(no title)
thatguyknows | 2 years ago
My prediction is AMD is already working on this internally, except more oriented around PyTorch not Hotz's Tinygrad, which I doubt will get much traction.
thatguyknows | 2 years ago
My prediction is AMD is already working on this internally, except more oriented around PyTorch not Hotz's Tinygrad, which I doubt will get much traction.
tzhenghao|2 years ago
https://pytorch.org/blog/pytorch-for-amd-rocm-platform-now-a...
lbhdc|2 years ago
>The software is called ROCm, it’s open source, and supposedly it works with PyTorch. Though I’ve tried 3 times in the last couple years to build it, and every time it didn’t build out of the box, I struggled to fix it, got it built, and it either segfaulted or returned the wrong answer. In comparison, I have probably built CUDA PyTorch 10 times and never had a single issue.
PeterisP|2 years ago
The parent post is surprised that they still aren't making the appropriate investments to make it work. They kind of started to do that a few years ago, but then it fell on the wayside without reaching even table stakes, which in my opinion would require providing a ROCm distribution that works out of the box for most of their recent consumer cards (i.e. those cards which the enthusiasts/students/advocates/researchers might use while choosing which software stack to learn, and afterward base corporate compute cluster purchasing decisions on whether they support the software they wrote for e.g. CUDA+Pytorch), and they seem to be failing at that.
meragrin_|2 years ago
SXX|2 years ago
mortenjorck|2 years ago