Spend a billion on AMD shares, Spend another Billion on a out-of-house software team to solve the software solution to more than double the share price.
Taking into account that there are players that already own billions in AMD shares, they could probably do that as well. On the other hand perhaps it would be better for them, as major shareholders, to have a word with AMD management.
Hopefully I am reading too much into this. Hopefully she doesn't have any weird hangups over investing in software and it all just takes time to Do It Right after GPGPU got starved in the AMD winter. But if it is a weird hangup then yeah, 100%, ownership needs to get management in line because whiffing a matmul benchmark years into a world where matmul is worth trillions just ain't it.
It's not a deflection, but a straightforward description of AMDs current top-down market strategy of partnering with big players instead of doubling down to have a great OOBE for consumers & others who don't order GPUs by the pallet. It's an honest reflection if their current core competencies, and the opportunity presented by Nvidia's margins.
They are going for a bang-for-buck right now aiming at data center workloads, and the hyperscalers care a lot about perf/$ than raw performance at. Hyperscalers are also more self-sufficient at software: they have entire teams working on PyTorch, Jax, and writing kernels.
I've been on both sides of this shitshow, I've even said those lines before! But I've also been in the trenches making the broken shit work and I know that it's fundamentally an excuse. There's a reason why people pay 80% margin to Nvidia and there's a reason why AMD is worth less than the rounding error when people call NVDA a 3 trillion dollar company.
It's not because people can't read a spec sheet, it's because people want their expensive engineers training models not changing diapers on incontinent equipment.
I hope AMD pulls through but denial is _not_ the move.
Would you say AMD is "shitting the bed" by not building it's own consoles too? You know AMD could build a kick-ass console since they are doing the heavy-lifting for the Playstation, and the XBox[1] , but AMD knows as much as anybody that they don't have the skills to wrangle studio relationships or figure out which games to finance. Instead, they lean hard in their HW skills and get Sony Entertainment/the Xbox division do what they do best.
1.and the Steam Deck, plus half a dozen Deck clones.
This is a case-specific example of failure, it doesn't generalise very well to other markets. AMD is really well positioned for this very specific opportunity of historic proportions and the only thing holding them back is a somewhat continuous stream of unforced failures when writing a high quality compute driver. It seems to be pretty close to one single team of people holding the company back although organisational issues tend to stem from a level or two higher than the team. This could be the most visible case of value destruction by a public company we'll see in our lifetimes.
Optimistically speaking maybe they've already found and sacked the individual responsible and we're just waiting for improvement. I'm buying Nvidia until that proves to be so.
Even Steam Deck is only a success, because it depends on Windows ecosystem, and the moment Microsoft decides it is enough, lets see how long it holds.
All the games that matter are Windows games running via Proton, as Valve has failed to actually build a GNU/Linux native games ecosystem, in spite of UNIX/POSIX underpinnings of Android NDK, PlayStation, the studios hardly bother.
The day Microsoft actually decides to challenge Proton, or do a netbooks move on handhelds with XBox OS/Windows, the SteamDeck will lose, just like the netboooks did.
Additionally, it is anyone's guess what will happen to Valve when Gabe steps down.
Everyone is quite curious what Microsoft will drop at CES 2025, and which OEMs will be on their side, it is going to be netbooks all over again.
None of this matters because AMD drivers are broken. No one is asking AMD to write a PyTorch backend. The idea that AMD will have twice the silicon performance than nvidia to make up the performance loss for bad software is a pipedream.
Do you honestly think the MI300 has show-stopper driver bugs, or that Meta/Amazon doesn't have a direct line to AMD engineers?
Yes
>Meta/Amazon doesn't have a direct line to AMD engineers?
I don't even think AMD engineers have a direct line to AMD.
How do you know that the problems arise from broken drivers rather than broken hardware? Real world GPU drivers are full of workarounds for hardware bugs.
AMD has to get on top of their software quality issues if they're ever going to succeed in this segment, or they need to be producing chips so much faster than Nvidia that it's worth the extra time investment and pain.
[citation needed]
The same article also states that AMD provided custom bug-fixes written by Principle Engineers to address bugs in a benchmark - this is software that will only become part of the public release in 2 quarters. I ask again, do you think AMD will not expedite non-public bug-fixes for hyperscalers?
> You can't train with AMD, full stop, because their software stack is so buggy.
Point 7 from the article:
>> The MI300X has a lower total cost of ownership (TCO) compared to the H100/H200, but training performance per TCO is worse on the MI300X on public stable releases of AMD software. This changes if one uses custom development builds of AMD software.
I have an inkling that Meta does not obtain MI300 drivers from https://download.amd.com
Which is why, as they say clearly, nobody is training models on AMD. Only inference, at most. I'm not sure why you keep claiming they are training using private drivers. They clearly aren't.