly leverage AI, wherever that AI is running, while providing verifiability at extremely low cost for open weights frontier models. We believe that cloud engines represent an inflection point in the storied history of the Internet Computer project, and I'm very proud to be sharing the details with you on the network's fifth birthday ๐Ÿ’ช I'll be back with more news soon!!

dom | icp

270,902 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 2 ay รถnce

$NVDA $GFS NVIDIAโ€™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 NVIDIAโ€™s prior M&A pattern, given both the headline size (largest reported NVIDIA acquisition to date) and the unusual carve-out that Groqโ€™s early-stage cloud business would not be included. Public reporting indicates the information originated from Alex Davis, CEO of Disruptive (lead investor in Groqโ€™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 Groqโ€™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 companyโ€™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. Groqโ€™s solution is to move โ€œcontrolโ€ 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 Groqโ€™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 Groqโ€™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 Groqโ€™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 โ€œno useful modelsโ€ 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 Groqโ€™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 Groqโ€™s latency story and also its most constraining trade-off. Groq claims on-chip SRAM bandwidth โ€œupwards of 80 TB/sโ€ and contrasts that with off-chip HBM bandwidth โ€œabout 8 TB/s,โ€ 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 โ€œTruePoint numerics,โ€ 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 companyโ€™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 โ€œavailable speedโ€ for certain interactive use cases. These figures do not settle total cost-of-ownership versus GPUs or hyperscaler ASICs, but they establish that Groqโ€™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 โ€œtokens-as-a-service,โ€ aiming to make Groq adoption feel like switching API endpoints rather than adopting new silicon. Groqโ€™s documentation states its API is designed to be โ€œmostly compatibleโ€ 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 Groqโ€™s go-to-market is not simply โ€œsell chips,โ€ but โ€œsell predictable unit economics per token,โ€ 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 โ€œedge within the cloudโ€ 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 Groqโ€™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 Groqโ€™s marketing materials and partnerships provide signals about demand vectors. The companyโ€™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, Groqโ€™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, whichโ€”if realized in deploymentsโ€”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 Groqโ€™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. Groqโ€™s core propositionโ€”deterministic, compiler-scheduled inference with predictable latencyโ€”aligns directly with the segment where GPU generality is least valued and where โ€œgood enoughโ€ 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 NVIDIAโ€™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. Groqโ€™s existence as a credible alternative architecture forces NVIDIA to keep defending inference economics rather than only raw performance leadership. The โ€œtechnology acquisitionโ€ rationale is unusually strong in this specific case because Groqโ€™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. NVIDIAโ€™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. Groqโ€™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 Groqโ€™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. NVIDIAโ€™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 chipsโ€”while not costlessโ€”could reduce dependence on HBM availability and advanced packaging capacity, enabling NVIDIA to ship โ€œinference capacityโ€ 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 NVIDIAโ€™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 Groqโ€™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 Groqโ€™s unit economics or the customer contracts that validate product-market fit at scale, increasing the importance of diligence on whether Groqโ€™s cloud pricing is structurally profitable or partially subsidized by fundraising. There is also a โ€œpreemptive acquisitionโ€ angle. The reporting identifies recent investors in Groqโ€™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 Groqโ€™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, Groqโ€™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. Groqโ€™s compiler-led deterministic model is philosophically and practically different from CUDAโ€™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 NVIDIAโ€™s own rapidly improving inference performance complicates the โ€œneedโ€ for Groq but does not eliminate the โ€œoption value.โ€ 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 NVIDIAโ€™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 โ€œspecialโ€ about Groqโ€™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 โ€œhundredsโ€ (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 managerโ€™s perspective, the most important interpretation is that an NVIDIA-Groq combination would likely be less about โ€œNVIDIA needs more inference speedโ€ 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.
10:20

$NVDA $GFS NVIDIAโ€™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 NVIDIAโ€™s prior M&A pattern, given both the headline size (largest reported NVIDIA acquisition to date) and the unusual carve-out that Groqโ€™s early-stage cloud business would not be included. Public reporting indicates the information originated from Alex Davis, CEO of Disruptive (lead investor in Groqโ€™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 Groqโ€™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 companyโ€™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. Groqโ€™s solution is to move โ€œcontrolโ€ 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 Groqโ€™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 Groqโ€™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 Groqโ€™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 โ€œno useful modelsโ€ 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 Groqโ€™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 Groqโ€™s latency story and also its most constraining trade-off. Groq claims on-chip SRAM bandwidth โ€œupwards of 80 TB/sโ€ and contrasts that with off-chip HBM bandwidth โ€œabout 8 TB/s,โ€ 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 โ€œTruePoint numerics,โ€ 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 companyโ€™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 โ€œavailable speedโ€ for certain interactive use cases. These figures do not settle total cost-of-ownership versus GPUs or hyperscaler ASICs, but they establish that Groqโ€™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 โ€œtokens-as-a-service,โ€ aiming to make Groq adoption feel like switching API endpoints rather than adopting new silicon. Groqโ€™s documentation states its API is designed to be โ€œmostly compatibleโ€ 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 Groqโ€™s go-to-market is not simply โ€œsell chips,โ€ but โ€œsell predictable unit economics per token,โ€ 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 โ€œedge within the cloudโ€ 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 Groqโ€™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 Groqโ€™s marketing materials and partnerships provide signals about demand vectors. The companyโ€™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, Groqโ€™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, whichโ€”if realized in deploymentsโ€”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 Groqโ€™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. Groqโ€™s core propositionโ€”deterministic, compiler-scheduled inference with predictable latencyโ€”aligns directly with the segment where GPU generality is least valued and where โ€œgood enoughโ€ 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 NVIDIAโ€™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. Groqโ€™s existence as a credible alternative architecture forces NVIDIA to keep defending inference economics rather than only raw performance leadership. The โ€œtechnology acquisitionโ€ rationale is unusually strong in this specific case because Groqโ€™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. NVIDIAโ€™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. Groqโ€™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 Groqโ€™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. NVIDIAโ€™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 chipsโ€”while not costlessโ€”could reduce dependence on HBM availability and advanced packaging capacity, enabling NVIDIA to ship โ€œinference capacityโ€ 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 NVIDIAโ€™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 Groqโ€™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 Groqโ€™s unit economics or the customer contracts that validate product-market fit at scale, increasing the importance of diligence on whether Groqโ€™s cloud pricing is structurally profitable or partially subsidized by fundraising. There is also a โ€œpreemptive acquisitionโ€ angle. The reporting identifies recent investors in Groqโ€™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 Groqโ€™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, Groqโ€™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. Groqโ€™s compiler-led deterministic model is philosophically and practically different from CUDAโ€™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 NVIDIAโ€™s own rapidly improving inference performance complicates the โ€œneedโ€ for Groq but does not eliminate the โ€œoption value.โ€ 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 NVIDIAโ€™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 โ€œspecialโ€ about Groqโ€™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 โ€œhundredsโ€ (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 managerโ€™s perspective, the most important interpretation is that an NVIDIA-Groq combination would likely be less about โ€œNVIDIA needs more inference speedโ€ 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 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 7 ay รถnce

$AMD| $META is using $GOOGL to negotiate ๐Ÿงต The Ironwood pod is 5.1โ€“10x more expensive annually ($148.3 million รท $14.87โ€“$29.04 million) and 5.1โ€“10x more expensive monthly ($12.36 million รท $1.24โ€“$2.42 million) than renting 15 MI450 racks for equivalent compute. The rapidly evolving landscape of artificial intelligence infrastructure presents a complex interplay of technological innovation, market dynamics, and strategic maneuvering among major players. Recent leaked information suggesting that Meta Platforms ($META) might work with Google's Tensor Processing Unit (TPU) in 2027 has sparked speculation about its true intent. This leak is likely a strategic move by Meta to negotiate more favorable terms with AMD , leveraging the competitive dynamics of the AI hardware market to optimize its substantial investment in AI infrastructure. By examining the key elements of this scenario Meta's investment strategy, the comparative advantages of AMD's MI450 and Google's Ironwood TPU, and the broader market context; we can discern the potential beneficiaries and the strategic implications of this information. Meta's aggressive pursuit of AI capabilities is underscored by its planned expenditure of $66-72 billion on AI infrastructure in 2025, with expectations to escalate significantly in 2026. This investment is part of a broader strategy to build "titan clusters" like Prometheus, which are projected to reach 1 gigawatt of compute power by 2026. Such a scale of investment reflects Meta's recognition of the critical role that AI will play in its future growth, particularly in enhancing its social media platforms and developing new AI-driven applications. However, the financial burden of this infrastructure buildout necessitates a careful consideration of cost-effectiveness and scalability, which brings us to the leaked information about potential collaboration with Google's Ironwood TPU. Google's Ironwood TPU, introduced as the seventh-generation ASIC optimized for TensorFlow-based inference, represents a high-cost, cloud-locked solution priced at $445 million per pod (9,216 chips) over three years. This model, while offering significant performance gains and power efficiency, is tailored for pod-scale deployment and integrated with Google's cloud services, limiting flexibility and increasing costs for customers. In contrast, AMD's MI450 GPU, priced at $30,000โ€“$40,000 per unit, provides a modular, open ROCm ecosystem that delivers comparable compute capacity at a fraction of the cost. Renting 15 MI450 racks could achieve similar 42+ exaFLOPS inference compute at 5โ€“10x lower cost than renting a single Ironwood pod, underscoring AMD's competitive edge in terms of total cost of ownership (TCO). The leaked information about Meta's potential TPU deployment in 2027, therefore, can be interpreted as a negotiating tactic rather than a definitive shift in strategy. By signaling interest in Google's solution, Meta may be attempting to pressure AMD into offering more favorable terms/prices for 5-10GW. This tactic aligns with Meta's broader goal to finance most of its AI spend internally while exploring partnerships that can reduce costs and enhance flexibility. The post's emphasis on MI450's TCO advantage and its partnerships with major players like OpenAI, Microsoft, and Meta itself suggests that AMD is a critical component of Meta's AI infrastructure strategy. The threat of working with Google's TPU could prompt AMD to reassess its pricing, provide additional support, or offer incentives to retain Meta as a customer, thereby securing or expanding its market share. From a logical standpoint, Meta stands to benefit the most from this strategy. As a major buyer in a high-stakes market projected to surpass $1 trillion in annual spending by 2030, Meta's negotiating power is significant. The leaked information could lead to substantial cost savings on its $66-72 billion investment, enhancing its financial flexibility and allowing for further investment in AI capabilities. Moreover, this tactic reinforces Meta's position as a leader in the AI infrastructure race, potentially attracting more external financing for its data center projects and strengthening its competitive stance against other hyperscalers like Amazon and Microsoft. AMD could also benefit from this scenario. The negotiation pressure might lead to small short-term concessions, but it could also solidify long-term partnerships with Meta, ensuring continued demand for MI450 and other AI hardware solutions. Initially Meta's 42% allocation to AMD MI300X and its partnerships with Oracle, Dell, and HP indicates a deep integration of AMD's technology into Meta's infrastructure, which could be leveraged to maintain this relationship. For AMD, retaining Meta as a large key customer is crucial to capturing a larger share of the rapidly growing data center infrastructure market, driven by the insatiable demand for AI compute power. Google, on the other hand, faces a more limited benefit from this leaked information. While securing Meta as a customer would reinforce its position in the AI hardware market, the high cost and ecosystem lock-in of the Ironwood TPU might deter Meta from fully committing to this solution. The leaked information could prompt Google to reconsider its pricing or ecosystem strategy to remain competitive, but the immediate impact is likely to be minimal compared to the potential gains for Meta and AMD. Investors and market analysts also stand to benefit from this information, as it provides insights into the competitive dynamics of the AI hardware market. Adjustments in portfolios based on anticipated shifts in market share and profitability could lead to opportunities for those who correctly anticipate outcomes. The negotiation dynamic might introduce volatility, but it also highlights the strategic importance of cost-effective solutions in the AI infrastructure space. Lastly, the leaked information about Meta potentially working with Google's TPU in 2027 is likely a strategic move to negotiate with AMD, leveraging the competitive landscape to optimize its AI infrastructure investment. Meta, as the primary negotiator, stands to gain the most by securing better terms from AMD, reducing costs, and enhancing its financial flexibility. AMD, while initially at risk, could benefit from retaining a key customer and solidifying its market position. Google faces limited immediate benefits but may need to adapt its strategy to remain competitive. This scenario underscores the complex interplay of technology, market dynamics, and strategic maneuvering in the AI hardware market, where cost-effectiveness and scalability are paramount. As the data center infrastructure market continues to grow, the outcomes of such negotiations will shape the future of AI development and deployment.
1:12

$AMD| $META is using $GOOGL to negotiate ๐Ÿงต The Ironwood pod is 5.1โ€“10x more expensive annually ($148.3 million รท $14.87โ€“$29.04 million) and 5.1โ€“10x more expensive monthly ($12.36 million รท $1.24โ€“$2.42 million) than renting 15 MI450 racks for equivalent compute. The rapidly evolving landscape of artificial intelligence infrastructure presents a complex interplay of technological innovation, market dynamics, and strategic maneuvering among major players. Recent leaked information suggesting that Meta Platforms ($META) might work with Google's Tensor Processing Unit (TPU) in 2027 has sparked speculation about its true intent. This leak is likely a strategic move by Meta to negotiate more favorable terms with AMD , leveraging the competitive dynamics of the AI hardware market to optimize its substantial investment in AI infrastructure. By examining the key elements of this scenario Meta's investment strategy, the comparative advantages of AMD's MI450 and Google's Ironwood TPU, and the broader market context; we can discern the potential beneficiaries and the strategic implications of this information. Meta's aggressive pursuit of AI capabilities is underscored by its planned expenditure of $66-72 billion on AI infrastructure in 2025, with expectations to escalate significantly in 2026. This investment is part of a broader strategy to build "titan clusters" like Prometheus, which are projected to reach 1 gigawatt of compute power by 2026. Such a scale of investment reflects Meta's recognition of the critical role that AI will play in its future growth, particularly in enhancing its social media platforms and developing new AI-driven applications. However, the financial burden of this infrastructure buildout necessitates a careful consideration of cost-effectiveness and scalability, which brings us to the leaked information about potential collaboration with Google's Ironwood TPU. Google's Ironwood TPU, introduced as the seventh-generation ASIC optimized for TensorFlow-based inference, represents a high-cost, cloud-locked solution priced at $445 million per pod (9,216 chips) over three years. This model, while offering significant performance gains and power efficiency, is tailored for pod-scale deployment and integrated with Google's cloud services, limiting flexibility and increasing costs for customers. In contrast, AMD's MI450 GPU, priced at $30,000โ€“$40,000 per unit, provides a modular, open ROCm ecosystem that delivers comparable compute capacity at a fraction of the cost. Renting 15 MI450 racks could achieve similar 42+ exaFLOPS inference compute at 5โ€“10x lower cost than renting a single Ironwood pod, underscoring AMD's competitive edge in terms of total cost of ownership (TCO). The leaked information about Meta's potential TPU deployment in 2027, therefore, can be interpreted as a negotiating tactic rather than a definitive shift in strategy. By signaling interest in Google's solution, Meta may be attempting to pressure AMD into offering more favorable terms/prices for 5-10GW. This tactic aligns with Meta's broader goal to finance most of its AI spend internally while exploring partnerships that can reduce costs and enhance flexibility. The post's emphasis on MI450's TCO advantage and its partnerships with major players like OpenAI, Microsoft, and Meta itself suggests that AMD is a critical component of Meta's AI infrastructure strategy. The threat of working with Google's TPU could prompt AMD to reassess its pricing, provide additional support, or offer incentives to retain Meta as a customer, thereby securing or expanding its market share. From a logical standpoint, Meta stands to benefit the most from this strategy. As a major buyer in a high-stakes market projected to surpass $1 trillion in annual spending by 2030, Meta's negotiating power is significant. The leaked information could lead to substantial cost savings on its $66-72 billion investment, enhancing its financial flexibility and allowing for further investment in AI capabilities. Moreover, this tactic reinforces Meta's position as a leader in the AI infrastructure race, potentially attracting more external financing for its data center projects and strengthening its competitive stance against other hyperscalers like Amazon and Microsoft. AMD could also benefit from this scenario. The negotiation pressure might lead to small short-term concessions, but it could also solidify long-term partnerships with Meta, ensuring continued demand for MI450 and other AI hardware solutions. Initially Meta's 42% allocation to AMD MI300X and its partnerships with Oracle, Dell, and HP indicates a deep integration of AMD's technology into Meta's infrastructure, which could be leveraged to maintain this relationship. For AMD, retaining Meta as a large key customer is crucial to capturing a larger share of the rapidly growing data center infrastructure market, driven by the insatiable demand for AI compute power. Google, on the other hand, faces a more limited benefit from this leaked information. While securing Meta as a customer would reinforce its position in the AI hardware market, the high cost and ecosystem lock-in of the Ironwood TPU might deter Meta from fully committing to this solution. The leaked information could prompt Google to reconsider its pricing or ecosystem strategy to remain competitive, but the immediate impact is likely to be minimal compared to the potential gains for Meta and AMD. Investors and market analysts also stand to benefit from this information, as it provides insights into the competitive dynamics of the AI hardware market. Adjustments in portfolios based on anticipated shifts in market share and profitability could lead to opportunities for those who correctly anticipate outcomes. The negotiation dynamic might introduce volatility, but it also highlights the strategic importance of cost-effective solutions in the AI infrastructure space. Lastly, the leaked information about Meta potentially working with Google's TPU in 2027 is likely a strategic move to negotiate with AMD, leveraging the competitive landscape to optimize its AI infrastructure investment. Meta, as the primary negotiator, stands to gain the most by securing better terms from AMD, reducing costs, and enhancing its financial flexibility. AMD, while initially at risk, could benefit from retaining a key customer and solidifying its market position. Google faces limited immediate benefits but may need to adapt its strategy to remain competitive. This scenario underscores the complex interplay of technology, market dynamics, and strategic maneuvering in the AI hardware market, where cost-effectiveness and scalability are paramount. As the data center infrastructure market continues to grow, the outcomes of such negotiations will shape the future of AI development and deployment.

Mike

182,193 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 8 ay รถnce

ANTHROPIC'S PRODUCT CHIEF HAS USED CLAUDE FABLE 5 FOR MONTHS BEFORE ANYONE ELSE. HERE'S WHAT HE LEARNED ABOUT THE MOST POWERFUL MODEL YET Mike Krieger co-founded Instagram and now runs product at Anthropic. He's had Claude Fable 5 for two months before the public, and his takeaway is that it changes how you have to work, not just how much you get done. Here's what stood out, and what to actually do with it 1. It holds the whole project, so stop chopping tasks small. The old habit was breaking work into model-sized pieces and stitching them. Fable keeps the whole thing in context. What to do: stop pre-slicing your prompts into tiny steps. Hand it the full goal and the intent behind it, the way you'd brief a senior engineer, and let it sequence the work itself 2. Delegate big, async, and overnight. He sets it on a hard task at night and wakes to it finished, including the model getting itself unstuck when a service died, scaffolding a workaround, and documenting it. What to do: stop babysitting one prompt at a time. Kick off long jobs and walk away. Run several sessions at once instead of one you watch 3. The skill is planning now, not typing. His day moved to long architecture conversations up front, then execution in chunks. What to do: spend your first prompts planning, not building. Then ask it to output an HTML page or markdown doc of the plan so your team aligns before any code is written. That early alignment is the new leverage 4. Match the effort level to the task. Fable's range is wide, so a heavy reasoning pass on a tiny UI tweak is overkill (and pricey). What to do: dial effort down for small jobs, save the deep thinking for hard ones. And don't use your most expensive model for quick questions, keep a fast model for those 5. Verification is the real bottleneck now. The hard part isn't getting output, it's trusting it. What to do: make every change ship with proof. Have Claude attach a screenshot or video of what it built, so you can see the result instead of reading the diff. Then stand behind the decisions yourself before you merge 6. Cost is per-result, not per-turn. Fable is expensive per call but often one-shots what other models need ten turns to get right. What to do: judge cost by what it takes to finish the task to your satisfaction, not the price of a single message. Give it a real task and see how far it gets before you jump in His bigger point: software engineering isn't over, it's different. The craft moved from writing code to owning intent, taste, and what actually ships. The floor rose so anyone can build, and the ceiling rose so experts go further than before Bookmark this
52:06

ANTHROPIC'S PRODUCT CHIEF HAS USED CLAUDE FABLE 5 FOR MONTHS BEFORE ANYONE ELSE. HERE'S WHAT HE LEARNED ABOUT THE MOST POWERFUL MODEL YET Mike Krieger co-founded Instagram and now runs product at Anthropic. He's had Claude Fable 5 for two months before the public, and his takeaway is that it changes how you have to work, not just how much you get done. Here's what stood out, and what to actually do with it 1. It holds the whole project, so stop chopping tasks small. The old habit was breaking work into model-sized pieces and stitching them. Fable keeps the whole thing in context. What to do: stop pre-slicing your prompts into tiny steps. Hand it the full goal and the intent behind it, the way you'd brief a senior engineer, and let it sequence the work itself 2. Delegate big, async, and overnight. He sets it on a hard task at night and wakes to it finished, including the model getting itself unstuck when a service died, scaffolding a workaround, and documenting it. What to do: stop babysitting one prompt at a time. Kick off long jobs and walk away. Run several sessions at once instead of one you watch 3. The skill is planning now, not typing. His day moved to long architecture conversations up front, then execution in chunks. What to do: spend your first prompts planning, not building. Then ask it to output an HTML page or markdown doc of the plan so your team aligns before any code is written. That early alignment is the new leverage 4. Match the effort level to the task. Fable's range is wide, so a heavy reasoning pass on a tiny UI tweak is overkill (and pricey). What to do: dial effort down for small jobs, save the deep thinking for hard ones. And don't use your most expensive model for quick questions, keep a fast model for those 5. Verification is the real bottleneck now. The hard part isn't getting output, it's trusting it. What to do: make every change ship with proof. Have Claude attach a screenshot or video of what it built, so you can see the result instead of reading the diff. Then stand behind the decisions yourself before you merge 6. Cost is per-result, not per-turn. Fable is expensive per call but often one-shots what other models need ten turns to get right. What to do: judge cost by what it takes to finish the task to your satisfaction, not the price of a single message. Give it a real task and see how far it gets before you jump in His bigger point: software engineering isn't over, it's different. The craft moved from writing code to owning intent, taste, and what actually ships. The floor rose so anyone can build, and the ceiling rose so experts go further than before Bookmark this

Yarchi

30,743 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 1 ay รถnce

Jensen Huang just reframed the entire history of computing in two minutes. The argument is deceptively simple, but once you see it you can't unsee it. Every single piece of software ever built, every app, every website, every search engine, every platform operated on exactly the same fundamental principle. Someone creates content, it gets stored somewhere and when you ask for it, the system retrieves it. Google indexes the web and retrieves the right page, YouTube encodes your video and retrieves it when someone clicks, Amazon photographs every product in its catalog and retrieves the listing that matches your search. Every recommender system, every ad platform, every social feed, all of it, without exception, is a retrieval operation dressed up in a user interface and we called it the Information Age. But strip away the branding and what you had, for 30 consecutive years, was an extraordinarily sophisticated filing cabinet. The smartest engineers in the world spent their careers optimizing how fast you could put things in and pull things out. Generative AI doesn't just improve that system but rather replaces the entire premise of it. Instead of retrieving content that was pre-recorded by someone else, AI generates it from scratch, in real time, calibrated to your exact context, your specific intent, the precise ground truth of that moment. The same question asked twice gets two different answers, both tailored to what the system knows about you right now. There is no file being pulled or a pre-recorded version, the content is being synthesized on the fly from a compressed model of human knowledge, shaped to fit exactly what you need. The implications of this for the companies that built the retrieval era are profound and already starting to show. Google's click-through rates on organic search results have dropped 61% since AI Overviews rolled out, because users are getting answers directly instead of clicking through to files. Gartner projects traditional search engine query volume drops 25% by the end of 2026 as users migrate to generative interfaces. And yet this is exactly what Jensen predicted, in the old world, the computing bottleneck was storage and retrieval, you needed hard drives, bandwidth, and CDNs. In the new world, the bottleneck is computation, you need the raw processing power to generate tokens at scale, millions of times per second, for millions of simultaneous users. Inference computing demand has grown roughly ten thousand times in the last two years alone. That shift is precisely why Nvidia's revenue opportunity forecast just jumped from $500 billion through 2026 to $1 trillion through 2027. The retrieval era needed CPUs and storage and the generative era needs GPUs, token factories, and inference infrastructure at a scale never built before and Nvidia builds the engine underneath all of it. Jensen has been making this argument since 2024. Most people wrote it off as a chip salesman talking his book but two years later, it's the architecture of the entire industry.
1:54

Jensen Huang just reframed the entire history of computing in two minutes. The argument is deceptively simple, but once you see it you can't unsee it. Every single piece of software ever built, every app, every website, every search engine, every platform operated on exactly the same fundamental principle. Someone creates content, it gets stored somewhere and when you ask for it, the system retrieves it. Google indexes the web and retrieves the right page, YouTube encodes your video and retrieves it when someone clicks, Amazon photographs every product in its catalog and retrieves the listing that matches your search. Every recommender system, every ad platform, every social feed, all of it, without exception, is a retrieval operation dressed up in a user interface and we called it the Information Age. But strip away the branding and what you had, for 30 consecutive years, was an extraordinarily sophisticated filing cabinet. The smartest engineers in the world spent their careers optimizing how fast you could put things in and pull things out. Generative AI doesn't just improve that system but rather replaces the entire premise of it. Instead of retrieving content that was pre-recorded by someone else, AI generates it from scratch, in real time, calibrated to your exact context, your specific intent, the precise ground truth of that moment. The same question asked twice gets two different answers, both tailored to what the system knows about you right now. There is no file being pulled or a pre-recorded version, the content is being synthesized on the fly from a compressed model of human knowledge, shaped to fit exactly what you need. The implications of this for the companies that built the retrieval era are profound and already starting to show. Google's click-through rates on organic search results have dropped 61% since AI Overviews rolled out, because users are getting answers directly instead of clicking through to files. Gartner projects traditional search engine query volume drops 25% by the end of 2026 as users migrate to generative interfaces. And yet this is exactly what Jensen predicted, in the old world, the computing bottleneck was storage and retrieval, you needed hard drives, bandwidth, and CDNs. In the new world, the bottleneck is computation, you need the raw processing power to generate tokens at scale, millions of times per second, for millions of simultaneous users. Inference computing demand has grown roughly ten thousand times in the last two years alone. That shift is precisely why Nvidia's revenue opportunity forecast just jumped from $500 billion through 2026 to $1 trillion through 2027. The retrieval era needed CPUs and storage and the generative era needs GPUs, token factories, and inference infrastructure at a scale never built before and Nvidia builds the engine underneath all of it. Jensen has been making this argument since 2024. Most people wrote it off as a chip salesman talking his book but two years later, it's the architecture of the entire industry.

Milk Road AI

17,890 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 3 ay รถnce

$GRAB Map is The New Google Maps(B2B)๐Ÿงต Here is your Free.99 analysis on GrabMap, for those that selling courses for $50-$500/m, if you are using my $GRAB and other analyses, I don't ask for much, at least give me some credit/cite. And yes 99.999% of my posts are Free.99. If you want to support my work, slap the like/repost, as I don't choose to write "Grab or any Ticker is going to x10 x100-x1000" kind of threads or "mark my words" to please the X Algo. Consider Subscribe($0.33/day) if you want to support my work further and get more in-depth analyses! TLDR: GrabMap could generate $7B-$15B a year alone for Grab B2B segment. That is why you are seeing Anthony Tan is mad excited abt this massive opportunity. And it also significantly boost GrabAds long term globally. This precisely proved my point that, Anthony is going to expand to 5B people and we are only 14% thesis realized right now. Grab doesn't have to be just Ride-share/Delivery when expanding! Grab , Southeast Asia's leading AI SuperApp for ride-hailing, food delivery, financial services,Tourism, Dine-Out and more, has developed its proprietary mapping platform, GrabMaps, a massive B2B revenue potential over the next long term, not just in Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Myanmar but expanding beyond SEA markets/Customers. 1. GrabMaps: A Strategic Asset GrabMaps is not merely a technological tool but a critical component of Grab's ecosystem, powering its ride-hailing, food delivery, and financial services. Developed in-house, GrabMaps leverages data collected from Grab's vast network of driver-partners across eight SEA countries. This data-driven approach ensures hyper-local customization, addressing the unique challenges of SEA's urban environments, such as narrow alleys, informal roads, and rapid infrastructure changes. The recent announcement of KartaCam2, an upgraded street-level imaging device, marks a significant technological advancement. KartaCam2 enhances data collection by providing higher quality images and more precise location data, which are crucial for maintaining the accuracy and freshness of maps. This breakthrough is part of Grab's broader 2025 AI push, including integrations with OpenAI 's GPT-4o for vision-based mapping and the establishment of an AI Centre of Excellence. These innovations position GrabMaps as a formidable competitor to Google Maps, especially in regions where localized data is paramount. 2. Revenue implications long term The expansion of GrabMaps into B2B services opens up new revenue streams, which could significantly impact Grab's financial performance over the long term. But GrabMap is a brandnew B2B product, and GoogleMap generates around $13-$20B globally. A. Market Opportunity in Southeast Asia ~The SEA market presents a substantial opportunity for GrabMaps. The foodservice market alone is projected to grow from $223.8 billion in 2025 to $416.3 billion by 2030, indicating a robust demand for services that enhance operational efficiencies. Businesses in logistics, e-commerce, and urban planning could benefit from GrabMaps' precise mapping and navigation capabilities, potentially generating revenue through licensing fees, subscription models, and advertising. ~Grab's existing user base of over 46 million monthly transacting users provides a strong foundation for cross-selling B2B solutions, thereby increasing revenue without significant additional marketing costs. B. Competitive Advantage of a Future $500B MC AI SuperApp over Google Map Google Maps, while dominant, may not be as finely tuned for SEA's unique challenges. GrabMaps' hyper-local data and AI-driven enhancements offer a competitive edge, attracting businesses that require accurate and cost-effective mapping solutions. Revenue from B2B services could include: Licensing Fees: Enterprises can license GrabMaps' APIs and SDKs to integrate mapping functionalities into their operations. Subscription Models: Continuous updates and premium features could be offered on a subscription basis. Advertising Revenue: GrabAds, which leverages mapping data, could generate additional income through targeted advertising. C. Global Expansion is Inevitable ~The partnership with Tino in Mongolia is a strategic move to scale GrabMaps internationally. This marks Grab's first major mapping partnership outside SEA, indicating potential for revenue growth in other regions where Google Maps' dominance is less entrenched or where local data needs are acute. ~The use of IoT devices like KartaCam2 and KartaDashCam for real-time data collection could further enhance GrabMaps' value proposition, potentially increasing revenue through premium service offerings in new markets. D. Synergies w/ other businesses Grab's ecosystem approach allows for synergies between GrabMaps and other services like GrabPay, GrabFood, and GrabTransport. For example, businesses using GrabMaps for logistics could also adopt GrabPay for transactions, creating a revenue multiplier effect. 3. Google Map Revenue in Asia ~Total Revenue in Asia-Pacific (2018): Google APAC, based in Singapore, reported $20.24 billion out of the total $21.37 billion revenue in the Asia-Pacific region. This indicates that a significant portion of Google's revenue in Asia is attributed to Singapore, likely due to its role as a hub for Googleโ€™s operations. ~Advertising Revenue: In 2018, Google APAC generated $15.8 billion from advertising alone, compared to $4.4 billion from other activities like Google Play. Advertising on Google properties, including Google Maps, is a major revenue driver. ~Market Share in Search Marketing: Google Maps holds a 62.34% market share in the search marketing category, competing with tools like Wix (26.54%) and Google Ads (4.14%). This dominance suggests that a considerable portion of Googleโ€™s advertising revenue in Asia is linked to mapping services. For the full fiscal year 2024, Alphabet (Google's parent company) generated $56.82 billion in revenue from the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region. This represented approximately 16.24% of the company's total revenue for the year. If we take a conservative estimate at 25% of $56.82B of Google's total advertising revenue in Asia is related to mapping services= $14.2B. => If GrabMaps secures even 50% of this market share in SEA, it could generate around $7B annually from this segment alone. GrabMap is 4x lower error rate, 10x lower latency, 75% fewer mapping mistakes, and much cheaper than GoogleMap. With OpenAI GPT-4o fine-tuning, GrabMaps hit 80% accuracy for speed limits and lanes13-20% above prior levels excelling in occlusions ( rainy monsoons) where Google relies more on satellite data. Now do you understand why Google and HSBC are clapping $GRAB on search and downgrade? Yes, because GrabMap is a massive threat and Grab Anthony Tan refused to buy $goto since 2020. Conclusion: Grab's expansion of GrabMaps into B2B services represents a strategic move to challenge Google Maps' dominance in Asia, particularly in SEA and future expansion. The revenue implications are substantial, with potential gains from licensing fees, subscription models, advertising, and international expansions. While Google Maps generates billions in revenue, primarily through advertising, GrabMaps' localized and AI-enhanced approach could carve out a significant niche, especially in regions where precise, real-time mapping data is critical. The success of this strategy will depend on Grab's ability to scale internationally, maintain technological superiority, and effectively monetize its B2B offerings. However, the opportunity is clear, and Grab's ecosystem approach positions it well to capitalize on the growing demand for advanced mapping solutions in a rapidly digitalizing world. This move not only enhances Grab's revenue potential but also solidifies its role as a key player in the global tech landscape. Not Financial Advice! Source: Grab Dot Com.
1:26

$GRAB Map is The New Google Maps(B2B)๐Ÿงต Here is your Free.99 analysis on GrabMap, for those that selling courses for $50-$500/m, if you are using my $GRAB and other analyses, I don't ask for much, at least give me some credit/cite. And yes 99.999% of my posts are Free.99. If you want to support my work, slap the like/repost, as I don't choose to write "Grab or any Ticker is going to x10 x100-x1000" kind of threads or "mark my words" to please the X Algo. Consider Subscribe($0.33/day) if you want to support my work further and get more in-depth analyses! TLDR: GrabMap could generate $7B-$15B a year alone for Grab B2B segment. That is why you are seeing Anthony Tan is mad excited abt this massive opportunity. And it also significantly boost GrabAds long term globally. This precisely proved my point that, Anthony is going to expand to 5B people and we are only 14% thesis realized right now. Grab doesn't have to be just Ride-share/Delivery when expanding! Grab , Southeast Asia's leading AI SuperApp for ride-hailing, food delivery, financial services,Tourism, Dine-Out and more, has developed its proprietary mapping platform, GrabMaps, a massive B2B revenue potential over the next long term, not just in Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Myanmar but expanding beyond SEA markets/Customers. 1. GrabMaps: A Strategic Asset GrabMaps is not merely a technological tool but a critical component of Grab's ecosystem, powering its ride-hailing, food delivery, and financial services. Developed in-house, GrabMaps leverages data collected from Grab's vast network of driver-partners across eight SEA countries. This data-driven approach ensures hyper-local customization, addressing the unique challenges of SEA's urban environments, such as narrow alleys, informal roads, and rapid infrastructure changes. The recent announcement of KartaCam2, an upgraded street-level imaging device, marks a significant technological advancement. KartaCam2 enhances data collection by providing higher quality images and more precise location data, which are crucial for maintaining the accuracy and freshness of maps. This breakthrough is part of Grab's broader 2025 AI push, including integrations with OpenAI 's GPT-4o for vision-based mapping and the establishment of an AI Centre of Excellence. These innovations position GrabMaps as a formidable competitor to Google Maps, especially in regions where localized data is paramount. 2. Revenue implications long term The expansion of GrabMaps into B2B services opens up new revenue streams, which could significantly impact Grab's financial performance over the long term. But GrabMap is a brandnew B2B product, and GoogleMap generates around $13-$20B globally. A. Market Opportunity in Southeast Asia ~The SEA market presents a substantial opportunity for GrabMaps. The foodservice market alone is projected to grow from $223.8 billion in 2025 to $416.3 billion by 2030, indicating a robust demand for services that enhance operational efficiencies. Businesses in logistics, e-commerce, and urban planning could benefit from GrabMaps' precise mapping and navigation capabilities, potentially generating revenue through licensing fees, subscription models, and advertising. ~Grab's existing user base of over 46 million monthly transacting users provides a strong foundation for cross-selling B2B solutions, thereby increasing revenue without significant additional marketing costs. B. Competitive Advantage of a Future $500B MC AI SuperApp over Google Map Google Maps, while dominant, may not be as finely tuned for SEA's unique challenges. GrabMaps' hyper-local data and AI-driven enhancements offer a competitive edge, attracting businesses that require accurate and cost-effective mapping solutions. Revenue from B2B services could include: Licensing Fees: Enterprises can license GrabMaps' APIs and SDKs to integrate mapping functionalities into their operations. Subscription Models: Continuous updates and premium features could be offered on a subscription basis. Advertising Revenue: GrabAds, which leverages mapping data, could generate additional income through targeted advertising. C. Global Expansion is Inevitable ~The partnership with Tino in Mongolia is a strategic move to scale GrabMaps internationally. This marks Grab's first major mapping partnership outside SEA, indicating potential for revenue growth in other regions where Google Maps' dominance is less entrenched or where local data needs are acute. ~The use of IoT devices like KartaCam2 and KartaDashCam for real-time data collection could further enhance GrabMaps' value proposition, potentially increasing revenue through premium service offerings in new markets. D. Synergies w/ other businesses Grab's ecosystem approach allows for synergies between GrabMaps and other services like GrabPay, GrabFood, and GrabTransport. For example, businesses using GrabMaps for logistics could also adopt GrabPay for transactions, creating a revenue multiplier effect. 3. Google Map Revenue in Asia ~Total Revenue in Asia-Pacific (2018): Google APAC, based in Singapore, reported $20.24 billion out of the total $21.37 billion revenue in the Asia-Pacific region. This indicates that a significant portion of Google's revenue in Asia is attributed to Singapore, likely due to its role as a hub for Googleโ€™s operations. ~Advertising Revenue: In 2018, Google APAC generated $15.8 billion from advertising alone, compared to $4.4 billion from other activities like Google Play. Advertising on Google properties, including Google Maps, is a major revenue driver. ~Market Share in Search Marketing: Google Maps holds a 62.34% market share in the search marketing category, competing with tools like Wix (26.54%) and Google Ads (4.14%). This dominance suggests that a considerable portion of Googleโ€™s advertising revenue in Asia is linked to mapping services. For the full fiscal year 2024, Alphabet (Google's parent company) generated $56.82 billion in revenue from the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region. This represented approximately 16.24% of the company's total revenue for the year. If we take a conservative estimate at 25% of $56.82B of Google's total advertising revenue in Asia is related to mapping services= $14.2B. => If GrabMaps secures even 50% of this market share in SEA, it could generate around $7B annually from this segment alone. GrabMap is 4x lower error rate, 10x lower latency, 75% fewer mapping mistakes, and much cheaper than GoogleMap. With OpenAI GPT-4o fine-tuning, GrabMaps hit 80% accuracy for speed limits and lanes13-20% above prior levels excelling in occlusions ( rainy monsoons) where Google relies more on satellite data. Now do you understand why Google and HSBC are clapping $GRAB on search and downgrade? Yes, because GrabMap is a massive threat and Grab Anthony Tan refused to buy $goto since 2020. Conclusion: Grab's expansion of GrabMaps into B2B services represents a strategic move to challenge Google Maps' dominance in Asia, particularly in SEA and future expansion. The revenue implications are substantial, with potential gains from licensing fees, subscription models, advertising, and international expansions. While Google Maps generates billions in revenue, primarily through advertising, GrabMaps' localized and AI-enhanced approach could carve out a significant niche, especially in regions where precise, real-time mapping data is critical. The success of this strategy will depend on Grab's ability to scale internationally, maintain technological superiority, and effectively monetize its B2B offerings. However, the opportunity is clear, and Grab's ecosystem approach positions it well to capitalize on the growing demand for advanced mapping solutions in a rapidly digitalizing world. This move not only enhances Grab's revenue potential but also solidifies its role as a key player in the global tech landscape. Not Financial Advice! Source: Grab Dot Com.

Mike

120,532 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 9 ay รถnce

$AMD is easily a $1,200 stock IMO| CPUs TAM ๐Ÿงต Not Financial Advice! DYOR! In this thread, I want to discuss the actual TAM for CPUs data center for just 2026, where many are giving different ranges, where I don't agree with. I will explain in detail why I disagree with these research firms and financial analysts using Math. And this thread should not be treated as Financial Advice. I'm just explaining my research and thought process so we can have a discussion. In 2024/2025, I gave out $620 PT for FY2026 was too conservative for AMD potential. At the time, It was early and many were just laughing, that PT was unrealistic and the AI world is run on GPUs only. Today, most of these folks are laughing with me. That is ok, I dont offer financial advice, and I do not need everyone to agree with me. I respect other opinions. If you enjoy this kind of thread, slap the like/repost/bookmark. If you want to support my work further and gain more in-depth analysis, consider subscribe! In early 2026, hyperscalers, enterprises, and OEMs are scrambling as Intel and AMD server CPUs are largely sold out for the year, with prices jumping 10โ€“20% and lead times stretching from weeks to months (or longer for certain SKUs). What was once a GPU dominated story has flipped: the shift to explosive Agentic AI with its multi-step reasoning loops, tool calling, multi-agent orchestration, real-time data movement, and reinforcement learning, is dramatically tightening CPU:GPU ratios from the old training-era 1:4โ€“8 all the way to 1:1 to 5:1 or even CPU-heavy configurations. CEOs across NVIDIA, AMD, Intel, Google, Meta, Microsoft, and public companies have been sounding the alarm on CNBC, Bloomberg, and earnings calls. CPUs are โ€œcool again,โ€ and in many agentic deployments they are becoming the new bottleneck alongside (or even ahead of) GPUs and custom ASICs. In 2025, roughly 12-15m AI GPUs + AI ASICs GPUs shipped, and is expect to be 15-20m units by 2026, where it suggesting Training demand is not going away. The actual TAM is structural, multiplicative demand that has already forced AMD to double its long-term server CPU TAM forecast to >$120 billion by 2030 (>35% CAGR), with Dr. Lisa Su noting Q2 2026 server CPU sales expected to surge 70%+ year-over-year and demand โ€œfar exceeding expectations.โ€ At the same time, AMDโ€™s secured 30โ€“40% share of TSMCโ€™s initial 2nm capacity (behind only Appleโ€™s >50%) positions it to ramp Zen 6-based EPYC Venice exactly when this agentic wave hits hardest but even that aggressive five-fab 2nm expansion (with plans scaling toward 11 total advanced facilities) cannot instantly close the gap in the near-term. Supply constraints on wafers, advanced packaging, and power are compounding the squeeze, just as hyperscalers forward-buy and lock in long-term deals. 1. The actual potential TAM Various sources and institutions are giving $50-$160-$200B CPUs TAM toward 2030, and i disagree, where supply is severely behind vs Demand by at least 2-3 years or even longer by some estimates. The actual TAM will probably be 15-20m for FY2026. The typical average selling price from low to high end is $5,000 to $15,000, but due to rising memory, and different inflationary pressures on Semi, it would be more logical to think between $7,000-17,000. A. CPU:GPU Ratio at 1:1 A basic calucation at mid range =12,000 x 15-20m CPUs= $180-$240B TAM B. CPU:GPU Ratio at 5:1 = $12,000 x 75m-100m CPUs= $900B-$1.2T TAM Of course TSMC cannot even supply 20% of this massive inflection TAM in 2026. But do we think of Demand for TAM or Supply for TAM? Hence we are seeing massive 2nm Ramp from TSMC for $AMD. IMO, conservatively, I would take down 15-20% on 1:1 or $135-$192B TAM for just 2026. Im not even talking about 2030. We are just months into this, it is impossible to estimate Cagr atm, but this is 1-5 agents running tasks, I wrote a thread on 24/7 autonomous agents thread, where companies could use 50-250 agents to run tasks for them 24/7. It would require a different structural CPU:GPU to bring down the cost of token as well as handling the Orchestration bottleneck. GPUs would be useless and sit idle waiting for CPU due to highly CPU-intensive nature. The cost per Million tokens must come down more rapidly for this 50-250 autonomous agents to work, otherwise the token cost would be too enormous. Helios Rack is estimated to bring inference cost down to $0.0003-$0.0005/M tokens with 18 EPYC Venices along with 72 MI455x and other chips+ Components. A heavier or CPUs dense rack would bring down inference cost further. EPYC Verano(2027 gen 7 AI-optimized) is expected to drive inference costs meaningfully lower than the Venice baseline likely to the $0.00002โ€“$0.00025 per million tokens range (or even sub-$0.00015 in highly optimized agentic/batch workloads). Verano have higher core counts than Venice, LPDDR5X SOCAMM2 memory support, more AI optimized and Next-Gen rack density & efficiency. 2. $AMD secured at least 30-40% of TSMC 2nm capacity and Memory from Samsung through 2028-2030. 2 2nm fabs are entering ramping phase toward 60-65k wafers per months and 5 dedicated 2nm fabs entering mass production/ramp in 2026. Will link sub threads below if you are interest for full detail. Apple is reported to secure 50%+ 2nm capacity for Iphone 18 and Mac chips and AMD secured at least 30-40% capacity while $NVDA $AVGO $ARM $AMZN $GOOGL and others are on 3nm. This broader aggressive ramp from TSMC to target up to 11 fabs is to address $AMD massive growth ahead. Where $ARM is facing massive CPUs supply constraints as they have to compete with other Mega Cap players on 3nm allocation. And $INTC is also facing supply constraints for data center CPUs and PC per management with lead times extrended to longer than 12 weeks. Dr. Su is aiming for higher than 50%+ Market share, and I believe it is achievable in 2026 or 2027 as AMD has the strongest CPUs offerings. Dr. Su did not want to take advantage of the shortage and she said during the Q1 earning call, AMD is prioritizing Units shipped while guiding margin to be inching 60%. If Jensen were in charge, I'm sure margin would be 70-75% in this kind of severe CPUs shortage condition. But that is not how Dr. Su operates for more than a decade. She wants most market share. So we will see it in revenue growth, but as TSMC ramps faster and faster, AMD Operating and FCF margin will massively improve vs prior decade. A significantly higher margin profile than before. 3. How I came up with $1,200 withint 12-18 months? At $1,200/ share, that would be around $2 Trillion MC. I expect FY2027 revenue to be $124-$144B where data center revenue dominates overall revenue. AI GPUs: I will stick to the lowest end so show u that I'm conservative at $18B for each GW vs $NVDA Rubin is $30B+ (most likely Helios Rack in the $20B+ due to memory price rising). We know deals with OpenAI and Meta are around 12GW and additional multi-customers at multi-GW scale were hinted and will be revealed as we get to July 22-23 2026 Advancing AI event. For now I will conservatively add a bit more to this model. (3-6GW Helios Rack Range) EPYC Venice is reported to be in $15,000-$20,000. However large customers will likely to enjoy $10-$12k discount. I expect AMD to be able to ramp 7m EPYC Venice for entire 2026 and 3-4m of EPYC Verano(higher price than Venice). If we take an average selling price of $10,000 to be on the conservative side. Take down another 30% to be even more conservative on projection. I like to be conservative. That would be ~ 7m EPYC CPUs(Venice + Verano) for FY2027 or 583,000 units per month or 15,000 additional 2nm wafers per month which is completely reasonable for current TSMC Ramp, and I may be too conservative here. EPYC Verano and MI500 series will also be on 2nm. AI GPUs: 3GW x $18B= $54B EPYC CPUs: $10k x 7m CPUs= $70B = Data center revenue alone is $124B Other segments= probably in the $20-$25B FY 2027. FY2027 revenue = $124-$149B At 7m EPYC CPUs for entire 2027, that would be more than 50% market share when we comp it to availability from supply side, not from total Demand. It is possible that TSMC could significantly ramp even more capacity in 2027, so we will see. Metric Q1 2026 FY2027 Gross Margin 55-56% 60-62% Operating Margin 25-26% 32-35% Net Income Margin ~22% 26-30% FCF Margin 25% 28-30% At $124-$149B Revenue FY 2027 Net Income would be $32-$44B EPS would be $20-$27 (GAAP) Non-GAAP would be $25-$31 At $1,200 a share or $2T valuation that would be: 13.4-16x Price to Sales (P/S) 38-48 P/E At this kind of growth of AI SuperCycle, I think it is very reasonable valuation. If we use today at $406/share or $661B MC: 2027 P/S = 4.4x-5.3x 2027 P/E = 13x-16x Is AMD today expensive or cheap to you? Above is already a very conservative where I trimmed 20-30% of doable units. Meaning, there could be upside if TSMC is able to ramp meaningfully like they are planning. Conclusion: A $1,200 per share valuation IMO for AMD in FY2027 is not expensive at all; it is, in fact, conservative when viewed against the structural explosion in agentic AI demand we have mapped out. With server CPU TAM potentially scaling into the $100โ€“$200B+ range in just CPU:GPU 1:1 Ratio for just 2026. AMD positioned to capture 50%+ share thanks to its 2nm TSMC allocation advantage and full-stack leadership, the company could realistically deliver $124โ€“149B in total revenue and $25โ€“$31+ non-GAAP EPS. At those levels, $1,200 implies a 2027 P/E = 13x-16x. Entirely reasonable for a company that will have become the clear Inference Queen (and in many workloads the preferred) AI infrastructure provider, with operating margins expanding above 30% and tens of billions in high-margin rack-scale AI revenue. Dr. Lisa Su was right presciently so about the Agentic AI inflection all the way back to her early 2022โ€“2023 commentary on the coming shift from pure training to inference and orchestration-heavy workloads. While the broader market only fully woke up to this in 2026 when she doubled AMDโ€™s long-term server CPU TAM forecast to >$120B by 2030 (with >35% CAGR), Dr. Su and her team have consistently positioned the company at the center of the CPU renaissance. The explosive demand we are seeing today, sold-out lines, rising ASPs, and hyperscalers forward-buying entire gigawatts of Helios-class systems is exactly the outcome she forecasted years ago. Not Financial Advice! DYOR!
13:03

$AMD is easily a $1,200 stock IMO| CPUs TAM ๐Ÿงต Not Financial Advice! DYOR! In this thread, I want to discuss the actual TAM for CPUs data center for just 2026, where many are giving different ranges, where I don't agree with. I will explain in detail why I disagree with these research firms and financial analysts using Math. And this thread should not be treated as Financial Advice. I'm just explaining my research and thought process so we can have a discussion. In 2024/2025, I gave out $620 PT for FY2026 was too conservative for AMD potential. At the time, It was early and many were just laughing, that PT was unrealistic and the AI world is run on GPUs only. Today, most of these folks are laughing with me. That is ok, I dont offer financial advice, and I do not need everyone to agree with me. I respect other opinions. If you enjoy this kind of thread, slap the like/repost/bookmark. If you want to support my work further and gain more in-depth analysis, consider subscribe! In early 2026, hyperscalers, enterprises, and OEMs are scrambling as Intel and AMD server CPUs are largely sold out for the year, with prices jumping 10โ€“20% and lead times stretching from weeks to months (or longer for certain SKUs). What was once a GPU dominated story has flipped: the shift to explosive Agentic AI with its multi-step reasoning loops, tool calling, multi-agent orchestration, real-time data movement, and reinforcement learning, is dramatically tightening CPU:GPU ratios from the old training-era 1:4โ€“8 all the way to 1:1 to 5:1 or even CPU-heavy configurations. CEOs across NVIDIA, AMD, Intel, Google, Meta, Microsoft, and public companies have been sounding the alarm on CNBC, Bloomberg, and earnings calls. CPUs are โ€œcool again,โ€ and in many agentic deployments they are becoming the new bottleneck alongside (or even ahead of) GPUs and custom ASICs. In 2025, roughly 12-15m AI GPUs + AI ASICs GPUs shipped, and is expect to be 15-20m units by 2026, where it suggesting Training demand is not going away. The actual TAM is structural, multiplicative demand that has already forced AMD to double its long-term server CPU TAM forecast to >$120 billion by 2030 (>35% CAGR), with Dr. Lisa Su noting Q2 2026 server CPU sales expected to surge 70%+ year-over-year and demand โ€œfar exceeding expectations.โ€ At the same time, AMDโ€™s secured 30โ€“40% share of TSMCโ€™s initial 2nm capacity (behind only Appleโ€™s >50%) positions it to ramp Zen 6-based EPYC Venice exactly when this agentic wave hits hardest but even that aggressive five-fab 2nm expansion (with plans scaling toward 11 total advanced facilities) cannot instantly close the gap in the near-term. Supply constraints on wafers, advanced packaging, and power are compounding the squeeze, just as hyperscalers forward-buy and lock in long-term deals. 1. The actual potential TAM Various sources and institutions are giving $50-$160-$200B CPUs TAM toward 2030, and i disagree, where supply is severely behind vs Demand by at least 2-3 years or even longer by some estimates. The actual TAM will probably be 15-20m for FY2026. The typical average selling price from low to high end is $5,000 to $15,000, but due to rising memory, and different inflationary pressures on Semi, it would be more logical to think between $7,000-17,000. A. CPU:GPU Ratio at 1:1 A basic calucation at mid range =12,000 x 15-20m CPUs= $180-$240B TAM B. CPU:GPU Ratio at 5:1 = $12,000 x 75m-100m CPUs= $900B-$1.2T TAM Of course TSMC cannot even supply 20% of this massive inflection TAM in 2026. But do we think of Demand for TAM or Supply for TAM? Hence we are seeing massive 2nm Ramp from TSMC for $AMD. IMO, conservatively, I would take down 15-20% on 1:1 or $135-$192B TAM for just 2026. Im not even talking about 2030. We are just months into this, it is impossible to estimate Cagr atm, but this is 1-5 agents running tasks, I wrote a thread on 24/7 autonomous agents thread, where companies could use 50-250 agents to run tasks for them 24/7. It would require a different structural CPU:GPU to bring down the cost of token as well as handling the Orchestration bottleneck. GPUs would be useless and sit idle waiting for CPU due to highly CPU-intensive nature. The cost per Million tokens must come down more rapidly for this 50-250 autonomous agents to work, otherwise the token cost would be too enormous. Helios Rack is estimated to bring inference cost down to $0.0003-$0.0005/M tokens with 18 EPYC Venices along with 72 MI455x and other chips+ Components. A heavier or CPUs dense rack would bring down inference cost further. EPYC Verano(2027 gen 7 AI-optimized) is expected to drive inference costs meaningfully lower than the Venice baseline likely to the $0.00002โ€“$0.00025 per million tokens range (or even sub-$0.00015 in highly optimized agentic/batch workloads). Verano have higher core counts than Venice, LPDDR5X SOCAMM2 memory support, more AI optimized and Next-Gen rack density & efficiency. 2. $AMD secured at least 30-40% of TSMC 2nm capacity and Memory from Samsung through 2028-2030. 2 2nm fabs are entering ramping phase toward 60-65k wafers per months and 5 dedicated 2nm fabs entering mass production/ramp in 2026. Will link sub threads below if you are interest for full detail. Apple is reported to secure 50%+ 2nm capacity for Iphone 18 and Mac chips and AMD secured at least 30-40% capacity while $NVDA $AVGO $ARM $AMZN $GOOGL and others are on 3nm. This broader aggressive ramp from TSMC to target up to 11 fabs is to address $AMD massive growth ahead. Where $ARM is facing massive CPUs supply constraints as they have to compete with other Mega Cap players on 3nm allocation. And $INTC is also facing supply constraints for data center CPUs and PC per management with lead times extrended to longer than 12 weeks. Dr. Su is aiming for higher than 50%+ Market share, and I believe it is achievable in 2026 or 2027 as AMD has the strongest CPUs offerings. Dr. Su did not want to take advantage of the shortage and she said during the Q1 earning call, AMD is prioritizing Units shipped while guiding margin to be inching 60%. If Jensen were in charge, I'm sure margin would be 70-75% in this kind of severe CPUs shortage condition. But that is not how Dr. Su operates for more than a decade. She wants most market share. So we will see it in revenue growth, but as TSMC ramps faster and faster, AMD Operating and FCF margin will massively improve vs prior decade. A significantly higher margin profile than before. 3. How I came up with $1,200 withint 12-18 months? At $1,200/ share, that would be around $2 Trillion MC. I expect FY2027 revenue to be $124-$144B where data center revenue dominates overall revenue. AI GPUs: I will stick to the lowest end so show u that I'm conservative at $18B for each GW vs $NVDA Rubin is $30B+ (most likely Helios Rack in the $20B+ due to memory price rising). We know deals with OpenAI and Meta are around 12GW and additional multi-customers at multi-GW scale were hinted and will be revealed as we get to July 22-23 2026 Advancing AI event. For now I will conservatively add a bit more to this model. (3-6GW Helios Rack Range) EPYC Venice is reported to be in $15,000-$20,000. However large customers will likely to enjoy $10-$12k discount. I expect AMD to be able to ramp 7m EPYC Venice for entire 2026 and 3-4m of EPYC Verano(higher price than Venice). If we take an average selling price of $10,000 to be on the conservative side. Take down another 30% to be even more conservative on projection. I like to be conservative. That would be ~ 7m EPYC CPUs(Venice + Verano) for FY2027 or 583,000 units per month or 15,000 additional 2nm wafers per month which is completely reasonable for current TSMC Ramp, and I may be too conservative here. EPYC Verano and MI500 series will also be on 2nm. AI GPUs: 3GW x $18B= $54B EPYC CPUs: $10k x 7m CPUs= $70B = Data center revenue alone is $124B Other segments= probably in the $20-$25B FY 2027. FY2027 revenue = $124-$149B At 7m EPYC CPUs for entire 2027, that would be more than 50% market share when we comp it to availability from supply side, not from total Demand. It is possible that TSMC could significantly ramp even more capacity in 2027, so we will see. Metric Q1 2026 FY2027 Gross Margin 55-56% 60-62% Operating Margin 25-26% 32-35% Net Income Margin ~22% 26-30% FCF Margin 25% 28-30% At $124-$149B Revenue FY 2027 Net Income would be $32-$44B EPS would be $20-$27 (GAAP) Non-GAAP would be $25-$31 At $1,200 a share or $2T valuation that would be: 13.4-16x Price to Sales (P/S) 38-48 P/E At this kind of growth of AI SuperCycle, I think it is very reasonable valuation. If we use today at $406/share or $661B MC: 2027 P/S = 4.4x-5.3x 2027 P/E = 13x-16x Is AMD today expensive or cheap to you? Above is already a very conservative where I trimmed 20-30% of doable units. Meaning, there could be upside if TSMC is able to ramp meaningfully like they are planning. Conclusion: A $1,200 per share valuation IMO for AMD in FY2027 is not expensive at all; it is, in fact, conservative when viewed against the structural explosion in agentic AI demand we have mapped out. With server CPU TAM potentially scaling into the $100โ€“$200B+ range in just CPU:GPU 1:1 Ratio for just 2026. AMD positioned to capture 50%+ share thanks to its 2nm TSMC allocation advantage and full-stack leadership, the company could realistically deliver $124โ€“149B in total revenue and $25โ€“$31+ non-GAAP EPS. At those levels, $1,200 implies a 2027 P/E = 13x-16x. Entirely reasonable for a company that will have become the clear Inference Queen (and in many workloads the preferred) AI infrastructure provider, with operating margins expanding above 30% and tens of billions in high-margin rack-scale AI revenue. Dr. Lisa Su was right presciently so about the Agentic AI inflection all the way back to her early 2022โ€“2023 commentary on the coming shift from pure training to inference and orchestration-heavy workloads. While the broader market only fully woke up to this in 2026 when she doubled AMDโ€™s long-term server CPU TAM forecast to >$120B by 2030 (with >35% CAGR), Dr. Su and her team have consistently positioned the company at the center of the CPU renaissance. The explosive demand we are seeing today, sold-out lines, rising ASPs, and hyperscalers forward-buying entire gigawatts of Helios-class systems is exactly the outcome she forecasted years ago. Not Financial Advice! DYOR!

Mike

301,322 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 2 ay รถnce

The Cost of Intelligence is Heading to Zero | Hyperspace P2P Distributed Cache We present to you our breakthrough cross-domain work across AI, distributed systems, cryptography, game theory to solve the primary structural inefficiency at the heart of AI infrastructure: most inference is redundant. Google has reported that only 15% of daily searches are truly novel. The rest are repeats or close variants. LLM inference inherits this same power-law distribution. Enterprise chatbots see 70-80% of queries fall into a handful of intent categories. System prompts are identical across 100% of requests within an application. The KV attention state for "You are a helpful assistant" has been computed billions of times, on millions of GPUs, identically. And yet every AI lab, every startup, every self-hosted deployment - computes and caches these results independently. There is no shared layer. No global memory. Every provider pays the full compute cost for every query, even when the answer already exists somewhere in the network. This is the problem Hyperspace solves where distributed cache operates at three levels, each catching a different class of redundancy: 1. Response cache Same prompt, same model, same parameters - instant cached response from any node in the network. SHA-256 hash lookup via DHT, with cryptographic cache proofs linking every response to its original inference execution. No trust required. Fetchers re-announce as providers, so popular responses replicate naturally across more nodes. 2. KV prefix cache Same system prompt tokens - skip the most expensive part of inference entirely. Prefill (computing Key-Value attention states) is deterministic: same model plus same tokens always produces identical KV state. The network caches these states using erasure coding and distributes them via the routing network. New questions that share a common prefix resume generation from cached state instead of recomputing from scratch. 3. Routing to cached nodes Instead of transferring KV state across the network for every request, Hyperspace routes the request to the node that already has the state loaded in VRAM. The request goes to the cache, not the cache to the request. Together, these three layers mean that 70-90% of inference requests at network scale never require full GPU computation. This work doesn't exist in isolation. It builds on research from across the industry: SGLang's RadixAttention demonstrated that automatic prefix sharing can yield up to 5x speedup on structured LLM workloads. Moonshot AI's Mooncake built an entire KV-cache-centric disaggregated architecture for production serving at Kimi. Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google all launched prompt caching products in 2024 - priced at 50-90% discounts - because system prompt reuse is so pervasive that it changes the economics of inference. What all of these systems share is a common limitation: they operate within a single organization's infrastructure. SGLang caches prefixes within one server. Mooncake disaggregates KV cache within one datacenter. Anthropic's prompt caching works within one API provider's fleet. None of them can share cached state across organizational boundaries. Hyperspace removes this boundary. The cache is global. A response computed by a node in Tokyo is immediately available to a node in Berlin. A KV prefix state generated for Qwen-32B on one machine is verifiable and reusable by any other machine running the same model. The routing network provides the delivery guarantees, the erasure coding provides the redundancy, and the cache proofs provide the trust. What this means for the cost of intelligence Big AI labs scale linearly: twice the users means twice the GPU spend. Every query is a cost center. Their internal caching helps, but it's siloed - Lab A's cache can't serve Lab B's users, and neither can serve a self-hosted Llama deployment. Hyperspace scales sub-linearly. Every new node that joins the network adds to the global cache. Every inference result enriches the cache for all future requests. The cache hit rate rises with network size because query distributions follow a power law - the most common questions are asked exponentially more often than rare ones. The implication is simple: as the network grows, the effective cost per inference drops. Not linearly. Logarithmically. At 10 million nodes, we estimate 75-90% of all inference requests can be served from cache, eliminating 400,000+ MWh of energy consumption per year and avoiding over 200,000 tons of CO2 emissions. The first person to ask a question pays the compute cost. Everyone after them gets the answer for free, with cryptographic proof that it's authentic. Training is competitive. Inference is shared Open-weight models are converging on quality with closed models. Labs will continue to differentiate on training - data curation, architecture innovation, RLHF tuning. That's where the real intellectual property lives. But inference is a commodity. Two copies of Qwen-32B running the same prompt produce the same KV state and the same response, byte for byte, regardless of whose GPU runs the matrix multiplication. There is no moat in multiplying matrices. The moat is in training the weights. A global distributed cache makes this separation explicit. It doesn't matter who trained the model. Once the weights are open, the inference cost approaches zero at scale - because the network remembers every answer and can prove it's correct. No lab, no matter how well-funded, can match this. They cannot share caches across competitors. They scale linearly. The network scales logarithmically. The marginal cost of intelligence approaches zero. That's the endgame.
0:23

The Cost of Intelligence is Heading to Zero | Hyperspace P2P Distributed Cache We present to you our breakthrough cross-domain work across AI, distributed systems, cryptography, game theory to solve the primary structural inefficiency at the heart of AI infrastructure: most inference is redundant. Google has reported that only 15% of daily searches are truly novel. The rest are repeats or close variants. LLM inference inherits this same power-law distribution. Enterprise chatbots see 70-80% of queries fall into a handful of intent categories. System prompts are identical across 100% of requests within an application. The KV attention state for "You are a helpful assistant" has been computed billions of times, on millions of GPUs, identically. And yet every AI lab, every startup, every self-hosted deployment - computes and caches these results independently. There is no shared layer. No global memory. Every provider pays the full compute cost for every query, even when the answer already exists somewhere in the network. This is the problem Hyperspace solves where distributed cache operates at three levels, each catching a different class of redundancy: 1. Response cache Same prompt, same model, same parameters - instant cached response from any node in the network. SHA-256 hash lookup via DHT, with cryptographic cache proofs linking every response to its original inference execution. No trust required. Fetchers re-announce as providers, so popular responses replicate naturally across more nodes. 2. KV prefix cache Same system prompt tokens - skip the most expensive part of inference entirely. Prefill (computing Key-Value attention states) is deterministic: same model plus same tokens always produces identical KV state. The network caches these states using erasure coding and distributes them via the routing network. New questions that share a common prefix resume generation from cached state instead of recomputing from scratch. 3. Routing to cached nodes Instead of transferring KV state across the network for every request, Hyperspace routes the request to the node that already has the state loaded in VRAM. The request goes to the cache, not the cache to the request. Together, these three layers mean that 70-90% of inference requests at network scale never require full GPU computation. This work doesn't exist in isolation. It builds on research from across the industry: SGLang's RadixAttention demonstrated that automatic prefix sharing can yield up to 5x speedup on structured LLM workloads. Moonshot AI's Mooncake built an entire KV-cache-centric disaggregated architecture for production serving at Kimi. Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google all launched prompt caching products in 2024 - priced at 50-90% discounts - because system prompt reuse is so pervasive that it changes the economics of inference. What all of these systems share is a common limitation: they operate within a single organization's infrastructure. SGLang caches prefixes within one server. Mooncake disaggregates KV cache within one datacenter. Anthropic's prompt caching works within one API provider's fleet. None of them can share cached state across organizational boundaries. Hyperspace removes this boundary. The cache is global. A response computed by a node in Tokyo is immediately available to a node in Berlin. A KV prefix state generated for Qwen-32B on one machine is verifiable and reusable by any other machine running the same model. The routing network provides the delivery guarantees, the erasure coding provides the redundancy, and the cache proofs provide the trust. What this means for the cost of intelligence Big AI labs scale linearly: twice the users means twice the GPU spend. Every query is a cost center. Their internal caching helps, but it's siloed - Lab A's cache can't serve Lab B's users, and neither can serve a self-hosted Llama deployment. Hyperspace scales sub-linearly. Every new node that joins the network adds to the global cache. Every inference result enriches the cache for all future requests. The cache hit rate rises with network size because query distributions follow a power law - the most common questions are asked exponentially more often than rare ones. The implication is simple: as the network grows, the effective cost per inference drops. Not linearly. Logarithmically. At 10 million nodes, we estimate 75-90% of all inference requests can be served from cache, eliminating 400,000+ MWh of energy consumption per year and avoiding over 200,000 tons of CO2 emissions. The first person to ask a question pays the compute cost. Everyone after them gets the answer for free, with cryptographic proof that it's authentic. Training is competitive. Inference is shared Open-weight models are converging on quality with closed models. Labs will continue to differentiate on training - data curation, architecture innovation, RLHF tuning. That's where the real intellectual property lives. But inference is a commodity. Two copies of Qwen-32B running the same prompt produce the same KV state and the same response, byte for byte, regardless of whose GPU runs the matrix multiplication. There is no moat in multiplying matrices. The moat is in training the weights. A global distributed cache makes this separation explicit. It doesn't matter who trained the model. Once the weights are open, the inference cost approaches zero at scale - because the network remembers every answer and can prove it's correct. No lab, no matter how well-funded, can match this. They cannot share caches across competitors. They scale linearly. The network scales logarithmically. The marginal cost of intelligence approaches zero. That's the endgame.

Varun

37,362 gรถrรผntรผleme โ€ข 4 ay รถnce