3 ms·

You're writing as if AMD cares about open source. If they would only actually open source their driver the community would have made their cards better than nvi

You're writing as if AMD cares about open source. If they would only actually open source their driver the community would have made their cards better than nvidia ones long ago. I'm one of those academics. You've got it all wrong. So many people care about open source. So many people carefully release their code and make everything reproducible. We desperately just want AMD to open up. They just refuse. There's nothing secret going on and there's no conspiracy. There's just a company that for some inexplicable reason doesn't want to make boatloads of money for free. AMD is the worst possible situation. They're hostile to us and they refuse to invest to make their stuff work.

talldayo 2y ago
> If they would only actually open source their driver the community would have made their cards better than nvidia ones long ago. Software wise, maybe. But you can't change AMD's hardware with a magic wand, and that's where a lot of CUDA's optimizations come from. AMD's GPU architecture is optimized for raster compute, and it's been that way for decades. I can assure you that AMD does not have a magic button to press that would make their systems competitive for AI. If that was possible it would have been done years ago, with or without their consent. The problem is deeper and extends to design decisions and disagreement over the complexity of GPU designs. If you compare AMD's cards to Nvidia on "fair ground" (eg. no CUDA, only OpenCL) the GPGPU performance still leans in Nvidia's favor.
- anticensor 2y ago
  RDNA and UDNA have progressed more towards compute-unified architecture than Vega&CDNA's raster-first architecture.