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
Intel embraced Amd64 ditching Itanium. Wasn't it a good decision that worked out well? Is it comparable?

>>kgeist+3m
Intel & AMD have a cross-license agreement covering everything x86 (and x86_64) thanks to lots and lots of lawsuits over their many years of competition.

So while Intel had to bow to AMD's success and give up Itanium, they weren't then limited by that and could proceed to iterate on top of it.

Meanwhile it'll be a cold day in hell before Nvidia licenses anything about CUDA to AMD, much less allows AMD to iterate on top of it.

>>kllrno+Bw
Isn't API out of scope for copyright? In the case of CUDA, it seems they can copy most of it and then iterate in their own, keeping a compatible subset.