Live data from Hacker News

Google's First Tensor Processing Unit: Architecture

thechipletter.substack.com

91–100 of 197 posts

Re: Google's First Tensor Processing Unit: Architecture

#91
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many people are out there buying H100s for their personal use?

Probably many orders of magnitude greater than those buying TPU's for personal use...

Technically correct, but only because TPUs aren't for sale. H100s cost like 30,000 USD, if you can even get one.

Re: Google's First Tensor Processing Unit: Architecture

#92

Sigh...learning about TPUs a decade ago made me invest heavily in $GOOG for the coming AI revolution...got that one 100% wrong. +400% over 10 years isn't bad but I can't help but feel shortchanged seeing nvidia/etc

Could've bought $QQQ unless you expected one of the components to do especially badly.

Re: Google's First Tensor Processing Unit: Architecture

#93
What Google really needs to do is get into the 2nm EUV space and go sub 2nm. When they have the electro lithography (or whatever tech ASML has that prints on the chips) then you have something really dangerous. Probably a hardcore Google X moonshot type project. Or maybe they have 500mm sitting around to just buy one of the machines. If their tpu are really that good - maybe it is a good business - especially if they can integrate all the way to having their own fab with their own tech

Re: Google's First Tensor Processing Unit: Architecture

#94
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s almost 15% per year, quite a lot.

yeah, but nvda is up like 500% in 2 years, so if you’re naive enough to think you can time the market, you’d have fomo over having invested in the “wrong” thing.

Seeing the difference between GPT2 and GPT3 made me run to NVDA immediately. One of the few bets in my life I've ever been confident about. I think NVDA was a pretty reasonable bet on AI like 5+, maybe 10 years ago when deep learning was ramping up.

Re: Google's First Tensor Processing Unit: Architecture

#95
post #21

Sigh...learning about TPUs a decade ago made me invest heavily in $GOOG for the coming AI revolution...got that one 100% wrong. +400% over 10 years isn't bad but I can't help but feel shortchanged seeing nvidia/etc

I don't think anybody in 2014 believed that the performance of GPT-4/Claude Opus/... was 10 years away. 25 years maybe, 50 years probably, but not 10.

It wasn't just that, it was also all the deep learning stuff. Atari games playing themselves, deep style and variants. There was some interesting image generation happening. AlphaGo was 2015, etc. that was really when things started accelerating imo.

Re: Google's First Tensor Processing Unit: Architecture

#96
post #29

On the podcast interview now Groq CEO Jonathon Ross did[1] he talked about the creation of the original TPUs (which he built at Google). Apparently originally it was a FPGA he did in his 20% time because he sat near the team who was having inference speed issues. They got it working, then Jeff Dean did the math and the decided to do an ASIC. Now of course Google should spin off the TPU team as a separate company. It'…

> It's the only credible competition NVidia has

This is wrong, both AMD and Intel (through Habana) have GPUs comparable to H100s in performance.

Re: Google's First Tensor Processing Unit: Architecture

#97
post #29

On the podcast interview now Groq CEO Jonathon Ross did[1] he talked about the creation of the original TPUs (which he built at Google). Apparently originally it was a FPGA he did in his 20% time because he sat near the team who was having inference speed issues. They got it working, then Jeff Dean did the math and the decided to do an ASIC. Now of course Google should spin off the TPU team as a separate company. It'…

The way I see, NVidia only has a few advantages ordered from most important to least: 1. Reserved fab space. 2. Highly integrated software. 3. Hardware architecture that exists today. 4. Customer relationships. but all of these aspects are weak in one way or another: For #1, fab space is tight, and NVidia can strangle its consumer GPU market if it means selling more AI chips at a higher price. This advantage is gone…

These have always been NVIDIA's "few" advantages and yet they've still dominated for years. It's their relentless pace of innovation that is their advantage. They resemble Intel of old, and despite Intel's same "few" advantages, Intel is still dominant in the PC space (even with recent missteps).

Re: Google's First Tensor Processing Unit: Architecture

#98
post #29

On the podcast interview now Groq CEO Jonathon Ross did[1] he talked about the creation of the original TPUs (which he built at Google). Apparently originally it was a FPGA he did in his 20% time because he sat near the team who was having inference speed issues. They got it working, then Jeff Dean did the math and the decided to do an ASIC. Now of course Google should spin off the TPU team as a separate company. It'…

The way I see, NVidia only has a few advantages ordered from most important to least: 1. Reserved fab space. 2. Highly integrated software. 3. Hardware architecture that exists today. 4. Customer relationships. but all of these aspects are weak in one way or another: For #1, fab space is tight, and NVidia can strangle its consumer GPU market if it means selling more AI chips at a higher price. This advantage is gone…

>2. Highly integrated software.

NVidia's biggest advantage is that AMD is unwilling to pay for top notch software engineers (and unwilling to pay the corresponding increase in hardware engineer salaries this would entail). If you check online you'll see NVidia pays both hardware and software engineers significantly more than AMD does. This is a cultural/management problem, which AMD's unlikely to overcome in the near-term future. Apple so far seems like the only other hardware company that doesn't underpay its engineers, but Apple's unlikely to release a discrete/stand-alone GPU any time soon.

Re: Google's First Tensor Processing Unit: Architecture

#99
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an old joke explanation about Xerox and PARC, about the difficulty of "pitching a 'paperless office' to a photocopier company". In Google's case, an example analogy would be pitching making something like ChatGPT widely available, when that would disrupt revenue from search engine paid placements, and from ads on sites that people wouldn't need to visit. (So maybe someone says, better to phase it in subtly, a…

This (innovator's dilemma / too afraid of disrupting your own ads business model) is the most common explanation folks are giving for this, but seems to be some sort of post-rationalization of why such a large company full of competent researchers/engineers would drop the ball this hard. My read (having seen some of this on the inside), is that it was a mix of being too worried about safety issues (OMG, the chatbot o…

Google gets much more scrutiny then smaller companies so it's understandable to be worried. Pretty much any small mistake of theirs turns into clickbait on here and the other tech news sites and you get hundreds of comments about how evil Big Tech is. Of course it's their own fault that their PR hews negative so frequently but still it's understandable why they were so shy.

Re: Google's First Tensor Processing Unit: Architecture

#100

What Google really needs to do is get into the 2nm EUV space and go sub 2nm. When they have the electro lithography (or whatever tech ASML has that prints on the chips) then you have something really dangerous. Probably a hardcore Google X moonshot type project. Or maybe they have 500mm sitting around to just buy one of the machines. If their tpu are really that good - maybe it is a good business - especially if they…

This is frankly infeasible. Between the decades of trade secrets they would first need to discover, the tens- or maybe hundreds- of billions in capital needed to build their very first leading edge fab, the decade or two it would take for any such business to mature to the extent it would be functional, and the completely inconsequential volumes of devices they'd produce, they would probably be lighting half a trillion dollars on fire just to get a few years behind where the leading edge sits today, ten or more years from now. The only reason leading edge fabs are profitable today is because of decades of talent and engineering focused on producing general purpose computing devices for a wide variety of applications and customers, often with those very same customers driving innovation independently in critical focus areas (e.g. Micron with chip-on-chip HDI yield improvements, Xilinx with interdie communication fabric and multi chip substrate design). TPUs will never generate the required volumes, or attract the necessary customers, to achieve remotely profitable economies of scale, particularly when Google also has to set an attractive price against their competitors.

If Google has a compelling-enough business case, existing fabs will happily allocate space for their hardware. TPU is not remotely compelling enough.

Post reply on HN