Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Framework Desktop is a beast

world.hey.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 464 posts

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#251

Post by aeonik »

komali2 wrote: post #112
aeonik wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously though, Would desoldering the sockets help? Why are the sockets bad?

As stated previously, the sockets reduce signal integrity, which doesn't necessarily make them "bad," but is why Framework wasn't able to used socketed ram to maximize the potential of this CPU. This sort-of-interview of Nirav Patel (ceo of framework) explains in a bit more detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lErGZZgUbY Basically, they need to use LPDDR5X memory, which isn't available in socketed form, because o…

They "why" hasn't been answered. I understand the previous statements very clearly. It makes intuitive sense to me, but I want to know more.

Like physics PhD-level more.

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#252

Post by 7jjjjjjj »

vaylian wrote: post #213
paolomainardi wrote: post #174

Is there a real alternative, where is not not needed Windows in any way, to the Remote Device Management baked into firmware as Apple does with its hardware ? This is biggest missing to bring Linux to enterprises.

> the Remote Device Management baked into firmware as Apple does with its hardware? What do you mean? Linux had SSH (and before that rlogin) for a very long time already.

"Device Management" means "hardware-level backdoor."

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#253

Post by [deleted] »

esafak wrote: post #206
rs186 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't find an sufficiently similar alternative that is priced at a much better price, it is not overpriced.

For the purposes of running LLM models, a Mac Mini. The PC is cheaper, but it doesn't have MacOS, Apple's service or resale value.

[deleted]

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#254

Post by dismalaf »

oblio wrote: post #248
rr808 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After the appstore fight, DHH's favorite is whatever is not Apple lol. TBF it just opened his eyes to alternatives now is happy off that platform.

What app store fight?

https://37signals.com/podcast/this-again-apple/

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#255

Post by dismalaf »

rramon wrote: post #238
rr808 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After the appstore fight, DHH's favorite is whatever is not Apple lol. TBF it just opened his eyes to alternatives now is happy off that platform.

How long until he clashes with the GPL and discovers the BSDs?

Why would that happen? The GPL doesn't conflict at all with anything 37Signals does nor the Rails ecosystem...

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#256

Post by kbolino »

topspin wrote: post #229
schmorptron wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will we be able to get similar bandwidth with socketed ram with CAMM / LPCAMM modules in the near future?

Maybe, but due to the physics of signal integrity, socketed RAM will always be slower than RAM integrated onto the same PCB as whatever processing element is using it, so by the time CAMM / LPCAMM catches up, some newer integrated RAM solution will be faster yet. This is a matter of physics. It can't be "fixed." Signal integrity is why classic GPU cards have GiBs of integrated RAM chips: GPUs with non-upgradeable RAM…

Is the problem truly down to physics or is it down to the stovepiped and conservative attitudes of PC part manufacturers and their trade groups like JEDEC? (Not that consumers don't play a role here too).

The only essential part of sockets vs solder is the metal-metal contacts. The size of the modules and the distance from the CPU/GPU are all adjustable parameters if the will exists to change them.

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#257

Post by dismalaf »

esafak wrote: post #206
rs186 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't find an sufficiently similar alternative that is priced at a much better price, it is not overpriced.

For the purposes of running LLM models, a Mac Mini. The PC is cheaper, but it doesn't have MacOS, Apple's service or resale value.

The M4 has half the memory bandwidth of the 395+ and the specs on those models are absolute trash. To get an M4 Pro APU and decent specs you're spending at least as much as the Framework, at least here in Canada.

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#258

Post by laweijfmvo »

aomix wrote: post #227

I’ve been agonizing over getting the Framework Desktop for weeks as a dev machine/local LLM box/home server. It checks a lot of boxes but the only reason to look at the Framework Desktop over something like a Minisforum MS-A2 is for the LLM and that seems super janky right now. So I guess I’ll wait a beat and see where we are later in the year.

probably doesn’t make sense as a home server unless you need the massive compute. i have a couple lenovo mini pcs (m75q, various generations, AMD) that I paid a total of $500 for on ebay. they’re so easy to find and handle most tasks swimmingly.

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#259

Post by wtallis »

jchw wrote: post #211
esafak wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the purposes of running LLM models, a Mac Mini. The PC is cheaper, but it doesn't have MacOS, Apple's service or resale value.

Actually the pricing is pretty similar. Framework Desktop price with default selections, 32GB of RAM, 500 GB storage: $1,242.00 USD Mac Mini with 32GB of RAM, 512 GB storage: $1,199.00 Post changed a bit since I started replying, so: > For the purposes of running LLM models, a Mac Mini The M4 Max is the one that actually gives you a shit load of memory bandwidth. If you just get a normal M4 it's not going to be espec…

> Mac Mini with 32GB of RAM, 512 GB storage: $1,199.00

You're looking at the wrong Mac Mini. The model with the M4 Pro is the right comparison, on account of also having a 256-bit memory bus giving substantially higher bandwidth than a typical desktop computer. The M4 Pro model doesn't have a 32GB option.

The M4 Max (not available in a Mac Mini) has an even larger memory bus, giving it far more bandwidth than either the M4 Pro or the AMD Strix Halo part used by Framework.

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#260

Post by dismalaf »

ashleyn wrote: post #9

How is AMD GPU compatibility with leading generative AI workflows? I'm under the impression everything is CUDA.

> I'm under the impression everything is CUDA

A very quick Google search would show that pretty much everything also runs on ROCm.

Torch runs on CUDA and ROCm. Llama.cpp runs on CUDA, ROCm, SYCL, Vulkan and others...

Post reply on HN