Layer 2 · head to head
Microsoft Maia 200 vs Meta MTIA v2
Two chips nobody outside their owners can touch. They matter as the GPU orders that never get placed.
| Microsoft Maia 200 | Meta MTIA v2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Can you get it | Cannot be bought. Exists only inside one cloud, so choosing it is choosing that cloud. | Not available to anyone outside the company that built it. |
| Memory | Not published | Not published |
| Bandwidth | Not published | Not published |
| Compute | Not published | Not published |
| Power | Not published | Not published |
| Interconnect | Not published | Not published |
| Software | Azure-internal toolchain | Internal, PyTorch-based |
| Workload | both | inference |
Microsoft Maia 200
For: Azure workloads, where Microsoft chooses to place them. Not a part you specify.
The catch: Microsoft publishes very little. Treat any comparison table that gives Maia 200 precise specs with suspicion — including ours, which says 'not published' because that is the truth.
Economics: Its purpose is Microsoft's own cost base, not your price list. The benefit reaches you only as Azure pricing.
Meta MTIA v2
For: Nobody outside Meta. It is in this table because leaving it out would misrepresent the market — hyperscaler custom silicon collectively outweighs AMD as a threat to NVIDIA.
The catch: You cannot rent, buy or benchmark it. Its market effect is entirely in the GPU orders Meta does not place.
Economics: Relevant to you only as demand it removes from the market you buy in.
Before either — can you power it?
Not published against Not published. In 2026 that comparison usually matters more than the FLOPS one: the US interconnection queue exceeds 2,600 GW with waits approaching five years, and roughly 80% of projects withdraw before energising.