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

371–380 of 464 posts

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#371

Post by [deleted] »

kingstnap wrote: post #278
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…

Apple base models tend to be fairly competitive but they have some of the most extreme margins on RAM and SSDs in the industry. They charge $600 CAD to go from 16GB -> 32 GB. They charge $900 CAD for 512 GB -> 2 TB SSD.

[deleted]

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#372

Post by BirAdam »

ajross wrote: post #356
lucb1e wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A device with no moving parts, only 5 years of expected life?! I understand if you say that high-performance users will want a newer system after 5 years, but I'd be very surprised if this 64GB RAM machine doesn't suffice for 98% of people, including those who want to play then-common games at default settings Good to have some concrete figures nonetheless of course, it's always useful as a starting point

First: it's not five years. It's five years if you posit that macs are magic and use no energy[1]. In practice they're 40-70% the consumption of a competing desktop (depends on usage and specific model, yada yada yada). So figure a few decades or thereabouts. But even so: I'm not sure I know a single new-device Apple customer who has a single unit older than five years. The comment about power implied that you'd make…

Well, I know exactly what you're saying, but to be fair to Apple, my 68K Mac that's nearly 40 still works. My iMac G4 is fine. PowerMac G3 is fine. First gen Mac Pro is fine. Meanwhile, the only PCs I know of that survive time quite as well (and I collect old crap) were all nearly equivalent to Apple level pricing at the time of their introduction.

While Apple does charge nearly criminal markup for RAM and storage, they at least make some products that last (except for the TouchBar MacBooks' keyboards). I just hope my Mac Studio lasts too.

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#373

Post by heavyset_go »

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.

I'm curious how something like CUDIMM memory would perform under the same workloads.

Currently avoid machines with soldered memory, but if memory can be replaced and still have similar performance, that would change things.

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#374

Post by apitman »

DiabloD3 wrote: post #165
dgan wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sooo what's the successor of cuda?

CUDA largely was Nvidias attempt at swaying Khronos and Microsoft's DirectX team. In the end, Khronos went with something based on a blend of AMD's and Nvidia's ideas, and that became Vulkan, and Microsoft just duplicated the effort in a Direct3D-flavored way. So, just use Vulkan and stop fucking around with the Nvidia moat.

As much as I wish it were otherwise, Vulkan is nowhere near a good alternative for CUDA currently. Maybe eventually, but not without additions to nothing the core API and especially available libraries.

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#375

Post by heavyset_go »

ivape wrote: post #359
nottorp wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

LPDDR5, it looks like this is the only ram type that is going to work with Ryzen AI chips.

Framework offers Ryzen AI laptops with replaceable memory.

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#376

Post by novaleaf »

GeekyBear wrote: post #315
alt227 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except they keep making it harder and harder to install your own drives into apple machines.

It's not difficult at all. > How to Replace the SSD in your Mac mini (2024) https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/How+to+Replace+the+SSD+in+your+...

from the link:

> Apple integrates the storage controllers into the Apple Silicon SoC, which means that normal M.2 SSDs are incompatible.

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#377

Post by heavyset_go »

microtonal wrote: post #243
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.

My main worry about all the Minisforum, Beelink, etc. PCs is: potential lack of UEFI firmware updates (does anyone have experience with how good they are with updates?) and potential backdoors in the UEFI firmware (either intentionally or unintentionally). A China-aligned/sponsored group has made an UEFI rootkit targetting ASUS/Gigabyte mainboards: https://www.spiceworks.com/it-security/vulnerability-managem... Why n…

Even if there aren't backdoors, things like this[1] affecting AMD Zen CPUs, where microcode signing keys changed and thus the firmware needs to be updated to allow the new keys, would prevent machines from using new microcode updates.

[1] https://github.com/divestedcg/real-ucode?tab=readme-ov-file#...

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#378

Post by ajross »

BirAdam wrote: post #372
ajross wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First: it's not five years. It's five years if you posit that macs are magic and use no energy[1]. In practice they're 40-70% the consumption of a competing desktop (depends on usage and specific model, yada yada yada). So figure a few decades or thereabouts. But even so: I'm not sure I know a single new-device Apple customer who has a single unit older than five years. The comment about power implied that you'd make…

Well, I know exactly what you're saying, but to be fair to Apple, my 68K Mac that's nearly 40 still works. My iMac G4 is fine. PowerMac G3 is fine. First gen Mac Pro is fine. Meanwhile, the only PCs I know of that survive time quite as well (and I collect old crap) were all nearly equivalent to Apple level pricing at the time of their introduction. While Apple does charge nearly criminal markup for RAM and storage, t…

> Meanwhile, the only PCs I know of that survive time quite as well

Nah, everything works forever, it's just that no one cares. My younger child retired a 3770K Ivy Bridge box last year that I'd bought at or near release in 2012, so ~11 years of steady use.

People fetishize Apple hardware, but the truth is that modern electronics manufacturing is bulletproof up and down the assembly lines.

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#379

Post by reactordev »

heavyset_go wrote: post #373
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.

I'm curious how something like CUDIMM memory would perform under the same workloads. Currently avoid machines with soldered memory, but if memory can be replaced and still have similar performance, that would change things.

PCI lanes just aren’t there yet which is why the soldered memory approach to shorten the gap and increase the speed. The memory the framework desktop uses doesn’t come in slotted form (LPDDR5X).

You absolutely can (and should) build your own for slightly cheaper. Just find the fastest DDR5 CUDIMMs you can paired with the fastest memory bus mobo.

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#380

Post by topspin »

kbolino wrote: post #256
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…

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.

> Is the problem truly down to physics

Yes. The "conservative attitudes" of JEDEC et al. are a consequence of physics and the capabilities of every party involved in dealing with it, from the RAM chip fabricators and PCB manufacturers, all the way to you, the consumer, and the price you're willing to pay for motherboards, power supplies, memory controllers, and yield costs incurred trying to build all of this stuff, such that you can sort by price, mail order some likely untested combination of affordable components and stick them together with a fair chance that it will all "work" within the power consumption envelope, thermal envelope, and failure rate you're likely to tolerate. Every iteration of the standards is another attempt to strike the right balance all the way up and down this chain, and at the root of everything is the physics of signal integrity, power consumption, thermals and component reliability.

Post reply on HN