The Qualcomm Snapdragon X2 Elite Extreme trounces Nvidia's chip in single core CPU performance. It beats Intel and AMD's best, too. 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.
Seems like not? Judging based on https://github.com/qualcomm-linuxsomething is happening, although I can't say how much. They definitively seem awake at least.
Qualcomm has been upstreaming Linux support for some of their chips but they're not working fast enough and I don't think the latest chips are there yet unfortunately.
Qualcomm is a “fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, you don’t fool me twice” kind of situation. So many horrible experiences in the past that people are going to be hesitant.
Qualcomm are trying harder now it seems. But it will take time to repair their reputation in the PC market.
"I am not sure how many people will run AI models locally. It still seems like a niche application to me. However, it will make decent machines to play video games."
I don't know who will be the winner but with some of the recent releases from gemma it seems more probable that you may run some models locally if only from a cost perspective, not even considering business security. Not sure how this type of architecture would make for good gaming though, puts into question the whole statement.
"Ranked in the top 2% of scientists globally (Stanford/Elsevier 2025) and among GitHub's top 1000 developers" - side note but this guy puts this everywhere, gives me probably the inverse of what he is marketing for.
"I am not sure how many people will run AI models locally. It still seems like a niche application to me. However, it will make decent machines to play video games..."
This is the 2026 edition of Ken Olsen:
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home"
> This is the 2026 edition of Ken Olsen: "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home"
Digging into this:
> In conclusion, there is evidence that Ken Olsen did doubt the need for computers in the home, but the evidence is based primarily on the testimony of David Ahl who was perturbed when the personal computer project he championed at DEC was not supported by Olsen in 1974.
> Olsen’s resistance may have been similar to that expressed by another DEC executive, Gordon Bell. In 1980 Bell thought home terminals would act as gateways to remote computers which would provide appropriate services.
It was supposedly said in 1977: most computers at that time were not small, and so it would not be surprising that people would not expect the general public to desire a large, power-hungry, noise-y apparatus in their house.
People take these quotes out of context all the time. Said in a business context, there was no need, at that time, for someone to have a personal computer.
There's no business justification in 1977 for a personal computer department at a business. It's similar to the gates quote about RAM (I think it was 64KB?).
These statements aren't meant to be forever quotes. Their business plan quotes.
He had a long career and presumably many successes, and is fallible like the rest of us. But a half-remembered zinger with no context makes for zippier posts I guess.
The early popularity of Minitel, the continued popularity of ssh/tmux, and the web browser itself indicates that bespoke client applications are not the only way. He wasn’t directionally wrong.
Local models aren’t deterministically equivalent in capabilities to foundation models. Home computers are turing complete; just like a mainframe. They are just slower. Often not slower enough to matter.
Most people are ok with slower. An AI that lets you edit a family picture, in say 30 seconds, locally is preferable to one that is instantaneous but requires you to submit that picture to examination/storage/training/sale in someone else's AI ecosystem. If i want to crop my ex out of family photos, i should not have to first give that photo to Microsoft. If want an LLM to write a book report for me, i dont want it also alerting my school. And if i write a memo for a client, and i want an LLM to check the spelling, i dont want that memo leaked either.
I'd like to think so but the existence of Google and Apple and Microsoft's cloud based photo tools with phone integration suggests that's false.
You could run a pretty good home server on $50 of gear and yet we never saw any real adoption of OwnCloud/NextCloud style products as an alternative to Google Drive/Photos or Apple Cloud.
Why should LLM/Transformers be any different? Especially when you need a proper expensive GPU to run them instead of a Raspberry Pi?
> Most people are ok with slower. An AI that lets you edit a family picture, in say 30 seconds, locally is preferable to one that is instantaneous but requires you to submit that picture to examination/storage/training/sale in someone else's AI ecosystem.
Maybe if you ask them that question, but if you show them two products, they'll definitely prefer the faster one. 30 seconds is a long time to watch a progress bar.
Nobody ever said that, at least not as an assertion or prediction. The actual instances of similar language are from multiple people describing their earlier thoughts before they learned it wasn’t true.
Qwen 3.6 is far ahead of Gemma for most (but not all) things. I've deployed it out across a number of M5 MacBooks and it's genuinely useful for many tasks. It won't replace an Opus or current gen Sonnet sized model but it's still amazingly good for its size and probably as good as or just a bit before Sonnet 4 era. Far more reliable for tool calling, coding, agentic tasks and faster than the Gemma models especially with MTP.
I've got a Qwen 3.5 running on a 12GB 3060 and it's dumb as a stump but still smart enough to get some useful work done. Since it's my daily driver desktop I havent jumped to 3.6 since last time I did I quickly ran out of vram and locked the desktop environment.
But yeah, the Qwen line is pretty impressive on commodity hardware.
The security aspect is the main driver why I’m seeing so many businesses investing in local hardware. They know the models aren’t as good (caveat that they also can’t run Chinese models) and that’s ok. Places that really care about security and data governance already aren’t on the bleeding edge. They wait for the nice stable lts version, they lock down dev machines in frustrating ways and have lots of IT admin layers.
But they also want to taste the sweet fruit of AI so the only way to do this that a CISO will approve is on local air gapped hardware. It’s a niche but still a billion dollar niche.
> you may run some models locally if only from a cost perspective
I have a hard time believing running a model on a laptop will be cheaper than running it in a datacenter. Why wouldn't economies of scale apply here as with every other computation?
This is assuming that you'll be priced the fraction of computing that you consumed. But you are actually paying for their infrastructure, for the R&D (and also the computation that went into training the model) etc.
It is not clear that, for your own small computations, this kind of costs are needed, but you will still pay your share in the investment the provider made so that they could serve everyone's computation needs.
But, currently ... you're not. AI companies are operating at a loss, and are being subsidized by their investors.
Local may or may not be cheaper than remote now, depending on the details, but the factors you describe won't affect the math nearly as much as they will once that subsidization ends.
In that analogy bigtech AI is currently investing in cleaner air for all of us? We _could_ breath it through their hose, but might as well breath it outside.
What "every other computation"? I seem to have a lot processing power at my disposal here, between my cell phones, laptops, gaming PCs, various other hardware devices.
You're going to need to analyze the problem much more deeply because it sound like the standards you are implicitly applying would result in "economically, everything should be centrally hosted" but that is clearly not the result that obtains. Even a modern mid-grade cell phone is no slouch; you may not be running a current-gen frontier AI on it but you certainly can do a lot of other rather intense things locally that would have been laughable 10 years ago, like suprisingly high powered games.
A laptop is really a pretty bad form factor to run LLMs. Worst cooling, more expensive memory that you cannot replace, resell value depreciating fast. It’s fine for tinkering, small scale research, and demos but it’s definitely niche.
The vision NVIDIA is selling is pure marketing IMHO
I hope a family-level AI appliance is a thing later. Local non-cloud assistant that lives in the house, families interact via voice or phones or whatever. Knows the contextual family stuff you need, etc.
We didn't get people buying family-level file servers for the family photo gallery and documents at any real scale, so i doubt we'll see similar for AI especially when the cost is that much higher for GPUs vs an SBC machine.
> "Ranked in the top 2% of scientists globally (Stanford/Elsevier 2025) and among GitHub's top 1000 developers" - side note but this guy puts this everywhere, gives me probably the inverse of what he is marketing for.
Lol yeah seriously, that stinks "I ask AI to generate a huge amount of bullshit and upload it to pad irrelevant stats".
I agree that it sends the wrong symbol, but actually Daniel is great. He cares tremendously about doing work that is actually real-world useful. I've co-written a few papers with him, and he's really hard working and open to outside suggestions. The danger is that if you send him comments, he'll eventually manage to rope you into writing a new and improved version. Seriously, if you are a non-academic computer scientist with a good idea that you want to publish, he'd be incredibly open to working with you.
As to why he now has this on his blog? I also cringe when I read it. I presume someone told him he should self-promote more, and this is his lame attempt to do so. He's almost certainly the most cited person in his department, but it's entirely possible that none of his colleagues actually know this. Cut him some slack. Self-promotion is not his strength. He's a nerd's nerd, and not a marketer. I'll mention to him that his attempt here might be backfiring when I'm next in contact with him.
Lots of people are already running AI locally. They are the people buying up all the consumer-grade nvidea gpus. What are they doing with them? Well, the same things people with home media or email servers are doing: stuff they dont want to share with the general public.
I want to reduce my dependency on companies like Google, OpenAI, and Anthropic. Aside from the concerns of data sharing I'm also not a fan of how they run their operations, for example Anthropic now using xAI's Colossus data center which is poisoning a marginalized community, or OpenAI getting in bed with the military.
Not everything I want to use an LLM for requires "PhD level intelligence", and increasingly I'm finding more uses that involve sharing my personal data.
Yesterday my local model helped me when looking for a doctor who is in-network for my insurance. I threw it a screenshot from the providers search results and it looked up reviews for all of them.
My local AI is currently upscaling an old british comedy from sub-dvd quality to 1k. (It is not availible other than on DVD.) It looks like it will take about a week for my pair of 5060s to chew through the task.
I think the local-model use case is going to become less niche pretty quickly if the models keep getting smaller and more capable. Even if most people do not care about privacy or offline use, the cost argument is pretty strong
"I am not sure how many people will run AI models locally. It still seems like a niche application to me."
Clip me :). You are currently living through the final stages of unrestricted computing in the hands of the 'public'. Our regimes are going to pull up the drawbridge in the name of 'safety'. Download the open models asap and prepare for an airgapped computing environment. That will be your frontier in not extremely neutered AI in the near future.
The locking down of access to LLMs & mandated ID verification tied to everything you do on the internet is going to happen in the US, UK, EU, India, China, South Korea within the next ten years, that seems abundantly clear from current political trends. I am curious about whether it will become true globally. It seems there should be amazing economic opportunities for countries that opt out of this dynamic, but maybe the allure of absolute control is too much to resist.
This feels fluff to me on the part of the author (whose work I don’t want to trivialize) but I don’t think they’ve actually looked deeper than a paper spec sheet on this.
1. Yes it has the same number of cores as a 5070 mobile. It’s also running at a shared peak of 2/3 the bandwidth and a shared peak of 2/3 the TDP. The GPU by itself will likely perform at half the dedicated units performance
2. Apple may not have SVE2 but they do have the AMX (private) and SME. I don’t see why he thinks the SVE2 will give him more performance than the SME.
3. He mentions a single core type but doesn’t mention the total makeup. We already have known for a year how the DGX Spark compares to Apple chips. For CPU it’s roughly equivalent to an M3 Pro and for GPU compute (not rasterization) it’s between an M4 Pro and M4 Max without considering bandwidth.
The real advantage to these is that they run CUDA. That’s it. Otherwise when they launch they’ll be 2-3 generations behind where Apple is and 1 gen behind AMD.
The other super power of the DGX Spark was the NIC for pairing them together. But that’s been removed here too.
It is absolutely fluff, and the only reason this worthless tweet is on the front page of HN is that this audience has a habit of canonizing certain people, and treating each of their bowel movements as prophetic.
Guy suddenly became aware of a chip that the rest of the industry long knew about, seems completely unaware of the competitors, and posts about how it's a BEAST and will be a GAME CHANGER.
Like the DGX Spark was a game changer? Eh, it has mostly been a massive disappointment. An overpriced nvidia laptop isn't going to change the equation an iota.
> The game changer is the unified 128 GB memory. That is the path Apple took years ago. Instead of separate memory for the CPU and GPU, everything shares a single pool. It is increasingly popular.
> The memory is not as fast as dedicated GPU memory, but it is cheap enough while delivering enough bandwidth to run AI models locally.
So, the reason "dedicated GPU memory" is fast, isn't because it's "dedicated"; it's because the types of memory built into GPU cards — GDDR and HBM — are designed for throughput over latency.
Which is to say, GDDR and HBM memory could be shared with the CPU in UMA while still being "fast" (for GPU use-cases.) In fact, the PS4/5 and Xbox 360 / One X / Series consoles have UMA architectures that use GDDR memory as their main memory, with no regular DDR memory to be found.
What I don't understand: why don't we see UMA architectures where there's both regular DDR and GDDR/HBM memory mapped into the address space of the CPU+GPU? That seems like the best of both worlds: you'd have some memory that's "tuned" for random-access CPU usage (regular DDR), and some memory that's "tuned" for streaming GPU usage (GDDR/HBM), but either type of memory can still be put to the use it wasn't "tuned" for, just with slightly-worse performance.
I guess you'd need to do a bit of software work:
1. a bit of work in the OS kernel / malloc library to get CPU workloads to "prefer" allocating DDR memory over the GDDR/HBM memory until they've exhausted DDR memory (or maybe not, if you just tell the kernel the GDDR/HBM memory is something like a zswap thinpool);
2. and a bit of work in supported ML frameworks, to teach them about a hybrid strategy between UMA "allocate anywhere, it's all the same" and NUMA "keep assets in VRAM if possible; if you spill assets to RAM, then they must stream into VRAM on access" (i.e. "at allocation time, allocate as if the system were NUMA, VRAM first then spilling to RAM; but at execution time, use the UMA codepaths, no need to copy RAM into VRAM.")
Enterprise, of course. They probably buy more PCs than the rest of the market combined.
Even for personal use, I'd imagine the amount of people dual booting Windows and something else are a very tiny minority.
Saying "Windows PC" is a pretty reasonable way to distinguish between "made by Apple" and "made by someone else" because the market of PCs that aren't made by Apple and don't come with Windows is really, really tiny.
To be honest, this seems like a strange hill to take such an aggressive stance upon.
The interesting part to me isn't really the Cortex-X925 vs AVX-512 comparison, but Nvidia trying to make the GPU the center of a Windows PC rather than an add-in card
I have been somewhat surprised at the lack of commentators observing that this is Microsoft and above all NVIDIA launching a device that is fundamentally at odds with the metered cloud model of AI.
When you look at the other announcements and murmurings (better offline BYOK for Copilot, talk of an unmetered AI future) I think it’s clear that these two firms understand that cloud-only AI is not sustainable or inherently in their interests. But their willingness to undermine OpenAI with a product like this is notable.
A RTX Pro 6000 has ~24K 5th generation tensor cores, I'm guessing this would then be 1/4 of the count but 6th generation? Wasn't clear from the images.
What is more important than core count is how the caching architecture is laid out. They could lay out those 6k cuda cores in a layout which provides much larger blocks of cache to smaller number of cores. That would increase the memory bandwidth which would be better for inference.
Still, Microslop has repeatedly proven their ability to slow everything down to a crawl no matter how powerful the hardware. If you want it to be fast, don’t use Windows.
As he likes to share often, "He ranks among the top 2% of scientists globally (Stanford/Elsevier 2025) and is one of GitHub's top 1000 most followed developers. "
Is it really unified memory? AMD Strix Halo is "unified" but you still have to allocate memory separately for cpu vs gpu. Apple Silicon is true unified memory.
My understanding is that this is the limitation from Windows not from AMD SoC. There are several internet resources to "enable unified memory support" on linux eg [1].
As a side note, qualcomm chip set on Android has been doing this for years (like Apple) so it's not super unique thing. It's more like there was no need before.
Even then the "reserved" section is a carve out guaranteed chunk to allow stuff that might need contiguous physical memory (display scan out buffers and page tables, for example) and similar.
The GPU can still happily use all the rest of the memory for other use cases - which tend to be the bulk of allocations anyway. Though there might be performance implications - for example "moving" buffer ownership to the GPU would need to evict CPU caches, and often 4k pages and tlb lookups can be a pretty inefficient situation for GPU-style accesses.
That's been pretty standard for any SoC for decades. And "differences" to apple's SoC are more implementation details.
yes, but more due to OS limitations than hardware. You can use their GTT which is then _true_ UMA where GPU can grab whatever it wants from the memory pool.
This isn't the first time we have UMA on the PC, btw. When SGI did their PC workstations, their 320 and 540 PC workstations had what they called Cobalt graphics chipset and crossbar with their IVC architecture. They bypassed AGP at the time completely. It was quite unique to see strict UMA on a PC. Haven't seen it since until these new systems we're seeing now on PCs and Mac.
For local models, the useful part is not just having 128GB attached to the package. It is whether the GPU can practically use that memory without the usual VRAM-style constraints
> you still have to allocate memory separately for cpu vs gpu
That's an API issue not a hardware issue. Regardless, I believe the major APIs permit seamlessly sharing pointers at this point? (I have no experience doing that though.)
It is unified in the sense that the OS can dynamically assign memory to CPU and GPU. Apple silicon is not a alien tech that other silicon vendors cannot implement.
Says running local llms isn’t relevant. Than says it is decent for games, which is just correct if you compare any gpu remotely similarly priced. I don’t understand what is the point he is making
Nvidia is milking the market now. We need more competition again - currently we have a mafia control the prices, not just Nvidia but all the AI companies. The price increases should be paid for them, not by us. "Free market" is being manipulated by them here.
while unified memory may offer better performance than unsoldered DDR system memory, it still won't be as great as 1.8TB/s bandwidth on high end consumer GPUs right now.
nvidias master plan may be making it the new normal to have "only" 400GB/s bandwidth, thus gatekeeping local model usage further behind "more memory but not as fast as the cloud can do it"
I think it’s an interesting theory but a bit too conspiracy theory-ish.
Nvidia just wants to sell stuff to everyone.
And I think for professionals doing local AI work, products like Strix Halo and Apple Silicon are a competitive threat.
A big part of maintaining the leading software ecosystem is ensuring you have competitive hardware for all your users.
I also think the RTX Spark product is relatively low effort for Nvidia. Grab a Mediatek CPU and slap an Nvidia GPU on the die. Sure, that’s oversimplifying it, but still.
They are useless if RAM prices are this high. $800 laptops with maximum 8GB are currently the norm, Windows 11 can't run on them decently. No matter how fast the SoC is with overpriced RAM they are slow. Systems that can make good use of them with 64-128GB are not affordable anymore thanks to Nvidia and co. This is a smokescreen. They'll probably sell them packaged as compute modules anyway.
The obvious comparison here is the M5 Max where you can buy a Macbook Pro with 128GB of also unified memory. Obviously CUDA cores are specific to NVidia so it's hard to directly compare but I've seen claims that the M5 Max is roughly equivalent to ~4000 CUDA cores. This obviously depends on workload and whether the CPU supports the precision you want to use (eg FP4).
The M5 Max has memory bandwidth of 819GB/s. The RTX Spark I believe is ~600. So it might be slightly better than the current generation of Macs but likely worse than the expected M5 Ultras of the new Mac Studios (likely Q3 2026).
For comparison, a 5090 has >20k CUDA cores and 1800GB/s memory bandwidth with 32GB of VRAM. The RTX 6000 Pro (at ~$10k) has 96GB of VRAM, same bandwidth and ~24k CUDA cores.
We have to see what RTX Spark systems sell for but the DGX Spark is in the Mac Studio price range (~$4k).
I do think Apple has a real opportunity here but there offerings aren't quite there yet. The M5 Ultras might be a really attractive option for local LLMs. I expect them to be in high demand.
> I've seen claims that the M5 Max is roughly equivalent to ~4000 CUDA cores
Who claimed that? The M5 is still a raster focused GPU, dedicated matmul blocks be damned. For some workloads that napkin math might work out, but for many others it's a wild overshoot. Time-to-first-token still favors CUDA, and real-world training workloads aren't getting anywhere near Apple Silicon.
All of the memory bandwidth in the world is useless if you spend 15 minutes processing 64k tokens worth of context prefill. This is where CUDA shines.
I have a 128 GB LPDDR5X machine. It's a great workstation laptop (which is why I got it) but the memory bandwidth is just awful if you're wanting to use it for AI. An old Epyc CPU will fair better both in terms of being able to run full sized larger models as well as having higher memory bandwidth, and that's not a recommendation to go that route either as it's still not worth it.
The competitor for this NVIDIA CPU will not be the now old AMD Strix Halo, but its successor (launched recently), which supports up to 192 GB of unified memory. Thus 128 GB is no longer SOTA.
While this NVIDIA system is inferior from the point of view of the memory capacity, its main advantage is that the top models will have a bigger GPU, i.e. with 6144 or 5120 FP32 execution units, compared to 2560 for the AMD GPU (compared to the NVIDIA CPU, the AMD CPU has a better multi-threaded performance for legacy programs, and a much better multi-threaded performance for the applications that use AVX-512).
However, these top models with big GPUs will also be much more expensive than the competing AMD system, while also being much more expensive than a laptop or mini-PC with an equivalent discrete NVIDIA GPU (which has the disadvantage of having direct access only to a much smaller, even if faster, memory).
I don’t think there is much improvement in compute for the new strix halo revision. The next one supposedly adds rdna4 cores or similar and more memory channels
Is this somehow satire? This is just the dgx spark with keyboard and monitor in a convenient format. Since it has more stuff, I'm sure that the price mark up will increase too.
Up to $5000 because why not?
With that money you can build a real PC with rtx 5090!
Don't want to be too harsh, maybe I'm missing something, but the CPU is at least 2 years old, internally it has been a complete shitshow and that's a minor hiccup when compared to the firmware and software situation.
It's an interesting "newcomer" and the more the better but calling this a "beast" and a "game changer" is ridiculous to say the least.
Does this person know that this is the same GB chip in the DGX Spark? It isn't some proposed thing, it's a chip loads of people have on their desk right now, and there are endless benchmarks of it.
Decent single core (a long ways from Apple level, but decent), but it makes up for it in cores to provide M5 level performance, CPU wise. Memory bandwidth it is kind of starved, at 1/6th many GPUs.
They got Microsoft to customize Windows for the RTX Spark, and will likely have to brutally throttle it when running as a laptop (it's literally a 140W TDP chip), and that's neat. It's going to be a very expensive laptop.
This is probably the better way to frame it: not "Nvidia is proposing a new CPU system" but "Nvidia is trying to move an existing GB/Spark-class platform into a Windows PC form factor"
The 900 GB/s is from the NVLink-C2C interconnect, if you were wondering about that. They quote "up to 900 GB/s of bidirectional bandwidth between GPU and CPU".
Mind you thats not to/from memory, which indeed only has 273 GB/s.
I’m not sure if you’re aware but there is a supply chain shortage for pretty much everything needed for a PC that isn’t expected to be solved this year or next year. There is no way that can be affordable
It uses LPDDR5X instead of VRAM and will still sell for a premium while pushing their presence even further in every side of the AI market. This was one area AMD was ahead in and now Nvidia is probably better off making this to compete on that front while still being better off than making a 5090.
That doesn't answer the question. If the high margin enterprise GPUs are saturating the fab capacity you wouldn't expect them to be pushing this. But IIRC those all have oodles of integrated HBM at this point so I wonder if fab capacity for that has become a bottleneck.
I believe it does - the reasons why are exactly differences like LPDDR5X vs HBM3e. Not every fab is capable of making any type of chip another fab makes. If you can make a product with different chips and still sell it for a premium why would you not just because the fabs for your DC product's chips are busy?
Looking at it more, I believe the story repeats with the TSMC processes used for the CPU vs chips like GB200 as well.
Even if none of the above were the case, the question still isn't "why not make the enterprise GPU" it's "why not make the higher margin per chip area product". If the NV1/GB10 take less die space and cost a lot it's not immediately apparent the enterprise GPU actually nets Nvidia more $ per die or not. That's why it's relevant these will be sold at a premium.
I think it's niche now because getting the hardware to run it is expensive and the quantized models don't work as well. If those improve then it would be a no brainer to pay one off for the hardware instead of a fortune for API calls.
I am not really convinced that four bit quantisation is that bad; almost certainly six will be enough. But Google are making claims for their QAT tech in Gemma that they are surely using or testing in Gemini that it preserves nearly source model quality while reducing footprint.
The hardware for 50 tokens per second with a four bit quantisation of Gemma 4 26B or the sparse Qwen 3.6 is not really that expensive: it’s a secondhand M1 Max.
Beyond that, I agree. I think moving planning tasks to local is a now thing, not that it really has much impact on token spend. I also think many small coding tasks are fully within the grasp of the above two models.
The main issue right now is that the software landscape is rather confusing, but I reckon uncomplicated Gemma 4 26B QAT support with MTP is a few weeks away.
I think it is likely to appeal to video and photo editors who want to use AI tools (the press release has a quote from Blackmagic Design, as well as from Adobe, who I think have no stomach for their own cloud AI).
But I don’t know about specialised: this could run quite large models with MoE.
Performances of local models are pretty bad compared to what AI vendors offer, token generation is just too slow to be that useful. And you need to allocate GBs of memories, something that will stay very expensive to buy for a long time.
Running local models will stay niche for a while, unless we see breakthroughs
All depends. The current technology will be cheaper in a year or two. The best cutting edge stuff will properly be even more expensive. But in 10 years time... we can run current SOTA models (or models that are equally good ) on our local hardware
We had a thing called globalism that drastically reduced costs. Globalism right now is on life support. Given geopolitics, I don’t see how it’s going to survive.
They could have had a 128core arm chip by now.
Qualcomm are trying harder now it seems. But it will take time to repair their reputation in the PC market.
I don't know who will be the winner but with some of the recent releases from gemma it seems more probable that you may run some models locally if only from a cost perspective, not even considering business security. Not sure how this type of architecture would make for good gaming though, puts into question the whole statement.
"Ranked in the top 2% of scientists globally (Stanford/Elsevier 2025) and among GitHub's top 1000 developers" - side note but this guy puts this everywhere, gives me probably the inverse of what he is marketing for.
This is the 2026 edition of Ken Olsen: "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home"
Digging into this:
> In conclusion, there is evidence that Ken Olsen did doubt the need for computers in the home, but the evidence is based primarily on the testimony of David Ahl who was perturbed when the personal computer project he championed at DEC was not supported by Olsen in 1974.
> Olsen’s resistance may have been similar to that expressed by another DEC executive, Gordon Bell. In 1980 Bell thought home terminals would act as gateways to remote computers which would provide appropriate services.
* https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/09/14/home-computer/
It was supposedly said in 1977: most computers at that time were not small, and so it would not be surprising that people would not expect the general public to desire a large, power-hungry, noise-y apparatus in their house.
People take these quotes out of context all the time. Said in a business context, there was no need, at that time, for someone to have a personal computer.
There's no business justification in 1977 for a personal computer department at a business. It's similar to the gates quote about RAM (I think it was 64KB?).
These statements aren't meant to be forever quotes. Their business plan quotes.
640, and Bill Gates said he either never said that, or at least never remembered having said it. I think there is no evidence anywhere that he did.
https://www.computerworld.com/article/1563853/the-640k-quote...
The early popularity of Minitel, the continued popularity of ssh/tmux, and the web browser itself indicates that bespoke client applications are not the only way. He wasn’t directionally wrong.
Local models aren’t deterministically equivalent in capabilities to foundation models. Home computers are turing complete; just like a mainframe. They are just slower. Often not slower enough to matter.
You could run a pretty good home server on $50 of gear and yet we never saw any real adoption of OwnCloud/NextCloud style products as an alternative to Google Drive/Photos or Apple Cloud.
Why should LLM/Transformers be any different? Especially when you need a proper expensive GPU to run them instead of a Raspberry Pi?
Maybe if you ask them that question, but if you show them two products, they'll definitely prefer the faster one. 30 seconds is a long time to watch a progress bar.
Nobody ever said that, at least not as an assertion or prediction. The actual instances of similar language are from multiple people describing their earlier thoughts before they learned it wasn’t true.
But yeah, the Qwen line is pretty impressive on commodity hardware.
Do you think he's in mensa too?
But they also want to taste the sweet fruit of AI so the only way to do this that a CISO will approve is on local air gapped hardware. It’s a niche but still a billion dollar niche.
I have a hard time believing running a model on a laptop will be cheaper than running it in a datacenter. Why wouldn't economies of scale apply here as with every other computation?
Local may or may not be cheaper than remote now, depending on the details, but the factors you describe won't affect the math nearly as much as they will once that subsidization ends.
You're going to need to analyze the problem much more deeply because it sound like the standards you are implicitly applying would result in "economically, everything should be centrally hosted" but that is clearly not the result that obtains. Even a modern mid-grade cell phone is no slouch; you may not be running a current-gen frontier AI on it but you certainly can do a lot of other rather intense things locally that would have been laughable 10 years ago, like suprisingly high powered games.
The vision NVIDIA is selling is pure marketing IMHO
anyone whose addicted to token theoughput is losing the operational knowledge and offline capabilities.
if you arent moving to the AMD 395 or MACs then youre hitching aride on the expensive calory ride
This made me laugh. I can only image how insufferable this person is to deal with.
Lol yeah seriously, that stinks "I ask AI to generate a huge amount of bullshit and upload it to pad irrelevant stats".
Absolute loser.
As to why he now has this on his blog? I also cringe when I read it. I presume someone told him he should self-promote more, and this is his lame attempt to do so. He's almost certainly the most cited person in his department, but it's entirely possible that none of his colleagues actually know this. Cut him some slack. Self-promotion is not his strength. He's a nerd's nerd, and not a marketer. I'll mention to him that his attempt here might be backfiring when I'm next in contact with him.
He doesn't just have it on his blog, he has it EVERYWHERE. Sometimes 2 or 3 times on the same page.
Being the top x% is what OnlyFans girls brag about, professor...
And it's not exactly brain surgery, is it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THNPmhBl-8I
Citation needed
Not everything I want to use an LLM for requires "PhD level intelligence", and increasingly I'm finding more uses that involve sharing my personal data.
Yesterday my local model helped me when looking for a doctor who is in-network for my insurance. I threw it a screenshot from the providers search results and it looked up reviews for all of them.
Clip me :). You are currently living through the final stages of unrestricted computing in the hands of the 'public'. Our regimes are going to pull up the drawbridge in the name of 'safety'. Download the open models asap and prepare for an airgapped computing environment. That will be your frontier in not extremely neutered AI in the near future.
I am so hoping I'm completely wrong on this btw.
1. Yes it has the same number of cores as a 5070 mobile. It’s also running at a shared peak of 2/3 the bandwidth and a shared peak of 2/3 the TDP. The GPU by itself will likely perform at half the dedicated units performance
2. Apple may not have SVE2 but they do have the AMX (private) and SME. I don’t see why he thinks the SVE2 will give him more performance than the SME.
3. He mentions a single core type but doesn’t mention the total makeup. We already have known for a year how the DGX Spark compares to Apple chips. For CPU it’s roughly equivalent to an M3 Pro and for GPU compute (not rasterization) it’s between an M4 Pro and M4 Max without considering bandwidth.
The real advantage to these is that they run CUDA. That’s it. Otherwise when they launch they’ll be 2-3 generations behind where Apple is and 1 gen behind AMD.
The other super power of the DGX Spark was the NIC for pairing them together. But that’s been removed here too.
Guy suddenly became aware of a chip that the rest of the industry long knew about, seems completely unaware of the competitors, and posts about how it's a BEAST and will be a GAME CHANGER.
Like the DGX Spark was a game changer? Eh, it has mostly been a massive disappointment. An overpriced nvidia laptop isn't going to change the equation an iota.
> The memory is not as fast as dedicated GPU memory, but it is cheap enough while delivering enough bandwidth to run AI models locally.
So, the reason "dedicated GPU memory" is fast, isn't because it's "dedicated"; it's because the types of memory built into GPU cards — GDDR and HBM — are designed for throughput over latency.
Which is to say, GDDR and HBM memory could be shared with the CPU in UMA while still being "fast" (for GPU use-cases.) In fact, the PS4/5 and Xbox 360 / One X / Series consoles have UMA architectures that use GDDR memory as their main memory, with no regular DDR memory to be found.
What I don't understand: why don't we see UMA architectures where there's both regular DDR and GDDR/HBM memory mapped into the address space of the CPU+GPU? That seems like the best of both worlds: you'd have some memory that's "tuned" for random-access CPU usage (regular DDR), and some memory that's "tuned" for streaming GPU usage (GDDR/HBM), but either type of memory can still be put to the use it wasn't "tuned" for, just with slightly-worse performance.
I guess you'd need to do a bit of software work:
1. a bit of work in the OS kernel / malloc library to get CPU workloads to "prefer" allocating DDR memory over the GDDR/HBM memory until they've exhausted DDR memory (or maybe not, if you just tell the kernel the GDDR/HBM memory is something like a zswap thinpool);
2. and a bit of work in supported ML frameworks, to teach them about a hybrid strategy between UMA "allocate anywhere, it's all the same" and NUMA "keep assets in VRAM if possible; if you spill assets to RAM, then they must stream into VRAM on access" (i.e. "at allocation time, allocate as if the system were NUMA, VRAM first then spilling to RAM; but at execution time, use the UMA codepaths, no need to copy RAM into VRAM.")
...but once that's done, it's done.
(HN reaction to Vision Pro back in 2024 is almost hilarious if not ridiculous, looking at it today. I knew it would be a flop and I was so right.)
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.
Even for personal use, I'd imagine the amount of people dual booting Windows and something else are a very tiny minority.
Saying "Windows PC" is a pretty reasonable way to distinguish between "made by Apple" and "made by someone else" because the market of PCs that aren't made by Apple and don't come with Windows is really, really tiny.
To be honest, this seems like a strange hill to take such an aggressive stance upon.
Your x86 machines were, but these are ARM SOCs. Many of them don't even support UEFI, let alone the upstream Linux kernel.
https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/nvidia-microsoft-windows-...
I have been somewhat surprised at the lack of commentators observing that this is Microsoft and above all NVIDIA launching a device that is fundamentally at odds with the metered cloud model of AI.
When you look at the other announcements and murmurings (better offline BYOK for Copilot, talk of an unmetered AI future) I think it’s clear that these two firms understand that cloud-only AI is not sustainable or inherently in their interests. But their willingness to undermine OpenAI with a product like this is notable.
A RTX Pro 6000 has ~24K 5th generation tensor cores, I'm guessing this would then be 1/4 of the count but 6th generation? Wasn't clear from the images.
As a side note, qualcomm chip set on Android has been doing this for years (like Apple) so it's not super unique thing. It's more like there was no need before.
[1] https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2025/increasing-vram-alloc...
The GPU can still happily use all the rest of the memory for other use cases - which tend to be the bulk of allocations anyway. Though there might be performance implications - for example "moving" buffer ownership to the GPU would need to evict CPU caches, and often 4k pages and tlb lookups can be a pretty inefficient situation for GPU-style accesses.
That's been pretty standard for any SoC for decades. And "differences" to apple's SoC are more implementation details.
This isn't the first time we have UMA on the PC, btw. When SGI did their PC workstations, their 320 and 540 PC workstations had what they called Cobalt graphics chipset and crossbar with their IVC architecture. They bypassed AGP at the time completely. It was quite unique to see strict UMA on a PC. Haven't seen it since until these new systems we're seeing now on PCs and Mac.
Some software assumes pre-defined set-aside pools of memory reserved for video purposes, but the chip does actually have access to the whole pool.
That's an API issue not a hardware issue. Regardless, I believe the major APIs permit seamlessly sharing pointers at this point? (I have no experience doing that though.)
IIRC that's due to maintain BIOS and Windows (+games & apps) backwards compatibility, but memory access speeds are the same.
Nvidia is milking the market now. We need more competition again - currently we have a mafia control the prices, not just Nvidia but all the AI companies. The price increases should be paid for them, not by us. "Free market" is being manipulated by them here.
nvidias master plan may be making it the new normal to have "only" 400GB/s bandwidth, thus gatekeeping local model usage further behind "more memory but not as fast as the cloud can do it"
Nvidia just wants to sell stuff to everyone.
And I think for professionals doing local AI work, products like Strix Halo and Apple Silicon are a competitive threat.
A big part of maintaining the leading software ecosystem is ensuring you have competitive hardware for all your users.
I also think the RTX Spark product is relatively low effort for Nvidia. Grab a Mediatek CPU and slap an Nvidia GPU on the die. Sure, that’s oversimplifying it, but still.
The obvious comparison here is the M5 Max where you can buy a Macbook Pro with 128GB of also unified memory. Obviously CUDA cores are specific to NVidia so it's hard to directly compare but I've seen claims that the M5 Max is roughly equivalent to ~4000 CUDA cores. This obviously depends on workload and whether the CPU supports the precision you want to use (eg FP4).
The M5 Max has memory bandwidth of 819GB/s. The RTX Spark I believe is ~600. So it might be slightly better than the current generation of Macs but likely worse than the expected M5 Ultras of the new Mac Studios (likely Q3 2026).
For comparison, a 5090 has >20k CUDA cores and 1800GB/s memory bandwidth with 32GB of VRAM. The RTX 6000 Pro (at ~$10k) has 96GB of VRAM, same bandwidth and ~24k CUDA cores.
We have to see what RTX Spark systems sell for but the DGX Spark is in the Mac Studio price range (~$4k).
I do think Apple has a real opportunity here but there offerings aren't quite there yet. The M5 Ultras might be a really attractive option for local LLMs. I expect them to be in high demand.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48352939
Who claimed that? The M5 is still a raster focused GPU, dedicated matmul blocks be damned. For some workloads that napkin math might work out, but for many others it's a wild overshoot. Time-to-first-token still favors CUDA, and real-world training workloads aren't getting anywhere near Apple Silicon.
All of the memory bandwidth in the world is useless if you spend 15 minutes processing 64k tokens worth of context prefill. This is where CUDA shines.
Nvidia going from GPU to CPU now?
While this NVIDIA system is inferior from the point of view of the memory capacity, its main advantage is that the top models will have a bigger GPU, i.e. with 6144 or 5120 FP32 execution units, compared to 2560 for the AMD GPU (compared to the NVIDIA CPU, the AMD CPU has a better multi-threaded performance for legacy programs, and a much better multi-threaded performance for the applications that use AVX-512).
However, these top models with big GPUs will also be much more expensive than the competing AMD system, while also being much more expensive than a laptop or mini-PC with an equivalent discrete NVIDIA GPU (which has the disadvantage of having direct access only to a much smaller, even if faster, memory).
Up to $5000 because why not?
With that money you can build a real PC with rtx 5090!
A powerful new chapter for Windows PCs, accelerated by Nvidia RTX Spark
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48352693
Nvidia RTX Spark
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48352939
It's an interesting "newcomer" and the more the better but calling this a "beast" and a "game changer" is ridiculous to say the least.
Then there is the price..
Decent single core (a long ways from Apple level, but decent), but it makes up for it in cores to provide M5 level performance, CPU wise. Memory bandwidth it is kind of starved, at 1/6th many GPUs.
They got Microsoft to customize Windows for the RTX Spark, and will likely have to brutally throttle it when running as a laptop (it's literally a 140W TDP chip), and that's neat. It's going to be a very expensive laptop.
DGX Spark has a maximum of 273 GB/s bandwidth in ideal scenarios (hard to reach)
That puts it between an M5 (153) and M5 Pro (307)
Mind you thats not to/from memory, which indeed only has 273 GB/s.
Tech companies have strangled their own market.
Looking at it more, I believe the story repeats with the TSMC processes used for the CPU vs chips like GB200 as well.
Even if none of the above were the case, the question still isn't "why not make the enterprise GPU" it's "why not make the higher margin per chip area product". If the NV1/GB10 take less die space and cost a lot it's not immediately apparent the enterprise GPU actually nets Nvidia more $ per die or not. That's why it's relevant these will be sold at a premium.
And maybe for NVIDIA and MS it is also about them quietly betting that local models are, in fact, going to be good enough for most tasks pretty soon.
I'd say this relates directly to the cost of running AI models remotely.
And we won't know what the actual cost will be until AI vendors recover the huge pile of cash they've dumped into development (plus interest).
The hardware for 50 tokens per second with a four bit quantisation of Gemma 4 26B or the sparse Qwen 3.6 is not really that expensive: it’s a secondhand M1 Max.
Beyond that, I agree. I think moving planning tasks to local is a now thing, not that it really has much impact on token spend. I also think many small coding tasks are fully within the grasp of the above two models.
The main issue right now is that the software landscape is rather confusing, but I reckon uncomplicated Gemma 4 26B QAT support with MTP is a few weeks away.
But most businesses don't really care about most of the apple --- they only need their special bite out of it.
For example, doctors mainly care about medicine. Nvidia is attempting to provide the hardware needed for local, specialized models.
But I don’t know about specialised: this could run quite large models with MoE.
Running local models will stay niche for a while, unless we see breakthroughs
Most doctors don't care much about engineering or accounting or software development or 10000 other things that big vendor models address.
This area is yet to be really explored. Nvidia aims to provide the hardware to do so.
Bill Gates had a quote some years ago...
People have still not learned how fast we improve our tech and how much cheaper thing gets I guess :)