Brad Gerstner

intrinsic accelerators, et cetera.

They're building a chip that's a component of a much larger machine.

You've built a very sophisticated system, platform, factory, whatever you want to call it.

And now you're opening up a little bit, right?

So you mentioned CPX GPU, right?

That is, it seems to me that in some ways you're disaggregating the workloads to the best slice of the hardware for that particular demand.

and you launched MV Fusion that even said to your competitors, including Intel, which you just invested in, the way in which you participate in this factory that we're building, because nobody else is crazy enough to try to build the entire factory, but you can plug into that if you have a product that's good enough, compelling enough that the end user says, hey, we want to use this instead of an ARM GPU, or we want to use this instead of your inference accelerator, etc.

Tell us a little bit more.

Yeah.

What's deeply related to this idea is the argument you've made that kind of shocks some people, where you say, our competitors building ASICs, they could literally, all their chips are cheaper already today, but they could literally price them at zero.

Our objective is they could price them at zero.

And you would still buy an NVIDIA system because the total cost of operating that system, power, data center, land, et cetera, the intelligence out is still a better bet than buying a chip even if it's given to you for free.

So we've taken a crack at kind of the math on that, but walk us through your math, because I think for people who don't spend as much time here, it just doesn't compute.

How could it possibly be that you were pricing your competitors' chips at zero, given the expense of your chips, and it still is a better bet?

So I heard this from one of the CFOs at one of the hyperscalers that given the performance improvement,

that's coming out of your chips, again, precisely to that point, tokens per gig, and power being the limiting factor, that they had to upgrade to the new cycle.

So when you look ahead at Rubin, at Rubin Ultra, at Feynman, does that trajectory continue?

This does bring me back to where we started about the competitive moat.

We've been covering this and investors for a while, we're investors throughout the ecosystem and competitors of yours, you know, from Google to Broadcom.

But when I really just first principles around this and say, are you increasing or decreasing your competitive moat?