News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why DeepSeek is cheap at scale but expensive to run locally by jeff_carr on Sunday June 01, 2025 @03:14PM (#44153106)
I am impressed. Your personal website is down. HN doesn't allow private messages.

I'm Jeff Carr. I co-founded digital ocean. I assume I can't post email addresses here, but I will try. lets see how smart things are from banning me. I am: wit AT wit com

Re:Why DeepSeek is cheap at scale but expensive to run locally by p12tic on Sunday June 01, 2025 @04:51PM (#44153684)
State of the art of local models is even further.

For example, look into https://github.com/kvcache-ai/ktransformers, which achieve >11 tokens/s on a relatively old two socket Xeon servers + retail RTX 4090 GPU. Even more interesting is prefill speed at more than 250 tokens/s. This is very useful in use cases like coding, where large prompts are common.

The above is achievable today. In the mean time Intel guys are working on something even more impressive. In https://github.com/sgl-project/sglang/pull/5150 they claim that they achieve >15 tokens/s generation and >350 tokens/s prefill. They don't share what exact hardware they run this on, but from various bits and pieces over various PRs I reverse-engineered that they use 2x Xeon 6980P with MRDIMM 8800 RAM, without GPU. Total cost of such setup will be around $10k once cheap Engineering samples hit eBay.

Re:Why DeepSeek is cheap at scale but expensive to run locally by qeternity on Sunday June 01, 2025 @05:58PM (#44154041)
It's not impressive nor efficient when you consider batch sizes > 1.
Re:Why DeepSeek is cheap at scale but expensive to run locally by p12tic on Sunday June 01, 2025 @06:00PM (#44154053)
All of this is for batch size 1.
Re:Why DeepSeek is cheap at scale but expensive to run locally by qeternity on Monday June 02, 2025 @07:34PM (#44164519)
I know. That was my point.

Throughput doesn't scale on CPU as well as it does on GPU.

Re:Why DeepSeek is cheap at scale but expensive to run locally by p12tic on Tuesday June 03, 2025 @04:36PM (#44174442)
We both agree. Batch size 1 is only relevant to people who want to run models on their own private machines. Which is the case of OP.
Re:Why DeepSeek is cheap at scale but expensive to run locally by adastra22 on Sunday June 01, 2025 @08:03PM (#44154750)
You can put your email in your profile
Re:Why DeepSeek is cheap at scale but expensive to run locally by trustinmenowpls on Sunday June 01, 2025 @08:06PM (#44154760)
fyi, your website is also down... wit.com doesn't resolve for me
Re:Why DeepSeek is cheap at scale but expensive to run locally by x______________ on Sunday June 01, 2025 @08:32PM (#44154901)
Bold of you to assume that an email domain needs a web server listening on port 80 for http packets..
Re:Why DeepSeek is cheap at scale but expensive to run locally by simondotau on Monday June 02, 2025 @01:20AM (#44156004)
You don’t even need an A/AAAA record on the domain.
Re:Why DeepSeek is cheap at scale but expensive to run locally by trustinmenowpls on Thursday June 12, 2025 @05:25AM (#44255620)
I went to his linkedin which has a link to wit.com as his website
Re:Why DeepSeek is cheap at scale but expensive to run locally by saagarjha on Monday June 02, 2025 @03:27AM (#44156453)
Pretty sure you can post email addresses here, this is mine: [email protected]. It's more about avoiding spam.
Re:Why DeepSeek is cheap at scale but expensive to run locally by stavros on Monday June 02, 2025 @10:54AM (#44159459)
You can post emails fine, you just might get spammed (because it's a public forum).