Re:Saving another 100TB of RAM with math (and Rust)
by sroussey on Friday September 18, 2026 @06:11PM
(#49760924)
Someone really needed a few hundred TB to waste on inference and went looking under the rugs…
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Saving another 100TB of RAM with math (and Rust)
by why_only_15 on Friday September 18, 2026 @06:19PM
(#49761015)
CPU DRAM can't really be used for inference efficiently -- inference mostly wants memory bandwidth, not memory capacity, and GPU DRAM has >10x more bandwidth. The fabs can switch between them but you can't switch after the fact.
Re:Saving another 100TB of RAM with math (and Rust)
by sroussey on Friday September 18, 2026 @06:32PM
(#49761139)
Those machines with GPUs still need RAM of their own, and they generally want large caches to avoid SSD penalties. You even see this spill out in the form of costs for KV cache in <1min, 5m, 1hr rates etc.
Re:Saving another 100TB of RAM with math (and Rust)
by why_only_15 on Monday September 21, 2026 @05:50AM
(#49785170)
yeah there's some KV cache offload
Re:Saving another 100TB of RAM with math (and Rust)
by halJordan on Friday September 18, 2026 @07:19PM
(#49761562)
The majority of inference actually does happen in cpu.
Re:Saving another 100TB of RAM with math (and Rust)
by why_only_15 on Monday September 21, 2026 @05:50AM
(#49785169)
This is just wrong unless you're using some confusing definition. Notice that companies trying to do lots of inference aren't looking for CPUs, they're looking for GPUs/TPUs.
Re:Saving another 100TB of RAM with math (and Rust)
by halJordan on Sunday September 27, 2026 @10:02PM
(#49872707)
Ah well, the opposite actually. Your definition, while traditional, is wrong. It was right some time ago. But it's wrong now. At least according to Intel and Nvidia in their disclosures. Intel was literally talking about their sales to "companies that do lots of inference" when they said it... so...