Live data from Hacker News

TPUs vs. GPUs and why Google is positioned to win AI race in the long term

uncoveralpha.com

131–140 of 328 posts

Re: TPUs vs. GPUs and why Google is positioned to win AI race in the long term

#131
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They will, I'm sure. The big difference is that Google is both the chip designer *and* the AI company. So they get both sets of profits. Both Google and Nvidia contract TSMC for chips. Then Nvidia sells them at a huge profit. Then OpenAI (for example) buys them at that inflated rate and them puts them into production. So while Nvidia is "selling shovels", Google is making their own shovels and has their own mines.

So when the bubble pops the companies making the shovels (TSMC, NVIDIA) might still have the money they got for their products and some of the ex-AI companies might least be able to sell standard compliant GPUs on the wider market. And Google will end up with lots of useless super specialized custom hardware.

It seems unlikely that large matrix multipliers will become useless. If nothing else, Google uses AI extensively internally. It already did in ways that weren’t user-visible long before the current AI boom. Also, they can still put AI overviews on search pages regardless of what the stock market does. They’re not as bad as they used to be, and I expect they’ll improve.

Even if TPU’s weren’t all that useful, they still own the data centers and can upgrade equipment, or not. They paid for the hardware out of their large pile of cash, so it’s not debt overhang.

Another issue is loss of revenue. Google cloud revenue is currently 15% of their total, so still not that much. The stock market is counting on it continuing to increase, though.

If the stock market crashes, Google’s stock price will go down too, and that could be a very good time to buy, much like it was in 2008. There’s been a spectacular increase since then, the best investment I ever made. (Repeating that is unlikely, though.)

Re: TPUs vs. GPUs and why Google is positioned to win AI race in the long term

#132

> It is also important to note that, until recently, the GenAI industry’s focus has largely been on training workloads. In training workloads, CUDA is very important, but when it comes to inference, even reasoning inference, CUDA is not that important, so the chances of expanding the TPU footprint in inference are much higher than those in training (although TPUs do really well in training as well – Gemini 3 the prim…

Training is taking an enormous problem and trying to break it into lots of pieces and managing the data dependency between those pieces. It's solving 1 really hard problem. Inference is the opposite, it's lots of small independent problems. All of this "we have X many widgets connected to Y many high bandwidth optical telescopes" is all a training problem that they need to solve. Inference is "I have 20 tokens and I want to throw them at these 5,000,000 matrix multiplies, oh and I don't care about latency".

Re: TPUs vs. GPUs and why Google is positioned to win AI race in the long term

#133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google's work on Jax, pytorch, tensorflow, and the more general XLA underneath are exactly the kind of anti-moat everyone has been clamoring for.

Anti-moat like commoditizing the compliment?

If they get things like PyTorch to work well without carinng what hardware it is running on, it erodes Nvidia's CUDA moat. Nvidia's chips are excellent, without doubt, but their real moat is the ecosystem around CUDA.

Re: TPUs vs. GPUs and why Google is positioned to win AI race in the long term

#134
post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> NVIDIA is a generation ahead of the industry a generation is 6 months

For GPUs a generation is 1-2 years.

no https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nvidia_graphics_proces...

Re: TPUs vs. GPUs and why Google is positioned to win AI race in the long term

#135
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So when the bubble pops the companies making the shovels (TSMC, NVIDIA) might still have the money they got for their products and some of the ex-AI companies might least be able to sell standard compliant GPUs on the wider market. And Google will end up with lots of useless super specialized custom hardware.

> And Google will end up with lots of useless super specialized custom hardware. If it gets to the point where this hardware is useless (I doubt it), yes Google will have it sitting there. But it will have cost Google less to build that hardware than any of the companies who built on Nvidia.

Right, and the inevitable bubble pop will just slow things down for a few years - it's not like those TPUs will suddenly be useless, Google will still have them deployed, it's just that instead of upgrading to a newer TPU they'll stay with the older ones longer. It seems like Google will experience much less repercussions when the bubble pops compared to Nvidia, OpenAI, Anthropic, Oracle etc. as they're largely staying out of the money circles between those companies.

Re: TPUs vs. GPUs and why Google is positioned to win AI race in the long term

#136
post #2

A question I don't see addressed in all these articles: what prevents Nvidia from doing the same thing and iterating on their more general-purpose GPU towards a more focused TPU-like chip as well, if that turns out to be what the market really wants.

Nvidia doesn't have the software stack to do a TPU.

They could make a systolic array TPU and software, perhaps. But it would mean abandoning 18 years of CUDA.

The top post right now is talking about TPU's colossal advantage in scaling & throughput. Ironwood is massively bigger & faster than what Nvidia is shooting for, already. And that's a huge advantage. But imo that is a replicateable win. Throw gobs more at networking and scaling and nvidia could do similar with their architecture.

The architectural win of what TPU is more interesting. Google sort of has a working super powerful Connection Machine CM-1. The systolic array is a lot of (semi-)independent machines that communicate with nearby chips. There's incredible work going on to figure out how to map problems onto these arrays.

Where-as on a GPU, main memory is used to transfer intermediary results. It doesn't really matter who picks up work, there's lots of worklets with equal access time to that bit of main memory. The actual situation is a little more nuanced (even in consumer gpu's there's really multiple different main memories, which creates some locality), but there's much less need for data locality in the GPU, and much much much much tighter needs, the whole premise of the TPU is to exploit data locality. Because sending data to a neighbor is cheap, sending storing and retrieving data from memory is slower and much more energy intense.

CUDA takes advantage of, relies strongly on the GPU's reliance in main memory being (somewhat) globally accessible. There's plenty of workloads folks do in CUDA that would never work on TPU, on these much more specialized data-passing systolic arrays. That's why TPUs are so amazing, because they are much more constrained devices, that require so much more careful workload planning, to get the work to flow across the 2D array of the chip.

Google's work on projects like XLA and IREE is a wonderful & glorious general pursuit of how to map these big crazy machine learning pipelines down onto specific hardware. Nvidia could make their own or join forces here. And perhaps they will. But the CUDA moat would have to be left behind.

Re: TPUs vs. GPUs and why Google is positioned to win AI race in the long term

#137
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And Google will end up with lots of useless super specialized custom hardware. If it gets to the point where this hardware is useless (I doubt it), yes Google will have it sitting there. But it will have cost Google less to build that hardware than any of the companies who built on Nvidia.

aka Google will have less of a pile of money than Nvidia will

Alphabet is the most profitable company in the world. For all the criticisms you can throw at Google, lacking a pile of money isn't one of them.

Re: TPUs vs. GPUs and why Google is positioned to win AI race in the long term

#138
post #2

A question I don't see addressed in all these articles: what prevents Nvidia from doing the same thing and iterating on their more general-purpose GPU towards a more focused TPU-like chip as well, if that turns out to be what the market really wants.

It's not that the TPU is better than an NVidia GPU, it's just that it's cheaper since it doesn't have a fat NVidia markup applied, and is also better vertically integrated since it was designed/specified by Google for Google.

TPUs are also cheaper because GPUs need to be more general purpose whereas TPUs are designed with a focus on LLM workloads meaning there's not wasted silicon. Nothing's there that doesn't need to be there. The potential downside would be if a significantly different architecture arises that would be difficult for TPUs to handle and easier for GPUs (given their more general purpose). But even then Google could probably pivot fairly quickly to a different TPU design.

Re: TPUs vs. GPUs and why Google is positioned to win AI race in the long term

#139
post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For GPUs a generation is 1-2 years.

no https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nvidia_graphics_proces...

What in that article makes you think a generation is shorter?

* Turing: September 2018

* Ampere: May 2020

* Hopper: March 2022

* Lovelace (designed to work with Hopper): October 2022

* Blackwell: November 2024

* Next: December 2025 or later

With a single exception for Lovelace (arguably not a generation), there are multiple years between generations.

Re: TPUs vs. GPUs and why Google is positioned to win AI race in the long term

#140

This feels a lot like the RISC/CISC debate. More academic than it seems. Nvidia is designing their GPUs primarily to do exactly the same tasks TPUs are doing right now. Even within Google it's probably hard to tell whether or not it matters on a 5-year timeframe. It certainly gives Google an edge on some things, but in the fullness of time "GPUs" like the H100 are primarily used for running tensor models and they're…

> Since Google doesn't sell TPUs, they are extremely well-positioned to ensure no one else can profit from any advantages created by TPUs.

First part is true at the moment, not sure the second follows. Microsoft is developing their own “Maia” chips for running AI on Azure with custom hardware, and everyone else is also getting in the game of hardware accelerators. Google is certainly ahead of the curve in making full-stack hardware that’s very very specialized for machine learning. But everyone else is moving in the same direction: lots of action is in buying up other companies that make interconnects and fancy networking equipment, and AMD/NVIDIA continue to hyper specialize their data center chips for neural networks.

Google is in a great position, for sure. But I don’t see how they can stop other players from converging on similar solutions.

Post reply on HN