Yeah, for £10,000. And you get 512GB of bandwidth starved memory.

Still, I suppose that's better than what nvidia has on offer atm (even if a rack of gpus gives you much, much higher memory throughput).

AKCSHUALLY the M-series CPU memory upgrades are expensive because the memory is on-chip and the bandwidth is a lot bigger than on comparable PC hardware.

In some cases it's more cost effective to get M-series Mac Minis vs nVidia GPUs

They know that, but all accounts I've read acknowledge that the unified memory is worse than dedicated VRAM. It's just much better than running LLMs on CPU and the only way for a regular consumer to get to 64GB+ of graphical memory.

It's still magnitude slower than AI GPUs.

And with $10k I could pay 40 years of Claude subscription. A much smarter and faster model.

Claude subscription is $20 but is that all you're using? If you want to get the best of Claude it'll cost you a few hundred+ a month.

Memory scaling has all but stopped. Current RAM cells are made up of just 40,000 or so electrons (that's when it's first stored. It degrades from there until refreshed). Going smaller is almost impossible due to physics, noise, and the problem of needing to amplify that tiny charge to something usable.

For the past few years, we've been "getting smaller" by getting deeper. The diameter of the cell shrinks, but the depth of the cell goes up. As you can imagine, that doesn't scale very well. Cutting the cylinder diameter in half doubles the depth of the cylinder for the same volume.

If you try to put the cells closer together, you start to get quantum tunneling where electrons would disappear from one cell and appear in another cell altering charges in unexpected ways.

The times of massive memory shrinks are over. That means we have to reduce production costs and have more chips per computer or find a new kind of memory that is mass producible.