81–90 of 425 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> [2021] After some deliberation, Intel decided that there is no business case for running CUDA applications on Intel GPUs. oof
That's an oof indeed. Are AMD and Intel really that delusional, ie "once we get our own version of Cuda right everybody will just rewrite all their software to make use of it", or do they know something we mere mortals don't?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the most important decisions a company can do, is to decide which markets they'll focus in and which they won't. This is even true for megacorps (see: Google and their parade of messups). There's just not enough time to be in all markets all at once. So, again, it's not at all clear that AMD being in the compute GPU game is the automatic win for them in the future. There's plenty of companies that killed thems…
AMD is literally the only company on the market poised to exploit the explosion in demand for GPU compute after nVidia (sorry Intel). To not even really try to break in is insanity. nVidia didn't grow their market cap by 5x over the course of a year because people really got into 3D gaming. Even as an also ran on the coat tails of nVidia with a compatibility glue library the market is clearly demanding more product.
Read an article about it recently, but when trying to remember the details / find it again just now I'm not seeing it. :(
ROCm is not spelled out anywhere in their documentation and the best answers in search come from Github and not AMD official documents "Radeon Open Compute Platform" https://github.com/ROCm/ROCm/issues/1628 And they wonder why they are losing. Branding absolutely matters.
Isn't translation one of the strengths of LLMs?
ROCm is not spelled out anywhere in their documentation and the best answers in search come from Github and not AMD official documents "Radeon Open Compute Platform" https://github.com/ROCm/ROCm/issues/1628 And they wonder why they are losing. Branding absolutely matters.
I have no idea what CUDA stands for, and I live just fine without knowing it.
Why would this not be AMD’s top priority among priorities? Someone recently likened the situation to an Iron Age where NVIDIA owns all the iron. And this sounds like AMD knowing about a new source of ore and not even being willing to sink a single engineer’s salary into exploration. My only guess is they have a parallel skunkworks working on the same thing, but in a way that they can keep it closed-source - that this…
Why do you think running after nVidia for this submarket is a good idea for them? The AMD GPU team isn't especially big and the development investment is massive. Moreover, they'll have the opportunity cost for projects they're now dominating in (all game consoles for example). Do you expect them to be able to capitalize on the AI fad so much (and quickly enough!) that it's worth dropping the ball on projects they're…
In rational world their stock price would collapse if they don’t focus on it and are unable to deliver anything competitive in the upcoming year or two
> of the market where they're doing much better than nVidia?
So the market that’s hardly growing, Nvidia is not competing in and Intel still has bigger market share and is catching up performance wise? AMD’s valuation is this highly only because they are seen as the only company that could directly compete with Nvidia in the data center GPU market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think running after nVidia for this submarket is a good idea for them? The AMD GPU team isn't especially big and the development investment is massive. Moreover, they'll have the opportunity cost for projects they're now dominating in (all game consoles for example). Do you expect them to be able to capitalize on the AI fad so much (and quickly enough!) that it's worth dropping the ball on projects they're…
IIRC (this could be old news) AMD GPUs are preferred in the supercomputer segment because they offer better flops/unit energy. However without a cuda-like you're missing out on the AI part of supercompute, which is increasing proportion. The margins on supercompute-related sales are very high. Simplifying, but you can basically take a consumer chip, unlock a few things, add more memory capacity, relicense, and your m…
Nvidia could always just half their prices one day, and wipe out every non-state-funded competitor. But Nvidia prefers to collect their extreme margins and funnel it into even more R&D in AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They would always be at the mercy of NVIDIA's API. Without knowing the inner workings, perhaps a major concern with this approach is the need to implement on NVIDIA's schedule instead of AMD's which is a very reactive stance. This approach actually would make sense if AMD felt, like most of us perhaps, that the NVIDIA ecosystem is too entrenched, but perhaps they made the decision recently to discontinue funding beca…
They've been at mercy of Intel x86 APIs for a long time. Didn't kill them. What happens here is that the original vendor loses control of the API once there are multiple implementations. That's the best possible outcome for AMD. In either case, they have a limited window to be adopted, and that's more important. The abstraction layer here helps too. AMD code is !@#$%. If this were adopted, it makes it easier to fix t…
At the same time, open source projects can be pretty nimble in chasing things like changing APIs, potentially frustrating the effectiveness of API pivoting by NVIDIA in a second way.
Why would this not be AMD’s top priority among priorities? Someone recently likened the situation to an Iron Age where NVIDIA owns all the iron. And this sounds like AMD knowing about a new source of ore and not even being willing to sink a single engineer’s salary into exploration. My only guess is they have a parallel skunkworks working on the same thing, but in a way that they can keep it closed-source - that this…
AMD's management seems to be only vaguely aware that GPU compute is a thing. All of their efforts in the field feel like afterthoughts. Or maybe they are all just hardware guys who think of software as just a cost center.