←back to thread

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

183 points spacebanana7 | 1 comments | 01 Apr 25 14:37 UTC | HN request time: 0.215s | 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
londons_explore ◴[01 Apr 25 15:22 UTC] No.43547893[source]▶
AMD's CEO is the cousin of Nvidias CEO.

Neither will encroach too much on the others turf. The two companies don't want to directly compete on the things that really drive the share price.

replies(1): >>43549527 #
a5ehren ◴[01 Apr 25 17:38 UTC] No.43549527[source]▶
Distant cousins, and they had never met until they were both CEOs. This is a stupid trope and people need to stop using it.
replies(1): >>43554927 #
1. londons_explore ◴[02 Apr 25 09:16 UTC] No.43554927[source]▶
The long history of both companies doing a half-assed job of entering the others markets speaks differently.

Every 'run cuda on AMD' project gets bought then cancelled. Every cuda alternative is understaffed and cancelled as soon as it starts to gain any traction, etc.

To me it looks like a clear attempt to not hurt each others businesses whilst being deny-able if anyone accuses them of unfair market practices/collusion.