4 ms·
Though people may use CPUs several years old, they generally weren't at the moment they were bought, and the decision came from comparing with the competition.
by MITSardine 2y ago
Though people may use CPUs several years old, they generally weren't at the moment they were bought, and the decision came from comparing with the competition. This argument of "my software will be faster when computers are faster" does not hold given that the competition is also benefiting from Moore's law. Nothing changes in relative terms, which is what matters, until you actually improve your slow software.
And while a possibility may exist to improve software on the user's end, do people not base their decisions on benchmarks involving existing (not potential) software? They find comparisons using the provided kernels, find AMD to be slower, unaware that they could (maybe, at that) find a 30% speedup to be had. Even if they stumbled on this article, would they trust they could pull it off, or simply go with the GPU that has the best performance with existing libraries?
These are machines sold for crunching numbers, they might as well crunch numbers as best they can...
- roenxi 2y agoAt risk of repeating myself, you're not anywhere close to grappling with how bad the situation has been on AMD cards. If they could consistently half-saturate the hardware they'd have a place in the AI revolution instead of being left out in the cold. The traditional achievement of an AMD card, in practice, is 0% hardware saturation because when they tried to multiply matricies then there was a good chance that the system would crash. The type of commercial logic you're talking about isn't the important factor in the real world. 50% saturation with the option to fully saturate is amazing by AMDs standards and they have much bigger problems than this affecting people's buying decisions. If they had been able to achieve this standard in 2020 I would still be buying AMD.