| GPU | VRAM | Price (€) | Bandwidth (TB/s) | TFLOP16 | €/GB | €/TB/s | €/TFLOP16 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NVIDIA H200 NVL | 141GB | 36284 | 4.89 | 1671 | 257 | 7423 | 21 |
| NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell | 96GB | 8450 | 1.79 | 126.0 | 88 | 4720 | 67 |
| NVIDIA RTX 5090 | 32GB | 2299 | 1.79 | 104.8 | 71 | 1284 | 22 |
| AMD RADEON 9070XT | 16GB | 665 | 0.6446 | 97.32 | 41 | 1031 | 7 |
| AMD RADEON 9070 | 16GB | 619 | 0.6446 | 72.25 | 38 | 960 | 8.5 |
| AMD RADEON 9060XT | 16GB | 382 | 0.3223 | 51.28 | 23 | 1186 | 7.45 |
This post is part “hear me out” and part asking for advice.
Looking at the table above AI gpus are a pure scam, and it would make much more sense to (atleast looking at this) to use gaming gpus instead, either trough a frankenstein of pcie switches or high bandwith network.
so my question is if somebody has build a similar setup and what their experience has been. And what the expected overhead performance hit is and if it can be made up for by having just way more raw peformance for the same price.
Initially a lot of the AI was getting trained on lower class GPUs and none of these AI special cards/blades existed. The problem is that the problems are quite large and hence require a lot of VRAM to work on or you split it and pay enormous latency penalties going across the network. Putting it all into one giant package costs a lot more but it also performs a lot better, because AI is not an embarrassingly parallel problem that can be easily split across many GPUs without penalty. So the goal is often to reduce the number of GPUs you need to get a result quickly enough and it brings its own set of problems of power density in server racks.