Rendered at 02:33:28 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
syntaxing 51 minutes ago [-]
I think the fun takeaway from this is that GPT 5.4 is probably 45B active parameters and GPT 5.6 Sol is closer to 50B.
logicallee 16 minutes ago [-]
(Where did you see that?)
This was also interesting: "CS-4 delivers more than 1,000 tokens per second on models exceeding 10 trillion parameters." Was it known that there were 10 trillion parameter models in use?
I think the frontier providers keep the size of their models carefully hidden.
ewild 14 minutes ago [-]
It's rumored fable is around that 10T number
walrus01 5 minutes ago [-]
If this is true, it's even more impressive that some of the open weight models that are <3.5T in size, approx 33% of its size, are within a few points of it in the artificial analysis leaderboard.
reilly3000 28 minutes ago [-]
> CS-4 delivers more than 1,000 tokens per second on models exceeding 10 trillion parameters
Oops did they just out GPT-5.6 sol’s parameter count?
sho 6 minutes ago [-]
Sol is supposed to be 5T according to rumour. The imminent Astra is allegedly 10
whatever1 19 minutes ago [-]
I mean we kinda know the frontier models are multi trillion parameter models. The only open weights that are close to the frontier are that size too
ethanzhang1024 15 minutes ago [-]
If cerebars is performing well, why didn't its predecessor, server S-3, become the largest API token provider on OpenRouter, surpassing the official model releases?
walrus01 11 minutes ago [-]
Without having any inside information, one possible theory:
All or a vast majority of of the cerebras manufacturing capacity was going to a few companies that aren't publicly available inference providers on openrouter, for their own internal use.
or
The asking price of the S-3, no matter how speedy it might be, for small/medium size customers made it economically prohibitive to purchase and use to sell public inference vs. buying more common nvidia b200 or whatever.
smallerize 8 minutes ago [-]
If you're willing to pay a significant premium for latency, why use openrouter? And anyway Cerebras only supported a few specific models.
doctorpangloss 12 minutes ago [-]
it only takes ~445 GB300 NVL72 (about $22b) to run ALL of openrouter demand for a year. Microsoft rolled out $32b of DC 2026Q1.
imo the issue is that most openrouter demand is inauthentic activity (things that anthropic and openai models will refuse to do like pretend to not be bots when interacting with humans)
sreekanth850 33 minutes ago [-]
AMD along with cerebras may probably compete with NVIDIA monopoly in near future. Also, NVIDIA will have competition form multiple companies. Just my prediction.
anonymous_user9 57 minutes ago [-]
Conspicuously missing: power consumption figures
wmf 49 minutes ago [-]
162 kW
walrus01 16 minutes ago [-]
I guess we know why there's a fair bit of investment money going into small modular nuclear reactor startups now.
roughly 18 minutes ago [-]
God, I was going to ask if this could be deployed in a standard existing datacenter, but I guess that answers that question.
xattt 46 minutes ago [-]
I presume per rack?
Can you imagine something radiating that much energy into a space in your home?
3 minutes ago [-]
walrus01 17 minutes ago [-]
It's mandatory liquid cooling, so it's meant to be attached to a specialized liquid cooling loop that gets the heat outside the building.
This is far beyond the practical maximums of like 10 to 15kW per 44U cabinet front to rear air cooling for 'regular' rackmount server stuff.
wmf 37 minutes ago [-]
I guess because I have actually set foot in a data center I don't imagine literally every product in my home.
logicallee 12 minutes ago [-]
"10x more throughput per watt than CS-3"
9cb14c1ec0 1 hours ago [-]
Just a reminder for everyone that we are only several years and 3 or 4 iterations into hardware being optimized for LLMs. We should all expect orders of magnitude improvement in speed and/or cost over the next 5 years. Then we can have fun conversations about "unlimited" "intelligence" and about what the price wars and profit margins of consumer AI products are when your average ChatGPT user costs the company $0.10 per month.
> CS-4 delivers more than 1,000 tokens per second on models exceeding 10 trillion parameters
Wow!
SwellJoe 56 minutes ago [-]
And, the software side isn't finished being optimized, either. We've seen with Qwen 3.8 27B and DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 and GLM 5.3 that quite small models can pack a punch. Intelligence density will improve, efficiency of kernels will improve, efficiency of KV caching and MTP will improve, algorithms for splitting workloads across compute units will improve.
It'll all be as cheap as DeepSeek was before the price hike. And, it'll become more and more realistic to run near-frontier intelligence on personal devices.
rvz 46 minutes ago [-]
Congratulations! You have just realized that the AI data center build out is a total scam, built on both the insurmountable trillions of debt, and the assumption that only GPUs are all we need to continue scaling.
There exist other AI accelerators (TPUs, ASICs) that perfectly exceed the throughput that LLMs need to scale as well. But the true solution is more software optimizations. There's a tiny handful of them but more needs to be discovered so that we can reduce building hundreds of more data centers as the alternatives mature.
As better software becomes more useful for the alternative AI hardware for developers with LLMs running efficiently you then would have more choices of hardware to run your LLMs on rather than just only GPUs.
blovescoffee 29 minutes ago [-]
TPUs and ASICs run in data centers too. Your argument only holds true if there's some satisfied limit to demand for inference. If not, data centers will continue to spring up to host more and more agents. Even if agents were running on hardware and software as efficient as the human brain, its conceivable we want trillions of them running at any given time which would require data center scale.
skyberrys 18 minutes ago [-]
I wonder what this looks like in 5 years... Will there be a massive push to repurpose these giant boxes into housing? Will they get turned back into the farm land from where they came? When a data center goes bust, what happens to the parts left behind?
gpm 10 minutes ago [-]
I'd think the infrastructure would tend towards factories, smelters, and so on. Industrial things that have reasonably high power demands, can use the building, and don't care about the lack of windows.
They're typically not built where you want housing, and the buildings are distinctly the wrong shape.
If you can't use the power infrastructure profitably my next thought would be warehousing.
But also... we've seen a pretty continually increasing demand for compute. Even if AI busts a bit (or becomes a bit more efficient) I bet most data centres stay data centres, just less profitable ones.
api 59 minutes ago [-]
This is part of why I think the data center build-out is a bubble. We've barely scratched the surface when it comes to hardware optimization. We'll see exponential improvements in energy efficiency and speed over the next decade. Exponential, not linear.
GPUs really aren't that great for AI. They just happen to be the best chips we have in mass production right now for this work load, and it takes time to field new designs. Basically every chip engineer on the planet is working on this right now.
mindwok 53 minutes ago [-]
Whether it's a bubble or not depends on how much the demand for compute and the type of workload keeps growing, though.
If AI tends to be something used mainly in ideation and development, which is how a lot of people use it today, then once consumer hardware gets good enough you could see a bunch of the current data centre workloads move onto consumer devices.
But if AI starts being used more in repeatable, operational workloads I think it makes sense to have significant cloud infrastructure for it. TBH I haven't seen much of this, and I've been skeptical about people using agents for much of anything when it can be done with just software. But we are starting to see more of this kind of workload, like the taggable Claude in your slack etc that people seem to really love.
winrid 58 minutes ago [-]
On the plus side, lots of cheap servers to swoop up :)
sroussey 43 minutes ago [-]
But power hungry.
In that 5+ year timeline, the compute per watt could change by three orders of magnitude.
GPUs are to LLMs what CPUs are to gaming — not a good fit.
gpm 46 minutes ago [-]
Is it just me or is it bizarre that they're advertising old open-weight models.
GLM 4.7 (December 2025) not 5 (Feb) 5.1 (April) or 5.2 (June). 5.3 (4 days ago) is, to be fair, not open weights yet... but there's a lot since 4.7.
Kimi K2.7 (April) not K2.7-code (June) or K3 (July).
Gemma 4 (April), Llama (April), and gpt-oss (August 2025) are up to date, but old (for models).
Meanwhile the closed source GPT 5.6 sol is up to date (June)...
Should potential purchasers take away from this that they're not going to be able to run recent models unless they front the cost of developing software or something?
eli 41 minutes ago [-]
I think they run whatever models they get paid to run. But mostly from enterprise. They are clearly not interested in consumer dollars.
gpm 37 minutes ago [-]
I mean the product is a server rack and while there's no advertised price I would assume it's six figures. So yes, an enterprise product.
But even an enterprise is going to care about the difference between "we can run the model we want with support from the manufacturer" and "we have to purchase the product, and then spend another 6 figure sum having developers port a recent model to the product to use it".
WarmWash 32 minutes ago [-]
I feel like 6-figures would be the clearance price on it...
oceanplexian 5 minutes ago [-]
6 figures is a single mid range Xeon or Epyc server these days.
4k0hz 55 minutes ago [-]
> Introducing the all new Cerebras CS-4, a revolutionary rack-scale solution that delivers upto 30x faster inference compared to GPUs, enhanced economics, and a simple path todeploy [sic] hyperscale capacity.
Did nobody proofread this?
algoth1 46 minutes ago [-]
If they had ask Claude it would probably look like this: Introducing the all new Cerebras CS-4, a revolutionary rack-scale solution that delivers up to 30x faster inference compared to GPUs, enhanced economics, and a simple path to load-bearing hyper scale capacity.
jm4 41 minutes ago [-]
That's unusually honest and the sharpest thing in this thread.
SoMomentary 40 minutes ago [-]
Sometimes I wonder if mistakes are now used to indicate the possibility that a human actually wrote it.
ceejayoz 21 minutes ago [-]
There’s been a spate of Reddit AI bots using all lower case in hopes of evading detection.
It’s still incredibly obvious.
geodel 51 minutes ago [-]
Maybe it is just part of their "compact design".
dpkirchner 46 minutes ago [-]
An error no frontier LLM would make, eh
lostmsu 22 minutes ago [-]
KV caching status?
What's the point of 1000tok/s if you have to do prefill on every agentic turn which at 100k depth would make it 1.5 min latency every turn?
walrus01 15 minutes ago [-]
Information about RAM type/size and connection topology of the RAM to be used for context cache seems to be conspicuously absent from the slick looking marketing materials.
gpm 1 minutes ago [-]
[delayed]
tamimio 23 minutes ago [-]
I wonder what are the benchmarks of hashcat on different hashes.
OutOfHere 56 minutes ago [-]
Five years from now, I don't know why anyone will still be using Nvidia for inference. Note that Cerebras is for inference only, not for training.
wmf 45 minutes ago [-]
Cerebras is only claiming ~2x the performance of Groqvidia which usually isn't enough for people to switch.
This was also interesting: "CS-4 delivers more than 1,000 tokens per second on models exceeding 10 trillion parameters." Was it known that there were 10 trillion parameter models in use?
I think the frontier providers keep the size of their models carefully hidden.
Oops did they just out GPT-5.6 sol’s parameter count?
All or a vast majority of of the cerebras manufacturing capacity was going to a few companies that aren't publicly available inference providers on openrouter, for their own internal use.
or
The asking price of the S-3, no matter how speedy it might be, for small/medium size customers made it economically prohibitive to purchase and use to sell public inference vs. buying more common nvidia b200 or whatever.
imo the issue is that most openrouter demand is inauthentic activity (things that anthropic and openai models will refuse to do like pretend to not be bots when interacting with humans)
Can you imagine something radiating that much energy into a space in your home?
This is far beyond the practical maximums of like 10 to 15kW per 44U cabinet front to rear air cooling for 'regular' rackmount server stuff.
> CS-4 delivers more than 1,000 tokens per second on models exceeding 10 trillion parameters
Wow!
It'll all be as cheap as DeepSeek was before the price hike. And, it'll become more and more realistic to run near-frontier intelligence on personal devices.
There exist other AI accelerators (TPUs, ASICs) that perfectly exceed the throughput that LLMs need to scale as well. But the true solution is more software optimizations. There's a tiny handful of them but more needs to be discovered so that we can reduce building hundreds of more data centers as the alternatives mature.
As better software becomes more useful for the alternative AI hardware for developers with LLMs running efficiently you then would have more choices of hardware to run your LLMs on rather than just only GPUs.
They're typically not built where you want housing, and the buildings are distinctly the wrong shape.
If you can't use the power infrastructure profitably my next thought would be warehousing.
But also... we've seen a pretty continually increasing demand for compute. Even if AI busts a bit (or becomes a bit more efficient) I bet most data centres stay data centres, just less profitable ones.
GPUs really aren't that great for AI. They just happen to be the best chips we have in mass production right now for this work load, and it takes time to field new designs. Basically every chip engineer on the planet is working on this right now.
If AI tends to be something used mainly in ideation and development, which is how a lot of people use it today, then once consumer hardware gets good enough you could see a bunch of the current data centre workloads move onto consumer devices.
But if AI starts being used more in repeatable, operational workloads I think it makes sense to have significant cloud infrastructure for it. TBH I haven't seen much of this, and I've been skeptical about people using agents for much of anything when it can be done with just software. But we are starting to see more of this kind of workload, like the taggable Claude in your slack etc that people seem to really love.
In that 5+ year timeline, the compute per watt could change by three orders of magnitude.
GPUs are to LLMs what CPUs are to gaming — not a good fit.
GLM 4.7 (December 2025) not 5 (Feb) 5.1 (April) or 5.2 (June). 5.3 (4 days ago) is, to be fair, not open weights yet... but there's a lot since 4.7.
Kimi K2.7 (April) not K2.7-code (June) or K3 (July).
Gemma 4 (April), Llama (April), and gpt-oss (August 2025) are up to date, but old (for models).
Meanwhile the closed source GPT 5.6 sol is up to date (June)...
Should potential purchasers take away from this that they're not going to be able to run recent models unless they front the cost of developing software or something?
But even an enterprise is going to care about the difference between "we can run the model we want with support from the manufacturer" and "we have to purchase the product, and then spend another 6 figure sum having developers port a recent model to the product to use it".
Did nobody proofread this?
It’s still incredibly obvious.
What's the point of 1000tok/s if you have to do prefill on every agentic turn which at 100k depth would make it 1.5 min latency every turn?