alt Hacker NewsThere's nothing wrong to run CUDA on non-Nvidia hardware. CUDA has an interface that is reasonably well-designed, well-documented/reverse-engineered, and battle-tested for decades. What we need is not to invent another interface just under the name of 'open standard', but to implement the same interface. ROCm is exactly doing this, and so are other hardware SDKs such as MooreThread and Alibaba T-Head.
Replies
Someone needs to stand up a benchmark suite for ROCM, this, and everyone else attempting it to really get the ball rolling here. SemiAnalysis could have a blast with this.
So is Spectral, which is mentioned in the headline of the article! As it says there:
> SCALE delivers nearly a 6x performance boost on AMD GPUs compared to using HIPIFY to convert CUDA code to AMD’s own ROCm environment
... whilst also running CUDA.
[flagged]
[dead]
The difference between ROCm and CUDA is that when a consumer GPU is released by nvidia it's supported for CUDA for about a decade (1xxx series cards just dropped last year). When a consumer GPU is released by AMD it's not supported by ROCm till about a year after release and then it's supported for about 3-4 years. With the RX 580 there were only 3.7 years after release before ROCm support was pulled. I bought mine a couple years after release and so only had about a year and a half of ROCm. Never again.
Things might be different in enterprise but for consumer AMD GPU ROCm is a trap. It is a mayfly. Sure, you can try to run the cards unsupported but you're just multiplying the difficulty and maintainence burden. And nothing will just work.