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

321–330 of 464 posts

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#321

Post by arp242 »

I looked at the Framework Desktop a few week ago; mainly to get something that has nicer gaming performance than my laptop's iGPU. I'm not a big gamer really, but as of late I've been wanting to play some things, like The Witcher 3 (saw thread on Reddit celebrating its 10 year anniversary: "that's the new one I still need to play", so that's about how up to date I am with games – some of these "new" games are already classified as "good old game" on gog.com).

My take-away was/is that the Framework Desktop is a very nice machine, but it is expensive IMHO. You can get better performance at a lower price by building your own machine; in this article the 9950X scores lower than the Max 395, and I'm not entirely sure that's accurate – that wasn't my take-away at all (don't have links at the ready). This is also what you'd expect when comparing a 55W laptop chip vs. a 170W desktop chip.

That said, Linux compatibility is a bit of a pain, for example some MediaTek WiFi/Bluetooth chips that ASUS boards use don't have a Linux driver. In general figuring out what components to get is a bit time-consuming. In one of the videos Nirav mentioned that "just get the Framework Desktop" is so much easer, and 100% agree with that.

In the end, I decided to get a USB4/Thunderbold eGPU, which gives me more than enough gaming performance for me and is much cheaper. I already have a laptop that's more than performant enough for my needs, which I got last year mainly due to some idiotic JS build process I had to deal with last year that took forever on my old laptop. On the new machine it's merely "ludicrously slow". Sometimes I think JS people are in cahoots with Intel and/or AMD...

For LLM stuff the considerations might be different. I don't care about that so I didn't look into it.

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#322

Post by oblio »

epistasis wrote: post #78
onli wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not everybody upgrades RAM, and those people deserve computers too. No. It's end of the line with consumerism and we either start repairing and recycling or we die. Framework catered to people who agree with that, and this product is not in line. I have no idea why you would not upgrade your memory, I have done so in all PCs I ever owned and all laptops, and it's a very common (and cheap) upgrade. It reduces waste…

I have had the system for eight years and at no point would upgrading RAM have increased performance. Upgrading the RAM would have created more waste than properly sizing the RAM to COU proportion from the beginning. It is very odd to encounter someone who has such a narrow view of computing that they cannot imagine someone not upgrading their RAM. I have not once, literally not once have RAM break either. I have bee…

I'm with you on this one. I've had.. 6? PCs. Basically every time I thought that they were falling behind performance wise, I realized that they generally had stopped selling RAM for them and even if I only wanted to upgrade the RAM, it wasn't enough anymore. The CPU was also falling behind and a new one needed a new socket and motherboard.

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#323

Post by arp242 »

scosman wrote: post #286
lucb1e wrote: post #242

> The Framework Desktop with 64GB RAM + 2TB NVMe is $1,876. To get a Mac Studio with similar specs [...] you'll literally spend nearly twice as much [...] The Framework Desktop is simply a great deal. Wow, someone managed to beat Apple on price?? I don't know that it logically follows that anything is a great deal when it undercuts Apple. Half sounds about right -- I thought Apple was a bit more competitive these day…

He's comparing to a studio when he should compare to the mini for this performance. They are almost the same price at a 64gb RAM + 500gb storage config (CAD). - Framework, Max+ 64GB: $2,861.16 - Apple Mini M4 Pro, 64GB: $2,899.00 Apple does charge way too much for integrated storage, but Apple is only a 25% premium at 2TB not double (if you compare to the mini instead of the studio). Plug in a NVMe SSD if you're buil…

Framework also charges quite a surplus on the SSD. For example "WD_BLACK SN7100 NVMe 2TB" is €229, but a more typical price is around ~€140, so that's about €90 extra. Don't know how that compares to Apple.

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#324

Post by aesh2Xa1 »

wtallis wrote: post #301
aesh2Xa1 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, your point about implementation is correct -- much of the MDM functionality runs within macOS. But, eh, I still think it's fair to describe it as a feature of the firmware. The enrollment and prevention of removal have firmware-level components through Apple's Secure Boot and System Integrity Protection. A user can't simply disable MDM because these firmware-level protections prevent tampering with the enrollme…

I think it's important to make a distinction between secure boot features that are local-only, and remote management features. The "Remote Device Management baked into firmware" claim above carries with it some pretty important implications that are, as far as I can tell, not actually true. It's not too different from scaremongering about Intel ME/AMT which is often maligned even in the context of computers that don'…

I agree with your point about OP's statement regarding "where is not not needed Windows in any way, to the Remote Device Management baked into firmware as Apple does with its hardware" I also read that to mean that the firmware solution is self-contained and complete, even though that's pretty misaligned when you consider the meaning of a "remotely" managed device (remotely managed by what?).

But it's still entirely factual in my own description. When a device checks in during initial setup, the firmware-level boot process can receive policies that block alternative OS installation, and that absolutely is a feature of the firmware.

Anyway, I tried to interpret OP's meaning, and provided more detail on how Apple's firmware is special.

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#325

Post by wtallis »

gautamcgoel wrote: post #318
topspin wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How much higher bandwidth, percentage wise, can one expect from integrated DRAM vs socketed DRAM? 10%?

Intel's Arrow Lake platform launched in fall 2024 is the first to support CUDIMMs (clock redriver on each memory module) and as a result is the first desktop CPU to officially support 6400MT/s without overclocking (albeit only reaching that speed for single-rank modules with only one module per channel). Apple's M1 Pro and M1 Max processors launched in fall 2021 used 6400MT/s LPDDR5.

Intel's Lunar Lake low-power laptop processors launched in fall 2024 use on-package LPDDR5x running at 8533MT/s, as do Apple's M4 Pro and M4 Max.

So at the moment, soldered DRAM offers 33% more bandwidth for the same bus width, and is the only way to get more than a 128-bit bus width in anything smaller than a desktop workstation.

Smartphones are already moving beyond 9600MT/s for their RAM, in part because they typically only use a 64-bit bus with. GPUs are at 30000MT/s with GDDR7 memory.

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#326

Post by znpy »

> Linux is really efficient. Especially when you're using a window manager like Hyprland, as we do in Omarchy.

Window managers are usually the last issue on modern Linux. Pretty much any native app is okay.

Troubles really start (and start fast) when you open any browser and load any modern website. Had we more native applications (so not cloud stuff, and not javascript stuff with a bundled chromium) we'd all have a much better overall computing experience.

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#327

Post by mananaysiempre »

arp242 wrote: post #323
scosman wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's comparing to a studio when he should compare to the mini for this performance. They are almost the same price at a 64gb RAM + 500gb storage config (CAD). - Framework, Max+ 64GB: $2,861.16 - Apple Mini M4 Pro, 64GB: $2,899.00 Apple does charge way too much for integrated storage, but Apple is only a 25% premium at 2TB not double (if you compare to the mini instead of the studio). Plug in a NVMe SSD if you're buil…

Framework also charges quite a surplus on the SSD. For example "WD_BLACK SN7100 NVMe 2TB" is €229, but a more typical price is around ~€140, so that's about €90 extra. Don't know how that compares to Apple.

Framework absolutely does fleece you on the SSD, so don’t buy SSDs from them if you’re price-sensitive. But compared to Apple it’s nowhere close: per Apple’s website, upgrading a current Mac Mini or Mac Studio from 512 GB to 2 TB costs $600. You can buy a WD_BLACK SN850X 8TB for that much money (or a WD_BLACK SN8100 4TB and still have a quarter of it left over, if you really want PCIe 5.0, but there’s no point at the moment).

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#328

Post by trostaft »

nottorp wrote: post #292
reactordev wrote: post #219

>The AMD 395+ uses unified memory, like Apple, so nearly all of it is addressable to be used by the GPU. This is why they went with the “laptop” cpu. While it’s slightly slower than dedicated memory, it allows you to run the big models, at decent token speeds.

unified and soldered :( I understand it's faster but still... Did they at least do an internal PSU if they went the Apple way or does it come with a power brick twice the size of the case? Edit: wait. They do have an internal PSU! Goodness!

For anyone else curious, they actually have a deep dive on the subject. You can also replace it with another since it's just flexATX, albeit with some requirements.

https://community.frame.work/t/framework-desktop-deep-dive-p...

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#329

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

reactordev wrote: post #219

>The AMD 395+ uses unified memory, like Apple, so nearly all of it is addressable to be used by the GPU. This is why they went with the “laptop” cpu. While it’s slightly slower than dedicated memory, it allows you to run the big models, at decent token speeds.

> it allows you to run the big models, at decent token speeds

Without CUDA, being an AMD GPU. Big warning depending on the tools you want to use.

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#330

Post by Arn_Thor »

laweijfmvo wrote: post #258
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.

What kind of tasks do you use it for, if I may ask? Does it include local LLM/AI?
Post reply on HN