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

391–400 of 464 posts

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#391

Post by glitchc »

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…

My 4930K system is over a decade old and it still serves as a NAS. I have a Core 2 Duo kicking around that I'm sure will boot. There's a perfectly usable T520 sitting on my desk running Windows 11. But I must admit that Macbooks outlast most other laptops.

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#392

Post by beala »

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.

Geerling benchmarked LLM performance on the Framework Desktop and the results look pretty lackluster to me. First, the software seems really immature. He couldn't get ROCm or the NPU working. When he finally got the iGPU working with Vulkan, he could only generate 5 tok/sec with Llama 3.1 70b (40 GB model). That's intolerably slow for anything interactive like coding or chatting imo, but I suppose that's a matter of opinion.

https://github.com/geerlingguy/ollama-benchmark/issues/21

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#394

Post by seemaze »

prmoustache wrote: post #357
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…

Also judging from the state of 5 and 10y old mac computers on the second hand market, you quickly realize they aren't very reliable machines.

My 2012 mbp is still going strong, only needed a new battery. Great keyboard, great screen, great trackpad. The second hand market seems to reflect this in my experience if you look at resale prices vs non-mac equivalents.

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#395

Post by vikramkr »

syphia wrote: post #384

> The Framework Desktop with 64GB RAM + 2TB NVMe is $1,876 And it's ~$1000 to build a PC with a similar CPU, somewhat larger form factor, and fans. Unless the AI processor is actually useful for AI, and you need that, this is silly. Framework desktop dimensions are 20.6 x 9.7 x 22.6 LWH. My IM01 case is 37.2 x 18.5 x 28.7. It won't be going in my bag, but it fits nicely on a desktop. Pre-builts are so expensive these…

The memory on chip that's shared between CPU/GPU is the main thing, for AI stuff it's more competing with gpus and apple silicon than comparable CPUs.

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#396

Post by yonisto »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #183
izacus wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the Strix series of AMD uses a similar architecture as M series with massive memory bandwidth and big caches. That results in significantly better performance.

Isn't this the desktop architecture that Torvalds suggested years ago?

This how the Amiga worked 40 years ago...

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#397

Post by kllrnohj »

GeekyBear wrote: post #313
kingstnap wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> They charge $900 CAD for 512 GB -> 2 TB SSD. The SSD is user replaceable, so you can replace it with a cheaper third party option.

The Mac Pro is the only Apple system that has user-replaceable storage. The Mac Mini & Studio both feature slotted storage modules, but Apple firmware locks it and so it can't be replaced much less upgraded.

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#398

Post by snvzz »

fmajid wrote: post #82

I cancelled my Framework Desktop order and ordered a HP Z2 Mini G1a instead, the goal being to replace my Mac Studio as I've had it with Apple's arrogance and lousy software quality. The HP is much smaller, has ECC RAM and 10G Ethernet. Significantly more expensive, however.

Lack of ECC is what prevents the Framework Desktop from being anything else than an expensive toy.

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#399

Post by geerlingguy »

yencabulator wrote: post #388
geerlingguy wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed it can be reallocated, needs a reboot though. I've gotten up to around 110 GB before running into OOM issues. I set it at 108 GB to provide a little headroom: https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2025/increasing-vram-alloc...

Also, from your link: > It seems like tools will have to adapt to dynamic VRAM allocation, as none of the monitoring tools I've tested assume VRAM can be increased on the fly. amdgpu_top shows VRAM (the old fixed thing) and GTT (dynamic) separately.

Good to know!

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#400

Post by topspin »

cge wrote: post #249
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…

It’s possible that Apple really did a disservice to soldered RAM by making it a key profit-increasing option for them, exploiting the inability of buyers to buy RAM elsewhere or upgrade later, but in turn making soldered RAM seem like a scam, when it does have fundamental advantages, as you point out. Going from 64 GB to 128 GB of soldered RAM on the Framework Desktop costs €470, which doesn’t seem that much more exp…

Ask yourself this: what is the correct markup for delivering this nearly four years before everyone else? Because that's what Apple did, and why customers have been eagerly paying the cost.

Let us all know when you've computed that answer. I'll be interested, because I have no idea how to go about it.

Post reply on HN