| ▲ | mmoustafa 12 hours ago |
| The out-of-stock $6000 M3 Ultra Mac Studios with 800GB+ memory bandwidth are going for $24,000 on eBay, so yes definitely |
|
| ▲ | thephyber 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I don’t think we should use current prices as landmarks for large scale demand. That Studio’s current prices is inflated because of a (presumably) short term supply crunch, not because the average user is willing to pay $24k for a home AI inference device. It assumes that RAM remains supply constrained and that none of the existing RAM contracts are cut short. But Meta and xAI putting A TON of AI compute onto the market. OpenAI and Anthropic are raising the costs of inference (by reducing how much inference users get via subscriptions). And we haven’t seen Oracle / CoreWeave struggle to pay their debts yet, but they will be selling assets once they get close to that point. |
| |
| ▲ | throw1234567891 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 512GB M3 Ultra is out of stock, not coming back, and there’s nothing like it on the consumer market. That’s the reason they go for so much. | | |
| ▲ | brandensilva 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | But there will be and his point is they cut off supply to make room for the new M5 ultra which I hope has 768GB or more of memory. |
| |
| ▲ | uejfiweun 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What makes you think the supply crunch is short-term? | | |
| ▲ | IsTom 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If demand doesn't fall down or current manufacturers supply go up, somebody (presumably in China) will spin up fabs. Apple wanted to use blacklisted Chinese RAM already. | | |
| ▲ | swader999 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's the euv machines that are the bottleneck. Pretty hard to ramp those up any faster in the next few years. | | |
| ▲ | smallmancontrov 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | DDR5 is still mostly made with DUV (remember Intel 14+++++++++?), and even though manufacturers have slowly been moving a few layers to EUV the advantage is at the margin. Lack of EUV at scale will not prevent China from ramping useful RAM into this market. |
| |
| ▲ | inferniac 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | spinning up fabs takes ages, micron has a US fab started bulding in 2023, its still not operational (projected to start mid-2027) | | |
| ▲ | coldtea 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | That proves that spinning up US fabs takes ages. Chinese fabs might not be so tied with red tape and regulation upon regulation (which is a funny reversal, in terms of "communism vs capitalism" bureucracy/inefficiency cold war thinking) | | |
| ▲ | buckle8017 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The Chinese don't have access to new EUV machines. All of their fabrication ability is based on old processes. | | | |
| ▲ | ralusek 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 1.) China is not communist, even remotely so. China is fascist in every sense of the word. 2.) Authoritarianism can move faster than anything. They can just say "wipe out that village, build the coal plant there, data center here, fab here. 3.) If it's red tape and regulation holding the US back, then that's clearly not "capitalism." | | |
| ▲ | narrator an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I think the most ironic fact of the 21st century is that there are less than 20,000 naturalized citizens in China. Western leftists don't really have a good explanation for that one and it definitely leans into the fascist characterization. | |
| ▲ | coldtea an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | >1.) China is not communist, even remotely so. China is fascist in every sense of the word. Except in the actual historical sense. They appear to enjoy all sorts of freedoms, increased prosperity, even have elections at different levels but under a single party system. Which is not necessarily that different than a effectively two party system. >2.) Authoritarianism can move faster than anything. They can just say "wipe out that village, build the coal plant there, data center here, fab here. Now that China is more effective, "it's easy because they're authoritarian". Before the argument was "authoritarianism can never be as effective as free-market democracy". >3.) If it's red tape and regulation holding the US back, then that's clearly not "capitalism." It's real world capitalism, not some fantasy some guy imagined removing all warts. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | not-a-llm 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | where is this cheap Chinese RAM? I'd like to buy some | | |
| ▲ | officeplant 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ebay and Amazon are flooded with it. Especially if you are looking for anything prior to DDR5. DDR2 and DDR3 are especially flooded with weird brands you've never heard of before. Unfortunately its not so cheap anymore as everyone ramped prices up of course. Last year I could still get 32GB of DDR4 for under $60 from chinese brands. | | |
| ▲ | not-a-llm 42 minutes ago | parent [-] | | DDR3 is from 10 years ago. DDR2 is from 15. | | |
| ▲ | officeplant 20 minutes ago | parent [-] | | And? I just upgraded my 2008 Thinkpad R61i to 8GB of DDR2 a few months ago while I was also upgrading to a core2duo. DDR2 and DDR3 are still in active use by SBC manufacturers. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | byzantinegene 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I am hopeful but I am not confident China has the capability to do it. | | |
| ▲ | coldtea 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | As if it requires some unique genes or brains? If a place can do it, another place, with a huge track record on manufacturing and lately expanding all kinds of tech, can. | | |
| ▲ | pfannkuchen 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | It might help to not have much in the way of environmental, safety or labor regulations. Whether or not you feel like those are good overall (I do), they do actually also slow things down. | | |
| ▲ | coldtea 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | >It might help to not have much in the way of environmental, safety or labor regulations. Yes, like how it helped western industry early on. Or, well into the 70s for the most part. |
|
| |
| ▲ | anonym29 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | They're already doing it https://www.techspot.com/news/112502-memory-prices-tipped-fa... |
|
| |
| ▲ | t-3 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If the increased demand is not short term, production capacity will eventually increase. In the meantime, the logistics disruptions and industrial material shortages and energy inflation will disappear as soon as the wars disrupting them stop, which should bring prices down. | | |
| ▲ | not-a-llm 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | you assume demand will remain flat what if demand keeps rising faster than production capacity is deployed? | | |
| ▲ | t-3 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | If demand and prices keep rising without production capacity being built fast enough, there will likely eventually be a rush leading to overinvestment and price crashes, but there are too many other factors involved; state investment for security, international politics and trade relations, the possibility of an AI bubble burst, etc. |
| |
| ▲ | MomsAVoxell 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There are wars coming. The prices are not going down. We are in a bubble which will be burst the moment the world starts retaliating against the US' 20+ year history of supporting genocide and committing war crimes unabated. Buy the AI toys while you still can. |
| |
| ▲ | msdz 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Unless the raw materials have an inherent limit on mining/production due to the amount present on the planet, why should or would companies not ramp up to eventually meet demand? Edit: Okay, this doesn’t mean that that’s actually possible in the short-term, so I think you’re right. But that means as the silver lining, in the medium term horizon there’ll be enough supply again? :’) | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | > why should or would companies not ramp up to eventually meet demand? Memory is a cyclical market that has historically rewarded conservatism [1]. Counterpoint: there is enough demand from enough capital-rich customers that they may be willing to shoulder the capital risk. [1] https://www.ldeepai.com/tech-hub/dram-industry-consolidation... Sorry for the slop link, it has a good chart from a solid source | | |
| ▲ | wongarsu 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | For existing producers expanding capacity would be a risky move. But it's the perfect time for any newcomers to enter the market. Low yields and worse product don't matter as much right now, and by the time the market cools down you have everything dialed in and can compete on even ground | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > it's the perfect time for any newcomers to enter the market This is a good hypothesis. Curious if anyone has data on the failure rates of new entrants in semiconductors based on how frothy it was on founding. On one hand, more demand makes selling easier. On the other hand, a shortage makes your input costs (consumable and capital) pricier. EDIT: It seems like the 2 to 3 year lead time and a crowding effect from new entrants historically made booting up a fab into a boom a bad bet [1]. (The article argues, convincingly, that this time may be different.) [1] https://www.uncoveralpha.com/p/every-memory-cycle-ends-the-s... |
| |
| ▲ | AussieWog93 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I heard that China was spinning up DDR5 (but not HBM?) production in the next couple of years, with the hope of outcompeting Korea and Taiwan in the mid to long term. | | |
| ▲ | HPsquared 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | It does seem like an opportunity on a silver platter for Chinese newcomers. Huge demand at the moment. |
| |
| ▲ | msdz 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Thanks for the link (and underlying thoughts), I really hadn’t considered that. So essentially, due to technological progress and other factors inducing price collapses (or at least cycles), you can’t start stockpiling insane amounts of finished-product semiconductor, which means you can’t scale production at current technology levels to infinity either? | |
| ▲ | techpression 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Don't forget price fixing [1] which we are seeing clear indicators of happening right now too. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAM_price_fixing_scandal | |
| ▲ | djfergus 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | trebligdivad 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yeh I don't know why the emphasise the 'neural engine' - it's their stonking RAM bandwidth that just blows everything else out of the water. |
|
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Let me clarify, I think Apple could sell a device at the scale Apple sells at around the $10 to 25 thousand price point. Like, take out the price sheets for the Apple Car. Then sell me an AI tower at those price points. |
| |
| ▲ | fy20 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | In 2010 one of the standard configurations for the Mac Pro was $4,999. Once you customised ram, storage, peripherals and software it could easily end up above $15,000, or $23k today accounting for inflation. Apple hardware is one thing that has actually got cheaper over time. https://www.macworld.com/article/209019/macguide2010.html | |
| ▲ | eitally 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think so, too, and I think it'll end up being a race between Apple & NVIDIA (or NVIDIA partners) to see who realizes this first. It would probably be easier for Apple to do it because it wouldn't require a form factor adjustment [over the Mac Studio they already have]. That said, NVIDIA already offers chipsets for both the lower end (DGX Spark with Vera + GB10, at roughly the $4500 price point) and higher end (DGX Station with Vera + GB300, for $85-100k). The DGX Station is equivalent to ~5-6 RTX6000 GPUs attached to a mid-range CPU server, but far more than most individual developers would want or need. I've heard through the grapevine that NVIDIA's received consistent feedback that they need something like a "GB20" that slots above the Spark/GB10 and can simultaneously run larger models for inference while hosting a dev environment on the same box. You can daisy-chain Sparks just like you can daisy-chain Mac Minis, but you're still constrained on model performance based on what a single device can accommodate. | | |
| ▲ | bigyabai 27 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Form factor is the easy part - both Nvidia and Apple are experienced SOC designers. The hard part is the GPU architecture. Apple Silicon was designed with a laser focus on raster efficiency (similar to AMD's GPUs) which makes a lot of sense for highly mobile hardware, but is a crippling mistake for high-performance compute. Apple's largest Ultra chips are hamstrung with SOC-tier GPU performance, their highest-end desktops are outperformed by Nvidia's laptop offerings. Apple has to find a way to scale upwards without imposing too much architectural strain on their cheaper hardware like the iPhone and Macbook. Nvidia has already solved this issue; full CUDA compute stacks are usable on extremely cheap GPUs like the Nintendo Switch's Tegra SOC, or the Mac Mini-sized Jetson boards. In terms of "who needs to redesign more to address the market", Apple has a lot of technical debt to unearth before they catch up to Nvidia. And if they do catch up, Nvidia will still support Linux and other differentiating features that Apple refuses to implement. It definitely feels like Nvidia is closer to a winner with the Spark than Apple is with the Mini or Studio. |
| |
| ▲ | bigyabai 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Or they could use that same amount of memory to ship 64x Macbook Neos, and probably make higher margins off the hardware volume. Those Macbook Neo users would be very reliant on Apple intelligence, enough maybe to pay for a service with it. I think Apple's much happier going this path. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Or they could use that same amount of memory to ship 64x Macbook Neos, and probably make higher margins off the hardware volume If it's an "or," absolutely. But if it's an or, they should be prioritising Macbooks over the Mac Mini Doug Brooks is discussing. When we breach the "and" of memory supply sufficient to allow for more Mac minis (and Mac Studios), I think it would make sense to consider relaunching Xserve (with new branding, of course) as a consumer/small business product. | | |
| ▲ | bigyabai an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Memory supply isn't what held back XServe. We wouldn't need XServe if Apple treated the Mac like a regular computer and supported usable, first-class headless workflows and eGPUs. The writing has been on the wall since 2019. Apple doesn't like the old way of computing, their goal is to expand the ecosystem by prioritizing install-base and then pushing first-party service offerings like they did with the iPhone. And like they did with the iPhone, Apple is great at ignoring power users to focus on features that make them more money. You may be waiting a few decades for this type of product, memory supply be damned. | |
| ▲ | LastTrain 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If we reach the and, then they can no longer demand the price |
| |
| ▲ | gizajob 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They could do both though. The margin from one user buying a $25000 is sky high compared to sixty kids all with the cheapest computer possible. | | |
| ▲ | bigyabai 41 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It's really not. Apple's phone margins have been as high as 30-40% per-unit, it's likely that they make at least ~$80-150 per Macbook Neo sold. At the $150 mark (which is probably accurate factoring in lifetime service spend), that's a $10,000 minimum return on the 64x Macbook Neos. Apple can charge that type of premium on consumer hardware, but they're in no position to command $10,000 margins on professional hardware. They're not Nvidia, Apple has always been LARPing as an HPC vendor. |
| |
| ▲ | jiqiren 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | When I was at Apple we never wanted or. We wanted all. If that push to use Chinese memory works out it will be great for us and Apple. | | |
| ▲ | bigyabai an hour ago | parent [-] | | Apple sure doesn't act like it. The Mac is still a minority market share of PCs, and their entrants into spaces like AR do nothing to compete with incumbents. Now that the Mac Pro is depreciated, Apple's plan to pivot to service offerings seems set in stone. That's the "want it all" attitude they've adopted with the App Store. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | testing22321 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I’m still disappointed they didn’t make a Mac Pro with 4 or 8 or 16 or 32 ultra M chips for something insane |
|
|
| ▲ | moritzwarhier 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Not the same issue, but makes me nostalgic for these simpler times: https://www.wired.com/2011/04/amazon-flies-24-million/ |
|
| ▲ | cactusplant7374 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| How much did Apple sell them for? |
|
| ▲ | api 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I’m sure that hasn’t gone unnoticed. |