[dragontamer]

10 years ago AMD was selling its own headquarters so that it could stave off bankruptcy for another few weeks (https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/03/amd-s...).

AMD's software investments have begun in earnest a few years ago, but AMD really did progress more than pretty much everyone else aside from NVidia IMO.

AMD further made a few bad decisions where they "split the bet", relying upon Microsoft and others to push software forward. (I did like C++ Amp for what its worth). The underpinnings of C++Amp led to Boltzmann which led to ROCm, which then needed to be ported away from C++Amp and into CUDA-like Hip.

So its a bit of a misstep there for sure. But its not like AMD has been dilly dallying. And for what its worth, I would have personally preferred C++ Amp (a C++11 standardized way to represent GPU functions as []-lambdas rather than CUDA-specific <<<extensions>>>). Obviously everyone else disagrees with me but there's some elegance to parallel_for_each([](param1, param2){magically a GPU function executing in parallel}), where the compiler figures out the details of how to get param1 and param2 from CPU RAM into GPU (or you use GPU-specific allocators to make param1/param2 in the GPU codespace already to bypass the automagic).

[pjmlp]

Nowadays you can write regular C++ in CUDA if you so wish, and contrary to AMD, NVidia employs several WG21 contributors.