←back to thread

141 points zdw | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.199s | source
Show context
andrewstuart ◴[] No.45665124[source]
Despite this APU being deeply interesting to people who want to do local AI, anecdotally I hear that it’s hard to get models to run on it.

Why would AMD not have focused everything it possibly has on demonstrating and documenting and fixing and showing and smoothing the path for AI on their systems?

Why does AMD come across as so generally clueless when it comes to giving developers what they want, compared to Nvidia?

AMD should do whatever it takes to avoid these sort of situations:

https://youtu.be/cF4fx4T3Voc?si=wVmYmWVIya4DQ8Ut

replies(10): >>45665138 #>>45665148 #>>45665186 #>>45665215 #>>45665736 #>>45665755 #>>45665858 #>>45665962 #>>45667229 #>>45671834 #
JonChesterfield ◴[] No.45665736[source]
One issue is you need rocm 7 which only just came out.

Another is that people unsportingly write things in cuda.

It'll be a "just works" thing eventually, even if you need software from outside AMD to get it running well.

replies(1): >>45667587 #
rbanffy ◴[] No.45667587[source]
> Another is that people unsportingly write things in cuda.

Whether we like it or not, CUDA is the de-facto standard for these things. I wonder how much effort would it take for a company the size of AMD to dedicate a couple million dollars a year to track CUDA as closely as feasible. A couple million dollars is a rounding error for a leading silicon maker.

replies(3): >>45668649 #>>45673112 #>>45673852 #
1. wmf ◴[] No.45673112[source]
It's called HIP.