>ROCm has always really struck me as being aimed at the HPC market - only supporting pro-tier GPUs, focusing on users who are already running custom software, o

>ROCm has always really struck me as being aimed at the HPC market - only supporting pro-tier GPUs, focusing on users who are already running custom software, openly disdaining amateur support, etc. And frankly the distribute-as-source model makes ROCm just a complete nonstarter for any sort of commercial or other model where the vendor would absolutely be distributing libraries or a compiled application, let alone trying to wrangle dumb customers through getting a working ROCm environment. Which right now is the authentic "linux in 1995" level experience/ordeal. While I somewhat agree, I'd say they also fail at properly targeting the HPC market. The specific slice they're targeting is people who are already forced to work with them, such as developers for software intended ahead of time to be run on their supercomputers. This leads to them still missing out on the portion of the HPC market which isn't bound to a specific supercomputer. For example, with the software we work on, we currently benefit from our choice of CUDA due to the supercomputer we have access to being A100 based. But if working with ROCm were better and we could test it on more consumer hardware first, it could make a convincing case for gaining access to supercomputers with AMD GPUs, which would then influence the selection of their hardware in other machines. But since we can't, once our CUDA support is more mature it's essentially a given that our lab will be buying many more NVIDIA cards to allow other researchers to take advantage of it.