[elteto]

From the performance comparison table, basically AMD could be NVIDIA right now, but they aren’t because… software?

That’s a complete institutional and leadership failure.

Ironically, building chips is the actual _hard_ part. The software and the compilers are not trivial but the iteration speed is almost infinite by comparison.

It goes to show that some companies just don’t “get” software. Not even AMD!

[bryanlarsen]

CUDA was started in 2004. AMD was basically broke until they hit a home run with Ryzen in 2017.

[p_l]

Funnily enough AMD was actually the first with GPGPU... they just floundered and managed to start 3 or more completely new software stacks for it, while CUDA focused not just on keeping one backward compatible one, but also made it work from cheapest NVS card to high end parts.

[wmobit]

I'd go so far as to say it's the exact opposite. It's faster and easier to change the hardware than the software.

[elteto]

Counterproof: attempt to modify your graphics card. Then attempt to modify a piece of code. Which one was easier?

[Mehvix]

You're saying it like hardware and software are disjoint. You design hardware with software in mind (and vice versa); you need to if you want performance rivaling nvidia. This codesign, seeing their products are not only usable but actually tailored to maximize resource utilization in real workloads (not driven by w/e benchmarks), is where AMD seems to lack.

Why oversimplify the premise and frame your take as some 'proof'. Just use the term counter-argument/example