101–110 of 236 posts
- the mysterious disappearance of Exo
- Jeff wants something like SMB Direct but for the Mac. Wait what? SMB Direct is a thing, wha?? I always thought networked storage was untrustworthy.
- A single M3 Ultra is fast for inference
- A framework desktop ai max 395 is only $2100
Now I have some more rabbit holes to jump down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See https://github.com/geerlingguy/beowulf-ai-cluster/issues/17 for more data — I didn't save all the prompt processing times (Exo just outputs a time in ms, no other data for that), but will try to have another pass. Maybe also convince the Exo team to add a proper benchmarking capability ala `llama-bench` :)
or better, like you mentioned, try to convince Exo to develop in the open, so everyone gets any capability as PRs.
This seems suboptimal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> - The ability to overclock the system? I know it probably will never happen, but my expectation of Mac Studio is not the same as a laptop, and I'm TOTALLY okay with it consuming +600W energy. Currently it's capped at ~250W. I don't think the Mac Studio has a thermal design capable of dissipating 650W of heat for anything other than bursty workloads. Need to look at the Mac Pro design for that.
The thermal design is irrelevant, and people saying they want insane power density are, in my personal view, deluded ridiculous individuals who understand very very little. Overclocking long ago was an amazing saintly act, milking a lot of extra performance that was just there waiting, without major downsides to take. But these days, chips are usually already well tuned. You can feed double or tripple the power into…
I was actually looking for benchmarks earlier this week along those lines - ideally covering the whole slate of Arrow Lake processors running at various TDPs. Not much available on the web though.
I wonder what motivates apple to release features like RDMA which are purely useful for server clusters, while ignoring basic qol stuff like remote management or rack mount hardware. It’s difficult to see it as a cohesive strategy. Makes one wonder what apple uses for their own servers. I guess maybe they have some internal M-series server product they just haven’t bothered to release to the public, and features like…
On Intel Motherboards, it's easy to find ones that can take 2TB of RAM, for example: https://www.supermicro.com/en/products/motherboard/x14sbw-tf This seems suboptimal.
I wonder if there's any possibility that an RDMA expansion device could exist in the future - i.e. a box full of RAM on the other end of a thunderbolt cable. Although I guess such a device would cost almost as much as a mac mini in any case...
Couldn't you "just" use a honking fast SSD and set it as a swap drive?
I wonder what motivates apple to release features like RDMA which are purely useful for server clusters, while ignoring basic qol stuff like remote management or rack mount hardware. It’s difficult to see it as a cohesive strategy. Makes one wonder what apple uses for their own servers. I guess maybe they have some internal M-series server product they just haven’t bothered to release to the public, and features like…
Very cool, I’m probably thinking too much but why are they seemingly hyping this now (I’ve seen a bunch of this recently) with no M5 Max/Ultra machines in sight. Is it because their release is imminent (I have heard Q1 2026) or is it to try and stretch out demand for M4 Max / M3 Ultra. I plan to buy one (not four) but would feel like I’m buying something that’s going to be immediately out of date if I don’t wait for…
Which I guess is the point of this for Apple, but still.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I guess maybe they have some internal M-series server product they just haven’t bothered to release to the public, and features like this are downstream of that? Or do they have some real server-grade product coming down the line, and are releasing this ahead of it so that 3rd party software supports it on launch day?
That they sell to the public? No way. They’ve clearly given up on server stuff and it makes sense for them. That they use INTERNALLY for their servers? I could certainly see this being useful for that. Mostly I think this is just to get money from the AI boom. They already had TB5, it’s not like this was costing them additional hardware. Just some time that probably paid off on their internal model training anyway.
Given up is not a given. A lot of the exec team has been changing.