Live data from Hacker News

Nvidia is proposing a beast of a CPU system for Windows PCs

twitter.com

561–570 of 581 posts

Re: Nvidia is proposing a beast of a CPU system for Windows PCs

#561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> LPCAMM2 supports up to 9600MT/s, which appears to be the same speed Apple is using. The difference here is in what the standard defines on paper vs what is actually shipping in products and readily available off the shelf. Who's selling a whole system with LPCAMM2 certified for 9600MT/s? Intel's current-gen Panther Lake top of the line laptop chips are rated for 9600MT/s when using soldered LPDDR5x but only 7467MT/…

> Who's selling a whole system with LPCAMM2 certified for 9600MT/s? The 9600MT/s modules are new and will probably be found at some point this year. Framework already sells LPCAMM2 at 8533MT/s with full validation: https://knowledgebase.frame.work/what-drammemory-is-supporte... > That puts the current Intel-with-LPCAMM2 supported memory speed at 1.5 years and counting lag behind Apple's shipping memory speeds. It tur…

> Framework already sells LPCAMM2 at 8533MT/s with full validation:

From your link:

> Framework Laptop 13 Pro (Intel® Core™ Ultra Series 3) supports one slot of LPCAMM2 memory up to 96GB at the native 7467 MT/s speed. It is compatible with LPCAMM2 modules with memory speed rated above 7467 MT/s, but the speed will be capped at 7467 MT/s because of the platform limitation.

The modules in question can only theoretically operate at 8533MT/s. Framework has yet to sell a system where the modules actually operate at more than 7467MT/s.

> It turns out Apple isn't getting 9600MT/s either. I assumed that soldering would be getting them at least what LPCAMM2 is rated for, but if you actually do the math, they're getting ~8500MT/s for their most expensive systems and ~7500MT/s for the others.

You're either doing the math wrong, or just plain looking at the wrong systems. Try looking at the M5 generation.

> CAMM modules use a compression fitting to attach the chips to the system board using approximately the same amount of space as the solder pads would for soldered chips. If you get to the point of having so many channels that the chips are in the way of the other chips then the soldered ones have the same problem.

Yes, that's a problem, and Apple has solved it by moving the DRAM on-package. Datacenter GPUs have also solved it that way by putting the DRAM on a silicon interposer to allow even wider bus widths. Soldering standard DRAM packages on the motherboard is not the limit of how memory can be soldered down.

> A single LPCAMM2 module is a 128-bit bus. Every system that uses it has at least that.

Yes, 128 bits at lower speeds. Did you forget that the whole point I'm making here is that the speeds are not the same?

> Nobody is really using a bus that wide with soldered memory either though, outside of the couple of Macs that start at ~$3500 and are getting the same speed Framework does with LPCAMM2.

The Mac Studio with the M3 Ultra is actually running the DRAM at a lower frequency than what Framework and other Intel-based systems could, but more than making up for it in bus width, to provide far more total memory bandwidth than any plausible LPCAMM2-based system that could be built today.

Re: Nvidia is proposing a beast of a CPU system for Windows PCs

#562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who's selling a whole system with LPCAMM2 certified for 9600MT/s? The 9600MT/s modules are new and will probably be found at some point this year. Framework already sells LPCAMM2 at 8533MT/s with full validation: https://knowledgebase.frame.work/what-drammemory-is-supporte... > That puts the current Intel-with-LPCAMM2 supported memory speed at 1.5 years and counting lag behind Apple's shipping memory speeds. It tur…

> Framework already sells LPCAMM2 at 8533MT/s with full validation: From your link: > Framework Laptop 13 Pro (Intel® Core™ Ultra Series 3) supports one slot of LPCAMM2 memory up to 96GB at the native 7467 MT/s speed. It is compatible with LPCAMM2 modules with memory speed rated above 7467 MT/s, but the speed will be capped at 7467 MT/s because of the platform limitation. The modules in question can only theoreticall…

> You're either doing the math wrong, or just plain looking at the wrong systems. Try looking at the M5 generation.

The M5 generation isn't "1.5 years old" and even those aren't all that speed. The M5 Max with the 32-core GPU is ~7200MT/s, while the one with the 40-core GPU is over $4000.

> Yes, that's a problem, and Apple has solved it by moving the DRAM on-package.

There is no "package" here. Apple's processors are soldered to the logic board, as are Intel's in laptops. The DRAM Apple uses is standard LPDDR5 from the normal OEMs. Have a look at the LPCAMM2 module. It has four standard DRAM chips on the top and a connector on the bottom. DDR5 channels are really 32-bits, so the 128-bit module has four channels, four chips. The module is barely any larger than the chips themselves. It's not saving significant space by soldering them, it's just an alternative means of attaching them to the system board in the same place.

> Yes, 128 bits at lower speeds.

At the same speeds Apple was shipping a few months ago. Apple being the first to ship LPDDR5-9600 when it was that recent doesn't imply that it needs to be soldered, it implies that they're a huge company that can pay for early access to the new thing whether it's soldered or not. 9600MT/s LPCAMM2 modules have already been announced -- it's not a technical problem, it's an "Apple and OpenAI are buying out the fastest DRAM right now" problem.

> The Mac Studio with the M3 Ultra is actually running the DRAM at a lower frequency than what Framework and other Intel-based systems could, but more than making up for it in bus width, to provide far more total memory bandwidth than any plausible LPCAMM2-based system that could be built today.

By this logic the thing to beat it is the 8S Xeon servers from almost a decade ago with 48 channels of DDR4-2666. Or existing 2S servers with 24 channels of DDR5-6400.

Re: Nvidia is proposing a beast of a CPU system for Windows PCs

#563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you in theory. A couple of points - that’s currently the most experience and high performing card on the market. Most people on steam are using an RTX 3060 which has more like 360GB/s. That’s a factor of 6. How do you design resource usage that scales with that amount of extremity? (We try to, fwiw). That spec is also a throughput measured per second whereas our frame rates are much higher than 1/s. At 6…

All good points. Absolutely an RTX 3060 is a more normal gamer GPU than the 5090, but you're also not playing in 4k without DLSS on a 3060. Drop to the most common resolution on Steam (1080p), and turn on DLSS and you've basically cancelled out that 6x factor in bandwidth. Even if the 3060 had more bandwidth, it doesn't have enough processing power for native 4k gaming in typical games. So 360 GB/s is still a lot of…

Playing at 1080p doesn’t reduce your texture size, for the most part. You still use those 4k textures because you’re only seeing a subset of the texture projected at a close distance. We’re still using 4k textures for terrain brushes to cover the 6km open worlds.

DLSS isn’t just a magic on switch for free perfect up scaling. If you rendered at 720p and DLSS’ed up to 1080 it’s still going to look pretty rubbish.Its always surprising to me just how many people have 1080 monitors though given we’ve had more than that for two generations of consoles.

And lastly - all the same points still apply about frame rate (which can be more than 60) and memory bandwidth per frame and cache invalidation etc at 360GB/S, as they do at 1.8TB/s

Re: Nvidia is proposing a beast of a CPU system for Windows PCs

#564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You meant a 128GB (instead of 12GB)? And yes, a L4 cache can be one way out of that problem. Another way is making the L3 cache lines wider and working the hell out of improving your management algorithm. It's not a theoretically impossible problem. It's also not something you can solve automatically with a bit more money or some simple decisions. It's possible this is the best architecture available, but it's not ce…

I mean 12GB, an amount that is typical in such a system today, which you can buy at any computer store.

Yeah but unfortunately I hear trying to get more than that is quite hard

Re: Nvidia is proposing a beast of a CPU system for Windows PCs

#565
post #307

The Unified Memory pool is what will continue to be the “game changer” in systems architecture, especially outside of data centers. The reality is even cutting edge games and consumer workloads don’t actually take full use of the PCIe bandwidth of the GPU or the bandwidth of its GDDR memory. Even local AI use cases don’t substantially or meaningfully benefit from faster memory, at least to average consumers. A unifie…

And conveniently, by making your machine non upgradeable, it allows the manufacturer to enforce market segmentation / charge a huge premium for small RAM upgrade ( a la Apple)

A note that this was rather common on the days before PC clones took off.

The vertical integration many associate with Apple, was the common approach to most 8 and 16 bit home computers.

Naturally after all these years, many PC vendors want their margins back, and thus the phenomenon of everyone going back to vertical integration, especially in form factors that are ideal for such, like laptops, tablets and phones.

So the option boils down to classical desktops, or being picky on which laptops to buy.

Re: Nvidia is proposing a beast of a CPU system for Windows PCs

#566
post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does Darwin matter more than Windows?

I assume because most windows installs are corporate IT garbage that if anyone cared about performance they could just turn off one of the three endpoint protection services or tune the backup service down and get better results than processor upgrades.

I can 100% assure you that there is corporate IT garbage available for macOS and Linux as well.

Re: Nvidia is proposing a beast of a CPU system for Windows PCs

#567
post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people care so much about single core performance? We are all professionals here and I bet most of our workloads are multi core. I get that these new arm chips from Apple and Qualcomm are great at one thing at a time, but for professional workloads high end x64 chips still cannot be beaten on the desktop.

Single core performance is the biggest factor for most day-to-day use of a computer, the stuff I do on a laptop. It's more important than peak multi core performance for web browsing and games. I only care about multi core performance when I'm compiling, and I usually do heavy compiles on a remote machine rather than on my laptop.

Which hardly matters because in modern OSes there isn't a single thread that runs to completion without being preempted by other OS work.

Re: Nvidia is proposing a beast of a CPU system for Windows PCs

#568
post #212

The Qualcomm Snapdragon X2 Elite Extreme trounces Nvidia's chip in single core CPU performance. It beats Intel and AMD's best, too. It has unified memory. It's the only CPU in the same league as Apple's M-series in both CPU performance and power efficiency. And it's available in laptops today, not later this year. People are sleeping on Qualcomm.

Why do people care so much about single core performance? We are all professionals here and I bet most of our workloads are multi core. I get that these new arm chips from Apple and Qualcomm are great at one thing at a time, but for professional workloads high end x64 chips still cannot be beaten on the desktop.

It is a feel good kind of thing usually repeated by folks that don't understand OS scheduling algorithms.

Unless we're talking about RTOS, threads are always interrupted, thus how fast a single one can race is irrelevant in the whole picture.

Re: Nvidia is proposing a beast of a CPU system for Windows PCs

#569

And who in 2026 is still anal-fixated on a "Windows" PC? It's just a personal computer. It normally runs multiple operating systems just fine. Windows PC sounds like people talking about tech who are either payed by M$, or embed pictures into Word documents to send them. Nobody has to kill the fun those OS agnostic machine allow, by artificially bind them to a shitty OS.

The 80% of desktop market, and Valve porting Windows PC games into SteamDeck.

Re: Nvidia is proposing a beast of a CPU system for Windows PCs

#570
post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hopefully anyone who wants to run anything other than Windows on an Nvidia-produced device has learned their lessons at this point. Although, a cursed Nvidia Hackintosh would be extremely funny. For normal people, there are three computer operating systems: Windows, Apple, and ChromeOS. Nvidia isn't going with ChromeOS and Apple hates their guts, so Windows is the only normal operating system they can market. Their m…

Windows is dying a death by a thousand small, user-unfriendly decisions. This is genuinely sad because the technology underlying Windows is actually very robust and flexible. So, the partnership is maybe natural, but not prospective. Also, note how Linux is getting popular among gamers. Of course, it's way behind Windows, but the direction of the change is clear. I'm convinced that Nvidia is not primarily targeting t…

Apparently Valve still needs Proton, regardless.

Linux won't be popular for much longer among gamers if the Proton fountain dries out.

Post reply on HN