Perspective

Cracks in NVIDIA's Compute Monopoly

By Kyle Harrison

Updated

December 7, 2024

Reading Time

3 min

Last week, we wrote about how the AI boom has led to an AI arms race between countries, but the arms race between big tech companies has been heating up as well.

Compute is one of the primary inputs into AI performance, both in training AI models and in AI inference. NVIDIA, which now has a $3.5 trillion market cap, has until recently had a virtual monopoly over supplying foundation model companies like OpenAI and Anthropic, or big tech companies developing competing models, with the necessary compute.

Some of the biggest tech companies — especially Microsoft (with its $14 billion investment in OpenAI), Amazon (which has invested a total of $8 billion in Anthropic), and Google — have been competing on AI CapEx, with NVIDIA benefiting from the competition as the principal provider of their GPUs. NVIDIA, which owns 95% of the AI chip market, has set benchmarks in AI training and inference through GPUs like the A100 and H100.

But things have lately taken a turn. This week, the Wall Street Journal reported that Amazon is building the biggest supercomputer in the world. At its annual re:Invent conference this past week, AWS unveiled Project Rainier, a supercomputer built on hundreds of thousands of its Trainium chips, which it claims will be one of the largest AI training clusters globally when it launches in 2025. Anthropic, an AI startup that received $4 billion in funding from Amazon last month, will use the supercomputer, which is five times larger by exaflops (a unit of measurement for supercomputing performance) than Anthropic’s existing training infrastructure.

Amazon is also claiming that early test results show its in-house AI chips are 30% to 40% cheaper than NVIDIA’s flagship H100 chips and is making a bid to convince AWS customers to use servers powered by Amazon’s own AI chip. Additionally, Amazon unveiled "Nova" foundation models for AI-powered text, image, and video generation, aiming to compete with OpenAI and Meta.

Last year, AWS debuted its Trainium2 chip and is now developing the Trainium3, expected to deliver four times the performance of Trainium2. By building its own chips and infrastructure, AWS aims to reduce dependency on NVIDIA GPUs and offer customers more cost-effective and scalable AI solutions. Other companies like Cerebras, Grok, and SambaNova Systems are also vying for a share of the market. Amazon’s cloud rivals like Microsoft and Google are also investing in developing their own AI chips.

Amazon is already seeing some traction: AWS announced this week that Apple is one of its newest chip customers, and companies like Databricks and Adobe (along with Anthropic) have reportedly seen promising results in their own recent tests of Amazon’s AI chips.

For most businesses, the choice between NVIDIA and Amazon for AI hardware isn’t a critical issue, according to analysts. Large companies are more focused on leveraging AI models for business value rather than the technical specifics of training them. This could work in Amazon’s favor, as it can integrate its Trainium chips through partnerships without customers needing to be aware of the underlying hardware. On the other hand, however, software developers are accustomed to writing software for NVIDIA’s chips.

It’s too early to say how it’ll all play out. But one thing is clear: while NVIDIA’s dominant market share has seemed unassailable to this point, the competitive landscape for AI hardware is starting to shift. Meanwhile, AWS is quietly becoming one of the biggest AI competitors by trying to be a one-stop shop for AI: users can deploy GenAI tools, build proprietary models, and now get compute directly from Amazon.

Important Disclosures

This material has been distributed solely for informational and educational purposes only and is not a solicitation or an offer to buy any security or to participate in any trading strategy. All material presented is compiled from sources believed to be reliable, but accuracy, adequacy, or completeness cannot be guaranteed, and Contrary LLC (Contrary LLC, together with its affiliates, “Contrary”) makes no representation as to its accuracy, adequacy, or completeness.

The information herein is based on Contrary beliefs, as well as certain assumptions regarding future events based on information available to Contrary on a formal and informal basis as of the date of this publication. The material may include projections or other forward-looking statements regarding future events, targets or expectations. Past performance of a company is no guarantee of future results. There is no guarantee that any opinions, forecasts, projections, risk assumptions, or commentary discussed herein will be realized. Actual experience may not reflect all of these opinions, forecasts, projections, risk assumptions, or commentary.

Contrary shall have no responsibility for: (i) determining that any opinions, forecasts, projections, risk assumptions, or commentary discussed herein is suitable for any particular reader; (ii) monitoring whether any opinions, forecasts, projections, risk assumptions, or commentary discussed herein continues to be suitable for any reader; or (iii) tailoring any opinions, forecasts, projections, risk assumptions, or commentary discussed herein to any particular reader’s objectives, guidelines, or restrictions. Receipt of this material does not, by itself, imply that Contrary has an advisory agreement, oral or otherwise, with any reader.

Contrary is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The registration of Contrary in no way implies a certain level of skill or expertise or that the SEC has endorsed Contrary. Investment decisions for Contrary clients are made by Contrary. Please note that, although Contrary manages assets on behalf of Contrary clients, Contrary clients may take any position (whether positive or negative) with respect to the company described in this material. The information provided in this material does not represent any investment strategy that Contrary manages on behalf of, or recommends to, its clients.

Different types of investments involve varying degrees of risk, and there can be no assurance that the future performance of any specific investment, investment strategy, company or product made reference to directly or indirectly in this material, will be profitable, equal any corresponding indicated performance level(s), or be suitable for your portfolio. Due to rapidly changing market conditions and the complexity of investment decisions, supplemental information and other sources may be required to make informed investment decisions based on your individual investment objectives and suitability specifications. All expressions of opinions are subject to change without notice. Investors should seek financial advice regarding the appropriateness of investing in any security of the company discussed in this presentation.

Please see www.contrary.com/legal for additional important information.

Authors

Kyle Harrison

General Partner @ Contrary

Kyle leads Contrary’s investing efforts for companies from seed to scale. He’s previously worked at firms like Index and Coatue investing in companies like Databricks, Snowflake, Snyk, Plaid, Toast, and Persona.

See articles

© 2026 Contrary Research · All rights reserved

Privacy Policy

By navigating this website you agree to our privacy policy.