DeepSeek's AI costs far exceed $5.5 million claim, may have reached $1.6 billion with 50,000 Nvidia GPUs

midian182

Posts: 11,726   +177
Staff member
In brief: China's DeepSeek threw the multi-billion-dollar AI industry into chaos recently with the release of its R1 model, which is said to compete with OpenAI's o1 despite being trained on 2,048 Nvidia H800s and at a cost of $5.576 million. However, a new report claims that the true costs incurred by the firm were $1.6 billion, and that DeepSeek has access to around 50,000 Hopper GPUs.

The claim that DeepSeek was able to train R1 using a fraction of the resources required by big tech companies invested in AI wiped a record $600 billion off Nvidia's share price in one day. If the Chinese startup to could make a model this powerful without spending billions on Team Green's most powerful AI GPUs, what would stop everyone else doing it?

But did DeepSeek really create its Mixture-of-Experts model, which still tops the Apple App Store charts, at such a low cost? SemiAnalysis claims that it didn't.

The market intelligence firm writes that DeepSeek has access to around 50,000 Hopper GPUs, including 10,000 H800s and 10,000 H100. It also has orders for many more China-specific H20s. The GPUs are shared between High-Flyer, the quantitative hedge fund behind DeepSeek, and the startup. They are distributed across several geographical locations and are used for trading, inference, training, and research.

SemiAnalysis writes that DeepSeek has invested much more than the claimed $5.5 million figure that sent the stock market into a tailspin – the report states that this pre-training cost is a very narrow portion of the total. The company's overall investment in servers is around $1.6 billion, with around $944 million spent on operating costs. The GPU investments, meanwhile, account for more than $500 million.

As a reference example, Anthropic's Claude 3.5 Sonnet cost tens of millions of dollars to train, but the company still needed to raise billions of dollars of investment from Google and Amazon.

It's noted that DeepSeek has sourced all its talent exclusively from China. That is a contrast to reports of other Chinese tech companies, such as Huawei, trying to poach workers from overseas, with Taiwanese employees of TSMC being highly sought-after targets. DeepSeek allegedly offers salaries of over $1.3 million for promising candidates, much more than competing Chinese AI firms pay.

DeepSeek also has the advantage of mostly running its own datacenters, rather than having to rely on external cloud providers. This allows for more experimentation and innovation across its AI product stack. SemiAnalysis writes that it is the single best "open weights" lab today, beating out Meta's Llama effort, Mistral, and others.

Masthead: Solen Feyissa

Permalink to story:

 
So, while creating a very good AI model, publishing weights and academic papers and being completely honest, the mentioned $5.5 million training claim on 2000 old Nvidia GPUs was a FUD move.

Not really surprising, it was crystal clear to most experts that they left out the real horsepower behind their AI models. Of courese, the move to open source the model suggested to the public that the other figures (2k old H800 GPUs and the minimal cost to train) were also true.

Best case: Their mission with the understatement in horsepower was to disturb the AI competition. Maybe they were surprised by the consequences.

Worst case: If DeepSeek's true mission was political induced to disturb foreign (US) AI companies, decrease the value of foreign stocks and dampen risk appetite on investment levels, well, they succeeded. This is an even higher achievement then the AI model itself, if intended in the first place.

In any way, they played with the (western) market fears and told investors and the public, that what they feared most became true: Compute is not important and AI progress can be achieved with cheap investments. Turns out, it was a corporate or political fake, I guess.

 
The gag is up, but is it really!? I don't think any truth about the expense of this enterprise will ever come to fruition. Let's just go on our merry way and measure up the quality of the current AI programs on offer, and perhaps benchmark them with something.

I also wanted to point out that AI will have the same problem as mined metals and minerals - tracing the raw material from the earth to the device to ensure slavery wasn't used... yeh right and good luck to managing that with AI programs.
 
Nvidia just got deep-seek’d. The stock market panicked over the idea that a startup trained a GPT-4-tier model for the price of a used Ferrari, only to find out they actually burned through enough GPUs to make a supervillain blush. Either way, the real lesson here is: never underestimate a hedge fund with a side hustle in AI.
 
Which of these is more likely:

That China would have produced something so revolutionary and groundbreakingly efficient and capable, under the radar,

OR

That China would pretend that particular something was so game-changing just to tank the stock market right after Trump takes office and threatens tariffs, and that the reality was, like most everything that comes out of China, the genuine origins of that particular something were vastly oversold.


Hmmmmmmm
 
Which of these is more likely:

That China would have produced something so revolutionary and groundbreakingly efficient and capable...
OR

That China would pretend that particular something was so game-changing just to tank the stock market...

Hmmmmmmm

The answer is A.

Here's a link to the International Olympiad in Informatics. Note that China accumulated 102 gold medals. Russia is tied with US at 68.
https://stats.ioinformatics.org/countries/

China has five times as many STEM graduates as the US.
https://cset.georgetown.edu/article...-stem-graduates-which-countries-lead-the-way/

 
The damage is done. It isn't really about what Deepseek did or didn't use anymore, it's a reflection of the real anxiety around how much money is being pumped into these and precisely how they're going to generate revenue.

The fact that it took very little to tip the markets over goes to show how tightly leveraged it's been.

Trump is right (those words taste very sour coming out of my mouth) - it's a wake up call. The big players in the US need to start looking at efficiencies and alternatives, because by hamstringing the Chinese with the hardware, they've effectively forced them to box clever.
 
I suspect a lot of this talk is the US AI money-gravy-train continuing to panic and try to smear or discredit DeepSeek in any way they can. Just a thought....
 
The answer is A.

Here's a link to the International Olympiad in Informatics. Note that China accumulated 102 gold medals. Russia is tied with US at 68.
https://stats.ioinformatics.org/countries/

China has five times as many STEM graduates as the US.
https://cset.georgetown.edu/article...-stem-graduates-which-countries-lead-the-way/

Not disputing what you are saying. However, to put it in context, one should keep in mind:

The population of the United States is equivalent to 4.22% of the total world population.
The population of China is equivalent to 17.39% of the total world population.

So of course they are going to have many times the STEM graduates, etc.
 
Last edited:
Back