3 ms·

Intel's CEO should look into adversarial compatibility. The way you defeat a bigger/stronger enemy is not by attempting to be bigger and stronger than them but

by _8j50 3y ago

Intel's CEO should look into adversarial compatibility. The way you defeat a bigger/stronger enemy is not by attempting to be bigger and stronger than them but by using their strength (CUDA+great drivers) against them.

CamperBob2 3y ago
How would that play out, exactly?
- _8j50 3y ago
  Intel/amd create a cuda compatible api, for cheaper.
  - anon291 3y ago
    Cuds api and language are easy. Nvidia has dozens of cuda offshoot projects that are harder.
    - _8j50 3y ago
      If it's easy why don't they support it instead of watch billions of dollars fly away I wonder. If whatever cuda program you build would run the same on intel or amd, do those offshoot projects really matter?
      - CamperBob2 3y ago
        I don't get either, to be honest. This isn't Direct3D versus OpenGL Part Deux, where a few different companies are vying for the approval of some game-tech geeks as a side business, it's the future of computing. If you make CPUs or GPUs and your building doesn't have a sign reading "nVidia" out front, it's currently on fire. You should probably be doing something about that besides talking about how motivated you are. Nobody really seems to be taking CUDA compatibility seriously.
      - anon291 3y ago
        Hip is basically cudas language and is almost source compatible. I believe they have a tool to convert between them. Really minimal hit. The problem is most people are using NVIDIA libraries which ship with proprietary binary blobs, so good luck running that on your AMD GPU. Until they make all these extra libraries as well, they're SOL.. NVIDIA has zero reason to port all their IP to AMD or Intel. One would imagine that they already have internal ports of their software to both these platforms to do benchmarking. Again, the technical problem is simply one of software. Going back to the topic at hand. CUDA language and runtime are easy. Both amd and Intel have competitors here. They don't have the libs. The libraries contain thousands of variants of hand optimized code. Good luck.

by _8j50 3y ago

CamperBob2 3y ago

How would that play out, exactly?

_8j50 3y ago
Intel/amd create a cuda compatible api, for cheaper.
- anon291 3y ago
  Cuds api and language are easy. Nvidia has dozens of cuda offshoot projects that are harder.
  - _8j50 3y ago
    If it's easy why don't they support it instead of watch billions of dollars fly away I wonder. If whatever cuda program you build would run the same on intel or amd, do those offshoot projects really matter?
    - CamperBob2 3y ago
      I don't get either, to be honest. This isn't Direct3D versus OpenGL Part Deux, where a few different companies are vying for the approval of some game-tech geeks as a side business, it's the future of computing. If you make CPUs or GPUs and your building doesn't have a sign reading "nVidia" out front, it's currently on fire. You should probably be doing something about that besides talking about how motivated you are. Nobody really seems to be taking CUDA compatibility seriously.
    - anon291 3y ago
      Hip is basically cudas language and is almost source compatible. I believe they have a tool to convert between them. Really minimal hit. The problem is most people are using NVIDIA libraries which ship with proprietary binary blobs, so good luck running that on your AMD GPU. Until they make all these extra libraries as well, they're SOL.. NVIDIA has zero reason to port all their IP to AMD or Intel. One would imagine that they already have internal ports of their software to both these platforms to do benchmarking. Again, the technical problem is simply one of software. Going back to the topic at hand. CUDA language and runtime are easy. Both amd and Intel have competitors here. They don't have the libs. The libraries contain thousands of variants of hand optimized code. Good luck.