5 ms·

Why do people make these kinds of comments that dramatically oversimplify incredibly complex issues? Is it some kind of fun "I'm in the in-crowd" type feeling?

Why do people make these kinds of comments that dramatically oversimplify incredibly complex issues? Is it some kind of fun "I'm in the in-crowd" type feeling? > mostly built upon Python libraries that are platform agnostic, or at least can be. With enough support for AMD in Pytorch etc You can't imagine how much and how long the work in "can be" is. Thus NVIDIA has two of the deepest moats you can have: time and money (you would probably have to outspend them by 10x for 10 years to catch up). Source: go look at how the AMD backend is implemented in pytorch vs how the AMD backend is implemented. Edit: people must really not understand that this code (ie building this stuff) is highly non-trivial. It's not like building a competing js frontend framework. You not only need good engineers you need lots of them because the surface area is very big - hardware platforms, especially AMD's aren't at all "abstract", so really to do it right you need a team per box in the product matrix.

Certhas 2y ago
I don't see it. Large customers are choosing AMD over nVidia. NVidia has a massive headstart, but there are diminishing returns to their software work. If AMD performance per dollar is 10% better at the hardware level, and their software performance is 90% of that of nvidia they are ahead.
- WanderPanda 2y ago
  Plus all the flexibility of CUDA is not needed for LLMs anyways
- almostgotcaught 2y ago
  Absolutely none of this comment is based on fact or reason. > I don't see it. Large customers are choosing AMD over nVidia. Please show me term sheets of contracts signed with "large customers". Please include net, gross, and recurring revenue. > diminishing returns to their software work Makes zero sense: software penetration follows power laws (network effects etc) not exponential decay laws. > If AMD performance per dollar is 10% better at the hardware level, and their software performance is 90% of that of nvidia they are ahead. Again: you cannot fathom how enormous that "if" there is so I highly recommend you actually go look at the impl to get a sense.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    > Makes zero sense: software penetration follows power laws (network effects etc) not exponential decay laws. Software libraries aren't social networks, though. According to this argument we should all still be using C and not seeing new languages take hold. There is almost certainly a point where a library stops being able to add new value by being extended and that competitors can catch up to relatively easily no matter what the user demographics look like. There are definitely social aspects to software development so there might be some power laws to find; but building a competing ecosystem gets done regularly enough and works well (C# v. Java for example). Much easier to do than building a competing social network.
    - almostgotcaught 2y ago
      > Software libraries aren't social networks, though. They literally literally are - I follow people on GH in order to check out what they're doing and what repos they're starring/using. > Much easier to do than building a competing social network. We're talking about the ecosystem around the base stack remember? So no it's not easier when the bulk of the work needs to come from OSS contributors. People have the weirdest wishful thinking about this because they don't actually work in this area (and/or don't have stake in the game). If you're this confident please show me your portfolio allocation for NVDA and AMD. Otherwise hint: everyone working on this does not so casually dismiss NVIDIA's lead.
      - roenxi 2y ago
        GitHub is a social network. Libraries aren't. CUDA is not even on GitHub though as far as I recall. > We're talking about the ecosystem around the base stack remember? So no it's not easier when the bulk of the work needs to come from OSS contributors. The ecosystem exists as an abstraction around a base stack though. Much like saying the existence of Linux solidifies x86 dominance - that isn't what happens in practice, the Linux distros just pick up support for whatever hardware API are floating around. At some point the base can't add more value by adding more API features, and then the middleware starts supporting multiple bases depending on hardware economics. The OSS people have no incentive to lock themselves in to buying NVidia cards. If AMD cards tended to work for compute problems they'd probably much rather be using AMD. AMD has better support for anything OSS that isn't compute related.
gfxxxx 2y ago
Isn't that what the big *nix vendors said about GNU/Linux - the software stack is too sophisticated to replace - in the early 2000s? To this day I prefer to work on my Fuel than any other machine. But it's still dead.
teaearlgraycold 2y ago
I mean, you’re right that I don’t know the details. But the money is there. Consumers want to pay AMD for cheaper cards. AMD wants that AI money. I think they’ll start chipping away at Nvidia’s lead. Again, I’m no expert on CPUs but I think you could have argued something similar about AMD vs Intel 12 years ago. Now it’s clear AMD’s tech is superior.

Certhas 2y ago

I don't see it. Large customers are choosing AMD over nVidia. NVidia has a massive headstart, but there are diminishing returns to their software work. If AMD performance per dollar is 10% better at the hardware level, and their software performance is 90% of that of nvidia they are ahead.

WanderPanda 2y ago
Plus all the flexibility of CUDA is not needed for LLMs anyways
almostgotcaught 2y ago
Absolutely none of this comment is based on fact or reason. > I don't see it. Large customers are choosing AMD over nVidia. Please show me term sheets of contracts signed with "large customers". Please include net, gross, and recurring revenue. > diminishing returns to their software work Makes zero sense: software penetration follows power laws (network effects etc) not exponential decay laws. > If AMD performance per dollar is 10% better at the hardware level, and their software performance is 90% of that of nvidia they are ahead. Again: you cannot fathom how enormous that "if" there is so I highly recommend you actually go look at the impl to get a sense.
- roenxi 2y ago
  > Makes zero sense: software penetration follows power laws (network effects etc) not exponential decay laws. Software libraries aren't social networks, though. According to this argument we should all still be using C and not seeing new languages take hold. There is almost certainly a point where a library stops being able to add new value by being extended and that competitors can catch up to relatively easily no matter what the user demographics look like. There are definitely social aspects to software development so there might be some power laws to find; but building a competing ecosystem gets done regularly enough and works well (C# v. Java for example). Much easier to do than building a competing social network.
  - almostgotcaught 2y ago
    > Software libraries aren't social networks, though. They literally literally are - I follow people on GH in order to check out what they're doing and what repos they're starring/using. > Much easier to do than building a competing social network. We're talking about the ecosystem around the base stack remember? So no it's not easier when the bulk of the work needs to come from OSS contributors. People have the weirdest wishful thinking about this because they don't actually work in this area (and/or don't have stake in the game). If you're this confident please show me your portfolio allocation for NVDA and AMD. Otherwise hint: everyone working on this does not so casually dismiss NVIDIA's lead.
    - roenxi 2y ago
      GitHub is a social network. Libraries aren't. CUDA is not even on GitHub though as far as I recall. > We're talking about the ecosystem around the base stack remember? So no it's not easier when the bulk of the work needs to come from OSS contributors. The ecosystem exists as an abstraction around a base stack though. Much like saying the existence of Linux solidifies x86 dominance - that isn't what happens in practice, the Linux distros just pick up support for whatever hardware API are floating around. At some point the base can't add more value by adding more API features, and then the middleware starts supporting multiple bases depending on hardware economics. The OSS people have no incentive to lock themselves in to buying NVidia cards. If AMD cards tended to work for compute problems they'd probably much rather be using AMD. AMD has better support for anything OSS that isn't compute related.

gfxxxx 2y ago

Isn't that what the big *nix vendors said about GNU/Linux - the software stack is too sophisticated to replace - in the early 2000s? To this day I prefer to work on my Fuel than any other machine. But it's still dead.

teaearlgraycold 2y ago

I mean, you’re right that I don’t know the details. But the money is there. Consumers want to pay AMD for cheaper cards. AMD wants that AI money. I think they’ll start chipping away at Nvidia’s lead. Again, I’m no expert on CPUs but I think you could have argued something similar about AMD vs Intel 12 years ago. Now it’s clear AMD’s tech is superior.