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

401–410 of 464 posts

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#401

Post by jmb99 »

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.

> The only essential part of sockets vs solder is the metal-metal contacts.

Yeah... And that’s a pretty damn big difference. A connector is always going to result in worse signal integrity than a high-quality solder joint in the real world.

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#402

Post by zamadatix »

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…

One note is the Mac Mini surprisingly has 3rd party SSD upgrades now as well. Both gauge the storage price a bit, so probably best to just go 3rd party for both unless you're going to stick with the base storage.

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#403

Post by kbolino »

topspin wrote: post #380
kbolino wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

As I said, consumers play a part here too. But I don't see the causal line from the physics to the stagnation, stovepiping, artificial market segmentation, and cartelization we see in the computer component industries.

Soldering RAM has always been around and it has its benefits. I'm not convinced of its necessity however. We're just now getting a new memory socket form factor but the need was emerging a decade ago.

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#404

Post by kbolino »

jmb99 wrote: post #401
kbolino wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The only essential part of sockets vs solder is the metal-metal contacts. Yeah... And that’s a pretty damn big difference. A connector is always going to result in worse signal integrity than a high-quality solder joint in the real world.

Is that really the long pole in the tent, though?

No doubt the most tightly integrated package can outperform a looser collection of components. But if we could shorten the distances, tighten the tolerances, and have the IC companies work on improving the whole landscape instead of just narrow, disjointed pieces slowly one at a time, then would the unsoldered connections still cause a massive performance loss or just a minor one?

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#405

Post by bl0b »

DiabloD3 wrote: post #166
komali2 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are non legacy codebases using, then?

Largely Vulkan. Microsoft internally is a huge consumer of DirectML for specifically the LLM team doing Phi and the Copilot deployment that lives at Azure.

Such a huge consumer that they deprecated it

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#406

Post by benreesman »

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…

Strix Halo is one of the tier-1 out-of-the-box perfect targets for for // hypermodern // nixos so I'm tuning it for the EVO-X2 which was the first desktop one available (and we'll support omarchy's hyprland rice out of the box, its a nice rice even if I prefer Ono-Sendai).

That's getting you twice the RAM for the same price. Now the Framework has both intangible cool factor and scope for more upgrades, so if money is no object, get the Framework.

But I can vouch for the EVO-X2 as the real Strix Halo experience: its thermals are solid, and even under sustained 100W+ its quieter than the average gaming PC. Obviously an elite ITX build can do better, but it's jaw-dropping at the price point: great ports, plenty of M.2 capacity, stable under extreme load, and a lot cheaper.

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#407

Post by m_mueller »

jchw wrote: post #211
esafak wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the purposes of running LLM models, a Mac Mini. The PC is cheaper, but it doesn't have MacOS, Apple's service or resale value.

Actually the pricing is pretty similar. Framework Desktop price with default selections, 32GB of RAM, 500 GB storage: $1,242.00 USD Mac Mini with 32GB of RAM, 512 GB storage: $1,199.00 Post changed a bit since I started replying, so: > For the purposes of running LLM models, a Mac Mini The M4 Max is the one that actually gives you a shit load of memory bandwidth. If you just get a normal M4 it's not going to be espec…

Macs can run Windows just fine, through Parallels. It’s more efficient at doing so than most ARM based windows machines on sale still. And I found software compatibility with Windows 11 for ARM to be a non issue nowadays.

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#408

Post by fc417fc802 »

ajross wrote: post #378
BirAdam wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The ICs, yeah. Not so much power supplies, screens, etc. I've had the former go up in flames and the later delaminate - my current laptop has small bubbles around the edges of the screen.

I've also had high wattage GPUs inexplicably fail and lost a few SSDs to unexpected catastrophic failure. TBF I haven't lost any halfway decent SSDs within the past 5 years.

I don't think I've ever lost a motherboard, CPU, or RAM though. Even secondhand recycled data center stuff. It seems to just keep working forever.

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#409

Post by GeekyBear »

kllrnohj wrote: post #397
GeekyBear wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There is no firmware lock, and here's the iFixIt guide for doing it.

> How to Replace the SSD in your Mac mini (2024)

https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/How+to+Replace+the+SSD+in+your+...

Re: The Framework Desktop is a beast

#410

Post by toasterlovin »

MegaDeKay wrote: post #298
toasterlovin wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple Silicon is simply not that special in the grand scheme of things Apple Silicon might not be that special from an architecture perspective (although treating integrated GPUs as appropriate for workloads other than low end laptops was a break with industry trends), but it’s very special from an economic perspective. The Apple Silicon unit volumes from iPhones have financed TSMC’s rise to semiconductor process d…

Apple was just the highest bidder for getting the latest TSMC process. They wouldn't have had a problem getting other customers to buy up that capacity. And Intel's missteps counted for a substantial part of the process dominance you refer to. So I'd argue that Apple isn't that special here either.

Until Apple forced other chip makers to respond, nobody else was making high end phone processors. And their A series processors are competitive with and have transistor counts comparable to most mobile and desktop PC processors (and have for years). So the alternate reality where Apple isn't a TSMC customer means that TSMC is no longer manufacturing several hundred million high transistor count processors per year. In my opinion, it’s pretty likely TSMC isn’t able to achieve or maintain process dominance without that.

Update: To give an idea of the scales involved here, Apple had iPhone revenue in 2024 of about $200B. At an average selling price of $1k, we get 200 million units. Thats a ballpark estimate, they don’t release unit volumes, AFAIK. This link from IDC[1] has the global PC market in 2024 at about 267 million units. Apple also has iPads and Macs, so their unit processor volume is roughly comparable to the entire PC market. But, and this is hugely important: every single processor that Apple ships is comparable in performance (and, thus, transistor counts) to high end PC processors. So their transistor volume probably exceeds the entire PC CPU market. And the majority of it is fabbed on TSMC’s leading process node in any given year.

[1]: https://my.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS53061925

Post reply on HN