[overfeed]

> Almost all players are running Nvidia other than Google.

No surprises there, Google is not the greatest company at productizing their tech for external consumption.

> The other players are certainly more than just competing with Google.

TBF, its easy to stay in the game when you're flush with cash, and for the past N-quarters, investors have been throwing money at AI companies, Nvidia's margins have greatly benefited from this largesse. There will be blood on the floor once investors start demanding returns to their investments.

[oivey]

Ok? The person I was replying to was saying that Google’s compute offering is substantially superior to Nvidia’s. What do your comments about market positioning have to do with that?

If Google’s TPUs were really substantially superior, don’t you think that would result in at least short term market advantages for Gemini? Where are they?

[ZiiS]

They are suggesting it is easier for others to buy buy more NVidia chips and feed them more power. Whilst operating costs are covered by investors. If they move on to competing on having to do inference the cheepest then the TPUs will shine.

[oivey]

The original post made no comments about inference or training or even cost in any way. It said you could hook up more TPUs together with more memory and higher average bandwidth than you could with a datacenter of Nvidia GPUs. From an architectural point of view, it isn’t clear (and is not explained) what that enables. It clearly hasn’t led to a business outcome for Google where they are the clear market leader.

Seemingly fast interconnects benefit training more than inference since training can have more parallel communication between nodes. Inference for users is more embarrassingly parallel (requires less communication) than updating and merging network weights.

My point: cool benchmark, what does it matter? The original post says Nvidia doesn’t have anything to compete with massively interconnected TPUs. It didn’t merely say Google’s TPUs were better. It said that Nvidia can’t compete. That’s clearly bullshit and wishful thinking, right? There is no evidence in the market to support that, and no actual technical points have been presented in this thread either. OpenAI, Anthropic, etc are certainly competing with Google, right?

[Dylan16807]

> My point: cool benchmark, what does it matter?

And then people explained why the effects are smoothed over right now but will matter eventually and you rejected them as if they didn't understand your question. They answered it, take the answer.

> It didn’t merely say Google’s TPUs were better. It said that Nvidia can’t compete.

Can't compete at clusters of a certain size. The argument is that anyone on nVidia simply isn't building clusters that big.

[ZiiS]

The fact that NVidia are currently winning is undisputed.