←back to thread

Ask HN: Why hasn’t AMD made a viable CUDA alternative?

183 points spacebanana7 | 4 comments | 01 Apr 25 14:37 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source

I appreciate developing ROCm into something competitive with CUDA would require a lot of work, both internally within AMD and with external contributions to the relevant open source libraries.

However the amount of resources at stake is incredible. The delta between NVIDIA's value and AMD's is bigger than the annual GDP of Spain. Even if they needed to hire a few thousand engineers at a few million in comp each, it'd still be a good investment.

Show context
johnnyjeans ◴[01 Apr 25 14:53 UTC] No.43547510[source]▶
> The delta between NVIDIA's value and AMD's is bigger than the annual GDP of Spain.

Nvidia is massively overvalued right now. AI has rocketed them into absolute absurdity, and it's not sustainable. Put aside the actual technology for a second and realize that public image of AI is at rock bottom. Every single time a company puts out AI-generated materials, they receive immense public backlash. That's not going away any time soon and it's only likely to get worse.

Speaking as someone that's not even remotely anti-AI, I wouldn't touch the shit with a 10 foot pole because of how bad the public image is. The moment that capital realizes this, that bubble is going to pop and it's going to pop hard.

replies(5): >>43547559 #>>43547590 #>>43547630 #>>43547711 #>>43548927 #
the__alchemist ◴[01 Apr 25 14:57 UTC] No.43547559[source]▶
You state this very confidently. Are you shorting Nvidia stock? If not, why not?
replies(5): >>43547619 #>>43547659 #>>43547716 #>>43547803 #>>43547847 #
chrisan ◴[01 Apr 25 15:01 UTC] No.43547619[source]▶
You imply you either would believe his word or would short nvidia yourself if he said he was. If not, why not?
replies(1): >>43547856 #
1. the__alchemist ◴[01 Apr 25 15:20 UTC] No.43547856[source]▶
Close - If I had the degree of confidence that post implies about Nvidia being overvalued, I would take an aggressive short position.
replies(2): >>43547944 #>>43547996 #
2. dagw ◴[01 Apr 25 15:27 UTC] No.43547944[source]▶
I would take an aggressive short position.

Lots of very smart people have lost a lot of money by being completely right about the destination, but wrong about the path and how long it will take to get there.

3. the__alchemist ◴[01 Apr 25 15:31 UTC] No.43547996[source]▶
> Lots of very smart people have lost a lot of money by being completely right about the destination, but wrong about the path and how long it will take to get there.

If you make a habit of this and still lose money, then either you statistically were very unlucky, or did not have a history of being right.

replies(1): >>43550152 #
4. dagw ◴[01 Apr 25 18:48 UTC] No.43550152[source]▶
The 'fun' things with shorts is that they have a fixed upside and infinite downside (ie if you go short $1000, the most you can earn is $1000, but you could lose any amount of money and much more than you invested. This is the opposite of buying a stock, where if you invest $1000, the most you can lose is $1000, but there is no limit to how much you can earn). You can be perfectly right 9 times out of 10, but that 1 time you're wrong can quickly wipe out everything you made from being right those 9 times.