If CUDA isn't that strong of a moat/tie-in and Chinese tech companies can seemingly reasonably migrate to these chips, why hasn't AMD been able to compete more aggressively with nVidia on a US/global scale when they had a much longer head start?
2. CUDA has been a huge moat, but the incentives are incredibly strong for everybody except Nvidia to change that. The fact that it was an insurmountable moat five years ago in a $5B market does not mean it’s equally powerful in a $300B market.
3. AMD’s culture and core competencies are really not aligned to playing disruptor here. Nvidia is generally more agile and more experimental. It would have taken a serious pivot years ago for AMD to be the right company to compete.
It's the CUDA software ecosystem they have not been able to overcome. AMD has had multiple ecosystem stalls but it does appear that ROCm is finally taking off which is open source and multi-vendor.
AMD is unifying their GPU architectures (like nVidia) for the next gen to be able to subsidize development by gaming, etc., card sales (like nVidia).
Does Nvidia have patents on CUDA? They're probably invalid in China which explains why China can do this and AMD can't.
https://rocm.docs.amd.com/projects/HIPIFY/en/latest/index.ht...
The CUDA moat is extremely exaggerated for deep learning, especially for inference. It’s simply not hard to do matrix multiplication and a few activation functions here and there.
What is this racialized nonsense, have you seen Jensen Huang speak Mandarin? His mandarin is actually awful for someone who left Taiwan at 8.
So for data centers, training is just as important as inference.
Sure, and I’m not saying buying Nvidia is a bad bet. It’s the most flexible and mature hardware out there, and the huge installed base also means you know future innovations will align with this hardware. But it’s not primarily a CUDA thing or even a software thing. The Nvidia moat is much broader than just CUDA.
It's all about investment. If you are a random company you don't want to sink millions in figuring out how to use AMD so you apply the tried an true "no one gets fired for buying Nvidia".
If you are an authoritarian state with some level of control over domestic companies, that calculus does not exist. You can just ban Nvidia chips and force to learn how to use the new thing. By using the new thing an ecosystem gets built around it.
It's the beauty of centralized controlled in the face of free markets and I don't doubt that it will pay-off for them.
Also AMD really didn't invest enough in making their software experience as nice as NVIDIA.
Or would china be different because it's a mix of market and centralized rule?
Until 2022 or so AMD was not really investing into their software stack. Once they did, they caught up with Nvidia.
If AMD really wanted to play in the same league as NVidia, they should have built their own cloud service and offered a full stack experience akin to Google with their TPUs, then they would be justified in ignoring the consumer market, but alas, most people run their software on their local hardware first.
HN has a blindspot where AMDs absence in the prosumer/SME space is interpreted as failing horribly. Yet AMDs instinct cards are selling very well at the top end of the market.
If you were trying to disrupt a dominant player, would you try selling a million gadgets to a million people, or a million gadgets to 3-10 large organizations?
They have never had a focus on top notch software development.
See, Mojo, a new language to compile to other chips. https://www.modular.com/mojo
Sure, you can keep buying nvidia, but that wasn't what was discussed.
Lol this is how I know no one that pushes mojo on hn has actually ever used mojo.
You're completely wrong here. That's the "what's wrong with it".
To say Mojo doesn't use Python, when clearly that is a huge aim of the project, makes me think you are splitting hairs somewhere on some specific subject that is not clear by your one liners.
Key aspects of Mojo in relation to Python:
• Pythonic Syntax and Ecosystem Integration: Mojo adopts Python's syntax, making it familiar to Python developers. It also fully integrates with the existing Python ecosystem, allowing access to popular AI and machine learning libraries.
• Performance Focus: Unlike interpreted Python, Mojo is a compiled language designed for high-performance execution on various hardware, including CPUs, GPUs, and other AI ASICs. It leverages MLIR (Multi-Level Intermediate Representation) for this purpose.
• Systems Programming Features: Mojo adds features common in systems languages, such as static typing, advanced memory safety (including a Rust-style ownership model), and the ability to write low-level code for hardware.
• Compatibility and Interoperability: While Mojo aims for high performance, it maintains compatibility with Python. You can call Python functions from Mojo code, although it requires a specific mechanism (e.g., within try-except blocks) due to differences in compilation and execution.
• Development Status: Mojo is a relatively new language and is still under active development. While it offers powerful features, it is not yet considered production-ready for all use cases and is continually evolving.
What if I told you I used to work at modular? What would you say then to this accusation that I'm "missing the nuance"?
The rest of this is AI crap.
Do you really think Mojo is not based on Python? Or they are not trying to bypass Cuda? what is the problem?
The rest might be marketing slop. But I'm not catching what your objection is.
what do you mean "do you really". it's not. full stop. what part of this don't you understand?
The marketing and web site materials clearly show how they are using the Python interpreter and extending Python. They promote the use of Python everywhere. Like it is one of the most hyped points.
I think you are trying to quibble with, does the new functions get compiled differently than the rest of Python? So technically, when the Mojo functions are in use, that is not Python at that point?
Or maybe you are saying that they have extended Python so much you would like to not call it Python anymore?
Like IronPython, maybe since that gets compiled to .NET, you disagree with it being called Python?
Or maybe to use the IronPython example, if I'm calling a .NET function inside Python, you would like to make the fine distinction that that is NOT Python at that point? It should really be called .NET?
Here is link to docs. You worked there. So maybe there is some hair splitting here that is not clear.
https://docs.modular.com/mojo/manual/python/
Maybe it is just marketing hype that you disagree with.
But right on the main page it says "Mojo is Python++".
brother you have literally not a single clue what you're talking about. i invite you to go ask someone that currently works there about whether they're "using the Python interpreter and extending Python".
"This is 100% compatible because we use the CPython runtime without modification for full compatibility with existing Python libraries."
At this point you need to either explain your objection, or just admit you are a troll. You haven't actually at any point in this exchange offered any actual argument beyond 'duh, you're wrong'. I'd be ok if you actually pointed to something like 'well technically, the mojo parts are compiled differently', or something. You say you worked there, but you're not even looking at their website.
Creator Chris Lattner discussing why they used Python. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRcXUuQYR90
Start at minute 12. "Mojo is a very extended version of Python".
> using the CPython interpreter as a dynamic library (shown as libpython.dylib in figure 1).
They're embedding the python interpreter not extending it - just like everyone and their mother has been able to do for decades
https://docs.python.org/3/extending/embedding.html
I repeat: you have no idea what you're talking about so in reality you're the troll.
You're problem isn't with me, you are quibbling with there own marketing materials. Go complain to marketing if they are using the words that you disagree with. Everything I've posted is directly from Mojo's website.
You: "Well, technically they are embedding the interpreter, so all the surrounding code that looks exactly like python, and we promote as being compatible with python, and promote as extending python. My good sir, it is not really python. That is just a misunderstanding with marketing. Please ignore everything we are clearly making out as an important feature, totally wrong".
They clearly promote that they are extending python. What is your problem with that? How is that wording causing you to seize up?
I'm aware of what is technically happening. Where did I ever say anything that was not directly from them? Do I really need to write a thesis to satisfy every ocd programmer that wants to argue every definition.
Were you let go because of an inability to think flexibly? Maybe too many arguments with co-workers over their word choice? Does you're brain tend to get single tracked on a subject, kind of blank out in a white flash when you disagree with someone?
Actually, I'm kind of convinced you're just arguing to argue. This isn't about anything.
bro are you really thick? there is zero mojo code that is runnable python; take a look at
https://github.com/modular/modular/tree/main/mojo/stdlib/std...
mojo has zero to do with python. zilch, zero, nada.
what they are doing is simply embedding the python interpreter and running existing python code. literally everyone already does that, ie there are a million different projects that do this same thing in order to be able to interoperate with python (did you notice the heading at the top of the page you linked is *Python interoperability* not *Python compatibility*).
> This isn't about anything.
it's about your complete and utter ignorance in the face of a literal first hand account (plus plenty of contrary evidence).
> Were you let go because of an inability to think flexibly?
let go lololol. bro if you only knew what their turnover was like you would give up this silly worship of the company.
You're bitter.
To be clear, I'm not a fan boy. I don't really know much about Mojo. I've watched some videos, checked out their website, thought it was interesting idea.
The parent post was about alternatives to CUDA.
I posted a 6 word sentence summarizing how Mojo is trying to bypass CUDA, and using Python. -> And you flipped out, that it isn't Python. Really?
I checked out your link, sure does look like Python. But that is the point, all of their promotional materials and every Chris Lattner video, all sales pitches, everywhere.
Everywhere, is Python, Python, Python. Clearly they want everyone one to know how closely tied they are to Python. It is a clear goal of theirs.
But. I see now the pedantic hair splitting. Mojo 'Looks Like Python', they use the same syntax. "Mojo aims to be a superset of Python, meaning it largely adopts Python's syntax while introducing new features".
But you say, they aren't modifying or extending CPython so this is all false, it is no longer technically Python at all.
And I guess I'm saying, Chill. They clearly are focused on Python all over the place, to say that it isn't, is really ludicrous. You're down a rabbit whole of debating what is a name, what is a language. When is Python not Python? How different does it have to be, to not be?
A reimplantation would run into copyright issues.
No such problem in China.