These look terrible. For 5 times the price you get worse performance.

Are you comparing tinybox red with 738 FP16 TFLOPS at $15K to Project Digits with 1 FP4 PFLOP at $3K? Or did they announce the Project Digits FP16 performance somewhere?

>tinybox

>the size of several ATX desktops

This was my second thought; while we don’t have full performance data, it’s probably a bad day for tinybox.

Going by the specs, this pretty much blows Tinybox out of the water.

For $40,000, a Tinybox pro is advertised as offering 1.36 petaflops processing and 192 GB VRAM.

For about $6,000 a pair of Nvidia Project Digits offer about a combined 2 petaflops processing and 256 GB VRAM.

The market segment for Tinybox always seemed to be people that were somewhat price-insensitive, but unless Nvidia completely fumbles on execution, I struggle to think of any benefits of a Tinygrad Tinybox over an Nvidia Digits. Maybe if you absolutely, positively, need to run your OS on x86.

I'd love to see if AMD or Intel has a response to these. I'm not holding my breath.

> For about $6,000 a pair of Nvidia Project Digits offer about a combined 2 petaflops processing and 256 GB VRAM.

2 PFLOPS at FP4.

256 GB RAM, not VRAM. I think they haven't specified the memory bandwidth.

You're right. Tinybox's 1.36 petaflops is FP16 so that is a significant difference.

Also, the Tinybox's memory bandwidth is 8064 GB/s, while the Digits seems to be around 512 GB/s, according to speculation on Reddit.

Moreover, Nvidia's announced their RTX 5090s priced at $2k, which could put downward pressure on the price of Tinybox's 4090s. So the Tinybox green or pro models might get cheaper, or they might come out with a 5090-based model.

If you're the kind of person that's ready to spend $40k on a beastly ML workstation, there's still some upside to Tinybox.

You're missing the most critical part though. Memory bandwidth. It hasn't been announced yet for Digits and it probably won't be comparable to that of dedicated GPUs.