How much is this supposed to cost, fully populated with 128GB of RAM? How much would this laptop cost?
It's not that the NVidia chip has that much RAM built in, after all. It's that it can address that much. RAM is sold separately.
Nvidia is proposing a beast of a CPU system for Windows PCs
251–260 of 581 posts
Re: Nvidia is proposing a beast of a CPU system for Windows PCs
#252I do not see how it is a 'beast of a' anything. It has 300GB/s memory bandwidth, barely above AMD Strix halo (256GB/s) with the same 128GB RAM and less than half memory bandwidth of M5 Max 128GB (614GB/s). Emphasizing memory bandwidth because most people interested in it I suppose are AI enthusiasts. Also, Windows.
Re: Nvidia is proposing a beast of a CPU system for Windows PCs
#253How much is this supposed to cost, fully populated with 128GB of RAM? How much would this laptop cost? It's not that the NVidia chip has that much RAM built in, after all. It's that it can address that much. RAM is sold separately.
No. It’s all integrated. Not something you can buy separately or upgrade later.
Re: Nvidia is proposing a beast of a CPU system for Windows PCs
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't really need this much explanation. People take these quotes out of context all the time. Said in a business context, there was no need, at that time, for someone to have a personal computer. There's no business justification in 1977 for a personal computer department at a business. It's similar to the gates quote about RAM (I think it was 64KB?). These statements aren't meant to be forever quotes. Their bu…
> It's similar to the gates quote about RAM (I think it was 64KB?) 640, and Bill Gates said he either never said that, or at least never remembered having said it. I think there is no evidence anywhere that he did. https://www.computerworld.com/article/1563853/the-640k-quote...
That exact quote? No, never.
He said something like: current computers at the time had 64kb of RAM, so the OS was designed with a limit of 640kb, and he believed this would give them 10 years of future proofing. As it happened, that limit was reached much faster, in about 6 years.
Re: Nvidia is proposing a beast of a CPU system for Windows PCs
#255The Unified Memory pool is what will continue to be the “game changer” in systems architecture, especially outside of data centers. The reality is even cutting edge games and consumer workloads don’t actually take full use of the PCIe bandwidth of the GPU or the bandwidth of its GDDR memory. Even local AI use cases don’t substantially or meaningfully benefit from faster memory, at least to average consumers. A unifie…
Intel was doing UMA with their i740 graphics in the late 90s. Codename TIMNA was cancelled, but they pioneered it and used it on their you/cpu chips as well as their breakthrough 810 chipset that dominated graphics market for a decade. It was despised because it wa ubiquitous and a low performing graphics engine but games had to accommodate it.
Funny that it is getting credit only now.
Re: Nvidia is proposing a beast of a CPU system for Windows PCs
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
Qwen 3.6 27B still curb stomps Deepseek V4 in coding
1. Deepseek V4 is still in preview (training is not finished) 2. Qwen is much more demanding and borderline unusable on consumer hardware because it's a dense model. The 27B parameters are active all time for each token. It's not a MoE architecture where a router activates only some of them. 3. Qwen doesn't like quantization at all.
I have to disagree with most claims. I run Qwen3.6-27b at 260k context and 40-60 tok/sec. It handles most coding problems as well as Sonnet 4.6 under OpenCode on our production tasks. (As an experiment, I run the same prompts for the same issues in parallel for Qwen 3.6 and Sonnet 4.6 and usually see little difference in performance). I see zero degradation from quantization in practice.
Settings: RTX 5090, 5-bit weights (Unsloth), FP8 KV cache.
Last time I tried running large MoEs on this PC, they had inferior quality at 2-3 bits compared to much smaller dense models at 5-6 bits, and were slower anyway.
Re: Nvidia is proposing a beast of a CPU system for Windows PCs
#257The Qualcomm Snapdragon X2 Elite Extreme trounces Nvidia's chip in single core CPU performance. It beats Intel and AMD's best, too. It has unified memory. It's the only CPU in the same league as Apple's M-series in both CPU performance and power efficiency. And it's available in laptops today, not later this year. People are sleeping on Qualcomm.
Why do people care so much about single core performance? We are all professionals here and I bet most of our workloads are multi core. I get that these new arm chips from Apple and Qualcomm are great at one thing at a time, but for professional workloads high end x64 chips still cannot be beaten on the desktop.
What x86 chips have the same or higher number of cores in the form factors that these chips are available in and are also more performant?
Strix Halo is 16 cores. Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX is 24. Apple is 18. Qualcomm is something similar too but I can’t recall. NVIDIA is 20.
Until you get to threadripper/epyc or Xeon territories (completely different form factors and TDPs) the arm chips are ahead on both power and perf than the x86. And even when you get to those areas, arm is equivalent or out performs them as can be seen by the recent neoverse x3 and Vera benchmarks.
Re: Nvidia is proposing a beast of a CPU system for Windows PCs
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
You must be unaware that System76 was already selling 192GB machines, mac studios used to be 512GB max. The only reason why we don’t have them anymore is that we are in RAM shortage.
I'm aware you can have more. the term "SWEET SPOT" references a area that anyone/everyone can get to and isn't some magical expensive unicorn. You're doing what the IT industry has been addicted to for decades: number goes up.
> You're doing what the IT industry has been addicted to for decades: number goes up.
No, I have a hands on experience with bigger models, and understand the advantages of using them.
Re: Nvidia is proposing a beast of a CPU system for Windows PCs
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
Qwen 3.6 27B still curb stomps Deepseek V4 in coding
1. Deepseek V4 is still in preview (training is not finished) 2. Qwen is much more demanding and borderline unusable on consumer hardware because it's a dense model. The 27B parameters are active all time for each token. It's not a MoE architecture where a router activates only some of them. 3. Qwen doesn't like quantization at all.
You can run the 35B A3B model which is an MoE. Runs great on a 5090.
Re: Nvidia is proposing a beast of a CPU system for Windows PCs
#260I do not see how it is a 'beast of a' anything. It has 300GB/s memory bandwidth, barely above AMD Strix halo (256GB/s) with the same 128GB RAM and less than half memory bandwidth of M5 Max 128GB (614GB/s). Emphasizing memory bandwidth because most people interested in it I suppose are AI enthusiasts. Also, Windows.
They have a lot of software groundwork ahead of them to make an ARM CPU viable for any kind of desktop use outside direct inference or training usage too.
AMD has the advantage that their x86 machines run everything, Apple maintains the whole MacOS stack, while Nvidia can barely scrape together one Ubuntu release per Jetson generation, it's beyond embarrassing. Maybe they ought to put those agents they keep droning about to some actual work on their OS support.