> The Framework Desktop with 64GB RAM + 2TB NVMe is $1,876. To get a Mac Studio with similar specs [...] you'll literally spend nearly twice as much [...] The Framework Desktop is simply a great deal.
Wow, someone managed to beat Apple on price??
I don't know that it logically follows that anything is a great deal when it undercuts Apple. Half sounds about right -- I thought Apple was a bit more competitive these days than ×2 actually, but apparently not, also considering that Framework comes with a (totally fair) niche-vendor premium
He's comparing to a studio when he should compare to the mini for this performance. They are almost the same price at a 64gb RAM + 500gb storage config (CAD).
- Framework, Max+ 64GB: $2,861.16
- Apple Mini M4 Pro, 64GB: $2,899.00
Apple does charge way too much for integrated storage, but Apple is only a 25% premium at 2TB not double (if you compare to the mini instead of the studio). Plug in a NVMe SSD if you're building an Apple desktop.
Not to defend Apple here, but it's also a bit apples to oranges (heh) because the power consumption is not easily comparable.
I would hazard a guess and say: at that spec, if you're looking at 1Y TCO, the Apple could easily be cost competitive performance per dollar.
Since they're in spitting distance of each other, just get the one you're most comfortable with. Personally I prefer Linux and I'm really happy that non-Apple machines are starting to get closer to the same efficiency and performance!
> I would hazard a guess and say: at that spec, if you're looking at 1Y TCO, the Apple could easily be cost competitive performance per dollar.
The two systems aren't that different in power consumption. The Strix Halo part has a 55W default TDP but I would assume Framework customized it to be higher. A comparable M4 Pro Mac Mini can easily pull 80W during an AI workload.
Apple has a slight edge in power efficiency, but it's not going to make a massive difference.
> if you're looking at 1Y TCO, the Apple could easily be cost competitive performance per dollar.
Only if you're buying artesinal single source electricity sustainably sourced from trained dolphins.
Average US electrical power is $.18/kWh per google. Figure the desktop draws 300W continuous (which it almost certainly can't), and that's 0.3 kW * 24 hr/day * 365.2425 days/yr == $473/year. So even if the mac was completely free you'd be looking at crossover in 5 years, or longer than the expected life of the device.
During peak hours (4-9pm daily) in San Diego you can be paying nearly $1/kWh (generation + transmission cost) to SDGE, so at least in certain areas, the running cost is very much relevant even for consumers.
A device with no moving parts, only 5 years of expected life?!
I understand if you say that high-performance users will want a newer system after 5 years, but I'd be very surprised if this 64GB RAM machine doesn't suffice for 98% of people, including those who want to play then-common games at default settings
Good to have some concrete figures nonetheless of course, it's always useful as a starting point
First: it's not five years. It's five years if you posit that macs are magic and use no energy[1]. In practice they're 40-70% the consumption of a competing desktop (depends on usage and specific model, yada yada yada). So figure a few decades or thereabouts.
But even so: I'm not sure I know a single new-device Apple customer who has a single unit older than five years. The comment about power implied that you'd make up the big Mac price tag on power savings, and no, you won't, not nearly, before you hawk it on eBay to buy another.
[1] And also that you posit that the device is in a compute farm or something and pumped at full load 24/7. Average consumption for real development hardware (that spends 60% of its life in suspend and 90% of the remainder in idle) is much, much, much closer to zero than it is to 300W!
Well, I know exactly what you're saying, but to be fair to Apple, my 68K Mac that's nearly 40 still works. My iMac G4 is fine. PowerMac G3 is fine. First gen Mac Pro is fine. Meanwhile, the only PCs I know of that survive time quite as well (and I collect old crap) were all nearly equivalent to Apple level pricing at the time of their introduction.
While Apple does charge nearly criminal markup for RAM and storage, they at least make some products that last (except for the TouchBar MacBooks' keyboards). I just hope my Mac Studio lasts too.
> Meanwhile, the only PCs I know of that survive time quite as well
Nah, everything works forever, it's just that no one cares. My younger child retired a 3770K Ivy Bridge box last year that I'd bought at or near release in 2012, so ~11 years of steady use.
People fetishize Apple hardware, but the truth is that modern electronics manufacturing is bulletproof up and down the assembly lines.
The ICs, yeah. Not so much power supplies, screens, etc. I've had the former go up in flames and the later delaminate - my current laptop has small bubbles around the edges of the screen.
I've also had high wattage GPUs inexplicably fail and lost a few SSDs to unexpected catastrophic failure. TBF I haven't lost any halfway decent SSDs within the past 5 years.
I don't think I've ever lost a motherboard, CPU, or RAM though. Even secondhand recycled data center stuff. It seems to just keep working forever.
My 4930K system is over a decade old and it still serves as a NAS. I have a Core 2 Duo kicking around that I'm sure will boot. There's a perfectly usable T520 sitting on my desk running Windows 11. But I must admit that Macbooks outlast most other laptops.
My 2012 mbp is still going strong, only needed a new battery. Great keyboard, great screen, great trackpad. The second hand market seems to reflect this in my experience if you look at resale prices vs non-mac equivalents.
Resale price does not mean anything if most units have hardware issues which was largely the case for most +5y macs when I looked for them out of curiosity.
Granted this is also the case of many brands but I found it was easier to find old thinkpad, fujitsu and dell business laptops in good shape than it was to find Apple ones.
Maybe this is biased and it has more to do with professional vs personal use. I guess you are a bit more cautious with a laptop your employer is lending you.
My experience is on the contrary. Employer-lent laptop only needs to be _not lost_, especially in MNCs. Replacing an MNC laptop is relatively easy and free for the user - as long as it is not lost, by the way.
> First: it's not five years. It's five years if you posit that macs are magic and use no energy[1].
Huh? I'm not "positing" anything, I'm responding to the longevity you stated:
> you'd be looking at crossover in 5 years, or longer than the expected life of the device.
As for Apple users not having devices older than five years... ehm, yeah: the brand targets an audience that really likes shiny new toys (either because they're lured into thinking they need it, or because it's a status symbol for them). Not sure how that's relevant here though
You have to account for resale when it comes to TCO. Resale value for a non-Apple PC is essentially zero - i.e. no one will buy it, or you'll get pennies on the dollar if they do. Whereas there's a strong market for used Apple hardware, and you can easily recover 50% or more.
This is an exaggeration, or you're not comparing apples to apples.
The used market for high performance PC gear is quite efficient. You're not going to get a high-end CPU or GPU from the past several years for pennies on the dollar.
Likewise, the resale market for Apple products doesn't guarantee 50% or more unless you're only looking at resale value of very new hardware. For example, you can pick up an M1 Max MacBook Pro (not that old) for closer to 1/3 of the original price.
Similar with phones and tablets: yes, people do that, but it's not the common case. I've only ever sold computing devices within the first month of ownership, after realising I made a mistake in purchasing it (not a broken device, but just not meeting my needs), but on second-hand sites you can also see various people offering them up after 1 or 2 years because they want something shinier and the old system still has value. I've bought my current phone from someone like that, and as a student I also bought such a laptop
Framework also charges quite a surplus on the SSD. For example "WD_BLACK SN7100 NVMe 2TB" is €229, but a more typical price is around ~€140, so that's about €90 extra. Don't know how that compares to Apple.
Framework absolutely does fleece you on the SSD, so don’t buy SSDs from them if you’re price-sensitive. But compared to Apple it’s nowhere close: per Apple’s website, upgrading a current Mac Mini or Mac Studio from 512 GB to 2 TB costs $600. You can buy a WD_BLACK SN850X 8TB for that much money (or a WD_BLACK SN8100 4TB and still have a quarter of it left over, if you really want PCIe 5.0, but there’s no point at the moment).
I checked and it's €750 extra to get a 2TB here in Ireland (just to compare apples with apples wrt. Framework Desktop). Wahahaha, this is the most ridiculous thing I've seen.
One note is the Mac Mini surprisingly has 3rd party SSD upgrades now as well. Both gauge the storage price a bit, so probably best to just go 3rd party for both unless you're going to stick with the base storage.
Btw, you can buy a MacBook Pro Max M1 16" 64GB SoC RAM, 1TB SSD in excellent condition, with warranty, refurbished by Amazon with a brand new battery for $1,500 right now.
Corporations are switching laptops on a 3-year cycle.
Next year, there will be a flood of M2s, in 2 years, M3s, 3 years, M4s, nada, nada.
I'm not sure where you got $2861 for the Max+ Framework 64gb, unless you put two massively larger drives than the Mac Mini comes with... I got $2100 for the Max+ 64gb with the faster 2tb drive option. +400 to go to 128gb ram.
> Unless I'm misunderstanding their store page, Framework charges $687 CAD ($500 USD) to go from 16GB → 32 GB RAM.
That doesn't seem accurate for any of their computers? There is a pretty big leap from 32GB -> 64GB for the Desktop, but that is also a different processor.
The Mac Pro is the only Apple system that has user-replaceable storage. The Mac Mini & Studio both feature slotted storage modules, but Apple firmware locks it and so it can't be replaced much less upgraded.
This is incorrect. Mac minis (starting with the M4 model) and Mac Studios simply need to be restored via DFU mode following physical installation of another SSD (be it a larger one or simply a replacement) to function. There are third parties who have reverse engineered the design of the PCB and paired it with the same Hynix and Sandisk NAND chips Apple use.
Others in this thread already pointed out Apple is price competitive at mac mini, and Apple is extremely price competitive since they switched to their own chips.
I would love it if PC was in a better state, but ever since Intel started flopping everyone in the PC land is praising AMD while ignoring the fact that both of them are just underdelivering compared to Apple. You cannot even get a consumer grade CPU on PC with >128 bit memory bus other than this strix halo chip - and it happened by accident. There is nothing on roadmap in the mainstream that will bump it - industry is years away from adding it. Meanwhile Apple is benefiting from this since M1, and the AI workloads just made it an even larger win.
Thunderbolt drives are almost native speed so unless whatever work you are doing is heavily IO bound, external drives are cheap way to boost storage for most people.
Sure, Macs should not be so restricted but unless government take action, that's not going to happen.
Why are you mentioning external SSDs? We were talking about how difficult Apple makes it to swap internal drives.
External drives are not a replacement for internal drives. I have a laptop for a reason, and on crowded trains and planes needing some desk space to plug in dongles, huibs, and external drives just doesnt cut it.
Notice how you specifically chose the mac mini for your example, the easiest upgradable machine in the lineup.
iMacs and macbook pros on the other hand are significantly more difficult. Apple could easily rectify this but choose not to, so that you are more likely to buy their overpriced upsells on the initial purchase.
RAM isn’t cheap but it’s not awful, or as bad as it once was, especially in their laptops. One of the primary things that has kept me from buying a new Apple desktop or laptop is honestly SSD pricing.
It’s absolutely ridiculous given how cheap 1TB or 2TB drives are. And generally, in my experience, the ones Apple uses have had subpar performance compared to what’s available for the PC market for less than half the price. Not to mention their base configuration machines usually have subtly crappier SSDs than a tier up.
I haven’t bought a new Mac since Apple released the M-series. I’ve wanted to multiple times, but the value just isn’t there for me personally.
Strix Halo is one of the tier-1 out-of-the-box perfect targets for for // hypermodern // nixos so I'm tuning it for the EVO-X2 which was the first desktop one available (and we'll support omarchy's hyprland rice out of the box, its a nice rice even if I prefer Ono-Sendai).
That's getting you twice the RAM for the same price. Now the Framework has both intangible cool factor and scope for more upgrades, so if money is no object, get the Framework.
But I can vouch for the EVO-X2 as the real Strix Halo experience: its thermals are solid, and even under sustained 100W+ its quieter than the average gaming PC. Obviously an elite ITX build can do better, but it's jaw-dropping at the price point: great ports, plenty of M.2 capacity, stable under extreme load, and a lot cheaper.
He didn't pick the equivalent Mac to compare to. The closest Mac would be a an M4 Pro Mac Mini, not a Mac Studio.
Right now I see a 64GB M4 Pro Mac Mini with 2TB SSD is $2600. Still more expensive, but not double the price. The Apple refurbished store has the same model for $2200.
The M4 Pro Mac Mini probably has the edge in performance, though I can't say how much. The Ryzen platform driver and software support is still early.
I think these Strix Halo boxes are great, but I also think they're a little high in the hype cycle right now. Once supply and demand evens out I think they should be cheaper, though.
The point is that before the AMD Ryzen Al Max+ 395 chip there was only Apple that offered something comparable for the desktop / laptop that could do these AI relate tasks. Were else could you find a GPU with 64-128 memory?
>The AMD 395+ uses unified memory, like Apple, so nearly all of it is addressable to be used by the GPU.
This is why they went with the “laptop” cpu. While it’s slightly slower than dedicated memory, it allows you to run the big models, at decent token speeds.
Geerling benchmarked LLM performance on the Framework Desktop and the results look pretty lackluster to me. First, the software seems really immature. He couldn't get ROCm or the NPU working. When he finally got the iGPU working with Vulkan, he could only generate 5 tok/sec with Llama 3.1 70b (40 GB model). That's intolerably slow for anything interactive like coding or chatting imo, but I suppose that's a matter of opinion.
Ryzen AI Max is best with ~100B MoE models rather than large monolithic ones. For example, OpenAI's gpt-oss-120b runs at around 40 tok/s and beats Llama 3.1 70B on most/all benchmarks.
Prompt processing speeds are pretty poor too imo. I was interested in one to be able to run some of the 100b moe's but since they only give 50-150 tk/s (depending on model) it will take 5ish mins to process a 32k context which wouldn't be unbarebly slow for me. I've just looked at the results in that link and it's even worse for the 70b's. It will be nearly 20 mins to process a 32k context.
I guess that depends on your definition of "decent". For the smaller models that can run on a 16/24/32 GB nvidia card, the chip is anywhere between 3x and 10x slower compared to say a 4080 super or a 3090 which are relatively cheap used.
Biggest limitations are the memory bandwidth which limits token generation and the fact it's not a CUDA chip, meaning longer time until first token for theoretically similar hardware specifications.
Any model bigger than what fits in 32 GB VRAM is - in my opinion - currently unusable on "consumer" hardware. Perhaps a tinybox with 144 GB of VRAM and close to 6 TB/s memory bandwidth will get you a nice experience for consumer grade hardware but it's quite the investment (and power draw)
I think it depends on the use case, slow isn’t that bad if you’re asking questions infrequently. I downloaded a model a few weeks ago that was roughly 80GBs in size and ran it on my 3090 just to see how it was… and it was okay. Fast? Nope. But it did it. If the answers were materially better I’d be happy to wait a minute for the output, but they weren’t. I’d like to try one of the really large ones, just to see how slow it is, but need to clear some space to even download it.
For anyone else curious, they actually have a deep dive on the subject. You can also replace it with another since it's just flexATX, albeit with some requirements.
PCI lanes just aren’t there yet which is why the soldered memory approach to shorten the gap and increase the speed. The memory the framework desktop uses doesn’t come in slotted form (LPDDR5X).
You absolutely can (and should) build your own for slightly cheaper. Just find the fastest DDR5 CUDIMMs you can paired with the fastest memory bus mobo.
It's not perfect but it's a start towards unification. In the end though, we're at the same crossroads that graphics drivers were in 2013 with the sunsetting of OpenGL by Apple and the announcement of Vulkan by Khronos Group. CUDA has been around for a while and only recently has it gotten attention from the other chip makers. Thank goodness for open source and the collective minds that participate.
I like Framework and own one of their laptops. But the desktop seems more a triumph of gimmicky marketing than a desktop that's meaningfully different. And, it seems significantly overpriced.
I am very on board with the framework mission. I can afford the premium just to keep their lights on and doors open. The other Chinese OEMs almost certainly won’t offer quite the support for that ~10% discount…
Framework Desktop price with default selections, 32GB of RAM, 500 GB storage: $1,242.00 USD
Mac Mini with 32GB of RAM, 512 GB storage: $1,199.00
Post changed a bit since I started replying, so:
> For the purposes of running LLM models, a Mac Mini
The M4 Max is the one that actually gives you a shit load of memory bandwidth. If you just get a normal M4 it's not going to be especially good at that.
> it doesn't have MacOS
The Mac can't run Windows, which is used by ~75% of all desktop computer users and the main operating system that video games target. I'd say that would be the bigger problem for many.
> Apple's service
What advantage does that get you over Framework's service?
> resale value
Framework resale value has proven to be excellent by the way. Go to eBay, search "Framework Laptop", go to "Sold Items". Many SKUs seem to be retaining most of their value.
(Nevermind the ease of repair for the Framework, or the superior expandability. If you want to expand the disk space on an M4 you need to get sketchy parts, possibly solder things, and rescue your Mac with another Mac. For framework devices you plug in another M.2 card.)
Macs can run Windows just fine, through Parallels. It’s more efficient at doing so than most ARM based windows machines on sale still. And I found software compatibility with Windows 11 for ARM to be a non issue nowadays.
I can't tell you how much I disagree with this take.
Microsoft's AMD64 emulator is slow and buggy compared to Rosetta, and you will need it a lot more, too. Many apps will need to rely on this, including programs many users will immediately try to use, like Visual Studio. Neither Visual Studio nor its compilers support running on an ARM host; it does seem to basically work, but is slow, which is not good considering Visual Studio is already not particularly fast. It will even display a message box warning you that it is not supported during setup, so you couldn't miss it (note that this applies to the Visual Studio compilers needed by Python and Node for installing packages with C extensions). MSys2 gave me a lot of trouble, too; the setup just doesn't seem to work on ARM64. Chocolatey often installs AMD64 or x86 binaries on ARM instead of native ones; sometimes native ones don't exist anyways. Third party thing that needs to load a kernel module? Don't bet on there being an ARM64 build of it; sometimes there is, sometimes there isn't. WinFSP has a build, many hardware drivers I've looked at don't seem to (don't laugh: you can pass through USB devices, there is sense in installing actual hardware drivers.) I just set up a fresh copy of Parallels on an M3 Mac a couple months ago, I'm stopping now to be terse, this paragraph could easily be much longer. It would suffice to say that basic Windows software usage is a lot worse on Parallels than a native Windows AMD64 machine. Very useful, sure. At parity, oh no. Not close.
That's just the basics though. For GPU, Parallels does do some D3D11 translation which is (a lot!) better than nothing, but you are not getting native performance, you are not getting Vulkan support, and you are certainly not getting ROCm or CUDA or anything equivalent, so actually a lot of apps that practically need GPU acceleration are not going to be usable anyways. Even if a video game would run, anti-piracy and anti-cheat measures in lots of modern games detect and block users using VM software, not that you can expect that all of the games you want to run would even work anyways on ARM; plenty of games are known to be unstable and some don't work at all. There are other side effects of trying to do actual gaming in VMs in general, but I really think this gets the point across: Windows games and multimedia are significantly worse in Parallels than on a native machine.
Parallels filesystem bridging is impractical, it's not fast enough and it is buggy, i.e. running Bazel on bridged files will not work. This means you need to copy stuff back and forth basically all the time if you want to work on stuff natively but then test on Windows. Maybe this is partly Window's fault, but in any case it would suffice to say that workflows that involve Windows will be a lot clunkier than they would be on a native Windows machine.
I think these conclusions, that a native Windows machine would be a lot better for doing Windows things than a Mac running Parallels, is actually pretty obvious and self-evident, but reading what you said might literally give someone the opposite impression, that there is little reason to possibly want to run Windows. This is just misleading. Parallels is a great option as a last resort or to fill a gap, but if you have anything that regularly requires you to use Windows software or test on Windows, Parallels is not a very serious option. It may be cheaper than two machines in fiat currency, but probably not in sanity.
I don't know you, so I can't and won't, based on a single post, accuse you of being a fanboy. However, this genre of retort is a serious issue with fanboyism. It's easy to say "Windows? just use VMs!", but that's because for some people, actually just using Windows is probably not a serious option they would consider anyways; if the VM didn't work for a use case they'd back up and reconsider almost anything else before they reconsider their choice of OS or hardware vendor, but they probably barely need (if at all) a VM with Windows anyways. If this feels like a personal attack, I'd like to clarify that I am describing myself. I will not use Windows. I don't have a bare metal Windows machine in my house, and I do my best to limit Windows usage in VMs, too. Hell, I will basically only use macOS under duress these days, I'm not a fan of the direction it has gone either.
Still, I do not go around telling people that they should just go switch to Linux if they don't like Windows, and that Virtualbox or Wine will solve all of their problems, because that's probably not true and it's downright dishonest when deep down I know how well the experience will go. The honest and respectful thing to tell people about Linux is that it will suck, some of the random hardware you use might not work, some of your software won't work well under Wine or VMs, and you might spend more time troubleshooting. If they're still interested even after proper cautioning, chances are they'll actually go through with it and figure it out: people do not need to be sold a romantic vision, if anything they need the opposite, because they may struggle to foresee what kinds of problems they might run into. Telling people that virtual machines are a magic solution and you don't have to care about software compatibility is insane, and I say that with full awareness that Parallels is better than many of the other options in terms of user friendliness and out of the box capabilities.
I think the same thing is fair to do for macOS. With macOS there is the advantage that the entire experience is nicer as long as everything you want to do fits nicely into Apple's opinionated playbook and you buy into Apple's ecosystem, but I rarely hear people actually mention those latter caveats. I rarely hear people mention that, oh yeah, a lot of cool features I use only work because i use Apple hardware and services throughout my entire life, and your Android phone might not work as well, especially not with those expensive headphones I think you should get for your Mac. Fanboys of things have a dastardly way of only showing people the compelling side of things and leaving out the caveats. I don't appreciate this, and I think it ultimately has an overtone of thinking you know what someone wants better than they do. If someone is really going to be interested in living the Mac life, they don't need to be mislead to be compelled.
> Mac Mini with 32GB of RAM, 512 GB storage: $1,199.00
You're looking at the wrong Mac Mini. The model with the M4 Pro is the right comparison, on account of also having a 256-bit memory bus giving substantially higher bandwidth than a typical desktop computer. The M4 Pro model doesn't have a 32GB option.
The M4 Max (not available in a Mac Mini) has an even larger memory bus, giving it far more bandwidth than either the M4 Pro or the AMD Strix Halo part used by Framework.
I was just going for a head-to-head comparison, that's the closest you can get in price/performance. The closest M4 Pro Mac Mini is already a lot more expensive than the baseline Framework Desktop.
The Framework Desktop Max+ 395 with 128 GB of RAM, and a 500 GB SSD costs around $2,147.00 USD before tax. The M4 Pro with the 20-core GPU, 64 GB of RAM, and a 512 GB SSD costs around $2,199.00 USD. That's still short 64 GB of RAM, of course.*
The lowest-end M4 Max Mac Studio that can support 128 GB of RAM seems to cost $3,499.00 with 128 GB of RAM and a 512 GB SSD. For that you get 546GB/s of maximum memory bandwidth according to Apple, which is definitely a step up from the 256GB/s maximum for the Ryzen AI Max+ 395, but obviously also at a price that is quite higher too.
Apparently though, 128 GB of RAM is currently the ceiling for the M4 Max right now. So it seems like if you were going for a maximum performance local AI cluster at any price, the M3 Ultra Mac Studios are definitely in the running, though at that point it probably is starting to get to the price where AMD and NVIDIA's data center GPUs start to enter the picture, and AMD Instinct cards measure memory bandwidth in terabytes per second.
* Regarding GPUs: The Framework Desktop Max+ 395 Radeon 8060S seems to be vastly faster than all of the non-Max M4 SKUs, for anyone that cares a lot about GPU performance. The M4 Max seems to outperform the 8060S by a bit though, and obviously it has some stand-out features like a shit load of video encoding/decoding hardware. This complicates the value comparison a lot. The Radeon core definitely gets a much better value for the performance in any case. I'm really impressed by what they managed to do there.
The M4 has half the memory bandwidth of the 395+ and the specs on those models are absolute trash. To get an M4 Pro APU and decent specs you're spending at least as much as the Framework, at least here in Canada.
It's taking a newly released mobile- and mini-PC-focused platform that's usually paired with proprietary technology, and building something that's as close as possible to a standard desktop with it. Seems very much in the Framework spirit once you account for that side of it.
Right, but why go with mobile at all?
I get the laptops.
For desktop you already have thousands of choices though and reparability, assuming its not some proprietary Dell/HP desktop, is already as good as it gets without breaking out your soldering iron.
That said, they'll know more about the market demand than I do and another option won't hurt :)
The specific chip powering the Framework Desktop is something very unique in the PC landscape in general, even in desktop. The Strix Halo chip pairs a 16 core CPU with a huge iGPU that performs like a desktop discrete GPU, and 128GB of RAM (accessible on the GPU).
Strix Halo is almost like having a PS5 or Xbox chip but available for the PC ecosystem. It's a super interesting and unique part for GPU compute, AI, or small form factor gaming.
Quiet desktop PCs with good thermals have been getting increased interest — not everyone needs a tower, for some a Mac Mini-like device would work great, but not everyone wants to get into the Apple ecosystem for various reasons.
Of course this PC is interesting in that it’s more “workstation class” and I’m not sure how much thermals matter there, but maybe this is an iteration towards a Mac Studio like device.
> Right, but why go with mobile at all? I get the laptops.
Pair a power-efficient mobile chip with a mini-desktop form factor and a good (i.e. probably overengineered, to some extent) cooling solution, and it will give you a kind of sustained performance and reliability over time that you just aren't going to get from the average consumer/enthusiast desktop chip. Great for workstation-like use cases that still don't quite need the raw performance and official support you'd get from a real, honest-to-goodness HEDT.
From the product page I don't see how that mainboard is more repairable than a typical ITX one though. As far as I can tell, you also cannot change the CPU on it so even less than a typical desktop mainboard.
By buying their devices you directly support company and mission that they're on. I'm not a diehard OSS supporter (Mac user here), but I consider buying The Framework Desktop just to support the company over, say, Dell or HP.
> but I consider buying The Framework Desktop just to support the company over, say, Dell or HP.
Exactly. Between those three companies, only one of them is likely to even try to make something like core boot possible on this machine. That’s something I can afford to encourage.
I'm realizing that I may have misunderstood Framework's market. I thought it was tinkerers and environmentally conscious FOSS nerds like me, but I think there maybe be a huge enterprise segment whose employees in charging of purchasing are like me but answer to much more strict business needs than "Isn't it cool that it comes with a screwdriver in the box?" So for example the underpowered cpu in the fw12 makes no sense to me until I found out that it's also designed for mass purchases by schools and designed to be flung around by angsty teens. The desktop seems to be meant to be strapped to the underside of 40 identical cubicals in an office as much as it's meant to be apparently hauled around by people that want to have CSGO lan parties.
> So for example the underpowered cpu in the fw12 makes no sense to me until I found out that it's also designed for mass purchases by schools and designed to be flung around by angsty teens.
I think that might be overstating it a bit. Real "rugged" laptops do exist, and would be quite at home in that kind of use (well, usually you'd worry a lot more about how kids in primary school will treat your hardware than teenagers) but the Framework 12 is not one.
Real "rugged" laptops are far too expensive for schools to buy by the dozen. Also, while robust against the environment they're not so much against deliberate vandalism or theft. The target market for those seems to be construction/industrial and similar, and of course the military.
All school laptop fleets I've seen are simply the cheapest thing they can buy in bulk, when it breaks provision a new one.
I cancelled my Framework Desktop order and ordered a HP Z2 Mini G1a instead, the goal being to replace my Mac Studio as I've had it with Apple's arrogance and lousy software quality. The HP is much smaller, has ECC RAM and 10G Ethernet. Significantly more expensive, however.
Apple have certainly taken a couple steps back re: overall reliability, but if you think that the grass is greener on the other side…pray tell how that goes
The 8 DRAM packages pretty clearly indicate you're not getting the extra capacity for end-to-end ECC as you would on a typical workstation or server memory module.
Many mobile devices have on-chip ECC because they have to for signal integrity reasons... technically the Raspberry Pi 5 has ECC too, by that definition!
You're right, I had asked my HP specialist to confirm that it was ECC, and he had said yes, but when I prompted him again on the distinction between link ECC (protects data in motion) vs true on-die ECC (protects data at rest in RAM, much more important), he admitted it was the former and canceled my order.
I now ordered a Beelink GTR9 Pro, which unlike the Framework has dual 10G Ethernet, not the weird 5G flavor. We'll see how that goes.
Ah, interesting. Did you get a ship date? I do like the idea of dual 10G. It would be nice to see a review on how well the GTR9's cooling works and how quiet it is under full load.
I was baffled by the comparison to the M4 Max. Does this mean that recent AMD chips will be performing at the same level, and what does that mean for on-device LLMs? .. or am I misunderstanding this whole ordeal?
I don't know, but it's primarily very expensive to manufacture and hard to make expandable. You can see people in rage due to soldered RAM in this thread.
There's always tradeoffs and people propose many things. Selling those things as a product is another game entirely.
It basically looks like a games console. Its not a conceptually difficult architecture, "what if the GPU and the CPU had the same memory?". Good things indeed.
Faster and bigger SRAM cache is as complicated of a solution as adding moar boosters to your rocket. It works, but expensive. RP2040 uses ~8x more die space as its dual CPU just for the RAM.
Maybe, but due to the physics of signal integrity, socketed RAM will always be slower than RAM integrated onto the same PCB as whatever processing element is using it, so by the time CAMM / LPCAMM catches up, some newer integrated RAM solution will be faster yet.
This is a matter of physics. It can't be "fixed." Signal integrity is why classic GPU cards have GiBs of integrated RAM chips: GPUs with non-upgradeable RAM that people have been happily buying for years now.
Today, the RAM requirements of GPU and their applications has become so large that the extra, low cost, slow, socketed RAM is now a false economy. Naturally, therefore, it's being eliminated as PCs evolve into big GPUs, with one flavor or other of traditional ISA processing elements attached.
It’s possible that Apple really did a disservice to soldered RAM by making it a key profit-increasing option for them, exploiting the inability of buyers to buy RAM elsewhere or upgrade later, but in turn making soldered RAM seem like a scam, when it does have fundamental advantages, as you point out.
Going from 64 GB to 128 GB of soldered RAM on the Framework Desktop costs €470, which doesn’t seem that much more expensive than fast socketed RAM. Going from 64 GB to 128 GB on a Mac Studio costs €1000.
Ask yourself this: what is the correct markup for delivering this nearly four years before everyone else? Because that's what Apple did, and why customers have been eagerly paying the cost.
Let us all know when you've computed that answer. I'll be interested, because I have no idea how to go about it.
Is the problem truly down to physics or is it down to the stovepiped and conservative attitudes of PC part manufacturers and their trade groups like JEDEC? (Not that consumers don't play a role here too).
The only essential part of sockets vs solder is the metal-metal contacts. The size of the modules and the distance from the CPU/GPU are all adjustable parameters if the will exists to change them.
Yes. The "conservative attitudes" of JEDEC et al. are a consequence of physics and the capabilities of every party involved in dealing with it, from the RAM chip fabricators and PCB manufacturers, all the way to you, the consumer, and the price you're willing to pay for motherboards, power supplies, memory controllers, and yield costs incurred trying to build all of this stuff, such that you can sort by price, mail order some likely untested combination of affordable components and stick them together with a fair chance that it will all "work" within the power consumption envelope, thermal envelope, and failure rate you're likely to tolerate. Every iteration of the standards is another attempt to strike the right balance all the way up and down this chain, and at the root of everything is the physics of signal integrity, power consumption, thermals and component reliability.
As I said, consumers play a part here too. But I don't see the causal line from the physics to the stagnation, stovepiping, artificial market segmentation, and cartelization we see in the computer component industries.
Soldering RAM has always been around and it has its benefits. I'm not convinced of its necessity however. We're just now getting a new memory socket form factor but the need was emerging a decade ago.
> The only essential part of sockets vs solder is the metal-metal contacts.
Yeah... And that’s a pretty damn big difference. A connector is always going to result in worse signal integrity than a high-quality solder joint in the real world.
No doubt the most tightly integrated package can outperform a looser collection of components. But if we could shorten the distances, tighten the tolerances, and have the IC companies work on improving the whole landscape instead of just narrow, disjointed pieces slowly one at a time, then would the unsoldered connections still cause a massive performance loss or just a minor one?
Yes. Signal integrity is so finicky at frequencies DRAM operates that whether you drill the plated holes on boards that complete the circuit to go completely through the board or stop it halfway starts to matter due to signals permeating into the stubs of the holes and reflecting back into the trace causing interference. Adding a connector between RAM and CPU is like extending that long pole in the tent in the middle by inserting a stack of elephant into what is already shaped like an engine crankshaft found in a crashed wreck of a car.
Besides, no one strictly need mid-life upgradable RAMs. You're just wanting to be able to upgrade RAM later after purchase because it's cheaper upfront and also because it leaves less room for supply side for price gouging. Those aren't technical reasons you can't option a 2TB RAM on purchase and be done for 10 years.
In the past, at least, RAM upgrades weren't just about filling in the slots you couldn't afford to fill on day one. RAM modules also got denser and faster over time too. This meant you could add more and better RAM to your system after waiting a couple years than it was even physically possible to install upfront.
Part of the reason I have doubts about the physical necessity here is because PCI Express (x16) is roughly keeping up with GDDR in terms of bandwidth. Of course they are not completely apples-to-apples comparable, but it proves at least that it's possible to have a high-bandwidth unsoldered interface. I will admit though that what I can find indicates that signal integrity is the biggest issue each new generation of PCIe has to overcome.
It's possible that the best solution for discrete PC components will be to move what we today call RAM onto the CPU package (which is also very likely to become a CPU+GPU package) and then keep PCIe x16 around to provide another tier of fast but upgradeable storage.
I am personally dealing with PCIe signal integrity issues at work right now, so I can say yes, it’s incredibly finicky once you start going outside of the simple “slot below CPU” normal situation. And I only care about Gen 3 speeds right now.
But in general yes, PCIe vs RAM bandwidth is like comparing apples to watermelons. One’s bigger than the other and they’re both fruits, but they’re not the same thing.
Generally people don’t talk about random-access PCIe latency because it generally doesn’t matter. You’re looking at a best-case 3x latency penalty for PCIe vs RAM, usually more like an order of magnitude or more. PCIe is really designed for maximum throughput, not minimum latency. If you make the same tradeoffs with RAM you can start tipping the scale the other way - but people really care about random access latency in RAM (almost like it’s in the name) so that generally doesn’t happen outside of specific scenarios. 500ns 16000MT/s RAM won’t sell (and would be a massive pain - you’d probably need to 1.5x bus width to achieve that, which means more pins on the CPU, which means larger packages, which means more motherboard real estate taken and more trace length/signal integrity concerns, and you’d need to somehow convince everyone to use your new larger DIMM...).
You can also add more memory channels to effective double/quadruple/sextuple memory bandwidth, but again, package constraints + signal integrity increases costs substantially. My threadripper pro system does ~340GB/s and ~65ns latency (real world) with 8 memory channels - but the die is huge, CPUs are expensive as hell, and motherboards are also expensive as hell. And for the first ~9 months after release the motherboards all struggled heavily with various RAM configurations.
Perhaps it's time to introduce L4 Cache and a new Slot CPU design where RAM/L4 is incorporated into the CPU package? The original Slot CPUs that Intel and AMD released in the late 90s were to address similar issues with L2 cache.
Intel's Arrow Lake platform launched in fall 2024 is the first to support CUDIMMs (clock redriver on each memory module) and as a result is the first desktop CPU to officially support 6400MT/s without overclocking (albeit only reaching that speed for single-rank modules with only one module per channel). Apple's M1 Pro and M1 Max processors launched in fall 2021 used 6400MT/s LPDDR5.
Intel's Lunar Lake low-power laptop processors launched in fall 2024 use on-package LPDDR5x running at 8533MT/s, as do Apple's M4 Pro and M4 Max.
So at the moment, soldered DRAM offers 33% more bandwidth for the same bus width, and is the only way to get more than a 128-bit bus width in anything smaller than a desktop workstation.
Smartphones are already moving beyond 9600MT/s for their RAM, in part because they typically only use a 64-bit bus with. GPUs are at 30000MT/s with GDDR7 memory.
I was surprised at previous comparison on omarchy website, because apple m* work really well for data science work that don't require GPU.
It may be explained by integer vs float performance, though I am too lazy to investigate. A weak data point, using a matrix product of N=6000 matrix by itself on numpy:
- SER 8 8745, linux: 280 ms -> 1.53 Tflops (single prec)
- my m2 macbook air: it is ~180ms ms -> ~2.4 Tflops (single prec)
This is 2 mins of benchmarking on the computers I have. It is not apple to orange comparison (e.g. I use the numpy default blas on each platform), but not completely irrelevant to what people will do w/o much effort. And floating point is what matters for LLM, not integer computation (which is what the ruby test suite is most likely bottlenecked by)
Apple M chips are slower on the computation that AMD chips, but they have soldered on-package fast ram with a wide memory interface, which is very useful on workloads that handle lots of data.
Strix halo has a 256-bit LPDDR5X interface, twice as wide as the typical desktop chip, roughly equal to the M4 Pro and half of that of the M4 Max.
You're most likely bottlenecked by memory bandwidth for a LLM.
The AMD AI MAX 395+ gives you 256GB/sec. The M4 gives you 120GB/s, and the M4 Pro gives you 273GB/s. The M4 Max: 410GB/s (14‑core CPU/32‑core GPU) or 546GB/s (16‑core CPU/40‑core GPU).
I think DHH compares them because they are both the latest, top-line chips. I think DHHs benchmarks show that they have different performance characteristics. But DHHs favorite benchmark favors whatever runs native linux and docker.
For local LLM the higher memory bandwith of M4 Max makes it much more performant.
Now, but after listening to podcasts with him I think he's someone who would tackle hard stuff like drivers or DSP, so called math genius level coding as soon as it becomes more accessible for him through AI assisted coding.
There is a chance to build a real MacOS/iOS alternatives without a JVM abstraction layer on top like Android. The reason it didn't happen yet is the GPL firewall around the Linux kernel imo.
An M4 Max has double the memory bandwidth and should run away with similarly optimized benchmarks.
An M4 Pro is the more appropriate comparison. I don't know why he's doing price comparisons to a Mac Studio when you can get a 64GB M4 Pro Mac Mini (the closest price/performance comparison point) for much less.
> don't know why he's doing price comparisons to a Mac Studio when you can get a 64GB M4 Pro Mac Mini (the closest price/performance comparison point) for much less.
Where?
An M4 Pro Mac Mini is priced higher than the Framework here in Canada...
Depends on the benchmark I think. In this case it's probably close. Apple is cagey when it comes to power draw or clock metrics but I believe the M4 max has been seen drawing around 50W in loaded scenarios. Meanwhile, Phoronix clocked the 395+ as drawing an average of 91 watts during their benchmarks. If the performance is ~twice as fast that should be a similar performance per watt. Needless to say it's at least not a dramatic difference the way it was when the M1 came out.
edit: Though the M4 Max may be more power hungry than I'm giving it credit, but it's hard to say because I can't figure out if some of these power draw metrics from random Internet posts actually isolate the M4 itself. It looks like when the GPU is loaded it goes much, much higher.
It's not baffling once you realize TSMC is the main defining factor for all these chips, Apple Silicon is simply not that special in the grand scheme of things.
Why do you think TSMC's production being in Taiwan is basically a national security issue for the U.S. at this point?
> Apple Silicon is simply not that special in the grand scheme of things
Apple Silicon might not be that special from an architecture perspective (although treating integrated GPUs as appropriate for workloads other than low end laptops was a break with industry trends), but it’s very special from an economic perspective. The Apple Silicon unit volumes from iPhones have financed TSMC’s rise to semiconductor process dominance and, it would appear, permanently dethroned Intel.
Apple was just the highest bidder for getting the latest TSMC process. They wouldn't have had a problem getting other customers to buy up that capacity. And Intel's missteps counted for a substantial part of the process dominance you refer to. So I'd argue that Apple isn't that special here either.
Until Apple forced other chip makers to respond, nobody else was making high end phone processors. And their A series processors are competitive with and have transistor counts comparable to most mobile and desktop PC processors (and have for years). So the alternate reality where Apple isn't a TSMC customer means that TSMC is no longer manufacturing several hundred million high transistor count processors per year. In my opinion, it’s pretty likely TSMC isn’t able to achieve or maintain process dominance without that.
Update: To give an idea of the scales involved here, Apple had iPhone revenue in 2024 of about $200B. At an average selling price of $1k, we get 200 million units. Thats a ballpark estimate, they don’t release unit volumes, AFAIK. This link from IDC[1] has the global PC market in 2024 at about 267 million units. Apple also has iPads and Macs, so their unit processor volume is roughly comparable to the entire PC market. But, and this is hugely important: every single processor that Apple ships is comparable in performance (and, thus, transistor counts) to high end PC processors. So their transistor volume probably exceeds the entire PC CPU market. And the majority of it is fabbed on TSMC’s leading process node in any given year.
I'm pretty sure many of the Windows laptops with the Qualcomm Snapdragon Elite chip have the same or better battery life and comparable performance in a similar form factor. There are many videos online of comparisons.
I’ve been agonizing over getting the Framework Desktop for weeks as a dev machine/local LLM box/home server. It checks a lot of boxes but the only reason to look at the Framework Desktop over something like a Minisforum MS-A2 is for the LLM and that seems super janky right now. So I guess I’ll wait a beat and see where we are later in the year.
My main worry about all the Minisforum, Beelink, etc. PCs is: potential lack of UEFI firmware updates (does anyone have experience with how good they are with updates?) and potential backdoors in the UEFI firmware (either intentionally or unintentionally). A China-aligned/sponsored group has made an UEFI rootkit targetting ASUS/Gigabyte mainboards: https://www.spiceworks.com/it-security/vulnerability-managem... Why not require/compel certain companies to implement them directly?
I bought 3 Minisforum machines for a Kubernetes cluster and they didn't make it 11 months. They weren't even powered on most of that time. They just completely freeze with a black screen, and randomly enough to where every time I think maybe I figured out a fix it just crashes again a day later.
My Minisforum M780 XTX has been rock solid for 20 months now. Bought it as a remote development box since I needed more RAM than my MacBook Air and didn't feel like shelling out $3K for a 64GB MacBook Pro. Generally prefer the remote development experience since it means the laptop stays cool, just a pain not being able to work at a cafe now and then.
Even if there aren't backdoors, things like this[1] affecting AMD Zen CPUs, where microcode signing keys changed and thus the firmware needs to be updated to allow the new keys, would prevent machines from using new microcode updates.
probably doesn’t make sense as a home server unless you need the massive compute. i have a couple lenovo mini pcs (m75q, various generations, AMD) that I paid a total of $500 for on ebay. they’re so easy to find and handle most tasks swimmingly.
Surely if running a local LLM is a goal, you're going to be disappointed by any small form factor desktop. Even an M4 Max is slow compared to a 5 year old rtx 3090, and the M4's only advantage is that it can run larger models, but very slowly [1].
I'm not sure, but you could always just buy the Minisforum BD790i X3D [1]. Then, you'd be able to choose your own fan and case, and you can make it arbitrarily quiet by selecting a good fan. Early BD790i boards had a bug where losing power causes it to reset all BIOS settings, but they fixed that in later batches. I wonder when they will come out with a 9955HX version. Another good thing about this board is that it has two PCIe 5 NVME SSD slots with active cooling, which is a lot better than most other mini ITX boards out there, including the Framework.
I did exactly this, put it in a 2U case. Fantastic performance, but even with the best Noctua I could put on it the CPU fan sounds like a Hawker Harrier doing VTOL when it's under load. Don't regret the board, but wish my rack was in another room now.
You can adjust some fan settings in the BIOS, like what temperature it starts turning on, the PWM setting when it first turns on, and the temperature at which it hits PWM of 100%. After tuning those a bit, mine is pretty quiet unless I'm compiling with all cores or something.
Hehe, that is just a Chinese company, isn't it? Say bye bye to warranty and support, repairability. I am not saying you shouldn't consider it but describing Framework merely as cool factor is the other extreme.
I've been turned off GMKTek since I was helping a buddy fresh install Windows and found their drivers are on a Google Drive folder they don't pay for which hits its download quota regularly and so you have to go back day after day and play roulette and hope you get in at the right time. And the drivers are literally nowhere else that I could find, even with driver search tools.
Feels like in terms of warranty, support, repairability, it's not so much that Chinese brands have advanced, but that the west has seriously regressed. Every company now is looking to lock me out of my own hardware, extract as much information about me, extract as much value possible by degrading support and compatibility and whatever else they can...
Maybe when we run out of reasons to buy american or european or japanese they will wake up, but I don't see it.
Doubling down on mediocrity and then protecting it with tariffs is the American way now it seems.
For me as a Canadian, Framework being an American company was always a problem because their shipping and availability to here were actually inferior to overseas suppliers despite being on the same continent (this is frankly often the case because of American business arrogance and blindness to the Canadian market -- things ship faster from Europe than from American suppliers for me, on the whole).
But now with the idiotic trade war talk, it's even worse since I'm likely to be hit by a retalliatory tariff situation.
Some day hopefully all this dollar store economic nationalism will blow over, but in the meantime it's too bad Framework has a good product and isn't European or Asian, because I won't buy it now.
My post is the nuance, and as a buyer/user of GPD, Minisforum, and Xiaomi products I respectfully disagree.
Chinese companies are not on par with Western ones. The QA, safety measures, hazard compliance, warranty, or even proper English (they use an online translator service) isn't there. Cha bu duo is an accurate description of Chinese products.
From the link you send they offer 7 days return policy. In EU you got 2 weeks, legally enforced. Companies like Amazon offer even a month. Then they have a restock fee of 15%. This is AFAIK allowed (if proportional to the damage to the product) but it does not seem proportional. Companies like Amazon don't do this. And Amazon isn't great; they have a lot of cheap Chinese dropshipping brand. Then they often lie in China as well. They claim leather, when you buy it it is fake leather.
Cha bu duo can be good enough if you are on a tight budget, or if the product isn't available otherwise (how I ended up with GPD Pocket 2 back around 2018). But I have personally witnessed how Xiaomi smartphones fucked up a mid sized non-profit who dealt with very sensitive personal details. They went for budget, ended up with a support nightmare, and something which shouldn't be GDPR compliant. Cause yeah, spyware and bloatware is another issue.
> proper English (they use an online translator service)
Pet peeve: why should I care ?
People take grammatical errors as some ultimate gotcha and indicator of character flaw. I don't pay for the marketing nor value that they asked 3 translators to double-check each other to have flawless text for the damn first boot guide of a computer.
I see it the same as Framework's shaky YouTube presentations: they couldn't bother hiring a cameraman for their product presentations. What does that say about their computers ? To me absolutely nothing. I'll still buy one if it sounds nice enough.
> 7 days return policy.
It's from delivery.
For comparison, framework offers 30 days, but from shipping. Which means if your laptop takes more than a month to get delivered for whatever reason you virtually have no return window.
I hear you, but this is all relative to a market. There's no maker I can blindly trust whatever the country they operate in, and if we're going for cultural generalizations I'd set Tesla as the poster child of US manufacturers at this moment.
All in all, I get why we should be wary about Chinese makers. It's just the same reason we should be wary of every other makers, including those who'll screw their customer base on any other aspect that won't get picked up by a review (repairability has been one of these. Compatibility, durability, vendor lockin, standard parts etc. are other aspects.
I would rather say it's a Chinese conglomerate. E.g. Think.* are said to be designed in the US, Taiwan, and Japan. They are often assembled locally (e.g. my ThinkStation was assembled in Hungary). They have offices in many local markets and can be held accountable for warranty, issues, etc.
I agree with your general point though, 'Chinese' does not mean bad quality, warranty, etc. It's more a property of a bunch of Chinese computer companies selling through AliExpress, Amazon, etc. Their quality and service might improve as they grow.
As an aside, Lenovo are pretty awesome. For ThinkStations, ThinkPads, etc. they have in-depth guides for supported memory configurations, disassembly, repair etc., often with part numbers. Their hardware also works well with fwupdmgr and they provide their own Linux support (like WWAN FCC unlock scripts).
These things would be important if they made products that actually work. My T14s Gen 3 AMD simply doesn’t work. Half the time I go to wake it from sleep, the firmware has crashed and I have to hard-reset it. I spent months trying to get Lenovo to fix this. They did replace the motherboard twice (once on-site, once shipped to them) and eventually replaced the entire laptop with a new one. None of this is useful when they can’t make a laptop that doesn’t crash while it sleeps.
Sorry to hear that! I have a T14 (non-s) Gen 5 AMD and everything works great, also suspend-resume. A few years ago I had a Gen 1 AMD and it was certainly much worse. It would resume, but the trackpad or trackpoint would often not come up. But I'm very happy with the Gen 5.
RDNA 3.5, which means you don't get Matrix Cores. Those are reserved for RDNA 4, which comes to laptop chips later this year. Desktop RDNA 4 only shipped in 2025.
For comparison, Nvidia brought Tensor Cores to consumer cards in 2022 with the 4000 series and Apple had simdgroup_matrix since 2020!
We are moving towards a world where this hardware is ubiquitous. It's uncertain what that means for non-ML workloads.
What do you need Matrix Cores for when you already have a NPU which can access the same memory, and even seems to include more flexible FPGA fabric? It's six of one, half a dozen of another.
I have the HP Zbook G1a running the same CPU and RAM under HP Ubuntu. I have not seen any OOTB way to use the TPU. I can get ROCm software to run but it does not use it. No system tools show its activity that I can see. It seems to be a marketing gimmick. Shame.
> The PFB is found in many different application domains such as radio astronomy, wireless communication, radar, ultrasound imaging and quantum computing.. the authors worked on the evaluation of a PFB on the AIE.. [developing] a performant dataflow implementation.. which made us curious about the AMD Ryzen NPU.
> The [NPU] PFB figure shows.. speedup of circa 9.5x compared to the Ryzen CPU.. TINA allows running a non-NN algorithm on the NPU with just two extra operations or approximately 20 lines of added code.. on [Nvidia] GPUs CUDA memory is a limiting factor.. This limitation is alleviated on the AMD Ryzen NPU since it shares the same memory with the CPU providing up to 64GB of memory.
The NPU is generally pretty weak and not pipelined into the GPU's logic (which is already quite large on-die). It feels like the past 10 years have taught us that if you're going to create tensor-specific hardware then it makes the most sense to put it in your GPU and not a dark-silicon coprocessor.
There is a project called SCALE that allows building CUDA code natively for AMD GPUs.
It is designed as a drop-in replacement for Nvidia CUDA, and it is free for personal and educational use.
There are still many things that need implementing, most important ones being cuDNN and CUDA Graph API, but in my opinion, the list of things that are supported now is already quite impressive (and keeps improving): https://github.com/spectral-compute/scale-validation/tree/ma...
All of Ollama and Stable Diffusion based stuff now works on my AMD cards. Maybe it’s different if you want to actually train things, but I have no issues running anything that fits in memory any more.
> But when we switch to longer context, we see something interesting happen. WMMA + FA basically loses no performance at this longer context length!
> Vulkan + FA still has better pp but tg is significantly lower. More data points would be better, but seems like Vulkan performance may continue to decrease as context extends while the HIP+rocWMMA backend should perform better.
> (What is bad is that basically every single model has a different optimal backend, and most of them have different optimal backends for pp (handling context) vs tg (new text)).
Anyway, for me, the greatest thing about the Strix Halo + llama.cpp combo is that we can throw one or more egpu into the mix, as echoed by level1tech video (https://youtu.be/ziZDzrDI7AM?t=485), which should help a lot with PP performance.
In practical generative AI workflows (LLMs), I think AMD Max+395 chips with unified memory is as good as Mac Studio or MacBook Pro configurations in handling big models locally and support fast inference speeds (However Top-end Apple silicon (M4 Max, Studio Ultra) can reach 546GB/s memory bandwidth, while the AMD unified memory system is around 256GB/s). I think for inference use either will work fine. For everything else I think CUDA ecosystem is a better bet (correct me if I'm wrong).
My impression is the same. To train anything you just need to have CUDA gpus. For inference I think AMD and Apple M chips are getting better and better.
For inference, Nvidia/AMD/Intel/Apple are all generally on the same tier now.
There's a post on github of a madman who got llama.cpp generating tokens for an AI model that's running on an Intel Arc, Nvidia 3090, and AMD gpu at the same time. https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp/pull/5321
CUDA isn't really used for new code. Its used for legacy codebases.
In the LLM world, you really only see CUDA being used with Triton and/or PyTorch consumers that haven't moved onto better pastures (mainly because they only know Python and aren't actually programmers).
That said, AMD can run most CUDA code through ROCm, and AMD officially supports Triton and PyTorch, so even the academics have a way out of Nvidia hell.
I get the joke you two are making, but I've seen what academics have written in Python. Somehow, its worse than what academics used to write when Java was taught has the only language for CompSci degrees.
At least Java has types and can be performant. The world was ever so slightly better back then.
There is some truly execrable Python code out there, but it’s there because the barrier to entry is so low. Especially back in the day, Java had so many guardrails that the really bad Java code came from intermediate programmers pushing up against the limitations of the language rather than from novices pasting garbage into a notebook. As a result there was less of it, but I’m not convinced that’s a good thing.
Edit: my point being that out of a large pool of novices, some of them will get better. Java was always more gate kept.
Second edit: Java’s intermediate programmer malaise was of course fueled by the Gang of Four’s promise to lead them out of confusion and into the blessed realm of reusable software.
Largely Vulkan. Microsoft internally is a huge consumer of DirectML for specifically the LLM team doing Phi and the Copilot deployment that lives at Azure.
It is on Nvidia. Nvidia's code generation for Vulkan kind of sucks, it also effects games. llama.cpp is almost as optimal as it can be on the Vulkan target; it uses VK_NV_cooperative_matrix2, which turning that off loses something like 20% performance. AMD does not implement this extension yet, and due to better matrix ALU design, might not actually benefit from it.
Game engines that have singular code generator paths that support multiple targets (eg, Vulkan, DX12, Xbone/XSX DX12, and PS4/5 GNM) have virtually identical performance on the DX12 and Vulkan outputs on Windows on AMD, have virtually identical performance on apples-to-apples Xbox to PS comparisons (scaled to their relative hardware specs), and have expected DX12 but not Vulkan performance on Windows on Nvidia.
Now, obviously, I'm giving a rather broad statement on that, all engines are different, some games on the same engine (especially UE4 and 5) are faster than one or the other on AMD, or purely faster entirely on any vendor, and some games are faster on Xbox than on PS, or vice versa, due to edge cases or porting mistakes. I suggest looking at, GamersNexus's benchmarks when looking at specific games or DigitalFoundry's work on benchmarking and analyzing consoles.
It is in Nvidia's best interest to make Vulkan look bad, but even now they're starting to understand that is a bad strategy, and the compute accelerator market is starting to become a bit crowded, so the Vulkan frontend for their compiler has slowly been getting better.
CUDA largely was Nvidias attempt at swaying Khronos and Microsoft's DirectX team. In the end, Khronos went with something based on a blend of AMD's and Nvidia's ideas, and that became Vulkan, and Microsoft just duplicated the effort in a Direct3D-flavored way.
So, just use Vulkan and stop fucking around with the Nvidia moat.
A great thing about CUDA is that it doesn't have to deal with any of the graphics and rendering stuff or shader languages. Vulkan compute is way less dev friendly than CUDA. Not to mention the real benefit of CUDA which is that it's also a massive ecosystem of libraries and tools.
As much as I wish it were otherwise, Vulkan is nowhere near a good alternative for CUDA currently. Maybe eventually, but not without additions to nothing the core API and especially available libraries.
You mean the AI Max chips? ROCm works fine there, as long as you're running 6.4.1 or later, no hacks required. I tested on Fedora Rawhide and it was just dnf install rocm.
Yes it does. ROCm support for new chips, due to being available for paid support contracts, comes like 1-2 months after the chip comes out (ie, when they're 100% sure it works with the current, also new, driver).
I'd rather it works and ships late than doesn't work and ships early and then get gaslit about the bugs (lol Nvidia, why are you like this?)
> There's at least a little flexibility with the graphics card if you move the board into a different case—there's a single PCIe x4 slot on the board that you could put an external GPU into, though many PCIe x16 graphics cards will be bandwidth starved.
There are no situations where this matters yet. You have to drop down to an 8x slot on PCIe 3.0 to even begin to see any meaningful impact on benchmarks (synthetic or otherwise)
The Strix Halo iGPU is quite special, like the Apple iGPU it has such good memory bandwidth to system RAM that it manages to improve both prompt processing and token generation compared to pure CPU inference. You really can't say that about the average iGPU or low-end dGPU: usually their memory bandwidth is way too anemic, hence the CPU wins when it comes to emitting tokens.
No, that's not true. Prompt processing just needs attention tensors in VRAM, the MLP weights aren't needed for the heavy calculations that a GPU speeds up. (After attention, you only need to pass the activations from GPU to system RAM, which is about ~40KB so you're not very limited here).
That's pretty small.
Even Deepseek R1 0528 685b only has like ~16GB of attention weights. Kimi K2 with 1T parameters has 6168951472 attention params, which means ~12GB.
It's pretty easy to do prompt processing for massive models like Deepseek R1, Kimi K2, or Qwen 3 235b with only a single Nvidia 3090 gpu. Just do --n-cpu-moe 99 in llama.cpp or something similar.
Yeah, I think so. Once the whole model is on the GPU (potentially slower start-up), there really isn't much traffic between the GPU and the motherboard. That's how I think about it. But mostly saying this as I'm interested in being corrected if I'm wrong.
That's just called a PCIe x4 [1]. Each PCIe lane is an independent channel. The wider slot will simply have disconnected pins. You can actually do this with regular motherboard PCIe x4 slots by cutting the plastic at the end of the slot so you can insert a wider card and most cards work just fine.
[1]: It sounds like a nitpick but a PCIe x16 with x4 effective bandwidth can exist and is a different thing: if the actual PCIe interface is x16, but there is an upstream bottleneck (e.g. aggregate bandwidth from chipset to CPU is not enough to handle all peripherals at once at full rate.)
There's been some theories floating around that the 128gb version could be the best value for on-premise LLM inference. The RAM is split between CPU and GPU at a user-configurable ratio.
So this might be the holy grail of "good enough GPU" and "over 100GB of VRAM" if the rest of the system can keep up.
> It seems like tools will have to adapt to dynamic VRAM allocation, as none of the monitoring tools I've tested assume VRAM can be increased on the fly.
amdgpu_top shows VRAM (the old fixed thing) and GTT (dynamic) separately.
No need for a reboot, echo 9999 >/sys/module/ttm/parameters/pages_limit
You're talking about an allocator policy for when to allow GTT and when not, not the old firmware-level VRAM split thing where whatever size the BIOS sets for VRAM is permanently away from the CPU. The max GTT limit is there to decrease accidental footguns, it's not a technological limitation; at least earlier the default policy was to reserve 1/4 of RAM for non-GPU use, and 1/4*128 GB=32GB is more than enough so you're looking to adjust the policy. It's just an if statement in the kernel, GTT the mechanism doesn't limit it, and deallocating a chunk of memory used by the GPU returns it to the general kernel memory pool, where it can next be used by the CPU again.
You're still thinking of the old school thing, where you set the split in the firmware and it's fixed for that boot. There's dynamic allocation on top of it these days.
I have that split set at the minimum 2 GB and I'm giving the GPU a 20 GB model to process.
A desktop-grade chip would nerf the APU and memory bandwidth, and would need a discrete GPU for comparable compute, which is a completely different class of machine. (One which would be, IMO, much less interesting.)
What are more budget friendly options for similar workloads (running web app test suite in parallel)?
My test suite currently runs in ~6 seconds on 9700K. Would be nice to speed it up, but maybe not for $2000 :-) Last I checked 13700K or 13900K looked like the price/performance sweet spot, but perhaps there are better options?
>My test suite currently runs in ~6 seconds on 9700K
Absolutely nothing. 6 seconds is about the time it will take you to tab to your terminal, press up arrow, find your test task and run it. There's no amount of money that makes it go from 6 to 3, and no world in which there's any value to it.
In addition, upgrading to a 13900K means you're playing the Intel Dance: sockets have (again) changed, in an (again) incompatible manner. So you're looking at, at the very least, a new CPU, a new motherboard, potentially a new cooler, and if you're going too forward with CPUs, new RAM since Intel's Z890 is not DDR4 compatible (and the Z390 was not DDR5 compatible). Or buying an entire new PC.
Since you're behind a socket wall, the reasonable option for an upgrade would rather be a sizeable one, and most likely abandoning Intel to its stupid decisions for a while and instead going for Zen 5 CPUs, which are going to be socket compatible for a good 7 years at least.
That's called not rerunning all the tests in your project and having test harnesses that know of module boundaries.
In addition, considering "saving" is something that happens on pretty much any non-code interaction, it means your tests are broken half the time when you're working. That's useless noise.
6 seconds is the time it takes for the tests to run, after I've switched to the terminal and ran the command. If I switch from 8 cores to, say, 16 faster cores, IMHO it is not unthinkable the tests could speed up to 3 seconds. How much money to invest for this speedup is a subjective question.
I'm thinking about a new system, not upgrading the existing one.
It has the 8945HS CPU, the article benchmarks against 8745H which is a little bit slower. It's a very worthy price point to consider, tiny and very quiet.
qwen3:30b-a3b runs locally at 23.25 tokens/sec. I know 395+ chip would about approximately double that, but I'm not quite willing to put $2000 into that upgrade.
I could do with someone explaining to me (sorry not very advanced knowledge in this area), how did Framework manage this performance at a lower price point? And why can't average Joe at PCPartPicker do something like this?
The key piece is AMD's high-end AI CPU. The whole desktop is literally built around it, to take full advantage of it.
AMD reached out to Framework and said "Hey, we have this new CPU, do you want to do something with it?". And the engineers at Framework jumped at the opportunity.
Real question, it's not. It's close to the m4 mini performance. Which puts the price point within spitting difference ($50). Basically identical price wise to equivalent Apple products.
Is there a real alternative, where is not not needed Windows in any way, to the Remote Device Management baked into firmware as Apple does with its hardware ? This is biggest missing to bring Linux to enterprises.
Apple devices support MDM. When you purchase the device, the device's firmware is configured to check in with an account owner. The firmware has an integrity feature such that this configuration cannot be removed by a user: https://it-training.apple.com/tutorials/deployment/dm005/
If OP just meant remote management through a BMC then that's not common except for server hardware, and it would have features like Redfish to configure the hardware itself. Apple devices don't have this.
You can also buy hardware to act as a remote keyboard/mouse/monitor and power button, and it supports systems whose motherboards have the right headers: https://pikvm.org/
I don't think it's fair to describe MDM as a firmware-level feature. I think it's entirely implemented and enforced within the environment of a booted macOS; the firmware isn't going to be bringing up a whole network stack to phone home.
If you had Linux on a MDM-enrolled Mac there wouldn't be anything MDM-related running during or after the boot process. But presumably any sane MDM config would prevent the end user from accessing the settings necessary to relax boot security to get Linux installed in the first place.
Yeah, your point about implementation is correct -- much of the MDM functionality runs within macOS.
But, eh, I still think it's fair to describe it as a feature of the firmware. The enrollment and prevention of removal have firmware-level components through Apple's Secure Boot and System Integrity Protection. A user can't simply disable MDM because these firmware-level protections prevent tampering with the enrollment.
Case in point, getting Linux installed in the first place would be blocked by firmware-level boot policies, right? I'm not too knowledge about this, and maybe you are more so.
I think it's important to make a distinction between secure boot features that are local-only, and remote management features. The "Remote Device Management baked into firmware" claim above carries with it some pretty important implications that are, as far as I can tell, not actually true.
It's not too different from scaremongering about Intel ME/AMT which is often maligned even in the context of computers that don't have the necessary Intel NICs for the remote management features.
I agree with your point about OP's statement regarding "where is not not needed Windows in any way, to the Remote Device Management baked into firmware as Apple does with its hardware" I also read that to mean that the firmware solution is self-contained and complete, even though that's pretty misaligned when you consider the meaning of a "remotely" managed device (remotely managed by what?).
But it's still entirely factual in my own description. When a device checks in during initial setup, the firmware-level boot process can receive policies that block alternative OS installation, and that absolutely is a feature of the firmware.
Anyway, I tried to interpret OP's meaning, and provided more detail on how Apple's firmware is special.
Do you think ssh is an equivalent to remote device management? Half the reason Chromebook does well is because it's really good at remote device management.
I was in the market for a Linux desktop machine and considered the Framework Desktop. I respect their mission, but ended up purchasing a Geekom mini PC instead.
Given repair isn't practical with soldered DRAM and such, I prioritized small form factor, price, and quick delivery.
The Framework Desktop was a much larger form factor, 3x the price, and delivery wasn't for months.
That said, I still hope the company is successful so they have more competitive offerings in the future.
> Linux is really efficient. Especially when you're using a window manager like Hyprland, as we do in Omarchy.
Window managers are usually the last issue on modern Linux. Pretty much any native app is okay.
Troubles really start (and start fast) when you open any browser and load any modern website. Had we more native applications (so not cloud stuff, and not javascript stuff with a bundled chromium) we'd all have a much better overall computing experience.
I don't really understand Why one should bother with the pluggable ports in something that's not a laptop. Even in 4.5L, shouldn't we just have "all the ports"?
If you already have a Framework laptop, it's nice to be able to reuse the extra cards that you might have lying around. "Leveraging the benefits of the Framework ecosystem," as a marketing person might say.
Paying twice the price for twice to seven times the performance may not be such a bad thing. Then again, with Apple you're kind of stuck with macOS and the like, so Framework may still be the better option depending on your use case.
The M3 Ultra also consumes a lot more power because Strix Halo is actually a chip for laptops. The Framework here is a desktop but that doesn't change what AMD prioritized when building this chip.
> The Framework Desktop with 64GB RAM + 2TB NVMe is $1,876
And it's ~$1000 to build a PC with a similar CPU, somewhat larger form factor, and fans. Unless the AI processor is actually useful for AI, and you need that, this is silly.
Framework desktop dimensions are 20.6 x 9.7 x 22.6 LWH. My IM01 case is 37.2 x 18.5 x 28.7. It won't be going in my bag, but it fits nicely on a desktop.
The upcharge for decent specs, especially on RAM, is insane. I just checked Dell and upgrading from the base 16GB of RAM to 64GB of RAM on their generic tower costs $450. You can buy 2x32GB DIMMs of the same speed for less than half of that.
> In some ways, the Framework Desktop is a curious machine. Desktop PCs are already very user-repairable! So why is Framework even bringing their talents to this domain? In the laptop realm, they're basically alone with that concept, but in the desktop space, it's rather crowded already. Yet it somehow still makes sense.
And even more curious, Framework Desktop is deliberately less repairable than their laptops. They soldered on the RAM. Which makes it a very strange entry for a brand marketing itself as the DIY dream manufacturer. They threw away their user-repairable mantra when they made the Desktop, it's less user repairable than most other desktops you could go out and buy today.
The RAM is soldered on all Halo Strix platforms because physics is getting in the way. With pluggable DIMMs the memory bandwidth would be halved, at best.
He is still right. It is a desktop PC that is less repairable than all other desktop PCs, from a brand that is known to champion repairability. They had a reason for it, but could've chosen to not create more throwaway things.
I have been continuously baffled by the people that think that soldered on RAM is somehow "throwaway". My last desktop build is eight years old and I have never upgraded the ram. Never will. My next build will have an entirely new motherboard, ram, and GPU, and the last set will end up at the ewaste recycler, because who could I find that wants that old hardware?
Soldered RAM, CPU, and GPU, that give space benefits and performance benefits is exactly what I want, and results in no more ewaste at all. In fact less ewaste, because if I had a smaller form factor I could justify keeping the older computer around for longer. The size of the thing is a bigger cause of waste for me than the ability to upgrade RAM.
Not everybody upgrades RAM, and those people deserve computers too. Framework's brand appears to be offering something that other suppliers are not, rather than expand ability. That's a much better brand and niche overall.
> the last set will end up at the ewaste recycler, because who could I find that wants that old hardware?
You might be surprised. Living in a large city, everything I have put for sale has found a new owner. Old and seemingly useless computer hardware, HDMI cables that don't support 4K, worn-out cutlery, hairdryer that's missing parts, non-functional amplifier, the list goes on. If the price is right (=very low), someone has always showed up in person to carry these away. And I'm always very upfront about any deficiencies so that they know what they're getting.
I'd say a common profile for the new owner is young people who have just moved and are on a shoestring budget.
>I have been continuously baffled by the people that think that soldered on RAM is somehow "throwaway"
One of the primary objections to soldered RAM was/is the cost to purchase. As the likes of Apple priced Ram upgrade at a hefty premium to retail prices.
Also, that they often simply don’t sell what you want with enough memory, or pair memory upgrades with other upgrades you don’t need (e.g. more powerful CPU or GPU beyond your needs), or occasionally that you actively don’t want (e.g. iGPU → dGPU may be that). With socketed RAM you can buy the model you want that just lacks RAM, and upgrade that.
My current laptop (ASUS GA503QM) had 8GB soldered and 8GB socketed. I didn’t want to go for the 16+16 model because it was way more expensive due to shifting from a decent GPU to a top-of-the-line GPU, and a more-expensive-but-barely-faster CPU. (I would have preferred it with no dedicated GPU—it would have been a couple of hundred USD cheaper, a little lighter, probably more reliable, less fiddly, and have supported two external displays under Linux (which I’ve never managed, even with nvidia drivers); but at the time no one was selling a high-DPI laptop with a Ryzen 5800H or similar without dedicated graphics.) So after some time I got a 32GB stick and now I have 40GB of RAM. And I gave my sister the 8GB stick to replace a 4GB stick in her laptop, and that improved it significantly for her.
I can see that objection too, and it seems far more reasonable than assuming that soldered RAM automatically means a reduced lifespan machine.
But are Framework's RAM prices unreasonable? $400 for 64GB more of LPDDR5x seems OK. I haven't seen anybody object to Framework's RAM on those grounds.
The workloads that people care most about today that need high RAM capacity are workloads that also need very high memory bandwidth. Old server hardware from eBay doesn't do a good job of satisfying the bandwidth side of things.
> Not everybody upgrades RAM, and those people deserve computers too.
No. It's end of the line with consumerism and we either start repairing and recycling or we die. Framework catered to people who agree with that, and this product is not in line.
I have no idea why you would not upgrade your memory, I have done so in all PCs I ever owned and all laptops, and it's a very common (and cheap) upgrade. It reduces waste because people can then use their system longer, which means less garbage over the lifetime of a person. And as was already commented, it is not only about upgrades, but also about repairs. Ram breaks rather often.
I have had the system for eight years and at no point would upgrading RAM have increased performance.
Upgrading the RAM would have created more waste than properly sizing the RAM to COU proportion from the beginning.
It is very odd to encounter someone who has such a narrow view of computing that they cannot imagine someone not upgrading their RAM.
I have not once, literally not once have RAM break either. I have been part of the management of clusters of hundreds of compute nodes, that would occasionally each have their failures, but not once was RAM the cause of failure. I'm fairly shocked to hear that anybody's RAM has failed, honestly, unless it's been overlocked or something else.
I'm with you on this one. I've had.. 6? PCs. Basically every time I thought that they were falling behind performance wise, I realized that they generally had stopped selling RAM for them and even if I only wanted to upgrade the RAM, it wasn't enough anymore. The CPU was also falling behind and a new one needed a new socket and motherboard.
> It is very odd to encounter someone who has such a narrow view of computing that they cannot imagine someone not upgrading their RAM.
Uncalled for and means the end of the discussion after this reaction. Ofc I can imagine that, it's just usually a dumb decision.
That you did not have to upgrade the ram means one of two things: You either had completely linear workloads, so unlike me did not switch to a compiled programming language or experimented with local LLMs etc. Or you bought a lot of ram in the beginning, so 8 years ago with a hefty premium.
Changes nothing about the fundamental disagreement with the existence of such machines. Especially from a company that knows better. I do not expect ethical behaviour from a bottom of the barrel company like Apple, but it was completely reasonable to expect better from framework.
The 128GB version wouldn't be throwaway, since that's the maximum the platform as a whole supports anyway- more memory than that would require a new mainboard and CPU at the same time.
How often have you had a memory chip fail? I ask because I only have had it happen once in my lifetime that I can recall and it was for a very dumb reason.
I would also ask this! But part of the framework brand was selling a laptop where the answer to that question was being able to replace it on your own. So it's just kind of a contrast for their desktop to be less repairable than their laptop.
Personally I think it's bad that apple products are so poorly repairable and so expensive to upgrade.
Worse, Apple also still claims to care about the environment. While not allowing the iMac to be used as external screen, cutting its useful lifetime by at least a decade.
That applies to all computers when you buy the fully specced versions on day 1. A maxxed out iPad isn’t throwaway, but framework represents a higher standard of upgradability.
RAM failure is actually pretty common on non-JEDEC profiles, I've seen it happen a lot on gaming PCs. Very uncommon on "regular" computers that aren't pushing the clock and timings, though.
Oh yeah I never push the limits of my systems like that. At least for PC gamers replacing RAM is easy and they’ll probably upgrade it eventually anyway.
The difference in performance between DRAM and flash memory is far greater than SRAM and DRAM. The total RAM of a system is a hard limit on the type of programs you can practically run because swapping is slow.
Compression Attached Memory Module (CAMM) tries to be a middle-term solution for that, by reducing how crappy your average RAM socket is to latency and signal integrity issues. But, at this point, I can see CAMM delivered memory being reduced to a sort of slower, "CXL.mem" device.
As stated previously, the sockets reduce signal integrity, which doesn't necessarily make them "bad," but is why Framework wasn't able to used socketed ram to maximize the potential of this CPU.
Basically, they need to use LPDDR5X memory, which isn't available in socketed form, because of signal integrity reasons.
Which means you won't see an improvement if you solder your ram directly, I think mostly because your home soldering job will suffer signal integrity issues, but also because your RAM isn't LPCAMM and isn't spread across a 256 bit bus.
I believe the reason is, at the frequencies these CPUs are talking to RAM, the reflection coefficient[1] starts playing a big role. This means any change in impedance in the wire cause reflections of the signal.
This is also the reasoning why you can't just have a dumb female to female HDMI coupling and expect video to work. All of such devices are active and read the stream on the input and relay them on the output.
Only if you were pushing data through so fast that the bits got corrupted before. That's literally why AMD told Framework they won't support any other configuration than soldered RAM, in this case.
That's fine, but not what I was commenting on so your comment is mostly irrelevant.
I was commenting on a brand based on repairability selling a product that's deliberately not repairable. It's a curious choice to throw away the branding that brought them to where they are, and hopefully not the start of a trend for their other devices.
The only non repairable part is RAM due to technical constraints. The rest is as repairable as any other desktop, if not more so (e.g. power supply). Why are you accusing them of "throwing away the branding" and holding such a purist view, when they are doing their best and just making compromises in order to release a decent product.
Sure, you could. The design would do something like:
We need a bigger memory controller.
To get more traces to the memory controller We need more pins on the CPU.
Now need a bigger CPU package to accommodate the pins.
Now we need a motherboard with more traces, which requires more layers, which requires a more expensive motherboard.
We need a bigger motherboard to accommodate the 6 or 8 dimm sockets.
The additional traces, longer traces, more layers on the motherboard, and related makes the signalling harder, likely needs ECC or even registered ECC.
We need a more expensive CPU, more expensive motherboard, more power, more cooling, and a larger system. Congratulations you've reinvented threadripper (4 channel), siena (6 channel), Threadripper pro (8 channel), or epyc (12 channel). All larger, more expensive more than 2x the power, and is likely to be in a $5-$15k workstation/server not a $2k framework desktop the size of a liter of milk or so.
> We need a more expensive CPU, more expensive motherboard, more power, more cooling, and a larger system. Congratulations you've reinvented threadripper (4 channel), siena (6 channel), Threadripper pro (8 channel), or epyc (12 channel).
This is the real story not the conspiracy-tinged market segmentation one. Which is silly because at levels where high-end consumer/enthusiast Ryzen (say, 9950 X3D) and lowest-end Threadripper/EPYC (most likely a previous-gen chip) just happen to truly overlap in performance, the former will generally cost you more!
Well sort of. Apple makes a competitive mac mini and macbook air with a 128 bit memory interface, decent design, solid build, nice materials, etc starting at $1k. PC laptops can match nearly any aspect, but rarely match the quality of the build, keyboard, trackpad, display, aluminum chassis, etc.
However Apple will let you upgrade to the pro (double the bandwidth), max (4x the bandwidth), and ultra (8x the bandwidth). The m4 max is still efficient, gives decent battery life in a thin light laptop. Even the ultra is pretty quiet/cool even in a tiny mac studio MUCH smaller than any thread ripper pro build I've seen.
Does mystify me that x86 has a hard time matching even a mac mini pro on bandwidth, let alone the models with 2x or 4x the memory bandwidth.
> Does mystify me that x86 has a hard time matching even a mac mini pro on bandwidth, let alone the models with 2x or 4x the memory bandwidth.
The market dynamics are pretty clear. Having that much memory bandwidth only makes sense if you're going to provide an integrated GPU that can use that bandwidth; CPU-based laptop/desktop workloads that bandwidth-hungry are too rare. The PC market has long been relying on discrete GPUs for any high-performance GPU configuration, and the GPU market leader is the one that doesn't make x86 CPUs.
Intel's consumer CPU product line is a confusing mess, but at the silicon level it comes down to one or two designs for laptops (a low-power and a mid-power design) that are both adequately served by a 128-bit memory bus, and one or two desktop designs with only a token iGPU. The rest of the complexity comes from binning on clock speeds and core counts, and sometimes putting the desktop CPU in a BGA package for high-power laptops.
For Intel to make a part following the Strix Halo and Apple strategy, Intel would need to add a third major category of consumer CPU silicon, using far more than twice the total die size of any of their existing consumer CPUs, to go after a niche that's pretty small and very hard for Intel to break into given the poor quality of their current GPU IP. Intel doesn't have the cash to burn pursuing something like this.
It's a bit surprising AMD actually went for it, but they were in a better position than Intel to make a part like Strix Halo from both a CPU and GPU IP perspective. But they still ended up not including their latest GPU architecture, and only went for a 256-bit bus rather than 512-bit.
Yes, but that platform has in-package memory? Which is a higher degree of integration than even "soldered". That's the kind of platform Strix Halo is most comparable to.
(I suppose that you could devise a platform with support for mixing both "fast" in-package and "slow" DIMM-socketed memory, which could become interesting for all sorts of high-end RAM-hungry workloads, not just AI. No idea how that would impact the overall tradeoffs though, might just be infeasible.
...Also if persistent memory (phase-change or MRAM) can solve the well-known endurance issues with flash, maybe that ultimately becomes the preferred substrate for "slow" bulk RAM? Not sure about that either.)
That's a question for AMD and TCMC. They only have so much space on the silica. More memory channels means less of something else. This is not a "framework platform" issue, it's the specification of that CPU.
My complaints are the maximum RAM of the system and the modularity of the RAM.
With an increased number of channels, you could have a greater amount of RAM at a lower frequency but at the same bandwidth. So you would at least be able to run some of these much larger AI models.
This isn't ram. this is unified memory. It's shared between GPU and CPU. Soldered VRAM for GPUs have been the norm for probably 20 years because of the latency and reliability required, so why is this any different?
The only way to achieve what you're after is to do any of;
- Give up on unified memory and switch to a traditional platform (which there are thousands of alternatives for)
- Cripple the GPU for games and some productivity software by raising latency beyond the norm.
- Change to a server-class chip for 5x the price.
This is an amazing chip giving server-class specs in a cheap mobile platform, that fill a special nieche in the market for for both productivity and local AI at a very competitive price. What you're arguing for makes no sense.
According to the Framework CEO on the Linus Tech Tips video about this thing [1], they tried and AMD assigned an engineer on getting modular memory to work and decided it's not possible.
Unless there's another company out there shipping this CPU with replaceable memory, I'll believe them. Even with LPCAMM, physics just doesn't work out.
Of course, there are plenty of slower desktops you can buy where all the memory can be swapped out. If you want a repairable desktop like that, you're not stuck with Framework in the same way you would be with laptops. You'll probably struggle to get the same memory bandwidth to make full use of AMD's chips, though.
>which upgradable memory module format could be used with the same speed and bandwidth as the soldered in solution
CAMM perhaps? The modular memory is important, because they are selling them to two different markets: gamers that want a small powerful desktop, and people running LLMs at home. The modularity of the RAM allows you to convert the former into the latter at a later date, so it seems pretty critical to me.
For this reason alone, I am going to buy a used epyc server instead of one of these desktop things. I will be able to equip it with a greater amount of RAM as I see fit and run a greater range of models (albeit at lower speed). The ability to run larger models slowly at a later date is more important than the ability for me to run smaller models faster now. So I am an example of a consumer who does not like framework's tradeoff.
You would think that they would at least offer some type of service where they take it into the factory and refit it with new ram chips. Perhaps they could just buy used low-ram boards at a later date and use them to make refurbished high-ram boards.
Another solution is to make it so that it supports both soldered and unsoldered ram (but at a lower frequency). Gaming is frequency-limited but does not require much ram, but a lot of workloads like AI are bandwidth limited. Hell, if you're going to have some high-frequency RAM irreplacibly soldered to the motherboard, it might as well be a chiplet!
I don't know how large is framework's market, nor how deep their pockets are, which condition their ability to produce 2 different models.
It's clear that a modular design is preferable, hopefully once a standard emerges they will use it in their next devices. Perhaps framework will help in that process, but I don't know if they can afford to put up with the initial costs, particularly in a market they don't have a strong foothold yet.
The price jump from 64 GB to 128 GB is $400. $400 does not get you "some type of service where they take it into the factory and refit it with new ram chips".
> They threw away their user-repairable mantra when they made the Desktop
You forget the value proposition of Framework products is not only they allow you to bring your own hardware but they also promise to provide you with replacement parts and upgrades directly from the vendor.
In this case they could not make the RAM replaceable (it’s a limitation of the platform) but you can expect an upgrade board in about 2 years that’s actually going to be easy to install for much less cost than buying a new desktop computer.
That's less of a thing here since this is "just" an ITX motherboard, a case, and a power supply. With the laptops replacing the board saves a bunch of other parts but here the board is basically the only part that matters.
Even on regular AMD 7000 and 9000 series the DDR5 memory controller is very sensitive and hard to get a stable system with fast RAM on many motherboards when all 4 modules are present. At today's RAM speeds, I definitely think a stable soldered system is increasingly a better trade-off.
Indeed. I have an AMD 9950X and an Asus X870E* motherboard. I can barely get the system to boot with one 32G DIMM let alone 2 or 4, and 48G DIMMS are even worse for some reason. I have tried 3 different "matched" sets. Sometimes I have to reset the system 3 times or more before it will boot; it hangs or crashes on DDR timing BIOS codes. I have given up and just use a single 32G despite how useless 32G is in a high end desktop today. Real joke. Huge waste of money. I will buy prebiilt systems in the future. In the meantime if I need a lot of RAM I use an Intel 14900K desktop or my new HP G1a Zbook.
* ASUS X870E ROG CROSSHAIR HERO AMD AM5 ATX Motherboard
Yes, AM5 DDR5 support has been similarly painful to me on four systems (7950X and 9950X). Try forcing the memory speed down to 3600MHz (ouch) when you want to install lots of memory and stay on modules specified on the motherboard's QVL.
I'd probably go Framework Desktop next if I won't need peripherals.
Dunno, nice, quiet, small machine, using standard parts (power supply, motherboard, etc).
If you want the high memory bandwidth get the strix halo, if not get any normal PC. Sure apple has the bandwidth as well, and also soldered memory as well.
If you want dimms and you want the memory bandwidth get a threadripper (4 channel), siena (6 channel), thread ripper pro (8 channel), or Epyc (12 channel). But be prepared to double your power (at least), quadruple your space, double your cost, and still not have a decent GPU.
It's easy to find out the reason for this. And the article's benchmarks confirm the validity of this reason. Why comment from a place of ignorance, unless you're asking a question?
There are plenty of components to choose from which do not need soldered-on RAM. Giving up modularity to gain access to higher memory bandwidth is certainly a trafeoff many are willing to make, but to take that tradeoff as a company known for modularity is, as the parent comment put it, curious.
Every single description of the Framework desktop that I've seen has addressed this issue. To comment as though it's some sort of mystery is disingenuous at best. My comment was precisely as friendly as the commenter deserved.
And as I said, if you read the article, you'll see that the tradeoff in question has paid off very well.
You completely missed the point of my original comment, I'll take a second stab at it:
1. Framework branded themselves as the company for DIY computer repairability and maintainability in the laptop space.
2. They've now released a desktop that is less repairable than their laptops, and much less repairable than most desktops you can buy today.
That's what I consider a curious move.
The hardware choice may provide a good reason to solder on the RAM, but I wasn't commenting on that and have no idea how anyone could read my comment and have that be their takeaway.
I was commenting on a brand throwing away the thing it's marketed itself for. In exchange for repairability, you now get shiny baubles like custom tiles for the case.
> brand throwing away the thing it's marketed itself for
I don't see what you see. It's a single product, not a realignment of their business model. They saw an opportunity and brought to market a product that will likely sell out, which tells us that customers are happy to make the trade-off of modularity and repairability for what the Strix Halo brings to the table. I think your interpretation of their mission is a bit uncharitable, maybe naive, and leaves the company little room to be a company.
I disagree, the framework name has been intertwined with repairability since the inception. That is their USP and has been their marketing angle from day 1, not only that but the fact they are supposedly championing repairability due to their 'ethos' as a company.
Fair enough that a company might bring out products which differ from their core market, but in this instance I have to agree that releasing a desktop PC with soldered on RAM very much goes against the place they have positioned themselves in the market.
Perhaps a better solution would be to start releasing a newly branded product line of not so repairable machines, but keeping the name 'Framwork' for their main offerings.
Errm, No :-) I meant bars as in benchmarks, often rather meaningless, because within the range of statistic noise.
For instance, something having 100.200 points in one config, in another 100.220, with the bars/scales distorted to make that difference seem much larger.
OpenAI recently played a bit too hard with their GPT-5 announcement. Two bars with the same height but wildly different values, things like that. Such a lack of subtlety that their claim it was accidental is actually almost believable.
Okay so why is the ram non upgradable again? Because this was the main reason I was holding to PC architecture (I'm considering non upgradable ram as a method of upselling for a ridiculous price of higher amounts)
thanks! Yea, it's easier to ship it with the RAM I guess, but I wonder does the slot make things so much harder? Or maybe they want to enforce some certain producer/sub-protocol
I looked at the Framework Desktop a few week ago; mainly to get something that has nicer gaming performance than my laptop's iGPU. I'm not a big gamer really, but as of late I've been wanting to play some things, like The Witcher 3 (saw thread on Reddit celebrating its 10 year anniversary: "that's the new one I still need to play", so that's about how up to date I am with games – some of these "new" games are already classified as "good old game" on gog.com).
My take-away was/is that the Framework Desktop is a very nice machine, but it is expensive IMHO. You can get better performance at a lower price by building your own machine; in this article the 9950X scores lower than the Max 395, and I'm not entirely sure that's accurate – that wasn't my take-away at all (don't have links at the ready). This is also what you'd expect when comparing a 55W laptop chip vs. a 170W desktop chip.
That said, Linux compatibility is a bit of a pain, for example some MediaTek WiFi/Bluetooth chips that ASUS boards use don't have a Linux driver. In general figuring out what components to get is a bit time-consuming. In one of the videos Nirav mentioned that "just get the Framework Desktop" is so much easer, and 100% agree with that.
In the end, I decided to get a USB4/Thunderbold eGPU, which gives me more than enough gaming performance for me and is much cheaper. I already have a laptop that's more than performant enough for my needs, which I got last year mainly due to some idiotic JS build process I had to deal with last year that took forever on my old laptop. On the new machine it's merely "ludicrously slow". Sometimes I think JS people are in cahoots with Intel and/or AMD...
For LLM stuff the considerations might be different. I don't care about that so I didn't look into it.
So DHH fell for Sam’s scam. He tried OSS 20b and wasn’t impressed, and apparently dismisses all local models based on that experience with a known awful model.
You know it would be a great use for this chip besides AI generative slop? A desktop server with AI-enhanced firewall and a silent home server. This could be effective for zero-days and other weird traffic patterns and maybe even add enterprise-ish email server with spam detection.
There has been several projects started that are experimenting with this including Suricata and pfSense. I wonder how well this chip could handle packet inspection.
You don't understand AI if you think generative AI is the only kind of AI. I specifically said generative AI so please just read my comment before replying.
A laptop CPU defeats the purpose. Get a 9800X3D for gaming will be waaaay faster or Threadripper for productivity or the 9950X3D chips with 16 cores/32 threads.
Why this laptop crap when you can get a nice PC case.
Then again he thinks the Fractal North was "bulky"? What?
The 9950X appears in one of the benchmarks in the article, and this machine beats it. It has 16 cores and 32 threads itself. You might want to read more details instead of dismissing it out of ignorance.
> But so what? Docker is an integral part of the workflow for tons of developers. We use it to be able to run different versions of MySQL, Redis, and ElasticSearch for different applications on the same machine at the same time. You can't really do that without Docker.
Nix + Process Compose[0] make a great combo, and runs completely native.
HN admins: can the domain extractor be changed to say "world.hey.com/dhh" here instead of just the domain name? From what I see, Hey World is a blogging platform, similar to Medium but markdown and email based. And the username (blog name) is in the second part of the URL.
This is the way I make my tech decisions. If a programmer says something I don’t like, especially about a domain completely unrelated to tech, I don’t use their stuff. That’s why I don’t use EMacs, rust, zig, Jai (whenever it’s released), go, JavaScript, neovim, or any OS I don’t personally build from assembly, any digital devices— I’m going to burn this iPhone when I’m done typing. That’ll show them.
It’s a tough life, but this way I don’t accidentally appear to support someone who is different from me.
huhm the ars review makes it seem like this thing does worse on benchmarks than stuff like the mac but the test suite in DHH's example goes way faster. Bursty perf perhaps?
It fun to see that, in an era where most CEOs are all-in with AI both on a personal level and at their companies, dhh chose to rather take a deep dive into the world of linux and config files and indie computer brands.
Curious what will the long term impact of this be on the longtime viability of Basecamp and its sister/daughter brands.
> The Framework Desktop with 64GB RAM + 2TB NVMe is $1,876. To get a Mac Studio with similar specs [...] you'll literally spend nearly twice as much [...] The Framework Desktop is simply a great deal.
Wow, someone managed to beat Apple on price??
I don't know that it logically follows that anything is a great deal when it undercuts Apple. Half sounds about right -- I thought Apple was a bit more competitive these days than ×2 actually, but apparently not, also considering that Framework comes with a (totally fair) niche-vendor premium
He's comparing to a studio when he should compare to the mini for this performance. They are almost the same price at a 64gb RAM + 500gb storage config (CAD).
- Framework, Max+ 64GB: $2,861.16
- Apple Mini M4 Pro, 64GB: $2,899.00
Apple does charge way too much for integrated storage, but Apple is only a 25% premium at 2TB not double (if you compare to the mini instead of the studio). Plug in a NVMe SSD if you're building an Apple desktop.
Not to defend Apple here, but it's also a bit apples to oranges (heh) because the power consumption is not easily comparable.
I would hazard a guess and say: at that spec, if you're looking at 1Y TCO, the Apple could easily be cost competitive performance per dollar.
Since they're in spitting distance of each other, just get the one you're most comfortable with. Personally I prefer Linux and I'm really happy that non-Apple machines are starting to get closer to the same efficiency and performance!
> I would hazard a guess and say: at that spec, if you're looking at 1Y TCO, the Apple could easily be cost competitive performance per dollar.
The two systems aren't that different in power consumption. The Strix Halo part has a 55W default TDP but I would assume Framework customized it to be higher. A comparable M4 Pro Mac Mini can easily pull 80W during an AI workload.
Apple has a slight edge in power efficiency, but it's not going to make a massive difference.
> if you're looking at 1Y TCO, the Apple could easily be cost competitive performance per dollar.
Only if you're buying artesinal single source electricity sustainably sourced from trained dolphins.
Average US electrical power is $.18/kWh per google. Figure the desktop draws 300W continuous (which it almost certainly can't), and that's 0.3 kW * 24 hr/day * 365.2425 days/yr == $473/year. So even if the mac was completely free you'd be looking at crossover in 5 years, or longer than the expected life of the device.
During peak hours (4-9pm daily) in San Diego you can be paying nearly $1/kWh (generation + transmission cost) to SDGE, so at least in certain areas, the running cost is very much relevant even for consumers.
A device with no moving parts, only 5 years of expected life?!
I understand if you say that high-performance users will want a newer system after 5 years, but I'd be very surprised if this 64GB RAM machine doesn't suffice for 98% of people, including those who want to play then-common games at default settings
Good to have some concrete figures nonetheless of course, it's always useful as a starting point
First: it's not five years. It's five years if you posit that macs are magic and use no energy[1]. In practice they're 40-70% the consumption of a competing desktop (depends on usage and specific model, yada yada yada). So figure a few decades or thereabouts.
But even so: I'm not sure I know a single new-device Apple customer who has a single unit older than five years. The comment about power implied that you'd make up the big Mac price tag on power savings, and no, you won't, not nearly, before you hawk it on eBay to buy another.
[1] And also that you posit that the device is in a compute farm or something and pumped at full load 24/7. Average consumption for real development hardware (that spends 60% of its life in suspend and 90% of the remainder in idle) is much, much, much closer to zero than it is to 300W!
Well, I know exactly what you're saying, but to be fair to Apple, my 68K Mac that's nearly 40 still works. My iMac G4 is fine. PowerMac G3 is fine. First gen Mac Pro is fine. Meanwhile, the only PCs I know of that survive time quite as well (and I collect old crap) were all nearly equivalent to Apple level pricing at the time of their introduction.
While Apple does charge nearly criminal markup for RAM and storage, they at least make some products that last (except for the TouchBar MacBooks' keyboards). I just hope my Mac Studio lasts too.
> Meanwhile, the only PCs I know of that survive time quite as well
Nah, everything works forever, it's just that no one cares. My younger child retired a 3770K Ivy Bridge box last year that I'd bought at or near release in 2012, so ~11 years of steady use.
People fetishize Apple hardware, but the truth is that modern electronics manufacturing is bulletproof up and down the assembly lines.
The ICs, yeah. Not so much power supplies, screens, etc. I've had the former go up in flames and the later delaminate - my current laptop has small bubbles around the edges of the screen.
I've also had high wattage GPUs inexplicably fail and lost a few SSDs to unexpected catastrophic failure. TBF I haven't lost any halfway decent SSDs within the past 5 years.
I don't think I've ever lost a motherboard, CPU, or RAM though. Even secondhand recycled data center stuff. It seems to just keep working forever.
My 4930K system is over a decade old and it still serves as a NAS. I have a Core 2 Duo kicking around that I'm sure will boot. There's a perfectly usable T520 sitting on my desk running Windows 11. But I must admit that Macbooks outlast most other laptops.
Also judging from the state of 5 and 10y old mac computers on the second hand market, you quickly realize they aren't very reliable machines.
My 2012 mbp is still going strong, only needed a new battery. Great keyboard, great screen, great trackpad. The second hand market seems to reflect this in my experience if you look at resale prices vs non-mac equivalents.
Resale price does not mean anything if most units have hardware issues which was largely the case for most +5y macs when I looked for them out of curiosity.
Granted this is also the case of many brands but I found it was easier to find old thinkpad, fujitsu and dell business laptops in good shape than it was to find Apple ones.
Maybe this is biased and it has more to do with professional vs personal use. I guess you are a bit more cautious with a laptop your employer is lending you.
My experience is on the contrary. Employer-lent laptop only needs to be _not lost_, especially in MNCs. Replacing an MNC laptop is relatively easy and free for the user - as long as it is not lost, by the way.
> First: it's not five years. It's five years if you posit that macs are magic and use no energy[1].
Huh? I'm not "positing" anything, I'm responding to the longevity you stated:
> you'd be looking at crossover in 5 years, or longer than the expected life of the device.
As for Apple users not having devices older than five years... ehm, yeah: the brand targets an audience that really likes shiny new toys (either because they're lured into thinking they need it, or because it's a status symbol for them). Not sure how that's relevant here though
Apple only promises to support devices for 5 years.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/102772
They do sometimes end up supporting devices for longer than this, but you can't rely on it.
Some VHCOL areas are more than 2x or even near 3x that electric rate
But the price difference is only $38…
Also the size difference
You have to account for resale when it comes to TCO. Resale value for a non-Apple PC is essentially zero - i.e. no one will buy it, or you'll get pennies on the dollar if they do. Whereas there's a strong market for used Apple hardware, and you can easily recover 50% or more.
This is an exaggeration, or you're not comparing apples to apples.
The used market for high performance PC gear is quite efficient. You're not going to get a high-end CPU or GPU from the past several years for pennies on the dollar.
Likewise, the resale market for Apple products doesn't guarantee 50% or more unless you're only looking at resale value of very new hardware. For example, you can pick up an M1 Max MacBook Pro (not that old) for closer to 1/3 of the original price.
Do people actually buy used computers and sell them? Like, apart from graphics cards...
Seems odd to me. Most computers I've ever had last for ~10 years, at which point resale value is definitely zero...
Similar with phones and tablets: yes, people do that, but it's not the common case. I've only ever sold computing devices within the first month of ownership, after realising I made a mistake in purchasing it (not a broken device, but just not meeting my needs), but on second-hand sites you can also see various people offering them up after 1 or 2 years because they want something shinier and the old system still has value. I've bought my current phone from someone like that, and as a student I also bought such a laptop
I don't sell them but I buy exclusively used computers. All of them coming from the refurbishing market of business computers.
From a purely financial perspective buying a computer or vehicle brand new is a very bad idea.
yeah, I buy preowned laptops fairly often to be fair.
So you recover what you spent extra, per the article?
Framework also charges quite a surplus on the SSD. For example "WD_BLACK SN7100 NVMe 2TB" is €229, but a more typical price is around ~€140, so that's about €90 extra. Don't know how that compares to Apple.
Framework absolutely does fleece you on the SSD, so don’t buy SSDs from them if you’re price-sensitive. But compared to Apple it’s nowhere close: per Apple’s website, upgrading a current Mac Mini or Mac Studio from 512 GB to 2 TB costs $600. You can buy a WD_BLACK SN850X 8TB for that much money (or a WD_BLACK SN8100 4TB and still have a quarter of it left over, if you really want PCIe 5.0, but there’s no point at the moment).
I checked and it's €750 extra to get a 2TB here in Ireland (just to compare apples with apples wrt. Framework Desktop). Wahahaha, this is the most ridiculous thing I've seen.
One note is the Mac Mini surprisingly has 3rd party SSD upgrades now as well. Both gauge the storage price a bit, so probably best to just go 3rd party for both unless you're going to stick with the base storage.
Btw, you can buy a MacBook Pro Max M1 16" 64GB SoC RAM, 1TB SSD in excellent condition, with warranty, refurbished by Amazon with a brand new battery for $1,500 right now.
Corporations are switching laptops on a 3-year cycle.
Next year, there will be a flood of M2s, in 2 years, M3s, 3 years, M4s, nada, nada.
I'm not sure where you got $2861 for the Max+ Framework 64gb, unless you put two massively larger drives than the Mac Mini comes with... I got $2100 for the Max+ 64gb with the faster 2tb drive option. +400 to go to 128gb ram.
Apple base models tend to be fairly competitive but they have some of the most extreme margins on RAM and SSDs in the industry.
They charge $600 CAD to go from 16GB -> 32 GB.
They charge $900 CAD for 512 GB -> 2 TB SSD.
Unless I'm misunderstanding their store page, Framework charges $687 CAD ($500 USD) to go from 16GB → 32 GB RAM.
They do only charge $214 CAD ($156 USD) to 512 GB → 2 TB SSD, thanks to it just being an NVMe stick.
> Unless I'm misunderstanding their store page, Framework charges $687 CAD ($500 USD) to go from 16GB → 32 GB RAM.
That doesn't seem accurate for any of their computers? There is a pretty big leap from 32GB -> 64GB for the Desktop, but that is also a different processor.
> They charge $900 CAD for 512 GB -> 2 TB SSD.
The SSD is user replaceable, so you can replace it with a cheaper third party option.
The Mac Pro is the only Apple system that has user-replaceable storage. The Mac Mini & Studio both feature slotted storage modules, but Apple firmware locks it and so it can't be replaced much less upgraded.
This is incorrect. Mac minis (starting with the M4 model) and Mac Studios simply need to be restored via DFU mode following physical installation of another SSD (be it a larger one or simply a replacement) to function. There are third parties who have reverse engineered the design of the PCB and paired it with the same Hynix and Sandisk NAND chips Apple use.
There is no firmware lock, and here's the iFixIt guide for doing it.
> How to Replace the SSD in your Mac mini (2024)
https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/How+to+Replace+the+SSD+in+your+...
...normal M.2 SSDs are incompatible.
This guide is purely instructional for how to replace the SSD with another of the same type.
You can indeed purchase third party replacements up to the maximum size supported by that model.
I would still call this practice malicious. There's no justifiable reason for that much of a jump in price in the first place.
Others in this thread already pointed out Apple is price competitive at mac mini, and Apple is extremely price competitive since they switched to their own chips.
I would love it if PC was in a better state, but ever since Intel started flopping everyone in the PC land is praising AMD while ignoring the fact that both of them are just underdelivering compared to Apple. You cannot even get a consumer grade CPU on PC with >128 bit memory bus other than this strix halo chip - and it happened by accident. There is nothing on roadmap in the mainstream that will bump it - industry is years away from adding it. Meanwhile Apple is benefiting from this since M1, and the AI workloads just made it an even larger win.
Apple charges an increased premium as you get further away from the base models. It’s really hard to find a better deal that the M4 base models
That's purely due to Apple's ridiculous SSD pricing. You can save a lot of money by using an external SSD.
Except they keep making it harder and harder to install your own drives into apple machines.
You don’t install it but run over Thunderbolt which is plenty fast.
Right but external drives are no replacement for internal drives, so your point is moot.
Thunderbolt drives are almost native speed so unless whatever work you are doing is heavily IO bound, external drives are cheap way to boost storage for most people.
Sure, Macs should not be so restricted but unless government take action, that's not going to happen.
Thunderbolt 5 is plenty fast for an external SSD. In fact you'd be hard-pressed to find an external SSD that even goes that fast
Why are you mentioning external SSDs? We were talking about how difficult Apple makes it to swap internal drives.
External drives are not a replacement for internal drives. I have a laptop for a reason, and on crowded trains and planes needing some desk space to plug in dongles, huibs, and external drives just doesnt cut it.
It's not difficult at all.
> How to Replace the SSD in your Mac mini (2024)
https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/How+to+Replace+the+SSD+in+your+...
from the link:
> Apple integrates the storage controllers into the Apple Silicon SoC, which means that normal M.2 SSDs are incompatible.
Nevertheless, third parties have created compatible replacements that are much cheaper.
They just don't need to include a SSD controller, since that is already built into the SOC.
Notice how you specifically chose the mac mini for your example, the easiest upgradable machine in the lineup.
iMacs and macbook pros on the other hand are significantly more difficult. Apple could easily rectify this but choose not to, so that you are more likely to buy their overpriced upsells on the initial purchase.
Don't forget how Apple rips you off on RAM. Always.
RAM isn’t cheap but it’s not awful, or as bad as it once was, especially in their laptops. One of the primary things that has kept me from buying a new Apple desktop or laptop is honestly SSD pricing.
It’s absolutely ridiculous given how cheap 1TB or 2TB drives are. And generally, in my experience, the ones Apple uses have had subpar performance compared to what’s available for the PC market for less than half the price. Not to mention their base configuration machines usually have subtly crappier SSDs than a tier up.
I haven’t bought a new Mac since Apple released the M-series. I’ve wanted to multiple times, but the value just isn’t there for me personally.
Strix Halo is one of the tier-1 out-of-the-box perfect targets for for // hypermodern // nixos so I'm tuning it for the EVO-X2 which was the first desktop one available (and we'll support omarchy's hyprland rice out of the box, its a nice rice even if I prefer Ono-Sendai).
That's getting you twice the RAM for the same price. Now the Framework has both intangible cool factor and scope for more upgrades, so if money is no object, get the Framework.
But I can vouch for the EVO-X2 as the real Strix Halo experience: its thermals are solid, and even under sustained 100W+ its quieter than the average gaming PC. Obviously an elite ITX build can do better, but it's jaw-dropping at the price point: great ports, plenty of M.2 capacity, stable under extreme load, and a lot cheaper.
obligatory Neuromancer reference to get those sweet upvotes.
Well played sir! <3
> Wow, someone managed to beat Apple on price??
He didn't pick the equivalent Mac to compare to. The closest Mac would be a an M4 Pro Mac Mini, not a Mac Studio.
Right now I see a 64GB M4 Pro Mac Mini with 2TB SSD is $2600. Still more expensive, but not double the price. The Apple refurbished store has the same model for $2200.
The M4 Pro Mac Mini probably has the edge in performance, though I can't say how much. The Ryzen platform driver and software support is still early.
I think these Strix Halo boxes are great, but I also think they're a little high in the hype cycle right now. Once supply and demand evens out I think they should be cheaper, though.
> The Apple refurbished store has the same model (...)
You have to admit this reads as grade A cope.
Is it that hard to acknowledge that Apple price gouges all their product line?
No, the very cheapest (new) one is competetive, everything else is price gouged
The point is that before the AMD Ryzen Al Max+ 395 chip there was only Apple that offered something comparable for the desktop / laptop that could do these AI relate tasks. Were else could you find a GPU with 64-128 memory?
Not as good but there's loads of devices with the Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 with 64-128GB of RAM.
>The AMD 395+ uses unified memory, like Apple, so nearly all of it is addressable to be used by the GPU.
This is why they went with the “laptop” cpu. While it’s slightly slower than dedicated memory, it allows you to run the big models, at decent token speeds.
Geerling benchmarked LLM performance on the Framework Desktop and the results look pretty lackluster to me. First, the software seems really immature. He couldn't get ROCm or the NPU working. When he finally got the iGPU working with Vulkan, he could only generate 5 tok/sec with Llama 3.1 70b (40 GB model). That's intolerably slow for anything interactive like coding or chatting imo, but I suppose that's a matter of opinion.
https://github.com/geerlingguy/ollama-benchmark/issues/21
Ryzen AI Max is best with ~100B MoE models rather than large monolithic ones. For example, OpenAI's gpt-oss-120b runs at around 40 tok/s and beats Llama 3.1 70B on most/all benchmarks.
Prompt processing speeds are pretty poor too imo. I was interested in one to be able to run some of the 100b moe's but since they only give 50-150 tk/s (depending on model) it will take 5ish mins to process a 32k context which wouldn't be unbarebly slow for me. I've just looked at the results in that link and it's even worse for the 70b's. It will be nearly 20 mins to process a 32k context.
I guess that depends on your definition of "decent". For the smaller models that can run on a 16/24/32 GB nvidia card, the chip is anywhere between 3x and 10x slower compared to say a 4080 super or a 3090 which are relatively cheap used.
Biggest limitations are the memory bandwidth which limits token generation and the fact it's not a CUDA chip, meaning longer time until first token for theoretically similar hardware specifications.
Any model bigger than what fits in 32 GB VRAM is - in my opinion - currently unusable on "consumer" hardware. Perhaps a tinybox with 144 GB of VRAM and close to 6 TB/s memory bandwidth will get you a nice experience for consumer grade hardware but it's quite the investment (and power draw)
I think it depends on the use case, slow isn’t that bad if you’re asking questions infrequently. I downloaded a model a few weeks ago that was roughly 80GBs in size and ran it on my 3090 just to see how it was… and it was okay. Fast? Nope. But it did it. If the answers were materially better I’d be happy to wait a minute for the output, but they weren’t. I’d like to try one of the really large ones, just to see how slow it is, but need to clear some space to even download it.
unified and soldered :(
I understand it's faster but still...
Did they at least do an internal PSU if they went the Apple way or does it come with a power brick twice the size of the case?
Edit: wait. They do have an internal PSU! Goodness!
For anyone else curious, they actually have a deep dive on the subject. You can also replace it with another since it's just flexATX, albeit with some requirements.
https://community.frame.work/t/framework-desktop-deep-dive-p...
LPDDR5, it looks like this is the only ram type that is going to work with Ryzen AI chips.
Framework offers Ryzen AI laptops with replaceable memory.
That ram is slower than soldered down lpddr5 at the moment.
I'm curious how something like CUDIMM memory would perform under the same workloads.
Currently avoid machines with soldered memory, but if memory can be replaced and still have similar performance, that would change things.
PCI lanes just aren’t there yet which is why the soldered memory approach to shorten the gap and increase the speed. The memory the framework desktop uses doesn’t come in slotted form (LPDDR5X).
You absolutely can (and should) build your own for slightly cheaper. Just find the fastest DDR5 CUDIMMs you can paired with the fastest memory bus mobo.
> it allows you to run the big models, at decent token speeds
Without CUDA, being an AMD GPU. Big warning depending on the tools you want to use.
There's solutions for that though.
https://docs.scale-lang.com/stable/
https://github.com/vosen/ZLUDA
It's not perfect but it's a start towards unification. In the end though, we're at the same crossroads that graphics drivers were in 2013 with the sunsetting of OpenGL by Apple and the announcement of Vulkan by Khronos Group. CUDA has been around for a while and only recently has it gotten attention from the other chip makers. Thank goodness for open source and the collective minds that participate.
I like Framework and own one of their laptops. But the desktop seems more a triumph of gimmicky marketing than a desktop that's meaningfully different. And, it seems significantly overpriced.
If you can't find an sufficiently similar alternative that is priced at a much better price, it is not overpriced.
I am very on board with the framework mission. I can afford the premium just to keep their lights on and doors open. The other Chinese OEMs almost certainly won’t offer quite the support for that ~10% discount…
I guess the original Raspberry Pi team missed the memo on that.
For the purposes of running LLM models, a Mac Mini. The PC is cheaper, but it doesn't have MacOS, Apple's service or resale value.
Actually the pricing is pretty similar.
Framework Desktop price with default selections, 32GB of RAM, 500 GB storage: $1,242.00 USD
Mac Mini with 32GB of RAM, 512 GB storage: $1,199.00
Post changed a bit since I started replying, so:
> For the purposes of running LLM models, a Mac Mini
The M4 Max is the one that actually gives you a shit load of memory bandwidth. If you just get a normal M4 it's not going to be especially good at that.
> it doesn't have MacOS
The Mac can't run Windows, which is used by ~75% of all desktop computer users and the main operating system that video games target. I'd say that would be the bigger problem for many.
> Apple's service
What advantage does that get you over Framework's service?
> resale value
Framework resale value has proven to be excellent by the way. Go to eBay, search "Framework Laptop", go to "Sold Items". Many SKUs seem to be retaining most of their value.
(Nevermind the ease of repair for the Framework, or the superior expandability. If you want to expand the disk space on an M4 you need to get sketchy parts, possibly solder things, and rescue your Mac with another Mac. For framework devices you plug in another M.2 card.)
Macs can run Windows just fine, through Parallels. It’s more efficient at doing so than most ARM based windows machines on sale still. And I found software compatibility with Windows 11 for ARM to be a non issue nowadays.
I can't tell you how much I disagree with this take.
Microsoft's AMD64 emulator is slow and buggy compared to Rosetta, and you will need it a lot more, too. Many apps will need to rely on this, including programs many users will immediately try to use, like Visual Studio. Neither Visual Studio nor its compilers support running on an ARM host; it does seem to basically work, but is slow, which is not good considering Visual Studio is already not particularly fast. It will even display a message box warning you that it is not supported during setup, so you couldn't miss it (note that this applies to the Visual Studio compilers needed by Python and Node for installing packages with C extensions). MSys2 gave me a lot of trouble, too; the setup just doesn't seem to work on ARM64. Chocolatey often installs AMD64 or x86 binaries on ARM instead of native ones; sometimes native ones don't exist anyways. Third party thing that needs to load a kernel module? Don't bet on there being an ARM64 build of it; sometimes there is, sometimes there isn't. WinFSP has a build, many hardware drivers I've looked at don't seem to (don't laugh: you can pass through USB devices, there is sense in installing actual hardware drivers.) I just set up a fresh copy of Parallels on an M3 Mac a couple months ago, I'm stopping now to be terse, this paragraph could easily be much longer. It would suffice to say that basic Windows software usage is a lot worse on Parallels than a native Windows AMD64 machine. Very useful, sure. At parity, oh no. Not close.
That's just the basics though. For GPU, Parallels does do some D3D11 translation which is (a lot!) better than nothing, but you are not getting native performance, you are not getting Vulkan support, and you are certainly not getting ROCm or CUDA or anything equivalent, so actually a lot of apps that practically need GPU acceleration are not going to be usable anyways. Even if a video game would run, anti-piracy and anti-cheat measures in lots of modern games detect and block users using VM software, not that you can expect that all of the games you want to run would even work anyways on ARM; plenty of games are known to be unstable and some don't work at all. There are other side effects of trying to do actual gaming in VMs in general, but I really think this gets the point across: Windows games and multimedia are significantly worse in Parallels than on a native machine.
Parallels filesystem bridging is impractical, it's not fast enough and it is buggy, i.e. running Bazel on bridged files will not work. This means you need to copy stuff back and forth basically all the time if you want to work on stuff natively but then test on Windows. Maybe this is partly Window's fault, but in any case it would suffice to say that workflows that involve Windows will be a lot clunkier than they would be on a native Windows machine.
I think these conclusions, that a native Windows machine would be a lot better for doing Windows things than a Mac running Parallels, is actually pretty obvious and self-evident, but reading what you said might literally give someone the opposite impression, that there is little reason to possibly want to run Windows. This is just misleading. Parallels is a great option as a last resort or to fill a gap, but if you have anything that regularly requires you to use Windows software or test on Windows, Parallels is not a very serious option. It may be cheaper than two machines in fiat currency, but probably not in sanity.
I don't know you, so I can't and won't, based on a single post, accuse you of being a fanboy. However, this genre of retort is a serious issue with fanboyism. It's easy to say "Windows? just use VMs!", but that's because for some people, actually just using Windows is probably not a serious option they would consider anyways; if the VM didn't work for a use case they'd back up and reconsider almost anything else before they reconsider their choice of OS or hardware vendor, but they probably barely need (if at all) a VM with Windows anyways. If this feels like a personal attack, I'd like to clarify that I am describing myself. I will not use Windows. I don't have a bare metal Windows machine in my house, and I do my best to limit Windows usage in VMs, too. Hell, I will basically only use macOS under duress these days, I'm not a fan of the direction it has gone either.
Still, I do not go around telling people that they should just go switch to Linux if they don't like Windows, and that Virtualbox or Wine will solve all of their problems, because that's probably not true and it's downright dishonest when deep down I know how well the experience will go. The honest and respectful thing to tell people about Linux is that it will suck, some of the random hardware you use might not work, some of your software won't work well under Wine or VMs, and you might spend more time troubleshooting. If they're still interested even after proper cautioning, chances are they'll actually go through with it and figure it out: people do not need to be sold a romantic vision, if anything they need the opposite, because they may struggle to foresee what kinds of problems they might run into. Telling people that virtual machines are a magic solution and you don't have to care about software compatibility is insane, and I say that with full awareness that Parallels is better than many of the other options in terms of user friendliness and out of the box capabilities.
I think the same thing is fair to do for macOS. With macOS there is the advantage that the entire experience is nicer as long as everything you want to do fits nicely into Apple's opinionated playbook and you buy into Apple's ecosystem, but I rarely hear people actually mention those latter caveats. I rarely hear people mention that, oh yeah, a lot of cool features I use only work because i use Apple hardware and services throughout my entire life, and your Android phone might not work as well, especially not with those expensive headphones I think you should get for your Mac. Fanboys of things have a dastardly way of only showing people the compelling side of things and leaving out the caveats. I don't appreciate this, and I think it ultimately has an overtone of thinking you know what someone wants better than they do. If someone is really going to be interested in living the Mac life, they don't need to be mislead to be compelled.
> Mac Mini with 32GB of RAM, 512 GB storage: $1,199.00
You're looking at the wrong Mac Mini. The model with the M4 Pro is the right comparison, on account of also having a 256-bit memory bus giving substantially higher bandwidth than a typical desktop computer. The M4 Pro model doesn't have a 32GB option.
The M4 Max (not available in a Mac Mini) has an even larger memory bus, giving it far more bandwidth than either the M4 Pro or the AMD Strix Halo part used by Framework.
I was just going for a head-to-head comparison, that's the closest you can get in price/performance. The closest M4 Pro Mac Mini is already a lot more expensive than the baseline Framework Desktop.
The Framework Desktop Max+ 395 with 128 GB of RAM, and a 500 GB SSD costs around $2,147.00 USD before tax. The M4 Pro with the 20-core GPU, 64 GB of RAM, and a 512 GB SSD costs around $2,199.00 USD. That's still short 64 GB of RAM, of course.*
The lowest-end M4 Max Mac Studio that can support 128 GB of RAM seems to cost $3,499.00 with 128 GB of RAM and a 512 GB SSD. For that you get 546GB/s of maximum memory bandwidth according to Apple, which is definitely a step up from the 256GB/s maximum for the Ryzen AI Max+ 395, but obviously also at a price that is quite higher too.
Apparently though, 128 GB of RAM is currently the ceiling for the M4 Max right now. So it seems like if you were going for a maximum performance local AI cluster at any price, the M3 Ultra Mac Studios are definitely in the running, though at that point it probably is starting to get to the price where AMD and NVIDIA's data center GPUs start to enter the picture, and AMD Instinct cards measure memory bandwidth in terabytes per second.
* Regarding GPUs: The Framework Desktop Max+ 395 Radeon 8060S seems to be vastly faster than all of the non-Max M4 SKUs, for anyone that cares a lot about GPU performance. The M4 Max seems to outperform the 8060S by a bit though, and obviously it has some stand-out features like a shit load of video encoding/decoding hardware. This complicates the value comparison a lot. The Radeon core definitely gets a much better value for the performance in any case. I'm really impressed by what they managed to do there.
I count not needing to use macOS a big plus. Full Linux support out of the box.
> but it doesn't have MacOS, Apple's service or resale value.
If the purpose is running LLMs non of that matters.
But Linux support is an advantage. Does the M4 have that?
Why doesn't it matter? Does your computer magically stop needing to be serviced or eventually sold because you're running LLMs?
I run Linux containers all the time.
None of my computers ever needed service.
The LLM point is that Linux is better suited for most AI tools and their toolchains
The M4 has half the memory bandwidth of the 395+ and the specs on those models are absolute trash. To get an M4 Pro APU and decent specs you're spending at least as much as the Framework, at least here in Canada.
It's taking a newly released mobile- and mini-PC-focused platform that's usually paired with proprietary technology, and building something that's as close as possible to a standard desktop with it. Seems very much in the Framework spirit once you account for that side of it.
Right, but why go with mobile at all? I get the laptops.
For desktop you already have thousands of choices though and reparability, assuming its not some proprietary Dell/HP desktop, is already as good as it gets without breaking out your soldering iron.
That said, they'll know more about the market demand than I do and another option won't hurt :)
The specific chip powering the Framework Desktop is something very unique in the PC landscape in general, even in desktop. The Strix Halo chip pairs a 16 core CPU with a huge iGPU that performs like a desktop discrete GPU, and 128GB of RAM (accessible on the GPU).
Strix Halo is almost like having a PS5 or Xbox chip but available for the PC ecosystem. It's a super interesting and unique part for GPU compute, AI, or small form factor gaming.
Quiet desktop PCs with good thermals have been getting increased interest — not everyone needs a tower, for some a Mac Mini-like device would work great, but not everyone wants to get into the Apple ecosystem for various reasons.
Of course this PC is interesting in that it’s more “workstation class” and I’m not sure how much thermals matter there, but maybe this is an iteration towards a Mac Studio like device.
> Right, but why go with mobile at all? I get the laptops.
Pair a power-efficient mobile chip with a mini-desktop form factor and a good (i.e. probably overengineered, to some extent) cooling solution, and it will give you a kind of sustained performance and reliability over time that you just aren't going to get from the average consumer/enthusiast desktop chip. Great for workstation-like use cases that still don't quite need the raw performance and official support you'd get from a real, honest-to-goodness HEDT.
The most reliable computers I have are the "consumer/enthusiasts" computers I have.
Because its using a Strix Halo APU which to some is kinda interesting, and to others all they need for sometime.
Supporting OSS and repairable hardware?
A normal desktop with non-soldered components is more repairable, cheaper and can also run on stock Linux?
The only selling point is the form factor and a massive amount of GPU memory, but a dGPU offers more raw compute.
AMD APUs can run stock Linux.
All those SteamOS handhelds are on AMD.
> with non-soldered components is more repairable
This is literally the limitation of the platform. Why even bring that up? Framework took a part made by AMD and put in their devices.
OSS is fair.
From the product page I don't see how that mainboard is more repairable than a typical ITX one though. As far as I can tell, you also cannot change the CPU on it so even less than a typical desktop mainboard.
By buying their devices you directly support company and mission that they're on. I'm not a diehard OSS supporter (Mac user here), but I consider buying The Framework Desktop just to support the company over, say, Dell or HP.
> but I consider buying The Framework Desktop just to support the company over, say, Dell or HP.
Exactly. Between those three companies, only one of them is likely to even try to make something like core boot possible on this machine. That’s something I can afford to encourage.
I'm realizing that I may have misunderstood Framework's market. I thought it was tinkerers and environmentally conscious FOSS nerds like me, but I think there maybe be a huge enterprise segment whose employees in charging of purchasing are like me but answer to much more strict business needs than "Isn't it cool that it comes with a screwdriver in the box?" So for example the underpowered cpu in the fw12 makes no sense to me until I found out that it's also designed for mass purchases by schools and designed to be flung around by angsty teens. The desktop seems to be meant to be strapped to the underside of 40 identical cubicals in an office as much as it's meant to be apparently hauled around by people that want to have CSGO lan parties.
> So for example the underpowered cpu in the fw12 makes no sense to me until I found out that it's also designed for mass purchases by schools and designed to be flung around by angsty teens.
I think that might be overstating it a bit. Real "rugged" laptops do exist, and would be quite at home in that kind of use (well, usually you'd worry a lot more about how kids in primary school will treat your hardware than teenagers) but the Framework 12 is not one.
Real "rugged" laptops are far too expensive for schools to buy by the dozen. Also, while robust against the environment they're not so much against deliberate vandalism or theft. The target market for those seems to be construction/industrial and similar, and of course the military.
All school laptop fleets I've seen are simply the cheapest thing they can buy in bulk, when it breaks provision a new one.
That's one point for the sub-$250 Chromebooks for sure.
I cancelled my Framework Desktop order and ordered a HP Z2 Mini G1a instead, the goal being to replace my Mac Studio as I've had it with Apple's arrogance and lousy software quality. The HP is much smaller, has ECC RAM and 10G Ethernet. Significantly more expensive, however.
Apple have certainly taken a couple steps back re: overall reliability, but if you think that the grass is greener on the other side…pray tell how that goes
Plus, you can now deploy [MLX projects on CUDA](https://github.com/ml-explore/mlx/pull/1983)
Even if the grass is the same on the other side a 50% discount for the same performance doesn’t seem too bad.
Bc your proposed situation is a fantasy
No processor can come close to performance per watt, and performance per watt wins the laptop market. Laptop market dominates PC sales
The grass is not the same on the other side
Was scoffing at HP, but then you got my attention with ECC RAM. Looks nice as well.
Keep scoffing, it's not real end to end ECC, just "link" ecc, which is just part of the chip -> CPU pipeline.
So it's not full ECC like servers have with dimms with a multiple of 9 chips with ECC protecting everything from the dimms to the CPU.
Keep in mind the ram is inside the strix halo package, not something HP has control over.
> Keep in mind the ram is inside the strix halo package, not something HP has control over.
It's not in the package, it's on the motherboard spread around the SoC package: https://www.hp.com/content/dam/sites/worldwide/personal-comp...
The 8 DRAM packages pretty clearly indicate you're not getting the extra capacity for end-to-end ECC as you would on a typical workstation or server memory module.
Wait is there any actual difference in the RAM between the HP and the Framework Desktop?
No I dont think so, all ddr5 has some "ECC" but not full ECC, ie you cant see corrections. And all the AI maxes have the same LPDDR5
Many mobile devices have on-chip ECC because they have to for signal integrity reasons... technically the Raspberry Pi 5 has ECC too, by that definition!
You're right, I had asked my HP specialist to confirm that it was ECC, and he had said yes, but when I prompted him again on the distinction between link ECC (protects data in motion) vs true on-die ECC (protects data at rest in RAM, much more important), he admitted it was the former and canceled my order.
I now ordered a Beelink GTR9 Pro, which unlike the Framework has dual 10G Ethernet, not the weird 5G flavor. We'll see how that goes.
Ah, interesting. Did you get a ship date? I do like the idea of dual 10G. It would be nice to see a review on how well the GTR9's cooling works and how quiet it is under full load.
Lack of ECC is what prevents the Framework Desktop from being anything else than an expensive toy.
Apple isn't using ECC either. If your only aim is to run LLMs how much do you actually care about ECC?
>Apple isn't using ECC either.
And thus their machines are expensive toys as well.
(I type this on a system I built, a 9800x3d with 96GB (2x 48GB) ECC RAM.)
>If your only aim is to run LLMs how much do you actually care about ECC?
That is not me, nor do I know anyone who exclusively uses computers to run LLMs.
Do you linux on this ? if so.. does everything work ?
Haven't received it yet, but of course I will install Linux on it.
Please respond to this with a link to your quick synopsis.
It is also, unfortunately, insanely loud.
I was baffled by the comparison to the M4 Max. Does this mean that recent AMD chips will be performing at the same level, and what does that mean for on-device LLMs? .. or am I misunderstanding this whole ordeal?
Yes, the Strix series of AMD uses a similar architecture as M series with massive memory bandwidth and big caches.
That results in significantly better performance.
Isn't this the desktop architecture that Torvalds suggested years ago?
I don't know, but it's primarily very expensive to manufacture and hard to make expandable. You can see people in rage due to soldered RAM in this thread.
There's always tradeoffs and people propose many things. Selling those things as a product is another game entirely.
It basically looks like a games console. Its not a conceptually difficult architecture, "what if the GPU and the CPU had the same memory?". Good things indeed.
Faster and bigger SRAM cache is as complicated of a solution as adding moar boosters to your rocket. It works, but expensive. RP2040 uses ~8x more die space as its dual CPU just for the RAM.
Do I misunderstand your message here or are you comparing this desktop machine to an embedded microcontroller from Raspberry Pi Limited?
This how the Amiga worked 40 years ago...
Will we be able to get similar bandwidth with socketed ram with CAMM / LPCAMM modules in the near future?
Maybe, but due to the physics of signal integrity, socketed RAM will always be slower than RAM integrated onto the same PCB as whatever processing element is using it, so by the time CAMM / LPCAMM catches up, some newer integrated RAM solution will be faster yet.
This is a matter of physics. It can't be "fixed." Signal integrity is why classic GPU cards have GiBs of integrated RAM chips: GPUs with non-upgradeable RAM that people have been happily buying for years now.
Today, the RAM requirements of GPU and their applications has become so large that the extra, low cost, slow, socketed RAM is now a false economy. Naturally, therefore, it's being eliminated as PCs evolve into big GPUs, with one flavor or other of traditional ISA processing elements attached.
It’s possible that Apple really did a disservice to soldered RAM by making it a key profit-increasing option for them, exploiting the inability of buyers to buy RAM elsewhere or upgrade later, but in turn making soldered RAM seem like a scam, when it does have fundamental advantages, as you point out.
Going from 64 GB to 128 GB of soldered RAM on the Framework Desktop costs €470, which doesn’t seem that much more expensive than fast socketed RAM. Going from 64 GB to 128 GB on a Mac Studio costs €1000.
Ask yourself this: what is the correct markup for delivering this nearly four years before everyone else? Because that's what Apple did, and why customers have been eagerly paying the cost.
Let us all know when you've computed that answer. I'll be interested, because I have no idea how to go about it.
I had 128gb of ram in my desktop from nearly a decade ago. I'm not sure what exactly Apple invented here.
Yeah, it's not really about jamming more DIMMs into more sockets.
Of course it isn't... the point stands... Apple didn't actually invent anything in that regard.
Is the problem truly down to physics or is it down to the stovepiped and conservative attitudes of PC part manufacturers and their trade groups like JEDEC? (Not that consumers don't play a role here too).
The only essential part of sockets vs solder is the metal-metal contacts. The size of the modules and the distance from the CPU/GPU are all adjustable parameters if the will exists to change them.
> Is the problem truly down to physics
Yes. The "conservative attitudes" of JEDEC et al. are a consequence of physics and the capabilities of every party involved in dealing with it, from the RAM chip fabricators and PCB manufacturers, all the way to you, the consumer, and the price you're willing to pay for motherboards, power supplies, memory controllers, and yield costs incurred trying to build all of this stuff, such that you can sort by price, mail order some likely untested combination of affordable components and stick them together with a fair chance that it will all "work" within the power consumption envelope, thermal envelope, and failure rate you're likely to tolerate. Every iteration of the standards is another attempt to strike the right balance all the way up and down this chain, and at the root of everything is the physics of signal integrity, power consumption, thermals and component reliability.
As I said, consumers play a part here too. But I don't see the causal line from the physics to the stagnation, stovepiping, artificial market segmentation, and cartelization we see in the computer component industries.
Soldering RAM has always been around and it has its benefits. I'm not convinced of its necessity however. We're just now getting a new memory socket form factor but the need was emerging a decade ago.
> The only essential part of sockets vs solder is the metal-metal contacts.
Yeah... And that’s a pretty damn big difference. A connector is always going to result in worse signal integrity than a high-quality solder joint in the real world.
Is that really the long pole in the tent, though?
No doubt the most tightly integrated package can outperform a looser collection of components. But if we could shorten the distances, tighten the tolerances, and have the IC companies work on improving the whole landscape instead of just narrow, disjointed pieces slowly one at a time, then would the unsoldered connections still cause a massive performance loss or just a minor one?
Yes. Signal integrity is so finicky at frequencies DRAM operates that whether you drill the plated holes on boards that complete the circuit to go completely through the board or stop it halfway starts to matter due to signals permeating into the stubs of the holes and reflecting back into the trace causing interference. Adding a connector between RAM and CPU is like extending that long pole in the tent in the middle by inserting a stack of elephant into what is already shaped like an engine crankshaft found in a crashed wreck of a car.
Besides, no one strictly need mid-life upgradable RAMs. You're just wanting to be able to upgrade RAM later after purchase because it's cheaper upfront and also because it leaves less room for supply side for price gouging. Those aren't technical reasons you can't option a 2TB RAM on purchase and be done for 10 years.
In the past, at least, RAM upgrades weren't just about filling in the slots you couldn't afford to fill on day one. RAM modules also got denser and faster over time too. This meant you could add more and better RAM to your system after waiting a couple years than it was even physically possible to install upfront.
Part of the reason I have doubts about the physical necessity here is because PCI Express (x16) is roughly keeping up with GDDR in terms of bandwidth. Of course they are not completely apples-to-apples comparable, but it proves at least that it's possible to have a high-bandwidth unsoldered interface. I will admit though that what I can find indicates that signal integrity is the biggest issue each new generation of PCIe has to overcome.
It's possible that the best solution for discrete PC components will be to move what we today call RAM onto the CPU package (which is also very likely to become a CPU+GPU package) and then keep PCIe x16 around to provide another tier of fast but upgradeable storage.
I am personally dealing with PCIe signal integrity issues at work right now, so I can say yes, it’s incredibly finicky once you start going outside of the simple “slot below CPU” normal situation. And I only care about Gen 3 speeds right now.
But in general yes, PCIe vs RAM bandwidth is like comparing apples to watermelons. One’s bigger than the other and they’re both fruits, but they’re not the same thing.
Generally people don’t talk about random-access PCIe latency because it generally doesn’t matter. You’re looking at a best-case 3x latency penalty for PCIe vs RAM, usually more like an order of magnitude or more. PCIe is really designed for maximum throughput, not minimum latency. If you make the same tradeoffs with RAM you can start tipping the scale the other way - but people really care about random access latency in RAM (almost like it’s in the name) so that generally doesn’t happen outside of specific scenarios. 500ns 16000MT/s RAM won’t sell (and would be a massive pain - you’d probably need to 1.5x bus width to achieve that, which means more pins on the CPU, which means larger packages, which means more motherboard real estate taken and more trace length/signal integrity concerns, and you’d need to somehow convince everyone to use your new larger DIMM...).
You can also add more memory channels to effective double/quadruple/sextuple memory bandwidth, but again, package constraints + signal integrity increases costs substantially. My threadripper pro system does ~340GB/s and ~65ns latency (real world) with 8 memory channels - but the die is huge, CPUs are expensive as hell, and motherboards are also expensive as hell. And for the first ~9 months after release the motherboards all struggled heavily with various RAM configurations.
> The only essential part of sockets vs solder is the metal-metal contacts
And at GHz speeds that matters more than you may think.
Perhaps it's time to introduce L4 Cache and a new Slot CPU design where RAM/L4 is incorporated into the CPU package? The original Slot CPUs that Intel and AMD released in the late 90s were to address similar issues with L2 cache.
How much higher bandwidth, percentage wise, can one expect from integrated DRAM vs socketed DRAM? 10%?
Intel's Arrow Lake platform launched in fall 2024 is the first to support CUDIMMs (clock redriver on each memory module) and as a result is the first desktop CPU to officially support 6400MT/s without overclocking (albeit only reaching that speed for single-rank modules with only one module per channel). Apple's M1 Pro and M1 Max processors launched in fall 2021 used 6400MT/s LPDDR5.
Intel's Lunar Lake low-power laptop processors launched in fall 2024 use on-package LPDDR5x running at 8533MT/s, as do Apple's M4 Pro and M4 Max.
So at the moment, soldered DRAM offers 33% more bandwidth for the same bus width, and is the only way to get more than a 128-bit bus width in anything smaller than a desktop workstation.
Smartphones are already moving beyond 9600MT/s for their RAM, in part because they typically only use a 64-bit bus with. GPUs are at 30000MT/s with GDDR7 memory.
I was surprised at previous comparison on omarchy website, because apple m* work really well for data science work that don't require GPU.
It may be explained by integer vs float performance, though I am too lazy to investigate. A weak data point, using a matrix product of N=6000 matrix by itself on numpy:
This is 2 mins of benchmarking on the computers I have. It is not apple to orange comparison (e.g. I use the numpy default blas on each platform), but not completely irrelevant to what people will do w/o much effort. And floating point is what matters for LLM, not integer computation (which is what the ruby test suite is most likely bottlenecked by)It's all about the memory bandwidth.
Apple M chips are slower on the computation that AMD chips, but they have soldered on-package fast ram with a wide memory interface, which is very useful on workloads that handle lots of data.
Strix halo has a 256-bit LPDDR5X interface, twice as wide as the typical desktop chip, roughly equal to the M4 Pro and half of that of the M4 Max.
You're most likely bottlenecked by memory bandwidth for a LLM.
The AMD AI MAX 395+ gives you 256GB/sec. The M4 gives you 120GB/s, and the M4 Pro gives you 273GB/s. The M4 Max: 410GB/s (14‑core CPU/32‑core GPU) or 546GB/s (16‑core CPU/40‑core GPU).
It’s both. If you’re using any real amount of context, you need compute too.
Yeah, memory bandwidth is often the limitation for floating point operations.
I think DHH compares them because they are both the latest, top-line chips. I think DHHs benchmarks show that they have different performance characteristics. But DHHs favorite benchmark favors whatever runs native linux and docker.
For local LLM the higher memory bandwith of M4 Max makes it much more performant.
Arstechnica has more benchmarks for non-llm things https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/08/review-framework-des...
After the appstore fight, DHH's favorite is whatever is not Apple lol. TBF it just opened his eyes to alternatives now is happy off that platform.
How long until he clashes with the GPL and discovers the BSDs?
Why would that happen? The GPL doesn't conflict at all with anything 37Signals does nor the Rails ecosystem...
Now, but after listening to podcasts with him I think he's someone who would tackle hard stuff like drivers or DSP, so called math genius level coding as soon as it becomes more accessible for him through AI assisted coding.
There is a chance to build a real MacOS/iOS alternatives without a JVM abstraction layer on top like Android. The reason it didn't happen yet is the GPL firewall around the Linux kernel imo.
What app store fight?
https://37signals.com/podcast/this-again-apple/
An M4 Max has double the memory bandwidth and should run away with similarly optimized benchmarks.
An M4 Pro is the more appropriate comparison. I don't know why he's doing price comparisons to a Mac Studio when you can get a 64GB M4 Pro Mac Mini (the closest price/performance comparison point) for much less.
> don't know why he's doing price comparisons to a Mac Studio when you can get a 64GB M4 Pro Mac Mini (the closest price/performance comparison point) for much less.
Where?
An M4 Pro Mac Mini is priced higher than the Framework here in Canada...
Not in perf/watt but perf, yes.
Depends on the benchmark I think. In this case it's probably close. Apple is cagey when it comes to power draw or clock metrics but I believe the M4 max has been seen drawing around 50W in loaded scenarios. Meanwhile, Phoronix clocked the 395+ as drawing an average of 91 watts during their benchmarks. If the performance is ~twice as fast that should be a similar performance per watt. Needless to say it's at least not a dramatic difference the way it was when the M1 came out.
edit: Though the M4 Max may be more power hungry than I'm giving it credit, but it's hard to say because I can't figure out if some of these power draw metrics from random Internet posts actually isolate the M4 itself. It looks like when the GPU is loaded it goes much, much higher.
https://old.reddit.com/r/macbookpro/comments/1hkhtpp/m4_max_...
macs have faster memory access so No, Macs are faster for llms
It's not baffling once you realize TSMC is the main defining factor for all these chips, Apple Silicon is simply not that special in the grand scheme of things.
Why do you think TSMC's production being in Taiwan is basically a national security issue for the U.S. at this point?
> Apple Silicon is simply not that special in the grand scheme of things
Apple Silicon might not be that special from an architecture perspective (although treating integrated GPUs as appropriate for workloads other than low end laptops was a break with industry trends), but it’s very special from an economic perspective. The Apple Silicon unit volumes from iPhones have financed TSMC’s rise to semiconductor process dominance and, it would appear, permanently dethroned Intel.
Apple was just the highest bidder for getting the latest TSMC process. They wouldn't have had a problem getting other customers to buy up that capacity. And Intel's missteps counted for a substantial part of the process dominance you refer to. So I'd argue that Apple isn't that special here either.
Until Apple forced other chip makers to respond, nobody else was making high end phone processors. And their A series processors are competitive with and have transistor counts comparable to most mobile and desktop PC processors (and have for years). So the alternate reality where Apple isn't a TSMC customer means that TSMC is no longer manufacturing several hundred million high transistor count processors per year. In my opinion, it’s pretty likely TSMC isn’t able to achieve or maintain process dominance without that.
Update: To give an idea of the scales involved here, Apple had iPhone revenue in 2024 of about $200B. At an average selling price of $1k, we get 200 million units. Thats a ballpark estimate, they don’t release unit volumes, AFAIK. This link from IDC[1] has the global PC market in 2024 at about 267 million units. Apple also has iPads and Macs, so their unit processor volume is roughly comparable to the entire PC market. But, and this is hugely important: every single processor that Apple ships is comparable in performance (and, thus, transistor counts) to high end PC processors. So their transistor volume probably exceeds the entire PC CPU market. And the majority of it is fabbed on TSMC’s leading process node in any given year.
[1]: https://my.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS53061925
Exactly. This is why competition is good. Intel really didn't have a reason to push as hard.
I don’t think there is a laptop that comes close to battery life or performance while on battery of m1 macbook pro
I hate apple but there is obviously something special about it
I'm pretty sure many of the Windows laptops with the Qualcomm Snapdragon Elite chip have the same or better battery life and comparable performance in a similar form factor. There are many videos online of comparisons.
I’ve been agonizing over getting the Framework Desktop for weeks as a dev machine/local LLM box/home server. It checks a lot of boxes but the only reason to look at the Framework Desktop over something like a Minisforum MS-A2 is for the LLM and that seems super janky right now. So I guess I’ll wait a beat and see where we are later in the year.
My main worry about all the Minisforum, Beelink, etc. PCs is: potential lack of UEFI firmware updates (does anyone have experience with how good they are with updates?) and potential backdoors in the UEFI firmware (either intentionally or unintentionally). A China-aligned/sponsored group has made an UEFI rootkit targetting ASUS/Gigabyte mainboards: https://www.spiceworks.com/it-security/vulnerability-managem... Why not require/compel certain companies to implement them directly?
As a Framework 13 owner, their firmware update history isn't that great either.
Any more details you can share?
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/06/looking-at-framework... has a brief writeup.
The summary is that Framework was understaffed and has brought in an established third party to help with firmware and driver updates.
I bought 3 Minisforum machines for a Kubernetes cluster and they didn't make it 11 months. They weren't even powered on most of that time. They just completely freeze with a black screen, and randomly enough to where every time I think maybe I figured out a fix it just crashes again a day later.
My Minisforum M780 XTX has been rock solid for 20 months now. Bought it as a remote development box since I needed more RAM than my MacBook Air and didn't feel like shelling out $3K for a 64GB MacBook Pro. Generally prefer the remote development experience since it means the laptop stays cool, just a pain not being able to work at a cafe now and then.
No issues with my UM 780 XTX, been running mine for about two years as a homelab, running k3s and a bunch of random VMs.
Are you sure you didn't buy an Intel one by any change? Because Intel is garbage.
Even if there aren't backdoors, things like this[1] affecting AMD Zen CPUs, where microcode signing keys changed and thus the firmware needs to be updated to allow the new keys, would prevent machines from using new microcode updates.
[1] https://github.com/divestedcg/real-ucode?tab=readme-ov-file#...
probably doesn’t make sense as a home server unless you need the massive compute. i have a couple lenovo mini pcs (m75q, various generations, AMD) that I paid a total of $500 for on ebay. they’re so easy to find and handle most tasks swimmingly.
What kind of tasks do you use it for, if I may ask? Does it include local LLM/AI?
Surely if running a local LLM is a goal, you're going to be disappointed by any small form factor desktop. Even an M4 Max is slow compared to a 5 year old rtx 3090, and the M4's only advantage is that it can run larger models, but very slowly [1].
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1jn5uto/macbook...
How quiet is the Minisforum?
I'm not sure, but you could always just buy the Minisforum BD790i X3D [1]. Then, you'd be able to choose your own fan and case, and you can make it arbitrarily quiet by selecting a good fan. Early BD790i boards had a bug where losing power causes it to reset all BIOS settings, but they fixed that in later batches. I wonder when they will come out with a 9955HX version. Another good thing about this board is that it has two PCIe 5 NVME SSD slots with active cooling, which is a lot better than most other mini ITX boards out there, including the Framework.
[1] https://store.minisforum.com/products/minisforum-bd790i-x3d
I did exactly this, put it in a 2U case. Fantastic performance, but even with the best Noctua I could put on it the CPU fan sounds like a Hawker Harrier doing VTOL when it's under load. Don't regret the board, but wish my rack was in another room now.
You can adjust some fan settings in the BIOS, like what temperature it starts turning on, the PWM setting when it first turns on, and the temperature at which it hits PWM of 100%. After tuning those a bit, mine is pretty quiet unless I'm compiling with all cores or something.
How does that Framework Desktop compare with the "GMKtec AI Mini Ryzen Al Max+ 395 128GB" mini PC?
I suspect this one is very similar hardware and a slightly better deal if you give up the cool factor of Framework. Although I don't really know.
Anyone compared them head-to-head?
Hehe, that is just a Chinese company, isn't it? Say bye bye to warranty and support, repairability. I am not saying you shouldn't consider it but describing Framework merely as cool factor is the other extreme.
I've been turned off GMKTek since I was helping a buddy fresh install Windows and found their drivers are on a Google Drive folder they don't pay for which hits its download quota regularly and so you have to go back day after day and play roulette and hope you get in at the right time. And the drivers are literally nowhere else that I could find, even with driver search tools.
First hand expert: Minisforum and GPD do the same.
For nuance:
- framework only sells to specific countries. Warranty won't even be an issue if you can't buy one in the first place.
- Chinese manufacturers offer support and warranty. In particular GMKTek does[0].
- Repairability will be at best on par with framework, but better than a random western brand. Think HP and their repairability track record.
"just a Chinese company" feels pretty weird as a qualificative in this day and age when Chinese companies are on average ahead of the curve.
[0] https://de.gmktec.com/en/pages/ruckgabe-umtausch
Feels like in terms of warranty, support, repairability, it's not so much that Chinese brands have advanced, but that the west has seriously regressed. Every company now is looking to lock me out of my own hardware, extract as much information about me, extract as much value possible by degrading support and compatibility and whatever else they can...
Maybe when we run out of reasons to buy american or european or japanese they will wake up, but I don't see it.
Doubling down on mediocrity and then protecting it with tariffs is the American way now it seems.
For me as a Canadian, Framework being an American company was always a problem because their shipping and availability to here were actually inferior to overseas suppliers despite being on the same continent (this is frankly often the case because of American business arrogance and blindness to the Canadian market -- things ship faster from Europe than from American suppliers for me, on the whole).
But now with the idiotic trade war talk, it's even worse since I'm likely to be hit by a retalliatory tariff situation.
Some day hopefully all this dollar store economic nationalism will blow over, but in the meantime it's too bad Framework has a good product and isn't European or Asian, because I won't buy it now.
My post is the nuance, and as a buyer/user of GPD, Minisforum, and Xiaomi products I respectfully disagree.
Chinese companies are not on par with Western ones. The QA, safety measures, hazard compliance, warranty, or even proper English (they use an online translator service) isn't there. Cha bu duo is an accurate description of Chinese products.
From the link you send they offer 7 days return policy. In EU you got 2 weeks, legally enforced. Companies like Amazon offer even a month. Then they have a restock fee of 15%. This is AFAIK allowed (if proportional to the damage to the product) but it does not seem proportional. Companies like Amazon don't do this. And Amazon isn't great; they have a lot of cheap Chinese dropshipping brand. Then they often lie in China as well. They claim leather, when you buy it it is fake leather.
Cha bu duo can be good enough if you are on a tight budget, or if the product isn't available otherwise (how I ended up with GPD Pocket 2 back around 2018). But I have personally witnessed how Xiaomi smartphones fucked up a mid sized non-profit who dealt with very sensitive personal details. They went for budget, ended up with a support nightmare, and something which shouldn't be GDPR compliant. Cause yeah, spyware and bloatware is another issue.
Furthermore, Framework sell to Western countries.
> Cha bu duo is an accurate description of Chinese products.
Didn’t realize companies like DJI, BYD, CATL, Insta360, and Anker have a fail fast, fail early mentality.
> proper English (they use an online translator service)
Pet peeve: why should I care ?
People take grammatical errors as some ultimate gotcha and indicator of character flaw. I don't pay for the marketing nor value that they asked 3 translators to double-check each other to have flawless text for the damn first boot guide of a computer.
I see it the same as Framework's shaky YouTube presentations: they couldn't bother hiring a cameraman for their product presentations. What does that say about their computers ? To me absolutely nothing. I'll still buy one if it sounds nice enough.
> 7 days return policy.
It's from delivery.
For comparison, framework offers 30 days, but from shipping. Which means if your laptop takes more than a month to get delivered for whatever reason you virtually have no return window.
https://knowledgebase.frame.work/what-is-the-framework-retur...
> Cha bu duo
I hear you, but this is all relative to a market. There's no maker I can blindly trust whatever the country they operate in, and if we're going for cultural generalizations I'd set Tesla as the poster child of US manufacturers at this moment.
All in all, I get why we should be wary about Chinese makers. It's just the same reason we should be wary of every other makers, including those who'll screw their customer base on any other aspect that won't get picked up by a review (repairability has been one of these. Compatibility, durability, vendor lockin, standard parts etc. are other aspects.
Lenovo is a Chinese company.
I would rather say it's a Chinese conglomerate. E.g. Think.* are said to be designed in the US, Taiwan, and Japan. They are often assembled locally (e.g. my ThinkStation was assembled in Hungary). They have offices in many local markets and can be held accountable for warranty, issues, etc.
I agree with your general point though, 'Chinese' does not mean bad quality, warranty, etc. It's more a property of a bunch of Chinese computer companies selling through AliExpress, Amazon, etc. Their quality and service might improve as they grow.
As an aside, Lenovo are pretty awesome. For ThinkStations, ThinkPads, etc. they have in-depth guides for supported memory configurations, disassembly, repair etc., often with part numbers. Their hardware also works well with fwupdmgr and they provide their own Linux support (like WWAN FCC unlock scripts).
> As an aside, Lenovo are pretty awesome.
These things would be important if they made products that actually work. My T14s Gen 3 AMD simply doesn’t work. Half the time I go to wake it from sleep, the firmware has crashed and I have to hard-reset it. I spent months trying to get Lenovo to fix this. They did replace the motherboard twice (once on-site, once shipped to them) and eventually replaced the entire laptop with a new one. None of this is useful when they can’t make a laptop that doesn’t crash while it sleeps.
Sorry to hear that! I have a T14 (non-s) Gen 5 AMD and everything works great, also suspend-resume. A few years ago I had a Gen 1 AMD and it was certainly much worse. It would resume, but the trackpad or trackpoint would often not come up. But I'm very happy with the Gen 5.
My company provided Dell has the same issue (Intel CPU). Comes and goes a bit with firmware updates.
same CPU, likely a different TDP setting.
This comparison uses hp G1a but I imagine it wouldnt be too far off from GMKtec: https://www.phoronix.com/review/framework-desktop-linux/9
Framework can be fed with more power to support better sustained performance is my understanding.
They're the same price. Both 395 machines (with 128GB of RAM) are $1999.
Oh wow, it does indeed have "AI" in its name twice. Cant't wait for this shit to blow over.
AI Mini and AI Max. It has everything.
someone min-max'd their marketing strategy!
These days they're using spreadsheets for marketing copy :-))
RDNA 3.5, which means you don't get Matrix Cores. Those are reserved for RDNA 4, which comes to laptop chips later this year. Desktop RDNA 4 only shipped in 2025.
For comparison, Nvidia brought Tensor Cores to consumer cards in 2022 with the 4000 series and Apple had simdgroup_matrix since 2020!
We are moving towards a world where this hardware is ubiquitous. It's uncertain what that means for non-ML workloads.
What do you need Matrix Cores for when you already have a NPU which can access the same memory, and even seems to include more flexible FPGA fabric? It's six of one, half a dozen of another.
I have the HP Zbook G1a running the same CPU and RAM under HP Ubuntu. I have not seen any OOTB way to use the TPU. I can get ROCm software to run but it does not use it. No system tools show its activity that I can see. It seems to be a marketing gimmick. Shame.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43671940#43674311
> The PFB is found in many different application domains such as radio astronomy, wireless communication, radar, ultrasound imaging and quantum computing.. the authors worked on the evaluation of a PFB on the AIE.. [developing] a performant dataflow implementation.. which made us curious about the AMD Ryzen NPU.
> The [NPU] PFB figure shows.. speedup of circa 9.5x compared to the Ryzen CPU.. TINA allows running a non-NN algorithm on the NPU with just two extra operations or approximately 20 lines of added code.. on [Nvidia] GPUs CUDA memory is a limiting factor.. This limitation is alleviated on the AMD Ryzen NPU since it shares the same memory with the CPU providing up to 64GB of memory.
The NPU is generally pretty weak and not pipelined into the GPU's logic (which is already quite large on-die). It feels like the past 10 years have taught us that if you're going to create tensor-specific hardware then it makes the most sense to put it in your GPU and not a dark-silicon coprocessor.
Can you do GPU -> NPU -> GPU for streaming workloads? The GPU can be more flexible than Tensor HW for preprocessing, light branching, etc.
Also, Strix Halo NPU is 50 TOPS. The desktop RDNA 4 chips are into the 100s.
As for consumer uses, I mentioned it's an open question. Blender? FFmpeg? Database queries? Audio?
How is AMD GPU compatibility with leading generative AI workflows? I'm under the impression everything is CUDA.
There is a project called SCALE that allows building CUDA code natively for AMD GPUs. It is designed as a drop-in replacement for Nvidia CUDA, and it is free for personal and educational use.
You can find out more here: https://docs.scale-lang.com/stable/
There are still many things that need implementing, most important ones being cuDNN and CUDA Graph API, but in my opinion, the list of things that are supported now is already quite impressive (and keeps improving): https://github.com/spectral-compute/scale-validation/tree/ma...
Disclaimer: I am one of the developers of SCALE.
All of Ollama and Stable Diffusion based stuff now works on my AMD cards. Maybe it’s different if you want to actually train things, but I have no issues running anything that fits in memory any more.
llama.cpp combined with Mesa’s Vulkan support for AMD GPUs has worked pretty well with everything I’ve thrown it at.
https://llm-tracker.info/_TOORG/Strix-Halo has very comprehensive test results for running llama.cpp with Strix Halo. This one is particularly interesting:
> But when we switch to longer context, we see something interesting happen. WMMA + FA basically loses no performance at this longer context length!
> Vulkan + FA still has better pp but tg is significantly lower. More data points would be better, but seems like Vulkan performance may continue to decrease as context extends while the HIP+rocWMMA backend should perform better.
lhl has also been sharing these test results in https://forum.level1techs.com/t/strix-halo-ryzen-ai-max-395-..., and his latest comment provides a great summary of the current state:
> (What is bad is that basically every single model has a different optimal backend, and most of them have different optimal backends for pp (handling context) vs tg (new text)).
Anyway, for me, the greatest thing about the Strix Halo + llama.cpp combo is that we can throw one or more egpu into the mix, as echoed by level1tech video (https://youtu.be/ziZDzrDI7AM?t=485), which should help a lot with PP performance.
In practical generative AI workflows (LLMs), I think AMD Max+395 chips with unified memory is as good as Mac Studio or MacBook Pro configurations in handling big models locally and support fast inference speeds (However Top-end Apple silicon (M4 Max, Studio Ultra) can reach 546GB/s memory bandwidth, while the AMD unified memory system is around 256GB/s). I think for inference use either will work fine. For everything else I think CUDA ecosystem is a better bet (correct me if I'm wrong).
My impression is the same. To train anything you just need to have CUDA gpus. For inference I think AMD and Apple M chips are getting better and better.
For inference, Nvidia/AMD/Intel/Apple are all generally on the same tier now.
There's a post on github of a madman who got llama.cpp generating tokens for an AI model that's running on an Intel Arc, Nvidia 3090, and AMD gpu at the same time. https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp/pull/5321
CUDA isn't really used for new code. Its used for legacy codebases.
In the LLM world, you really only see CUDA being used with Triton and/or PyTorch consumers that haven't moved onto better pastures (mainly because they only know Python and aren't actually programmers).
That said, AMD can run most CUDA code through ROCm, and AMD officially supports Triton and PyTorch, so even the academics have a way out of Nvidia hell.
> CUDA isn't really used for new code.
I don't think this is particularly correct, or at least worded a bit too strongly.
For Nvidia hardware, CUDA just gives the best performance, and there are many optimized libraries that you'd have to replace as well.
Granted, new ML frameworks tend to be more backend agnostic, but saying that CUDA is no longer being used, seems a bit odd.
If you're not doing machine code by hand, you're not a programmer
If you are not winding copper around magnets by hand, you are not a real programmer
I get the joke you two are making, but I've seen what academics have written in Python. Somehow, its worse than what academics used to write when Java was taught has the only language for CompSci degrees.
At least Java has types and can be performant. The world was ever so slightly better back then.
There is some truly execrable Python code out there, but it’s there because the barrier to entry is so low. Especially back in the day, Java had so many guardrails that the really bad Java code came from intermediate programmers pushing up against the limitations of the language rather than from novices pasting garbage into a notebook. As a result there was less of it, but I’m not convinced that’s a good thing.
Edit: my point being that out of a large pool of novices, some of them will get better. Java was always more gate kept.
Second edit: Java’s intermediate programmer malaise was of course fueled by the Gang of Four’s promise to lead them out of confusion and into the blessed realm of reusable software.
What are non legacy codebases using, then?
Largely Vulkan. Microsoft internally is a huge consumer of DirectML for specifically the LLM team doing Phi and the Copilot deployment that lives at Azure.
I'm not sure if it's just the implementation, but I tried using llama.cpp on Vulkan and it is much slower than using it on CUDA.
It is on Nvidia. Nvidia's code generation for Vulkan kind of sucks, it also effects games. llama.cpp is almost as optimal as it can be on the Vulkan target; it uses VK_NV_cooperative_matrix2, which turning that off loses something like 20% performance. AMD does not implement this extension yet, and due to better matrix ALU design, might not actually benefit from it.
Game engines that have singular code generator paths that support multiple targets (eg, Vulkan, DX12, Xbone/XSX DX12, and PS4/5 GNM) have virtually identical performance on the DX12 and Vulkan outputs on Windows on AMD, have virtually identical performance on apples-to-apples Xbox to PS comparisons (scaled to their relative hardware specs), and have expected DX12 but not Vulkan performance on Windows on Nvidia.
Now, obviously, I'm giving a rather broad statement on that, all engines are different, some games on the same engine (especially UE4 and 5) are faster than one or the other on AMD, or purely faster entirely on any vendor, and some games are faster on Xbox than on PS, or vice versa, due to edge cases or porting mistakes. I suggest looking at, GamersNexus's benchmarks when looking at specific games or DigitalFoundry's work on benchmarking and analyzing consoles.
It is in Nvidia's best interest to make Vulkan look bad, but even now they're starting to understand that is a bad strategy, and the compute accelerator market is starting to become a bit crowded, so the Vulkan frontend for their compiler has slowly been getting better.
Such a huge consumer that they deprecated it
sooo what's the successor of cuda?
CUDA largely was Nvidias attempt at swaying Khronos and Microsoft's DirectX team. In the end, Khronos went with something based on a blend of AMD's and Nvidia's ideas, and that became Vulkan, and Microsoft just duplicated the effort in a Direct3D-flavored way.
So, just use Vulkan and stop fucking around with the Nvidia moat.
A great thing about CUDA is that it doesn't have to deal with any of the graphics and rendering stuff or shader languages. Vulkan compute is way less dev friendly than CUDA. Not to mention the real benefit of CUDA which is that it's also a massive ecosystem of libraries and tools.
As much as I wish it were otherwise, Vulkan is nowhere near a good alternative for CUDA currently. Maybe eventually, but not without additions to nothing the core API and especially available libraries.
ROCm doesn't work on this device
You mean the AI Max chips? ROCm works fine there, as long as you're running 6.4.1 or later, no hacks required. I tested on Fedora Rawhide and it was just dnf install rocm.
Yes it does. ROCm support for new chips, due to being available for paid support contracts, comes like 1-2 months after the chip comes out (ie, when they're 100% sure it works with the current, also new, driver).
I'd rather it works and ships late than doesn't work and ships early and then get gaslit about the bugs (lol Nvidia, why are you like this?)
Certain chips can work with useful local models, but compatibility is far behind CUDA.
> I'm under the impression everything is CUDA
A very quick Google search would show that pretty much everything also runs on ROCm.
Torch runs on CUDA and ROCm. Llama.cpp runs on CUDA, ROCm, SYCL, Vulkan and others...
Indeed, recent Flash Attention is a pain point for non CUDA.
> There's at least a little flexibility with the graphics card if you move the board into a different case—there's a single PCIe x4 slot on the board that you could put an external GPU into, though many PCIe x16 graphics cards will be bandwidth starved.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/08/review-framework-des...
There are no situations where this matters yet. You have to drop down to an 8x slot on PCIe 3.0 to even begin to see any meaningful impact on benchmarks (synthetic or otherwise)
For LLM inference, I don't think the PCIe bandwidth matters much and a GPU could improve greatly the prompt processing speed.
The Strix Halo iGPU is quite special, like the Apple iGPU it has such good memory bandwidth to system RAM that it manages to improve both prompt processing and token generation compared to pure CPU inference. You really can't say that about the average iGPU or low-end dGPU: usually their memory bandwidth is way too anemic, hence the CPU wins when it comes to emitting tokens.
Only if your entire model fits the GPU VRAM.
To me this reads like "if you can afford those 256GB VRAM GPUs, you don't need PCIe bandwidth!"
No, that's not true. Prompt processing just needs attention tensors in VRAM, the MLP weights aren't needed for the heavy calculations that a GPU speeds up. (After attention, you only need to pass the activations from GPU to system RAM, which is about ~40KB so you're not very limited here).
That's pretty small.
Even Deepseek R1 0528 685b only has like ~16GB of attention weights. Kimi K2 with 1T parameters has 6168951472 attention params, which means ~12GB.
It's pretty easy to do prompt processing for massive models like Deepseek R1, Kimi K2, or Qwen 3 235b with only a single Nvidia 3090 gpu. Just do --n-cpu-moe 99 in llama.cpp or something similar.
If you can't, your performance will likely be abysmal though, so there's almost no middle ground for the LLM workload.
Yeah, I think so. Once the whole model is on the GPU (potentially slower start-up), there really isn't much traffic between the GPU and the motherboard. That's how I think about it. But mostly saying this as I'm interested in being corrected if I'm wrong.
You can also use an adapter to repurpose an M.2 slot as PCIe x16, but the bandwidth is the same x4
That's just called a PCIe x4 [1]. Each PCIe lane is an independent channel. The wider slot will simply have disconnected pins. You can actually do this with regular motherboard PCIe x4 slots by cutting the plastic at the end of the slot so you can insert a wider card and most cards work just fine.
[1]: It sounds like a nitpick but a PCIe x16 with x4 effective bandwidth can exist and is a different thing: if the actual PCIe interface is x16, but there is an upstream bottleneck (e.g. aggregate bandwidth from chipset to CPU is not enough to handle all peripherals at once at full rate.)
There's been some theories floating around that the 128gb version could be the best value for on-premise LLM inference. The RAM is split between CPU and GPU at a user-configurable ratio.
So this might be the holy grail of "good enough GPU" and "over 100GB of VRAM" if the rest of the system can keep up.
> The RAM is split between CPU and GPU at a user-configurable ratio.
I believe the fixed split thing is a historical remnant. These days, the OS can allocate memory for the GPU to use on the fly.
Indeed it can be reallocated, needs a reboot though. I've gotten up to around 110 GB before running into OOM issues. I set it at 108 GB to provide a little headroom: https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2025/increasing-vram-alloc...
Also, from your link:
> It seems like tools will have to adapt to dynamic VRAM allocation, as none of the monitoring tools I've tested assume VRAM can be increased on the fly.
amdgpu_top shows VRAM (the old fixed thing) and GTT (dynamic) separately.
Good to know!
No need for a reboot, echo 9999 >/sys/module/ttm/parameters/pages_limit
You're talking about an allocator policy for when to allow GTT and when not, not the old firmware-level VRAM split thing where whatever size the BIOS sets for VRAM is permanently away from the CPU. The max GTT limit is there to decrease accidental footguns, it's not a technological limitation; at least earlier the default policy was to reserve 1/4 of RAM for non-GPU use, and 1/4*128 GB=32GB is more than enough so you're looking to adjust the policy. It's just an if statement in the kernel, GTT the mechanism doesn't limit it, and deallocating a chunk of memory used by the GPU returns it to the general kernel memory pool, where it can next be used by the CPU again.
It's not a fixed split. I don't know if it's possible live, or if it requires a reboot, but it's not hardwired.
I want to know if it's possible. 4GB for Linux, a bit of room for the calculations, and then you can load a 122GB model entirely into VRAM.
How would that perform in real life? Someone please benchmark it!
You're still thinking of the old school thing, where you set the split in the firmware and it's fixed for that boot. There's dynamic allocation on top of it these days.
I have that split set at the minimum 2 GB and I'm giving the GPU a 20 GB model to process.
You need to use Orbstack as the engine on Mac, otherwise it's not a fair fight. It's at least 2x as fast as Docker
Amazing thing is this is a laptop-grade chip. Think AMD should make a full-on desktop-grade chip and possibly have two of them on one board.
That’d really drive compute.
> possibly have two of them on one board.
That would involve NUMA, and your memory bandwidth for cross-chip compute would probably suck. Would that even beat a simple cluster in performance?
Sadly not. It appears to be too high wattage for laptops, almost no availability there.
The full on high power one is the MI300A which is indeed superb.
A desktop-grade chip would nerf the APU and memory bandwidth, and would need a discrete GPU for comparable compute, which is a completely different class of machine. (One which would be, IMO, much less interesting.)
Reads like an advertisement to me.
I doubt that Dhh if all people would do advertisement (as paid) for this. He genuinely seems to enjoy his macos break
Apple's walled garden and mob tactics pissed DHH off [1-3]. Of course he's going to advocate for alternatives.
Tim Sweeney is in the same camp.
[1] https://www.hey.com/apple/
[2] https://world.hey.com/dhh/apple-rejects-the-hey-calendar-fro...
[3] https://world.hey.com/dhh/hey-is-finally-for-sale-on-the-iph...
Then again that's just what he does. There is little room for soft opinions in DHHs communication to the public, and nuance often goes next.
What are more budget friendly options for similar workloads (running web app test suite in parallel)?
My test suite currently runs in ~6 seconds on 9700K. Would be nice to speed it up, but maybe not for $2000 :-) Last I checked 13700K or 13900K looked like the price/performance sweet spot, but perhaps there are better options?
Minisforum 790S7/795S7, mini-ITX desktop.
16 cores, 32 threads, only a bit less powerful than a desktop Ryzen 7950X or a 14900K, but with a comparatively low power usage.
About 500€ barebones, then you add your own SSD and SO-DIMM RAM.
How is the cooling system on that Minisforum?
Is it noisy? Does it keep up with the 7950X?
>My test suite currently runs in ~6 seconds on 9700K
Absolutely nothing. 6 seconds is about the time it will take you to tab to your terminal, press up arrow, find your test task and run it. There's no amount of money that makes it go from 6 to 3, and no world in which there's any value to it.
In addition, upgrading to a 13900K means you're playing the Intel Dance: sockets have (again) changed, in an (again) incompatible manner. So you're looking at, at the very least, a new CPU, a new motherboard, potentially a new cooler, and if you're going too forward with CPUs, new RAM since Intel's Z890 is not DDR4 compatible (and the Z390 was not DDR5 compatible). Or buying an entire new PC.
Since you're behind a socket wall, the reasonable option for an upgrade would rather be a sizeable one, and most likely abandoning Intel to its stupid decisions for a while and instead going for Zen 5 CPUs, which are going to be socket compatible for a good 7 years at least.
It’s really nice to save and have your tests automatically run and go green (or red) nearly instantly. There is value to that. Performance matters.
That's called not rerunning all the tests in your project and having test harnesses that know of module boundaries.
In addition, considering "saving" is something that happens on pretty much any non-code interaction, it means your tests are broken half the time when you're working. That's useless noise.
6 seconds is the time it takes for the tests to run, after I've switched to the terminal and ran the command. If I switch from 8 cores to, say, 16 faster cores, IMHO it is not unthinkable the tests could speed up to 3 seconds. How much money to invest for this speedup is a subjective question.
I'm thinking about a new system, not upgrading the existing one.
I bought https://store.minisforum.com/products/minisforum-um890pro to compile Rust faster than my laptop, with 96 GB RAM and 2x4 TB NVMe as a ZFS mirror. Back before Framework Desktop existed.
It has the 8945HS CPU, the article benchmarks against 8745H which is a little bit slower. It's a very worthy price point to consider, tiny and very quiet.
qwen3:30b-a3b runs locally at 23.25 tokens/sec. I know 395+ chip would about approximately double that, but I'm not quite willing to put $2000 into that upgrade.
I could do with someone explaining to me (sorry not very advanced knowledge in this area), how did Framework manage this performance at a lower price point? And why can't average Joe at PCPartPicker do something like this?
The key piece is AMD's high-end AI CPU. The whole desktop is literally built around it, to take full advantage of it.
AMD reached out to Framework and said "Hey, we have this new CPU, do you want to do something with it?". And the engineers at Framework jumped at the opportunity.
AMD Ryzen AI Max 395+ as the APU (CPU + GPU), and its corresponding soldered LPDDR5X RAM, which has a super fast memory bandwidth of 256GB/sec.
So the CPU and RAM are soldered on the motherboard.
You can buy just the motherboard from Framework: https://frame.work/products/framework-desktop-mainboard-amd-...
Real question, it's not. It's close to the m4 mini performance. Which puts the price point within spitting difference ($50). Basically identical price wise to equivalent Apple products.
Is there a real alternative, where is not not needed Windows in any way, to the Remote Device Management baked into firmware as Apple does with its hardware ? This is biggest missing to bring Linux to enterprises.
> the Remote Device Management baked into firmware as Apple does with its hardware?
What do you mean? Linux had SSH (and before that rlogin) for a very long time already.
Apple devices support MDM. When you purchase the device, the device's firmware is configured to check in with an account owner. The firmware has an integrity feature such that this configuration cannot be removed by a user: https://it-training.apple.com/tutorials/deployment/dm005/
If OP just meant remote management through a BMC then that's not common except for server hardware, and it would have features like Redfish to configure the hardware itself. Apple devices don't have this.
You can also buy hardware to act as a remote keyboard/mouse/monitor and power button, and it supports systems whose motherboards have the right headers: https://pikvm.org/
I don't think it's fair to describe MDM as a firmware-level feature. I think it's entirely implemented and enforced within the environment of a booted macOS; the firmware isn't going to be bringing up a whole network stack to phone home.
If you had Linux on a MDM-enrolled Mac there wouldn't be anything MDM-related running during or after the boot process. But presumably any sane MDM config would prevent the end user from accessing the settings necessary to relax boot security to get Linux installed in the first place.
Yeah, your point about implementation is correct -- much of the MDM functionality runs within macOS.
But, eh, I still think it's fair to describe it as a feature of the firmware. The enrollment and prevention of removal have firmware-level components through Apple's Secure Boot and System Integrity Protection. A user can't simply disable MDM because these firmware-level protections prevent tampering with the enrollment.
Case in point, getting Linux installed in the first place would be blocked by firmware-level boot policies, right? I'm not too knowledge about this, and maybe you are more so.
I think it's important to make a distinction between secure boot features that are local-only, and remote management features. The "Remote Device Management baked into firmware" claim above carries with it some pretty important implications that are, as far as I can tell, not actually true.
It's not too different from scaremongering about Intel ME/AMT which is often maligned even in the context of computers that don't have the necessary Intel NICs for the remote management features.
I agree with your point about OP's statement regarding "where is not not needed Windows in any way, to the Remote Device Management baked into firmware as Apple does with its hardware" I also read that to mean that the firmware solution is self-contained and complete, even though that's pretty misaligned when you consider the meaning of a "remotely" managed device (remotely managed by what?).
But it's still entirely factual in my own description. When a device checks in during initial setup, the firmware-level boot process can receive policies that block alternative OS installation, and that absolutely is a feature of the firmware.
Anyway, I tried to interpret OP's meaning, and provided more detail on how Apple's firmware is special.
Do you think ssh is an equivalent to remote device management? Half the reason Chromebook does well is because it's really good at remote device management.
"Device Management" means "hardware-level backdoor."
Only if it's your hardware. If it's corporate hardware, it's their hardware and you're a guest.
I was in the market for a Linux desktop machine and considered the Framework Desktop. I respect their mission, but ended up purchasing a Geekom mini PC instead.
Given repair isn't practical with soldered DRAM and such, I prioritized small form factor, price, and quick delivery.
The Framework Desktop was a much larger form factor, 3x the price, and delivery wasn't for months.
That said, I still hope the company is successful so they have more competitive offerings in the future.
> Linux is really efficient. Especially when you're using a window manager like Hyprland, as we do in Omarchy.
Window managers are usually the last issue on modern Linux. Pretty much any native app is okay.
Troubles really start (and start fast) when you open any browser and load any modern website. Had we more native applications (so not cloud stuff, and not javascript stuff with a bundled chromium) we'd all have a much better overall computing experience.
I don't really understand Why one should bother with the pluggable ports in something that's not a laptop. Even in 4.5L, shouldn't we just have "all the ports"?
Also, this reminds me of "SkyReach Tiny":
https://store.nfc-systems.com/products/skyreach-4-tiny
an even smaller case, very versatile. No pluggable gimmicks though.
Only two on the front. So you get to decide what to put there. Also protects the port. Kind of a gimmick, but could be worse.
If you already have a Framework laptop, it's nice to be able to reuse the extra cards that you might have lying around. "Leveraging the benefits of the Framework ecosystem," as a marketing person might say.
for $2k that is a lot of computer
Physical Size:
That’s a lot of extra cooling capacity, and sizably larger space it’s taking up.The non-upgradable memory seems contradictory to their ideals of DIY and BYO
very impressive...
Max+ 395 specced with: 128GB of non-upgradeable LPDDR5x WD_BLACK SN850X NVMe - M.2 2280 - 8TB Noctua fan 3x + 3x extra USB-A & USB-C ports No OS option.
only $2,776.00!!!
Bear in mind the gpu has access to all of that 128GB as well, so for AI thats very very cheap.
yeah, slap the Apple brand on this and it's basically the same thing.
People seem to really not understand the limits of wanting unified memory architecture.
Apple CPUs have up to more than 2.5 times the memory bandwidth as this (and you pay for it).
everything's cheap when you're rich
A mac studio configured similarly With 128 GB of memory and an 8 TB SSD is $5799
The Mac Studio (at least the M3 Ultra model) blows the Framework out of the water when it comes to AI performance, though, at least according to this (Dutch language) benchmark: https://tweakers.net/reviews/13614/framework-desktop-de-fram...
Paying twice the price for twice to seven times the performance may not be such a bad thing. Then again, with Apple you're kind of stuck with macOS and the like, so Framework may still be the better option depending on your use case.
The M3 Ultra also consumes a lot more power because Strix Halo is actually a chip for laptops. The Framework here is a desktop but that doesn't change what AMD prioritized when building this chip.
The M3 Ultra is more efficient both on the CPU and GPU side.
I'd hope so since M3 Ultra is using a newer/more efficient manufacturing process than Strix Halo!
One detail is that the memory bandwidth on the M4 Max and M3 Ultra (especially) is considerably higher than the 395+.
> The Framework Desktop with 64GB RAM + 2TB NVMe is $1,876
And it's ~$1000 to build a PC with a similar CPU, somewhat larger form factor, and fans. Unless the AI processor is actually useful for AI, and you need that, this is silly.
Framework desktop dimensions are 20.6 x 9.7 x 22.6 LWH. My IM01 case is 37.2 x 18.5 x 28.7. It won't be going in my bag, but it fits nicely on a desktop.
Pre-builts are so expensive these days...
The upcharge for decent specs, especially on RAM, is insane. I just checked Dell and upgrading from the base 16GB of RAM to 64GB of RAM on their generic tower costs $450. You can buy 2x32GB DIMMs of the same speed for less than half of that.
The memory on chip that's shared between CPU/GPU is the main thing, for AI stuff it's more competing with gpus and apple silicon than comparable CPUs.
> In some ways, the Framework Desktop is a curious machine. Desktop PCs are already very user-repairable! So why is Framework even bringing their talents to this domain? In the laptop realm, they're basically alone with that concept, but in the desktop space, it's rather crowded already. Yet it somehow still makes sense.
And even more curious, Framework Desktop is deliberately less repairable than their laptops. They soldered on the RAM. Which makes it a very strange entry for a brand marketing itself as the DIY dream manufacturer. They threw away their user-repairable mantra when they made the Desktop, it's less user repairable than most other desktops you could go out and buy today.
The RAM is soldered on all Halo Strix platforms because physics is getting in the way. With pluggable DIMMs the memory bandwidth would be halved, at best.
He is still right. It is a desktop PC that is less repairable than all other desktop PCs, from a brand that is known to champion repairability. They had a reason for it, but could've chosen to not create more throwaway things.
I have been continuously baffled by the people that think that soldered on RAM is somehow "throwaway". My last desktop build is eight years old and I have never upgraded the ram. Never will. My next build will have an entirely new motherboard, ram, and GPU, and the last set will end up at the ewaste recycler, because who could I find that wants that old hardware?
Soldered RAM, CPU, and GPU, that give space benefits and performance benefits is exactly what I want, and results in no more ewaste at all. In fact less ewaste, because if I had a smaller form factor I could justify keeping the older computer around for longer. The size of the thing is a bigger cause of waste for me than the ability to upgrade RAM.
Not everybody upgrades RAM, and those people deserve computers too. Framework's brand appears to be offering something that other suppliers are not, rather than expand ability. That's a much better brand and niche overall.
> the last set will end up at the ewaste recycler, because who could I find that wants that old hardware?
You might be surprised. Living in a large city, everything I have put for sale has found a new owner. Old and seemingly useless computer hardware, HDMI cables that don't support 4K, worn-out cutlery, hairdryer that's missing parts, non-functional amplifier, the list goes on. If the price is right (=very low), someone has always showed up in person to carry these away. And I'm always very upfront about any deficiencies so that they know what they're getting.
I'd say a common profile for the new owner is young people who have just moved and are on a shoestring budget.
>I have been continuously baffled by the people that think that soldered on RAM is somehow "throwaway"
One of the primary objections to soldered RAM was/is the cost to purchase. As the likes of Apple priced Ram upgrade at a hefty premium to retail prices.
Also, that they often simply don’t sell what you want with enough memory, or pair memory upgrades with other upgrades you don’t need (e.g. more powerful CPU or GPU beyond your needs), or occasionally that you actively don’t want (e.g. iGPU → dGPU may be that). With socketed RAM you can buy the model you want that just lacks RAM, and upgrade that.
My current laptop (ASUS GA503QM) had 8GB soldered and 8GB socketed. I didn’t want to go for the 16+16 model because it was way more expensive due to shifting from a decent GPU to a top-of-the-line GPU, and a more-expensive-but-barely-faster CPU. (I would have preferred it with no dedicated GPU—it would have been a couple of hundred USD cheaper, a little lighter, probably more reliable, less fiddly, and have supported two external displays under Linux (which I’ve never managed, even with nvidia drivers); but at the time no one was selling a high-DPI laptop with a Ryzen 5800H or similar without dedicated graphics.) So after some time I got a 32GB stick and now I have 40GB of RAM. And I gave my sister the 8GB stick to replace a 4GB stick in her laptop, and that improved it significantly for her.
I can see that objection too, and it seems far more reasonable than assuming that soldered RAM automatically means a reduced lifespan machine.
But are Framework's RAM prices unreasonable? $400 for 64GB more of LPDDR5x seems OK. I haven't seen anybody object to Framework's RAM on those grounds.
With modular RAM, someone can buy old boards and RAM and use it for high-RAM applications down the line.
The workloads that people care most about today that need high RAM capacity are workloads that also need very high memory bandwidth. Old server hardware from eBay doesn't do a good job of satisfying the bandwidth side of things.
I will take your old builds, because my current PC is from a dumpster and was made in 2013. I can't afford to buy hardware.
> Not everybody upgrades RAM, and those people deserve computers too.
No. It's end of the line with consumerism and we either start repairing and recycling or we die. Framework catered to people who agree with that, and this product is not in line.
I have no idea why you would not upgrade your memory, I have done so in all PCs I ever owned and all laptops, and it's a very common (and cheap) upgrade. It reduces waste because people can then use their system longer, which means less garbage over the lifetime of a person. And as was already commented, it is not only about upgrades, but also about repairs. Ram breaks rather often.
I have had the system for eight years and at no point would upgrading RAM have increased performance.
Upgrading the RAM would have created more waste than properly sizing the RAM to COU proportion from the beginning.
It is very odd to encounter someone who has such a narrow view of computing that they cannot imagine someone not upgrading their RAM.
I have not once, literally not once have RAM break either. I have been part of the management of clusters of hundreds of compute nodes, that would occasionally each have their failures, but not once was RAM the cause of failure. I'm fairly shocked to hear that anybody's RAM has failed, honestly, unless it's been overlocked or something else.
I'm with you on this one. I've had.. 6? PCs. Basically every time I thought that they were falling behind performance wise, I realized that they generally had stopped selling RAM for them and even if I only wanted to upgrade the RAM, it wasn't enough anymore. The CPU was also falling behind and a new one needed a new socket and motherboard.
> It is very odd to encounter someone who has such a narrow view of computing that they cannot imagine someone not upgrading their RAM.
Uncalled for and means the end of the discussion after this reaction. Ofc I can imagine that, it's just usually a dumb decision.
That you did not have to upgrade the ram means one of two things: You either had completely linear workloads, so unlike me did not switch to a compiled programming language or experimented with local LLMs etc. Or you bought a lot of ram in the beginning, so 8 years ago with a hefty premium.
Changes nothing about the fundamental disagreement with the existence of such machines. Especially from a company that knows better. I do not expect ethical behaviour from a bottom of the barrel company like Apple, but it was completely reasonable to expect better from framework.
The 128GB version wouldn't be throwaway, since that's the maximum the platform as a whole supports anyway- more memory than that would require a new mainboard and CPU at the same time.
Not for upgrade reasons but what if you have a fault in one of the dimms or etc? Now you can't just drop in a replacement without changing everything.
How often have you had a memory chip fail? I ask because I only have had it happen once in my lifetime that I can recall and it was for a very dumb reason.
I wonder why so few people ask Apple products of such questions -- "what if my SSD goes bad, does it mean my computer is now completely useless?"
I would also ask this! But part of the framework brand was selling a laptop where the answer to that question was being able to replace it on your own. So it's just kind of a contrast for their desktop to be less repairable than their laptop.
Personally I think it's bad that apple products are so poorly repairable and so expensive to upgrade.
Worse, Apple also still claims to care about the environment. While not allowing the iMac to be used as external screen, cutting its useful lifetime by at least a decade.
it's basically the same as asking what happens when your M4 Apple has a fault. It's soldered based on the desire to use the ram as part of the GPU.
Without that, it's really not a interesting solution.
demanding replaceable ram means also not wanting the benefits of the integrated memory
That applies to all computers when you buy the fully specced versions on day 1. A maxxed out iPad isn’t throwaway, but framework represents a higher standard of upgradability.
the platform should support more memory
The only part I’ve ever had not fail on a PC or Laptop is RAM.
RAM failure is actually pretty common on non-JEDEC profiles, I've seen it happen a lot on gaming PCs. Very uncommon on "regular" computers that aren't pushing the clock and timings, though.
Oh yeah I never push the limits of my systems like that. At least for PC gamers replacing RAM is easy and they’ll probably upgrade it eventually anyway.
I wonder if there were similar complaints when cache moved from motherboards to soldered on the cpu package.
The difference in performance between DRAM and flash memory is far greater than SRAM and DRAM. The total RAM of a system is a hard limit on the type of programs you can practically run because swapping is slow.
The old motherboard cache was socketed SRAM and it was replaced with soldered SRAM just as the socketed DRAM was replaced with soldered DRAM.
L2 CPU cache used to be on the motherboard and user expandable.
Why is that? Why would soldering the connections vs plugging them in affect how much data per second they transfer?
Sockets have resistance and crosstalk, which affects signal integrity.
Wait, your telling me, I should have been desoldering the sockets off my motherboard, and directly soldering my RAM to the leads this entire time?
Compression Attached Memory Module (CAMM) tries to be a middle-term solution for that, by reducing how crappy your average RAM socket is to latency and signal integrity issues. But, at this point, I can see CAMM delivered memory being reduced to a sort of slower, "CXL.mem" device.
Seriously though,
Would desoldering the sockets help?
Why are the sockets bad?
As stated previously, the sockets reduce signal integrity, which doesn't necessarily make them "bad," but is why Framework wasn't able to used socketed ram to maximize the potential of this CPU.
This sort-of-interview of Nirav Patel (ceo of framework) explains in a bit more detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lErGZZgUbY
Basically, they need to use LPDDR5X memory, which isn't available in socketed form, because of signal integrity reasons.
Which means you won't see an improvement if you solder your ram directly, I think mostly because your home soldering job will suffer signal integrity issues, but also because your RAM isn't LPCAMM and isn't spread across a 256 bit bus.
They "why" hasn't been answered. I understand the previous statements very clearly. It makes intuitive sense to me, but I want to know more.
Like physics PhD-level more.
I believe the reason is, at the frequencies these CPUs are talking to RAM, the reflection coefficient[1] starts playing a big role. This means any change in impedance in the wire cause reflections of the signal.
This is also the reasoning why you can't just have a dumb female to female HDMI coupling and expect video to work. All of such devices are active and read the stream on the input and relay them on the output.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_coefficient
See also RF insertion loss and how that's dealt with, PCIe retimers, etc.
Above certain frequencies, you start running into major issues with signal integrity, and fixing them is very difficult without any extra circuitry.
Only if you were pushing data through so fast that the bits got corrupted before. That's literally why AMD told Framework they won't support any other configuration than soldered RAM, in this case.
Yes. (That isn't actually possible because the pinouts are different but soldered RAM is faster.)
You might be able to dial in a higher memory overclock.
mind the gap
That's fine, but not what I was commenting on so your comment is mostly irrelevant.
I was commenting on a brand based on repairability selling a product that's deliberately not repairable. It's a curious choice to throw away the branding that brought them to where they are, and hopefully not the start of a trend for their other devices.
The only non repairable part is RAM due to technical constraints. The rest is as repairable as any other desktop, if not more so (e.g. power supply). Why are you accusing them of "throwing away the branding" and holding such a purist view, when they are doing their best and just making compromises in order to release a decent product.
Why not make a platform with a greater number of channels
Sure, you could. The design would do something like:
We need a bigger memory controller.
To get more traces to the memory controller We need more pins on the CPU.
Now need a bigger CPU package to accommodate the pins.
Now we need a motherboard with more traces, which requires more layers, which requires a more expensive motherboard.
We need a bigger motherboard to accommodate the 6 or 8 dimm sockets.
The additional traces, longer traces, more layers on the motherboard, and related makes the signalling harder, likely needs ECC or even registered ECC.
We need a more expensive CPU, more expensive motherboard, more power, more cooling, and a larger system. Congratulations you've reinvented threadripper (4 channel), siena (6 channel), Threadripper pro (8 channel), or epyc (12 channel). All larger, more expensive more than 2x the power, and is likely to be in a $5-$15k workstation/server not a $2k framework desktop the size of a liter of milk or so.
> We need a more expensive CPU, more expensive motherboard, more power, more cooling, and a larger system. Congratulations you've reinvented threadripper (4 channel), siena (6 channel), Threadripper pro (8 channel), or epyc (12 channel).
This is the real story not the conspiracy-tinged market segmentation one. Which is silly because at levels where high-end consumer/enthusiast Ryzen (say, 9950 X3D) and lowest-end Threadripper/EPYC (most likely a previous-gen chip) just happen to truly overlap in performance, the former will generally cost you more!
Well sort of. Apple makes a competitive mac mini and macbook air with a 128 bit memory interface, decent design, solid build, nice materials, etc starting at $1k. PC laptops can match nearly any aspect, but rarely match the quality of the build, keyboard, trackpad, display, aluminum chassis, etc.
However Apple will let you upgrade to the pro (double the bandwidth), max (4x the bandwidth), and ultra (8x the bandwidth). The m4 max is still efficient, gives decent battery life in a thin light laptop. Even the ultra is pretty quiet/cool even in a tiny mac studio MUCH smaller than any thread ripper pro build I've seen.
Does mystify me that x86 has a hard time matching even a mac mini pro on bandwidth, let alone the models with 2x or 4x the memory bandwidth.
> Does mystify me that x86 has a hard time matching even a mac mini pro on bandwidth, let alone the models with 2x or 4x the memory bandwidth.
The market dynamics are pretty clear. Having that much memory bandwidth only makes sense if you're going to provide an integrated GPU that can use that bandwidth; CPU-based laptop/desktop workloads that bandwidth-hungry are too rare. The PC market has long been relying on discrete GPUs for any high-performance GPU configuration, and the GPU market leader is the one that doesn't make x86 CPUs.
Intel's consumer CPU product line is a confusing mess, but at the silicon level it comes down to one or two designs for laptops (a low-power and a mid-power design) that are both adequately served by a 128-bit memory bus, and one or two desktop designs with only a token iGPU. The rest of the complexity comes from binning on clock speeds and core counts, and sometimes putting the desktop CPU in a BGA package for high-power laptops.
For Intel to make a part following the Strix Halo and Apple strategy, Intel would need to add a third major category of consumer CPU silicon, using far more than twice the total die size of any of their existing consumer CPUs, to go after a niche that's pretty small and very hard for Intel to break into given the poor quality of their current GPU IP. Intel doesn't have the cash to burn pursuing something like this.
It's a bit surprising AMD actually went for it, but they were in a better position than Intel to make a part like Strix Halo from both a CPU and GPU IP perspective. But they still ended up not including their latest GPU architecture, and only went for a 256-bit bus rather than 512-bit.
Yes, but that platform has in-package memory? Which is a higher degree of integration than even "soldered". That's the kind of platform Strix Halo is most comparable to.
(I suppose that you could devise a platform with support for mixing both "fast" in-package and "slow" DIMM-socketed memory, which could become interesting for all sorts of high-end RAM-hungry workloads, not just AI. No idea how that would impact the overall tradeoffs though, might just be infeasible.
...Also if persistent memory (phase-change or MRAM) can solve the well-known endurance issues with flash, maybe that ultimately becomes the preferred substrate for "slow" bulk RAM? Not sure about that either.)
Risk cannabalising sales from their other products?
For example Nvidia seek to ban consumer GPU use in datacenters as they to sell datacentre GPUs.
If they made consumer platforms that can take 1tb of ram etc, then people may choose to not buy EYPC.
Afterall many cloud providers already offer Ryzen VPS's.
my thoughts exactly
That's a question for AMD and TCMC. They only have so much space on the silica. More memory channels means less of something else. This is not a "framework platform" issue, it's the specification of that CPU.
Well they chose to use this hardware platform. It all sounds like market segmentation to me, now that AMD is on top.
To be clear, AMD is giving you 2x the bandwidth of competing chips and you're complaining that it isn't 4x.
My complaints are the maximum RAM of the system and the modularity of the RAM.
With an increased number of channels, you could have a greater amount of RAM at a lower frequency but at the same bandwidth. So you would at least be able to run some of these much larger AI models.
This isn't ram. this is unified memory. It's shared between GPU and CPU. Soldered VRAM for GPUs have been the norm for probably 20 years because of the latency and reliability required, so why is this any different?
The only way to achieve what you're after is to do any of;
- Give up on unified memory and switch to a traditional platform (which there are thousands of alternatives for)
- Cripple the GPU for games and some productivity software by raising latency beyond the norm.
- Change to a server-class chip for 5x the price.
This is an amazing chip giving server-class specs in a cheap mobile platform, that fill a special nieche in the market for for both productivity and local AI at a very competitive price. What you're arguing for makes no sense.
I don't think that would fit in a laptop which was the original market for this chip.
According to the Framework CEO on the Linus Tech Tips video about this thing [1], they tried and AMD assigned an engineer on getting modular memory to work and decided it's not possible.
Unless there's another company out there shipping this CPU with replaceable memory, I'll believe them. Even with LPCAMM, physics just doesn't work out.
Of course, there are plenty of slower desktops you can buy where all the memory can be swapped out. If you want a repairable desktop like that, you're not stuck with Framework in the same way you would be with laptops. You'll probably struggle to get the same memory bandwidth to make full use of AMD's chips, though.
[1]: https://youtu.be/-lErGZZgUbY?feature=shared&t=446
there isn't. This thing was designed the same way apple designed their unified memory. This thing is meant to work hand in hand with it's iGPU.
> They soldered on the RAM. Which makes it a very strange entry for a brand marketing itself as the DIY dream
This was also my first thought when discovering this new model, but I think it was a pragmatic design decision.
The questions you should ask yourself are:
- which upgradable memory module format could be used with the same speed and bandwidth as the soldered in solution,
- if this solution exists, how much would it cost
- what's the maximum supported amount of ram for this CPU
>which upgradable memory module format could be used with the same speed and bandwidth as the soldered in solution
CAMM perhaps? The modular memory is important, because they are selling them to two different markets: gamers that want a small powerful desktop, and people running LLMs at home. The modularity of the RAM allows you to convert the former into the latter at a later date, so it seems pretty critical to me.
For this reason alone, I am going to buy a used epyc server instead of one of these desktop things. I will be able to equip it with a greater amount of RAM as I see fit and run a greater range of models (albeit at lower speed). The ability to run larger models slowly at a later date is more important than the ability for me to run smaller models faster now. So I am an example of a consumer who does not like framework's tradeoff.
You would think that they would at least offer some type of service where they take it into the factory and refit it with new ram chips. Perhaps they could just buy used low-ram boards at a later date and use them to make refurbished high-ram boards.
Another solution is to make it so that it supports both soldered and unsoldered ram (but at a lower frequency). Gaming is frequency-limited but does not require much ram, but a lot of workloads like AI are bandwidth limited. Hell, if you're going to have some high-frequency RAM irreplacibly soldered to the motherboard, it might as well be a chiplet!
You should do what better fit your usecase.
I don't know how large is framework's market, nor how deep their pockets are, which condition their ability to produce 2 different models.
It's clear that a modular design is preferable, hopefully once a standard emerges they will use it in their next devices. Perhaps framework will help in that process, but I don't know if they can afford to put up with the initial costs, particularly in a market they don't have a strong foothold yet.
The price jump from 64 GB to 128 GB is $400. $400 does not get you "some type of service where they take it into the factory and refit it with new ram chips".
The CEO mentioned in an LTT video that they worked with AMD to try to make CAMM memory work and hit some technical problems.
> They threw away their user-repairable mantra when they made the Desktop
You forget the value proposition of Framework products is not only they allow you to bring your own hardware but they also promise to provide you with replacement parts and upgrades directly from the vendor.
In this case they could not make the RAM replaceable (it’s a limitation of the platform) but you can expect an upgrade board in about 2 years that’s actually going to be easy to install for much less cost than buying a new desktop computer.
That's less of a thing here since this is "just" an ITX motherboard, a case, and a power supply. With the laptops replacing the board saves a bunch of other parts but here the board is basically the only part that matters.
Even on regular AMD 7000 and 9000 series the DDR5 memory controller is very sensitive and hard to get a stable system with fast RAM on many motherboards when all 4 modules are present. At today's RAM speeds, I definitely think a stable soldered system is increasingly a better trade-off.
Indeed. I have an AMD 9950X and an Asus X870E* motherboard. I can barely get the system to boot with one 32G DIMM let alone 2 or 4, and 48G DIMMS are even worse for some reason. I have tried 3 different "matched" sets. Sometimes I have to reset the system 3 times or more before it will boot; it hangs or crashes on DDR timing BIOS codes. I have given up and just use a single 32G despite how useless 32G is in a high end desktop today. Real joke. Huge waste of money. I will buy prebiilt systems in the future. In the meantime if I need a lot of RAM I use an Intel 14900K desktop or my new HP G1a Zbook.
* ASUS X870E ROG CROSSHAIR HERO AMD AM5 ATX Motherboard
Yes, AM5 DDR5 support has been similarly painful to me on four systems (7950X and 9950X). Try forcing the memory speed down to 3600MHz (ouch) when you want to install lots of memory and stay on modules specified on the motherboard's QVL.
I'd probably go Framework Desktop next if I won't need peripherals.
Dunno, nice, quiet, small machine, using standard parts (power supply, motherboard, etc).
If you want the high memory bandwidth get the strix halo, if not get any normal PC. Sure apple has the bandwidth as well, and also soldered memory as well.
If you want dimms and you want the memory bandwidth get a threadripper (4 channel), siena (6 channel), thread ripper pro (8 channel), or Epyc (12 channel). But be prepared to double your power (at least), quadruple your space, double your cost, and still not have a decent GPU.
Nice is subjective. Fractal cases he compares to looks nicer to me.
Quiet? A real PC with bigger fans = more airflow = quieter
Smaller - yes, this is the tradeoff
GPU is always best separate, that is true since the ages.
"double the power" oh no from 100W to 200W wowwww
"quadruple your space" - not a problem
> And even more curious
It's easy to find out the reason for this. And the article's benchmarks confirm the validity of this reason. Why comment from a place of ignorance, unless you're asking a question?
Your comment is unnecessarily hostile.
There are plenty of components to choose from which do not need soldered-on RAM. Giving up modularity to gain access to higher memory bandwidth is certainly a trafeoff many are willing to make, but to take that tradeoff as a company known for modularity is, as the parent comment put it, curious.
Every single description of the Framework desktop that I've seen has addressed this issue. To comment as though it's some sort of mystery is disingenuous at best. My comment was precisely as friendly as the commenter deserved.
And as I said, if you read the article, you'll see that the tradeoff in question has paid off very well.
You completely missed the point of my original comment, I'll take a second stab at it:
1. Framework branded themselves as the company for DIY computer repairability and maintainability in the laptop space.
2. They've now released a desktop that is less repairable than their laptops, and much less repairable than most desktops you can buy today.
That's what I consider a curious move.
The hardware choice may provide a good reason to solder on the RAM, but I wasn't commenting on that and have no idea how anyone could read my comment and have that be their takeaway.
I was commenting on a brand throwing away the thing it's marketed itself for. In exchange for repairability, you now get shiny baubles like custom tiles for the case.
> brand throwing away the thing it's marketed itself for
I don't see what you see. It's a single product, not a realignment of their business model. They saw an opportunity and brought to market a product that will likely sell out, which tells us that customers are happy to make the trade-off of modularity and repairability for what the Strix Halo brings to the table. I think your interpretation of their mission is a bit uncharitable, maybe naive, and leaves the company little room to be a company.
I disagree, the framework name has been intertwined with repairability since the inception. That is their USP and has been their marketing angle from day 1, not only that but the fact they are supposedly championing repairability due to their 'ethos' as a company.
Fair enough that a company might bring out products which differ from their core market, but in this instance I have to agree that releasing a desktop PC with soldered on RAM very much goes against the place they have positioned themselves in the market.
Perhaps a better solution would be to start releasing a newly branded product line of not so repairable machines, but keeping the name 'Framwork' for their main offerings.
Gotta chase that AI bubble at any cost
Oh, to be young again and care about benchmarks, bogomips and stuff like that.
Note that the main benchmark in the post is practical. How long a test suite for the product he makes runs.
Or to generally be back in the era where such a thing would be useful for LAN-parties...
Das Balkenspiel ist schlechter Stil. (The bar game is bad style/lame)
Pong!
Errm, No :-) I meant bars as in benchmarks, often rather meaningless, because within the range of statistic noise.
For instance, something having 100.200 points in one config, in another 100.220, with the bars/scales distorted to make that difference seem much larger.
Gaming the bar-game, so to speak.
OpenAI recently played a bit too hard with their GPT-5 announcement. Two bars with the same height but wildly different values, things like that. Such a lack of subtlety that their claim it was accidental is actually almost believable.
Do you even bench, mark?
I loved my Framework. and yet, Linux is free if your time is free
Okay so why is the ram non upgradable again? Because this was the main reason I was holding to PC architecture (I'm considering non upgradable ram as a method of upselling for a ridiculous price of higher amounts)
I assume it's related to the following:
> The AMD 395+ uses unified memory, like Apple, so nearly all of it is addressable to be used by the GPU.
There's probably some fairly strict timing requirements etc on that. Still it'd be nice if they figured out a way to have swappable RAM.
thanks! Yea, it's easier to ship it with the RAM I guess, but I wonder does the slot make things so much harder? Or maybe they want to enforce some certain producer/sub-protocol
I looked at the Framework Desktop a few week ago; mainly to get something that has nicer gaming performance than my laptop's iGPU. I'm not a big gamer really, but as of late I've been wanting to play some things, like The Witcher 3 (saw thread on Reddit celebrating its 10 year anniversary: "that's the new one I still need to play", so that's about how up to date I am with games – some of these "new" games are already classified as "good old game" on gog.com).
My take-away was/is that the Framework Desktop is a very nice machine, but it is expensive IMHO. You can get better performance at a lower price by building your own machine; in this article the 9950X scores lower than the Max 395, and I'm not entirely sure that's accurate – that wasn't my take-away at all (don't have links at the ready). This is also what you'd expect when comparing a 55W laptop chip vs. a 170W desktop chip.
That said, Linux compatibility is a bit of a pain, for example some MediaTek WiFi/Bluetooth chips that ASUS boards use don't have a Linux driver. In general figuring out what components to get is a bit time-consuming. In one of the videos Nirav mentioned that "just get the Framework Desktop" is so much easer, and 100% agree with that.
In the end, I decided to get a USB4/Thunderbold eGPU, which gives me more than enough gaming performance for me and is much cheaper. I already have a laptop that's more than performant enough for my needs, which I got last year mainly due to some idiotic JS build process I had to deal with last year that took forever on my old laptop. On the new machine it's merely "ludicrously slow". Sometimes I think JS people are in cahoots with Intel and/or AMD...
For LLM stuff the considerations might be different. I don't care about that so I didn't look into it.
Wonder how this compares to a Thelio's performance.
So DHH fell for Sam’s scam. He tried OSS 20b and wasn’t impressed, and apparently dismisses all local models based on that experience with a known awful model.
You know it would be a great use for this chip besides AI generative slop? A desktop server with AI-enhanced firewall and a silent home server. This could be effective for zero-days and other weird traffic patterns and maybe even add enterprise-ish email server with spam detection.
There has been several projects started that are experimenting with this including Suricata and pfSense. I wonder how well this chip could handle packet inspection.
If you call what AI generates 'slop' then what do you think the quality of firewall rules it generates will be?
I dont think any enterprise is going to hand over the keys to its firewall any time soon.
You don't understand AI if you think generative AI is the only kind of AI. I specifically said generative AI so please just read my comment before replying.
Not really.
A laptop CPU defeats the purpose. Get a 9800X3D for gaming will be waaaay faster or Threadripper for productivity or the 9950X3D chips with 16 cores/32 threads.
Why this laptop crap when you can get a nice PC case.
Then again he thinks the Fractal North was "bulky"? What?
The 9950X appears in one of the benchmarks in the article, and this machine beats it. It has 16 cores and 32 threads itself. You might want to read more details instead of dismissing it out of ignorance.
okay the new real PC CPUs are better. there.
You completely missed the point.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44853961
Nice is subjective. Fractal cases he compares to looks nicer to me.
Quiet? A real PC with bigger fans = more airflow = quieter
Smaller - yes, this is the tradeoff
> But so what? Docker is an integral part of the workflow for tons of developers. We use it to be able to run different versions of MySQL, Redis, and ElasticSearch for different applications on the same machine at the same time. You can't really do that without Docker.
Nix + Process Compose[0] make a great combo, and runs completely native.
[0]: https://github.com/F1bonacc1/process-compose
HN admins: can the domain extractor be changed to say "world.hey.com/dhh" here instead of just the domain name? From what I see, Hey World is a blogging platform, similar to Medium but markdown and email based. And the username (blog name) is in the second part of the URL.
Best to email the moderators (link in footer). I've made similar suggestions about other blogging platforms and got a positive reply.
[dead]
[flagged]
This is the way I make my tech decisions. If a programmer says something I don’t like, especially about a domain completely unrelated to tech, I don’t use their stuff. That’s why I don’t use EMacs, rust, zig, Jai (whenever it’s released), go, JavaScript, neovim, or any OS I don’t personally build from assembly, any digital devices— I’m going to burn this iPhone when I’m done typing. That’ll show them.
It’s a tough life, but this way I don’t accidentally appear to support someone who is different from me.
IMHO for a comment of this level of vitriol you should probably cite some sources rather than rely on anecdotal evidence.
Oh no, someone’s an optimist… get him!
So what do you use now instead of Rails? And what kind of app?
[flagged]
What could you possibly be talking about? The only benchmark I see in the article where Apple M4 isn't near the top is the rails test suite.
Sorry, but what's "bogus" about benchmarking your specific workloads? What benchmark do you think he should have run?
One more that favors Apple, obviously. 2/3 of the benchmarks having Apple Silicon on top is not enough!
I don’t know about pro or anti Apple, but the framework optional 8TB NVME SSD is only +$699 whereas Apple charges $2200 for a similar 8TB NVME SSD
he's mad they take a cut of his app store subscriptions, this is a huge saga that's been spanning years for him
(not sure why I'm being downvoted, it's true... https://x.com/dhh/status/1747697778455962014)
Not sure why you’re being downvoted. He’s also the guy that inflicted Ruby on Rails upon us.
Context on DHH vs. Apple: https://youtu.be/mzDi8u3WMj0
I find myself agreeing with much of what he says. The Apple of today is not the same as the Apple of 15 years ago.
is the apple fief facing resistance? I was under the impression that Epic v. Apple was a nothingburger
huhm the ars review makes it seem like this thing does worse on benchmarks than stuff like the mac but the test suite in DHH's example goes way faster. Bursty perf perhaps?
Ars and other sites used Windows for benchmarks. DHH used linux
It fun to see that, in an era where most CEOs are all-in with AI both on a personal level and at their companies, dhh chose to rather take a deep dive into the world of linux and config files and indie computer brands.
Curious what will the long term impact of this be on the longtime viability of Basecamp and its sister/daughter brands.