He has a very binary sense of better/"SUPERIOR". I don't dispute the qualitative direction of the claim, but was there a quantitative estimate of how much benefit "true" dual core or an APU would bring vs. the alternative? Nobody is going to care too much about chip internals, only the observable performance.
CUDA was released to consumers in 2006. AMD had plenty of time to counteract that with their own well before the AI boom, especially since back then they now had both CPUs and GPUs under the same roof meaning they actually had an advantage on paper over Nvidia at the time.
It was even their initiative back then called Fusion, and because of that I though AMD would end up overtaking both Intel who could only do CPUs and Nvidia who could only do GPUs. Instead their APUs turned out to be just mediocre CPUs and GPUs at beast without ani killer apps/features, and so lost both markets and had to struggle to regain at least the CPU sector but mostly because Intel was complacent and incompetent on the architecture and manufacturing sides.
AMD had plenty of OpenCL investments as well as C++Amp, which IMO is much cleaner than CUDA. The idea of a Microsoft-led revolution in GPU-compute isn't bad, especially coinciding with C++11 Lambda functions and whatnot.
That obviously didn't work out, but you can't say that AMD didn't do anything for those years. Especially as AMD was falling into bankruptcy at the time, it was clear that AMD needed to rely upon others to take on the risk of new APIs.
I'm still curious how Microsoft screwed the pooch here. Windows8 was seen as a failure, but I think I can safely say that C++AMP / ConcRT / etc. etc. were well designed APIs. AMD lost some momentum here, and had to do a CUDA-based API for ROCm moving forward a few years later.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1285234687267356672.html
Also (2020)
He has a very binary sense of better/"SUPERIOR". I don't dispute the qualitative direction of the claim, but was there a quantitative estimate of how much benefit "true" dual core or an APU would bring vs. the alternative? Nobody is going to care too much about chip internals, only the observable performance.
I can actually explain in far less than one Tweet:
CUDA
CUDA was released to consumers in 2006. AMD had plenty of time to counteract that with their own well before the AI boom, especially since back then they now had both CPUs and GPUs under the same roof meaning they actually had an advantage on paper over Nvidia at the time.
It was even their initiative back then called Fusion, and because of that I though AMD would end up overtaking both Intel who could only do CPUs and Nvidia who could only do GPUs. Instead their APUs turned out to be just mediocre CPUs and GPUs at beast without ani killer apps/features, and so lost both markets and had to struggle to regain at least the CPU sector but mostly because Intel was complacent and incompetent on the architecture and manufacturing sides.
Also what does "oppty" from the title mean?
AMD had plenty of OpenCL investments as well as C++Amp, which IMO is much cleaner than CUDA. The idea of a Microsoft-led revolution in GPU-compute isn't bad, especially coinciding with C++11 Lambda functions and whatnot.
That obviously didn't work out, but you can't say that AMD didn't do anything for those years. Especially as AMD was falling into bankruptcy at the time, it was clear that AMD needed to rely upon others to take on the risk of new APIs.
I'm still curious how Microsoft screwed the pooch here. Windows8 was seen as a failure, but I think I can safely say that C++AMP / ConcRT / etc. etc. were well designed APIs. AMD lost some momentum here, and had to do a CUDA-based API for ROCm moving forward a few years later.
16 replies →
Also what does "oppty" from the title mean?
The lazy man's version of opportunity
Oppty = Opportunity
2 replies →
This is from 2020, a LOT has happened since.