Key insights
- The post questions Nvidia's CEO's response regarding the threat of TPUs to GPUs, arguing that Nvidia's current valuation is heavily reliant on generative AI workloads, where TPUs might be more competitive. It suggests that Nvidia's dominance in other areas like gaming and mining, while still relevant, doesn't justify its current market capitalization driven by AI. This raises concerns about potential downside risk if TPUs gain significant traction in the generative AI space.
I was watching this interview w Jensen (on Dwarkesh podcast) and he asks this question in some form
The answer Jensen gave was: “yeah well maybe TPUs are faster and cheaper for gen AI workloads, but they can’t do other stuff as well such as video games and molecular biology or mining”
While true isn’t that like… ignoring the fact that 99% of nvidias massive bull run is from gen AI workloads?
No one’s suggesting nvidia will ever be irrelevant but when they dominated gaming and mining they were a 0.5T company not a 5.0T
Am I missing something obvious here?