10 ms·
It's not that they aren't trying, it's that when you reinvent the wheel, you have to do more work. Microsoft is introducing `tensorflow-directml` to avoid this
by blueblob 4y ago
It's not that they aren't trying, it's that when you reinvent the wheel, you have to do more work. Microsoft is introducing `tensorflow-directml` to avoid this problem by implementing a CUDA equivalent in directX. AMD has ROCm, but it's not well supported because it's not integrated upstream in `tensorflow`.
- blagie 4y agoWell, I bought a ROCm GPU for GPGPU: - I found out I could only use it for compute headless. WTF?!?!?! (https://www.phoronix.com/news/Radeon-ROCm-Non-GUI https://www.phoronix.com/news/Radeon-ROCm-Non-GUI). If it was driving a monitor, my machine would crash hard. There wasn't even an error message. - A lot of other stuff didn't work and just resulted in odd crashes, or worse performance than CPU. I don't know why. - Within 9 months, AMD discontinued support for my card. I raised this as a warranty issue (suitability for advertised purpose), but that obviously would go nowhere without a lawsuit. I had a very expensive brick. - AMD support channels were non-existent. There literally was no way to reach anyone. I bought an NVidia card, and it's been working well ever since. ROCm is not well-supported because it's absolute garbage. You have *less* work reinventing wheels, since it's been invented once. You have more work to get community support and network effects, since you're starting out behind. Fundamentally, though, that can't start to happen if your system doesn't work at all. I agree with you they're trying, but they're trying incompetently. If ROCm was half the speed of CUDA, and wasn't integrating into the latest-greatest frameworks, but it was stable and working, I'd make it work. It wasn't anywhere close to stable and working.