zlacker

>>mfigui+(OP)
Why would this not be AMD’s top priority among priorities? Someone recently likened the situation to an Iron Age where NVIDIA owns all the iron. And this sounds like AMD knowing about a new source of ore and not even being willing to sink a single engineer’s salary into exploration.

My only guess is they have a parallel skunkworks working on the same thing, but in a way that they can keep it closed-source - that this was a hedge they think they no longer need, and they are missing the forest for the trees on the benefits of cross-pollination and open source ethos to their business.

>>btown+y6
The problem with effectively supporting CUDA is that encourages CUDA adoption all the more strongly. Meanwhile, AMD will always be playing catch-up, forever having to patch issues, work around Nvidia/AMD differences, and accept the performance penalty that comes from having code optimised for another vendor's hardware. AMD needs to encourage developers to use their own ecosystem or an open standard.

>>hjabir+Kg
If you replace CUDA -> x86 and NVIDIA -> Intel, you'll see a familiar story which AMD has already proved it can work through.

These were precisely the arguments for 'x86 will entrench Intel for all time', and we've seen AMD succeed at that game just fine.

>>jvande+NO
> These were precisely the arguments for 'x86 will entrench Intel for all time', and we've seen AMD succeed at that game just fine.

... after a couple decades of legal proceedings and a looming FTC monopoly case convinced Intel to throw in the towel, cross-license, and compete more fairly with AMD.

https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/intel-and-amd-settlement

AMD didn't just magically do it on its own.