this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2026
195 points (94.9% liked)
Technology
80635 readers
3124 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Aren't TPUs like dramatically better for any AI workload?
Intel's Gaudi 3 datacenter GPU from late 2024 advertises about 1800 tops in fp8, at 3.1 tops/w. Google's mid 2025 TPU v7 advertises 4600 tops fp8, at 4.7 tops/w. Which is a difference, but not that dramatic of one. The reason it is so small is that GPUs are basically TPUs already; almost as much die space as is allocated to actual shader units is allocated to matrix accelerators. I have heard anecdotally.
At scale the power efficiency is probably really important though
Yes, it works out to a ton of power and money, but on the other hand, 2x the computation could be like a few percent better in results. so it's often a thing of orders of magnitude, because that's what is needed for a sufficiently noticeable difference in use.
basing things on theoretical tops is also not particularly equivalent to performance in actual use, it just gives a very general idea of a perfect workload.