Live data from Hacker News

Intel CEO: 'The entire industry is motivated to eliminate the CUDA market'

tomshardware.com

201–210 of 380 posts

Re: Intel CEO: 'The entire industry is motivated to eliminate the CUDA market'

#201

Fun fact: More than half of all engineers at NVIDIA are software engineers. Jensen has deliberately and strategically built a powerful software stack on top of his GPUs, and he's spent decades doing it. Until Intel finds a CEO who is as technical and strategic, as opposed to the bean-counters, I doubt that they will manage to organize a successful counterattack on CUDA.

>finds a CEO who is as technical and strategic, as opposed to the bean-counters Did you just call Gelsinger a "non-technical"? wow, how out of touch with reality >Gelsinger first joined Intel at 18 years old in 1979 just after earning an associate degree from Lincoln Tech.[9] He spent much of his career with the company in Oregon,[12] where he maintains a home.[13] In 1987, he co-authored his first book about program…

If you read carefully you’ll see the comment is “as technical and strategic.”

That’s very different from “non-technical.”

He was clearly capable of leading a team to develop a new processor but that’s not the issue here.

Re: Intel CEO: 'The entire industry is motivated to eliminate the CUDA market'

#202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you expand on this? This is my first time seeing this guy’s work

He’s the main developer of Llama.cpp, which allows you to run a wide range of open-weights models on a wide range of non-NVIDIA processors.

but it's all inference, and most of Nvidias moat is in training afaik.

Re: Intel CEO: 'The entire industry is motivated to eliminate the CUDA market'

#203
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gelsinger is saying "the entire industry" and that seems likely to be a simple fact. Every single player, other than Nvidia, has an incentive to minimise the importance of CUDA as a proprietary technology. That is a lot more programmers than Nvidia can afford to employ. Even if Intel falls over its own feet, the incentives to bring in more chip manufacturers are huge. It'll happen, the only question is whether the ti…

> That is a lot more programmers than Nvidia can afford to employ. How many programmers one can employ is determined by profits, and Nvidia has monopoly profits thanks to CUDA, while "the entire industry" can at best hope to create some commiditized alternative to CUDA. Companies with real market power can beat entire industries of commodity manufacturers, Apple is the prime example.

You're forgetting Microsoft.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/06/meta-and-microsoft-to-buy-am...

Re: Intel CEO: 'The entire industry is motivated to eliminate the CUDA market'

#204
post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They seemed exceedingly hard to use well but interestingly capable & full of promise. And they were made in a much more primitive software age. I'd love to hear about what didn't work. OpenMP support seemed ok maybe but OpenMP is just a platform, figuring out software architectures that's mechanistically sympathetic to the system is hard. It would be so interesting to see what Xeon Phi might have been if we had Calci…

Some observations: - Very bad performance at existing x86 workloads, so a major selling point was basically not there in practice, because extracting any meaningful performance required a software rewrite anyway. This was an important adoption criteria; if they outright said "All your existing workloads are compatible, but will perform like complete dogshit", why would anyone bother? Compatibility was a big selling p…

I don't disagree anywhere but I don't think any of these statements actually condemn Xeon Phi outright. It didn't work at the time, and doing it with so little software support to tile out workloads well was a big & possibly bad gambit, but I'm so unsure we can condemn the architecture. There seems to be so few folks who made good attempts and succeeded or failed & wrote about it.

I tend to think there was tons of untapped potential still on the table. And that a failure to adopt potential isn't purely Intel alone's fault. The story we are commenting on is about the rest-of-industry trying to figure out enduring joint strategies, and much of this is chipmaker provided, but it is also informed and helped by plenty of consumers also pouring energy in to figure out what's working and not, trying to push the bounds.

Agreed that anyone going in thinking Xeon Phi would be viable for running a boring everyday x86 workload was going to be sad. To me the promise seemed clear that existing toolchains & code would work, but it was always clear to me there were a bunch of little punycores & massive SIMD units and that doing anything not SIMD intensive wasn't going to go well at all. But what's the current trend? Intel and AMD are both actively building not punycores but smaller cores, with Sierra Forest and Bergamo. E-cores are the grown up Atom we saw here.

Yes the GPGPU folks were winning. They had a huge head start, were the default option. And Intel was having trouble delivering nodes. So yes, Xeon Phi was getting trounced for real reasons. But they weren't architectural issues! It just means the Xeon Phi premise was becoming increasingly handicapped.

As I said I broadly agree everywhere. Your core point about giving the market more of what it already does is well taken, is a river of wisdom we see again and again. But I do think conservative thinking, iterating along, is dangerous thinking that obstructs us from seeing real value & possibility before us. Maybe Intel could have made a better ML chip than the GPGPU market has gotten for years, had things gone differently; I think the industry could perhaps have been glad they had veered onto a new course, but the barriers to that happening & the slow down in Intel delivery & the difficulty bootstrapping new software were all horrible encumberances which were rightly more than was worth bearing together.

Re: Intel CEO: 'The entire industry is motivated to eliminate the CUDA market'

#205

As another commenter said, it's CUDA. Intel and AMD and whoever can turn out chips reasonably fast, but nobody gets that it's the software and ecosystem. You have to out-compete the ecosystem. You can pick up a used Mi100 that performs almost like an A100 for 5x less money on eBay for example. Why is it 5x less? Because the software incompatibilities mean you'll spend a ton of time getting it to work compared to an N…

Guys need to do ye olde embrace, extend maneuver. What wine did, what Javas of the world did. CUDA driver API and CUDA runtime API either translation or implementation layer that offers compatibility and speed. I see no way around it at this point, for now.

They could do that. That would eliminate Nvidia's monopoly. AMD has made gestures in that direction with Hip. But they ultimately don't want to do that - Hip support is half-assed and inconsistent. AMD creates and abandons a variety of APIs. So the conclusion is the other chip makers whine about Nvidia's monopoly but don't want to end it - they just want maneuver to get their smaller monopolies of some sort or other.

Re: Intel CEO: 'The entire industry is motivated to eliminate the CUDA market'

#206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What _7il4 removed were these two comments: "AMD is not serious, and neither is Intel for that matter. Their software are piles of proprietary garbage fires. They may say they are serious but literally nothing indicates they are." "Yes, and ROCm also doesn't work on anything non-AMD. In fact it doesn't even work on all recent AMD gpus. T"

It's not too polite to repost what people removed. Errors on the internet shouldn't haunt people forever. However, my experience is that the comments about AMD are spot-on, with the exception of the word "proprietary." Intel hasn't gotten serious yet, and has a good track record in other domains (compilers, numerical libraries, etc.). They've been flailing for a while, but I'm curious if they'll come up with somethin…

As a long time user of intels scientific compiler/accelerator stack, I'm not sure if I'd call it a "good track record". Once you get all their libs working they tend to be fairly well optimized but they're always a huge hassle to install, configure, and distribute. And when I say a hassle to install, I'm talking about hours to run their installers.

They have a track record of taking open projects, adding proprietary extensions, and then requiring those extensions to work with other tools. This sounds fine, but they are very slow/never update the base libs. From version to version they'll muck with deep dependencies, sometimes they'll even ship different rules on different platforms (I dare you to try to static link openmp in a recent version of oneapi targeting windows). If you ship a few tools (let's say A and B) that use the same dynamic lib, it's a royal pain to make sure they don't conflict with each other if you update software A but not B. Ranting about consumer junk aside, their cluster focused tooling on Linux tends to be quite good, especially compared to amd.

Re: Intel CEO: 'The entire industry is motivated to eliminate the CUDA market'

#207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel spent more than a decade under Otellini, Krzanich and Swan. Bean counters. Gelsinger was appointed out of desperation, but the problem runs much deeper. I doubt that culture is gone. It has already cost Intel many opportunities.

>Intel spent more than a decade under Otellini, Krzanich and Swan. Bean counters. It still doesn't change mistake in your original message. >Gelsinger was appointed out of desperation, but the problem runs much deeper. How much "much deeper"? VPs? middle level managers? engineers? The example goes from the top, so if he can change the culture at the top, it will eventually get deeper.

> as technical and strategic

It seems that this is an AND not an OR.

Re: Intel CEO: 'The entire industry is motivated to eliminate the CUDA market'

#208
post #55

Fun fact: More than half of all engineers at NVIDIA are software engineers. Jensen has deliberately and strategically built a powerful software stack on top of his GPUs, and he's spent decades doing it. Until Intel finds a CEO who is as technical and strategic, as opposed to the bean-counters, I doubt that they will manage to organize a successful counterattack on CUDA.

Gelsinger is saying "the entire industry" and that seems likely to be a simple fact. Every single player, other than Nvidia, has an incentive to minimise the importance of CUDA as a proprietary technology. That is a lot more programmers than Nvidia can afford to employ. Even if Intel falls over its own feet, the incentives to bring in more chip manufacturers are huge. It'll happen, the only question is whether the ti…

> Gelsinger is saying "the entire industry" and that seems likely to be a simple fact. Every single player, other than Nvidia, has an incentive to minimise the importance of CUDA as a proprietary technology. That is a lot more programmers than Nvidia can afford to employ.

I mean, this statement is technically true, but it's true for any proprietary technology. If things work like this then we won't have any industry where proprietary techs/formats are prevalent.

Re: Intel CEO: 'The entire industry is motivated to eliminate the CUDA market'

#209
post #150
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you can't support Pytorch without a proper foundation in place. They don't need to support zillion _end_ libraries, sure, but they do need to have at least a very good set of standard libraries, equivalent of Cublas, Curand etc. And they don't. My work recently had me working with rocRAND (Rocm's answer to Curand). It was frankly pretty bad- the design, performance (50% slower in places that don't make any sense…

Instead of generating pseudorandom numbers you can just download files of them. https://archive.random.org/

Or you could just re-use the same number; no one can prove it is not random.

https://xkcd.com/221/

Re: Intel CEO: 'The entire industry is motivated to eliminate the CUDA market'

#210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OneAPI isn't bad for PyTorch, the performance isn't there yet but you can tell it's an extremely top priority for Intel.

Intel has to do it by themselves. NVIDIA just lets Meta/OpenAI/Google engineers do it for them. Such a handicapped fight.

That's because CUDA is a clear, well-functioning library and Intel has no equivalent. It makes any "you just have to get Pytorch working" a little less plausible.
Post reply on HN