I agree about it having to fit on a single chip, but surely the neural net on-board would only have a relatively negligible impact on range compared to how much the electric motor consumes in motion?
IIRC in one of Tesla’s talks (I forget which one) they said that energy consumption of the chip was a constraint because they didn’t want it to reduce the range of the car. A quick google seems to confirm this. 100W is the limit they say: FSD Chip—Tesla—WikiChip
IDK anything about engineering, but napkin math based on googling: FSD chip consumes 36 watts currently. Over the course of 10 hours that’s 0.36 kWh. Tesla model 3 battery can fit 55kwh total, and takes about ten hours of driving to use all that up (assuming you average 30mph?) So that seems to mean that FSD chip currently uses about two-thirds of one percent of the total range of the vehicle. So if they 10x’d it, in addition to adding thousands of dollars of upfront cost due to the chips being bigger / using more chips, there would be a 6% range reduction. And then if they 10x’d it again the car would be crippled. This napkin math could be totally confused tbc.
(This napkin math is making me think Tesla might be making a strategic mistake by not going for just one more OOM. It would reduce the range and add a lot to the cost of the car, but… maybe it would be enough to add an extra 9 or two of reliability… But it’s definitely not an obvious call and I can totally see why they wouldn’t want to risk it.)
I agree about it having to fit on a single chip, but surely the neural net on-board would only have a relatively negligible impact on range compared to how much the electric motor consumes in motion?
IIRC in one of Tesla’s talks (I forget which one) they said that energy consumption of the chip was a constraint because they didn’t want it to reduce the range of the car. A quick google seems to confirm this. 100W is the limit they say: FSD Chip—Tesla—WikiChip
IDK anything about engineering, but napkin math based on googling: FSD chip consumes 36 watts currently. Over the course of 10 hours that’s 0.36 kWh. Tesla model 3 battery can fit 55kwh total, and takes about ten hours of driving to use all that up (assuming you average 30mph?) So that seems to mean that FSD chip currently uses about two-thirds of one percent of the total range of the vehicle. So if they 10x’d it, in addition to adding thousands of dollars of upfront cost due to the chips being bigger / using more chips, there would be a 6% range reduction. And then if they 10x’d it again the car would be crippled. This napkin math could be totally confused tbc.
(This napkin math is making me think Tesla might be making a strategic mistake by not going for just one more OOM. It would reduce the range and add a lot to the cost of the car, but… maybe it would be enough to add an extra 9 or two of reliability… But it’s definitely not an obvious call and I can totally see why they wouldn’t want to risk it.)
(Maybe the real constraint is cost of the chips. If each chip is currently say $5,000, then 10xing would add $45,000 to the cost of the car...)