You are not the only consumer of air travel. Supersonic is not for you, it is for elites willing to spend 4x the ticket price for half the flight time. Concorde tickets were $6000 for D.C. to London in the mid 1990s, so about $12,500 today, and that was for an economy-style seat. It was very popular among a certain segment.
East Coast US to Europe in 3-4 hours versus 7-8, West Coast US to Asia in 5-6 hours versus 10-12.... makes it more like a domestic flight.
My dad got upgraded to a Concorde once (for reasons I don't know) from First Class on (I assume) Pan Am. His reaction was basically meh. Got into London at rush hour and he really wasn't that impressed.
ignore the haters. this is cool. (and i've been vibe coding with claude code and termux for months. it's good stuff.)
i would highly recommend you add guidance on automated data backups, though. my pixel phone went "black screen of death" on me and one of my projects is trapped in there until i can replace the screen.
I was confused too. I first thought I should open up my terminal and just enter `ssh dev.exe` and this would be some kind of ssh-based interface? Honestly my first thought is that it would be one of those cool dev hack / art projects like the old starwars traceroute to 216.81.59.173
It didn't read as a company with products at all to me from the front page. Just a cryptic " The disk persists. You have sudo." with links to "Login" and "About * Blog * Discord" --- no pricing link, which made me think it was a weird hobby / art.
Pretty sure this is a joke, but the actual license is written by lawyers who know what they are doing:
> “Research Purposes” means non-commercial scientific research and
academic development activities, such as experimentation, analysis, testing
conducted by You with the sole intent to advance scientific knowledge and
research. “Research Purposes” does not include any commercial exploitation,
product development or use in any commercial product or service.
Does sole intent to advance scientific knowledge even exist as a category anymore? I was given modern research is all pay to play where the grant sponsor decided the topic and what can be done with the results.
The review shows ARM64 software support is still painful vs x86. For $200 for the 16gb model, this is the price point where you could just get an Intel N150 mini PC in the same form factor. And those usually come with cases. They also tend to pull 5-8w at idle, while this is 15w. Cool if you really want ARM64, but at this end of the performance spectrum, why not stick with the x86 stack where everything just works a lot easier?
From the article: "[...] the Linux support for various parts of the boards, not being upstreamed and mainlined, is very likely to be stuck on an older version. This is usually what causes headaches down the road [...]".
The problem isn't support for the ARM architecture in general, it's the support for this particular board.
Other boards like the Raspberry Pi and many boards based on Rockchip SoCs have most of the necessary support mainlined, so the experience is quite painless. Many are starting to get support for UEFI as well.
The exception (even those are questionable as running plain Debian did not work right on Pi 3B and others when I tried recently) proves the rule. You have to look really hard to find an x86 computer where things don't just basically work, the reverse is true for ARM. The power draw between the two is comparable these days, so I don't understand why anyone would bother with ARM when you've got something where you need more than minimally powerful hardware.
The Pi 3B doesn't have UEFI support, so it requires special support on the distro side for the boot process but for the 4 and newer you can flash (or it'll already be there, depending on luck and age of the device) the firmware on the board to support UEFI and USB boot, though installing is a bit of a pain since there's no easy images to do it with. https://wiki.debian.org/RaspberryPi4
I believe some other distros also have UEFI booting/installers setup for PI4 and newer devices because of this, though there's a good chance you'll want some of the other libraries that come with Raspberry PI OS (aka Raspbian) still for some of the hardware specific features like CSI/DSI and some of the GPIO features that might not be fully upstreamed yet.
There's also a port of Proxmox called PXVirt (Formerly Proxmox Port) that exists to use a number of similar ARM systems now as a virtualization host with a nice ui and automation around it.
This. The issue is the culture inside many of these HW companies that is oppositional to upstreaming changes and developing in the open in general.
Often an outright mediocre software development culture generally, that sees software as a pure cost centre, in fact. The "product" is seem to be the chip, the software "just" a side show (or worse, a channel by which their IP could leak).
The Rockchip stuff is better, but still has similar problems.
These companies need to learn that their hardware will be adopted more aggressively for products if the experience of integrating with it isn't sub-par.
They exist in a strange space. They want to be a Linux host but they also want to be an embedded host. The two cultures are pretty different in terms of expectations around kernels. A Linux sysadmin will (rightly) balk at not having an upgrade path for the kernel while a lot of embedded stuff that just happens to use Linux, often has a single kernel released… ever.
I’m not saying one approach is better than the other but there is definitely a lot of art in each camp. I know the one I innately prefer but I’ve definitely had eyebrows raised at me in a professional setting when expressing that view; Some places value upgrading dependencies while others value extreme stability at the potential cost of security.
> Some places value upgrading dependencies while others value extreme stability at the potential cost of security.
Both are valid. The latter is often used as an excuse, though. No, your $50 wifi connected camera does not need the same level of stability as the WiFi connected medical device that allows doctor to remotely monitor medication. Yes, you should have a moderately robust way to update and build and distribute a new FW image for that camera.
I can't tell you the number of times I've gotten a shell on some device only to find that the kernel/os-image/app-binary or whatever has build strings that CLEARLY feature `some-user@their-laptop` betraying that if there's ever going to be an updated firmware, it's going to be down to that one guy's laptop still working and being able to build the artifact and not because a PR was merged.
The obvious counterpoint is that a PR system is also likely to break unless it is exercised+maintained often enough to catch little issues as they appear. Without a set of robust tests the new artifact is also potentially useless to a company that has already sold their last $50 WiFi camera. If the artifact is also used for their upcoming $54.99 camera then often they will have one good version there too. The artifact might work on the old camera but the risk/reward ratio is pretty high for updating the abandonware.
My uninformed normie view of the ecosystem suggests that it's the support for almost every particular board, and that's exactly the issue. For some reason, ARM devices always have some custom OS or Android and can't run off-the-shelf Linux. Meanwhile you can just buy an x86/amd64 device and assume it will just work. I presume there is some fundamental reason why ARM devices are so bad about this? Like they're just missing standardization and every device requires some custom firmware to be loaded by the OS that's inevitably always packaged in a hacky way?
Its the kernel drivers, not firmware. There is no bios or acpi, so the kernel itself has to support a specifc board. In practice it means there is a dtb file that configures it and the actual drivers in the kernel.
Manufacturers hack it together, flash to device and publish the sources, but dont bother with upstreaming and move on.
Same story as android devices not having updates two years after release.
But "no BOIS or ACPI" and requiring the kernel to support each individual board sounds exactly like the problem is the ARM architecture in general. Until that's sorted it makes sense to be wary of ARM.
It's not a problem with ARM servers or vendors that care about building well designed ARM workstations.
It's a problem that's inherit to mobile computing and will likely never change unless with regulation or an open standards device line somehow hitting it out of the park and setting new expectations a la PCs.
The problem is zero expectation of ever running anything other than the vendor supplied support package/image and how fast/cheap it is to just wire shit together instead of worrying about standards and interoperability with 3rd party integrators.
How so? The Steam Deck is an x86 mobile PC with all the implications of everything (well, all the generic hardware e.g. WiFi, GPU IIRC) work out of the box.
What is ACPI other than a DTB baked into the firmware/bootloader?
Any SBC could buy an extra flash chip and burn an outdated U-Boot with the manufacturer's DTB baked in. Then U-Boot would boot Linux, just like UEFI does, and Linux would read the firmware's fixed DTB, just like it reads x86 firmware's fixed ACPI tables.
But - cui bono?
You need drivers in your main OS either way. On x86 you are not generally relying on your EFI's drivers for storage, video or networking.
It's actually nice that you can go without, and have one less layer.
It's the shape of the delivered artifact that's driven the way things are implemented in the ecosystem, not a really fundamental architecture difference.
The shape of historically delivered ARM artifacts has been embedded devices. Embedded devices usually work once in one specific configuration. The shape of historically delivered ARM Linux products is a Thing that boots and runs. This only requires a kernel that works on one single device in one single configuration.
The shape of historically delivered x86 artifacts is socketed processors that plug into a variety of motherboards with a variety of downstream hardware, and the shape of historically delivered x86 operating systems is floppies, CDs, or install media that is expected to work on any x86 machine.
As ARM moves out of this historical system, things improve; I believe that for example you could run the same aarch64 Linux kernel on Pi 2B 1.2+, 3, and 4, with either UEFI/ACPI or just different DTBs for each device, because the drivers for these devices are mainline-quality and capable of discovering the environment in which they are running at runtime.
People commonly point to ACPI+UEFI vs DeviceTree as causes for these differences, but I think this is wrong; these are symptoms, not causes, and are broadly Not The Problem. With properly constructed drivers you could load a different DTB for each device and achieve similar results as ACPI; it's just different formats (and different levels of complexity + dynamic behavior). In some ways ACPI is "superior" since it enables runtime dynamism (ie - power events or even keystrokes can trigger behavior changes) without driver knowledge, but in some ways it's worse since it's a complex bytecode system and usually full of weird bugs and edge cases, versus DTB where what you see is what you get.
This has often been the case in the past but the situation is much improved now.
For example I have an Orange Pi 5 Plus running the totally generic aarch64 image of Home Assistant OS [0]. Zero customization was needed, it just works with mainline everything.
There's even UEFI [1].
Granted this isn't the case for all boards but Rockchip at least seems to have great upstream support.
Yeah but you can get a n100 on sale for about the same price, and it comes with a case, nvme storage (way better then sd card), power supply, proper cooling solution, and less maintanance…
The Orange Pi 5 Plus on its own should be much cheaper than an N100 system. Only when you add in those extras does the price even out. I bought mine in an overpriced bundle for 182€ a few months ago.
It supports NVMe SSDs same as an N100.
Maintenance is exactly the same; they both run mainline Linux.
Where the N100 perhaps wins is in performance.
Where the Orange Pi 5 Plus (and other RK3588-based boards) wins is in power usage, especially for always-on, low-utilization applications.
You can get an n100 system for $110 on sale. Price went up but I still see $135 on eBay now. However YMMV because Europe prices are different
For power I don’t know about orange pi 5 but for many SBC power was a mixed bag. I had pretty bad luck with random SBC taking way more power for random reasons and not putting devices in idle mode. Even raspberry pi was pretty bad when it launched.
It’s frustrating because it’s hard to fix. With x64 you can often go into bios and enable power modes, but that’s not the case with arm. For example pcie4 can easily draw 2w+ when active. (The interface!)
My n100 takes 6W and 8w (8 and 16gb). If pi5 takes 3w that’s not large enough to matter especially when it’s so inconsistent.
Now one place where I used to like rpi zero was gpio access. However I’m transitioning to rp2350 as it’s just better suited for that kind of work, easier to find and cheaper.
I have no idea what US prices are like but I put in a reasonable amount of effort and at least right now here in Europe, N100 and RK3588 prices are pretty similar for comparable packages (RAM, case, power etc.). One other thing to note is that the N100 is DDR4 while the RK3588 uses DDR5.
I never ran into that bug but I came to the Orange Pi 5 Plus in 2025, so there's a chance the issues were all worked out by the time I started using it.
Looking at a couple of reviews, the Orange Pi 5 Plus drew ~4W idle [0] while an N100 system drew ~10W [1].
1W over a year is 8.76kWh, which here costs ~$2. If those numbers hold (and I'm not saying they do necessarily but for the sake of argument) and with an estimated lifespan of 5 years, you might be looking at a TCO of $140 hardware + $40 power = $180 for an Orange Pi 5 vs. $140 hardware + $100 power = $240 for an N100. That would put an N100 at 33% more expensive. Even if it draws just 6W compared to 4W, that's $200 vs. $180, 11% more expensive.
I'm not saying the Orange Pi 5 Plus is clearly better but I don't think it's as simple as one might think.
Maybe this was the case a few years ago, but I would argue the landscape has changed a lot since then - with many more distro options for Arm64 devices.
So, I agree but less than I did a few months ago. I purchased an Orange Pi 5 Ultra and was put off by the pre-built image and custom kernel. The “patch“ for the provided kernel was inscrutable as well. Now I’m running a vanilla 6.18 kernel on a vanilla uboot firmware (still a binary blob required to build that though) with a vanilla install of Debian. That support includes the NPU, GPU, 2.5G Ethernet and NVMe root/boot. I don’t have performance numbers but it’s definitely fast enough for what I use it for.
No it's definitely a problem with the ARM architecture, specifically that it's standard to make black box SoCs that nobody can write drivers for and the manufacturer gives you one binary version and then fucks off forever. It's a problem with the ARM ecosystem as a whole for literally every board (except Raspberry Pi), likely stemming from the bulk of ARM being throwaway smartphones with proprietary designs.
If ARM cannot outdo x86 on power draw anymore then it really is entirely pointless to use it because you're trading off a lot, and it's basically guaranteed that the board will be a useless brick a few years down the line.
There's also a risk of your DeviceTree getting pruned from the kernel in X years when it's decided that "no one uses that board anymore", which is something that's happened to several boards I bought in the 2010's, but not something that's happened to any PC I've ever owned.
It’s weirded me out for a long time that we’ve gone from ‘we will probe the hardware in a standard way and automatically load the appropriate drivers at boot’ ideal we seemed to have settled on for computers in the 2000s - and still use on x86 - back to ‘we’ll write a specific description file for every configuration of hardware’ for ARM.
Isn't this one of the benefits of ACPI? That the kernel asks the motherboard for the hardware information that on ARM SoCs is stored in the device tree?
That makes sense, as the Pi is as easy as x86 at this point. I almost never have to compile from scratch.
I'm not a compiler expert... But it seems each ARM64 board needs its own custom kernel support, but once that is done, it can support anything compiled to ARM64 as a general target? Or will we still need to have separate builds for RPi, for this board, etc?
Little bit of both. Pi still uses a sort of unique boot sequence due to it’s heritage. Most devices will have the CPU load the bootloader and then have the OS bring up the GPU. Pi sort of inverts this, having the GPU leading the charge with the CPU held at reset until after the GPU has finished it’s boot sequence.
Once you get into the CPU though the Aarch64 registers become more standardized. You still have drivers and such to worry about and differing memory offsets for the peripherals - but since you have the kernel running it’s easier to kind of poke around until you find it. Pi 5 added someone complexity to this with the RP1 South Bridge which adds another layer of abstraction.
Hopefully that all makes sense. Basically the Pi itself is backwards while everything else should conform. It’s not Arm specific, but how the Pi does things.
With this board the SoC is the main problem.
CIX is working on mainlining that stuff for over a year and we still dont have gpu and npu support in mainline
Why? I'm running an Orange Pi 5+ with a fully generic aarch64 image of Home Assistant OS and it works great. Is there some particular feature that doesn't work on mainline?
> The problem isn't support for the ARM architecture in general,
Of course it is not. That's why almost every ARM board comes with it's own distro, sometimes bootloader and kernel version. Because "it is supported". /s
I was soured on ARM SBCs by the Orange Pi 5, which does not have an option to ignore its SD card during boot. Something trivial on basically every x86 platform I had been taking for granted.
With RAM it will be costing notably more, with 4 cores instead of 12. I'd expect this to run circles around an N150 for single-threaded perf too.
They are not in the same class, which is reflected in the power envelope.
BTW what's up with people pushing N150 and N300 in every single ARM SBC thread? Y'all Intel shareholders or something? I run both but not to the exclusion of everything else. There is nothing I've failed to run successfully on my ARM ones and the only thing I haven't tried is gaming.
> BTW what's up with people pushing N150 and N300 in every single ARM SBC thread?
At this point I expect a lot of people have been enticed by niche SBCs and then discovered that driver support is a nightmare, as this article shows. So in time, everyone discovers that cheap x86-64 boxes accomplish their generic computing goals easier than these niche SBCs, even if the multi-core performance isn't the same.
Being able to install a mainline OS and common drivers and just get to work is valuable.
> BTW what's up with people pushing N150 and N300 in every single ARM SBC thread?
Because they have a great watt/performance ratio along with a GPU that is very well supported by a wide range of devices and mainline kernel support. In other words a great general purpose SBC.
Meanwhile people are using ARM SBCs, with SoCs designed for embedded or mobile devices, as general purpose computers.
I will admit with RAM and SSD prices sky rocketing these ARM SBC look more attractive.
Because most ARM SBCs are still limited to whatever linux distro they added support to. Intel SBCs might underperform but you can be sure it will run anything built for x86-64.
Are you sure you don't have single-threaded and multi-threaded backwards?
Why would the A720 at 2.8 GHz run circles around the N150 that boosts up to 3.6 GHz in single-threaded workloads, while the 12-core chip would wouldn't beat the 4-core chip in multithreaded workloads?
I can't speak to why other people bring up the N150 in ARM SBC threads any more than "AMD doesn't compete in the ~$200 SBC segment".
FWIW, as far as SBC/NUCs go, I've had a Pi 4, an RK3399 board, an RK3568 board, an N100 NUC from GMKTec, and a N150 NUC from Geekom, and the N150 has by far been my favorite out of those for real-world workloads rather than tinkering. The gap between the x86 software ecosystem and the ARM software ecosystem is no joke.
P.S. Stay away from GMKTec. Even if you don't get burned, your SODIMM cards will. There are stoves, ovens, and hot plates with better heat dissipation and thermals than GMKTec NUCs.
> BTW what's up with people pushing N150 and N300 in every single ARM SBC thread?
For 90% of use cases, ARM SBCs are not appropriate and will not meet expectations over time.
People expect them to be little PCs, and intend to use them that way, but they are not. Mini PCs, on the other hand, are literally little PCs and will meet the expectations users have when dealing with PCs.
x86 based small computers are just so much easier to work with than most second- and third-string ARM vendors. The x86 scene has had standards in place for a long time, like PCIe and the PC BIOS (now UEFI) for hardware initialization and mapping, that make it a doddle to just boot a kernel and let it get the hardware working. ARM boards don't have that yet, requiring per-board support in the kernel which board manufacturers famously drag their feet on implementing openly let alone upstreaming. Raspberry Pi has its own setup, which means kernel support for the Pi series is pretty good, but it doesn't generalize to other boards, which means users and integrators may be stuck with whatever last version of Ubuntu or Android the vendor thought to ship. Which means if you want a little network appliance like a router, firewall, Jellyfin server, etc. it often makes more sense to go with an N150 bitty box than an ARM SBC because the former is going to be price- and power-draw-competitive with the latter while being able to draw on the OS support of the well-tested PC ecosystem.
ARM actually has a spec in place called SystemReady that standardizes on UEFI, which should make bringup of ARM systems much less jank. But few have implemented it yet. I keep saying, the first cheap Chinese vendor that ships a SystemReady-compliant SBC is gonna make a killing.
> I keep saying, the first cheap Chinese vendor that ships a SystemReady-compliant SBC is gonna make a killing.
Agree. When ARM announced the initiative, I thought that the raspberry pi people would be quick but they haven't even announced a plan to eventually support it.
I don't know what the hold up is! Is it really that difficult to implement?
Apparently Pine64 and Radxa sell SystemReady-compliant SBCs; even a Raspberry Pi 4 can be made compliant (presumably by booting a UEFI firmware from the Raspberry's GPU-based custom-schmustom boot procedure, which then loads your OS).
1. Wow, never thought I'd need to do an investment disclosure for an HN comment. But sure thing: I'm sure Intel is somewhere in my 401K's index funds, but also probably Qualcomm. But I'm not a corporate shill, thank you very much for the good faith. Just a hobbyist looking to not get seduced by the lastest trend. If I were an ARM developer that'd be different, I get that.
2. The review says single core Geekbench performance is 1290, same as i5-10500 which is also similar to N150, which is 1235.
3. You can still get N150s with 16gb ram in a case for $200 all in.
But realistically, most workloads of the kind you would run on these machines don't scale benefit from multithreading as much as single core performance. At least at home these machines will do things like video streaming, router, or serving files. Even if you want to use it in the living room as a console/emulator, you are better off with higher single core performance and fewer cores than the opposite.
> But realistically, most workloads of the kind you would run on these machines don't scale benefit from multithreading as much as single core performance. At least at home these machines will do things like video streaming, router, or serving files.
You're probably right about "most workloads", but as a single counter-example, I added several seasons of shows to my N305 Plex server last night, and it pinned all eight threads for quite a while doing its intro/credit detection.
I actually went and checked if it would be at all practical to move my Plex server to a VM on my bigger home server where it could get 16 Skymont threads (at 4.6ghz vs 8 Gracemont threads at ~3ghz - so something like 3x the multithreaded potential on E-cores). Doesn't really seem workable to use Intel Quick Sync on Linux guests with a Hyper-V host though.
if you are talking about ancient hardware, yes, it's mostly driven by single core performance. But any console more recent than the 2000s will hugely benefit from multiple cores (because of the split between CPU and GPU, and the fact that more recent consoles also had multiple cores, too).
Depends on what you need - for pure performance regardless of power usage and 3D use cases like gaming, agreed. For performance per watt under load and video transcoding use cases, the 12th-gen E-core CPUs ala the N100 are _really_ hard to beat.
Yes x86 will win for convenience on about every metric (at least for now), but this SoC's CPU is much faster than a mere Intel N150 (especially for multicore use cases).
I've got i3 and i5 systems that do 15W or better idle, and I don't have to worry about the absolute clusterfuck of ARM hardware (and those systems used can be had for less and will probably long outlive mystery meat ARM SBCs).
One of my Arm systems idles at leas than 1W and has a max TDP less than your idle draw (10W). I also have an N200 box, and a 16-core workstation with an obscene power draw - each platform has its pros and cons.
I noticed nuance is the first thing discarded in the recurring x86 vs Arm flame wars, with each side minimizing the strength of the "opposing" platform. Pick the right tool for the right job, there are use-cases where the Orange Pi 6 is the right choice.
Agreed, at least for a likely "home use" case, such as a TV box, router, or general purpose file server or Docker host, I don't see how this board is better than something like a Beelink mini PC. The Orange Pi does not even come with a case, power supply or cooler. Contrast that with a Beelink that has a built-in power supply (no external brick) and of course a case and cooler.
Fair enough, but I suppose it does not come which storage (NVME). Typically ready to use NUCs that retail for around $200 do. That's often only about 0.5GB, so not a use amount of storage, but more than enough for a streaming box or retro console, say.
I've got two RK3588 boards here doing Linux-y things around my place (Jellyfin, Forgejo builders, Immich, etc) and ... I don't think I've run into pain? They're running various debian and just ... work? I can't think of a single package that I couldn't get for ARM64.
Likewise my VPS @ Hetzner is running Aarch64. No drama. Only pain is how brutal the Rust cross-compile is from my x86 machine.
(Those things are expensive, but I just ordered one [the ASUS variant] for myself.)
Meanwhile Apple is pushing the ARM64 architecture hard, and Windows is apparently actually quite viable now?
Personally... it's totally irrational, but I have always had a grudge against x86 since it "won" in the early 90s and I had to switch from 68k. I want diversity in ISAs. RISC-V would be nice, but I'll settle for ARM for now.
the high end of the performance is impressive and this has idle power similar to the processors in it's performance range(AMD Ryzen 7 4800H idles at 45W). This is certainly not meant for lower power computing.
FYI this site is a libertarian think tank that exists to attack contemporary state funded liberal arts higher education, in favor of higher ed as job training. From their About Us:
> Since 2003, the Martin Center has been a voice for excellence and accountability in higher education. We believe that higher education should equip students to flourish in their careers, embrace responsible citizenship, and grow as seekers of wisdom. We advocate responsible governance, viewpoint diversity, academic quality, cost-effective education solutions, and innovative market-based reform.
> In these endeavors, we are motivated by the principles that have traditionally guided public policy in the United States: limits on government; freedom to pursue goals through voluntary means, both for-profit and nonprofit; accountability through private property rights and contracts; and the belief that competition is an excellent regulating force.
> Are you saying 501 non-profits don't pay capital gains?
Correct, as long as those gains are used as part of the 501-aligned mission. Same with donations, they don't pay a corp income tax. This is part of being a tax exempt organization.
There's nothing special with what Intel has lowered the bar as an AI PC so vendors can market it. Ollama can run a 4b model plenty fine on Tiger Lake with 8gb classic RAM.
But unified memory IS truly what makes an AI ready PC. The Apple Silicon proves that. People are willing to pay the premium, and I suspect unified memory will still be around and bringing us benefits even if no one cares about LLMs in 5 years.
A lazy easy cheap shot. But do you deny these aspects from the article are not coming? Or won't be still here in 5 years?
- Addition of more—and faster—memory.
- Consolidation of memory.
- Combination of chips on the same silicon.
All of these are also happening for non AI reasons. The move to SoC that really started with the M1 wasn't because of AI, but unified memory being the default is something we will see in 5 years. Unlike 3D TV.
We just had a series of articles and sysadmin outcry that major vendors were bringing 8gb laptops back to standard models because of the ram prices. In the short term, we're seeing a reduction.
In terms of demand, anecdotally-speaking I can certainly see this influencing some decisions when other circumstances permit. Many people I know are both excited for new and better games, and equally exited about running LLM/SD/etc models locally with Comfy, LM studio and the like
- People wanting more memory is not a novel feature. I am excited to find out how many people immediately want to disable the AI nonsense to free up memory for things they actually want to do.
- Same answer.
- I think the drive towards SOCs has been happening already. Apple's M-series utterly demolishes every PC chip apart from the absolute bleeding-edge available, includes dedicated memory and processors for ML tasks, and it's mature technology. Been there for years. To the extent PC makers are chasing this, I would say it's far more in response to that than anything to do with AI.
The move to SoC happened long before the M1, it was the state of things in the ARM space for over a decade, and most x86 laptops have been SoCs for quite some time.
You are not the only consumer of air travel. Supersonic is not for you, it is for elites willing to spend 4x the ticket price for half the flight time. Concorde tickets were $6000 for D.C. to London in the mid 1990s, so about $12,500 today, and that was for an economy-style seat. It was very popular among a certain segment.
East Coast US to Europe in 3-4 hours versus 7-8, West Coast US to Asia in 5-6 hours versus 10-12.... makes it more like a domestic flight.
reply