• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Nvidia GPUs soon a fading memory?

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Scali said:
AMD is doomed because of a number of reasons:
1) Their original Stream/CTM failed, so AMD never got a foot in the door with any developers on the first try, unlike Cuda.
2) AMD started over, focusing on OpenCL and DirectCompute this time around... but OpenCL and DirectCompute are not the same as Cuda. They are more like programmable shaders in graphics, where C for Cuda is a very natural extension of regular applications, and now with C++, it is even more powerful.
OpenCL and DirectCompute don't support objects and various other features of C++ for Cuda, making the learning curve from CPU to GPU programming considerably more steep.
3) AMD doesn't offer OpenCL to end-users.
4) AMD doesn't have a strong team of software developers like nVidia and Intel.

Especially 4) is really going to hurt. In theory AMD could recover... but that requires they start investing LOTS in their software department. They need more developers, and more importantly: more qualified developers.
Intel and nVidia have been developing compilers and Visual Studio addons for years (the new Nexus GPGPU stuff for Fermi in Visual Studio is another great example), and employ a number of 'rock star' developers in the industry. They know how to get things done, and get them done well.

Intel and nVidia are leaders. nVidia has led the industry with a lot of OpenGL extensions, Cg/HLSL, and then with Cuda and PhysX. Intel doesn't even need explanation.
AMD is not a leader, AMD is a follower.
Click to expand...

It appears to me (just by reading the occasional interview) AMD realizes they need the help you are talking about in this post.

P.S. What do you think about the possibility of fusion increasing compute density in 1u rack servers? Yes or no? If yes, could this open doors and increase opportunity for pioneering software developers?
 
Last edited:
golem said:
Does that mean they get royalties from Snapdragon sales or that they could make snapdragon type processors if they wanted... or both?
Click to expand...

They're not producing anymore in that line, I don't know if they can't or just aren't. I'd imagine part of the stipulation in selling the Snapdragon IP to qualcomm was that AMD wouldn't compete. The graphics IP is licensed from AMD, but I'd find it surprising if AMD could make another ARM processor using it. They could probably integrate it into x86 if they wanted to.
 
Fox5 said:
They're not producing anymore in that line, I don't know if they can't or just aren't. I'd imagine part of the stipulation in selling the Snapdragon IP to qualcomm was that AMD wouldn't compete. The graphics IP is licensed from AMD, but I'd find it surprising if AMD could make another ARM processor using it. They could probably integrate it into x86 if they wanted to.
Click to expand...

Thanks Fox5
 
Did you necro your own thread after already posting your nV Doom and Gloom theory in another thread about an hour ago?



Hmmm.....interesting.



Edit: Not so interesting after reading the rest of your posts by clicking on your profile.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top