News Software allows CUDA code to run on AMD and Intel GPUs without changes — ZLUDA is back but both companies ditched it, nixing future updates

[Admin]

Although ZLUDA has returned, it now supports AMD GPUs instead of Intel, and future updates seem very unlikely.

Software allows CUDA code to run on AMD and Intel GPUs without changes — ZLUDA is back but both companies ditched it, nixing future updates : Read more

 

[hotaru251]

we've run out of gpu companies

i mean....Chinas got soemone if he really wanted to try to keep it going.

 

[bit_user]

That Intel and AMD aren't interested in making their GPUs compatible with the existing CUDA ecosystem is telling. It seems they would rather go head-to-head with CUDA with oneAPI and ROCm

ROCm is not equivalent either to oneAPI or CUDA. AMD has a CUDA-like API, called HIP.

Both AMD and Intel also have porting tools, which facilitate developers doing ports of codebases from CUDA to either oneAPI or HIP. Both companies would rather you switch from CUDA to these competing APIs, rather than leaving your code reliant on CUDA and merely using a compatibility-shim to run it on their GPUs.

That is why they both turned him down, I'm sure. It's not that they don't see the importance of CUDA, but that their strategy involves trying to peel people away from CUDA, rather than building essentially second-tier implementations of Nvidia's CUDA-native GPUs.

 

[CmdrShepard]

Nobody sane (rich enough?) is switching away from CUDA.

It works well, support for it is ubiquitous, and pretty much all AI and ML pipelines are designed around it, not to mention OptiX SDK and Iray.

 

[Shirou]

The overall vibe of this article is horrible.
OSS is run based upon contributors, it by no means has been signaled to not be discontinued.
Calling it dead in the water is a really distasteful take especially after the efforts of the developer.

 

[bit_user]

BTW, I think a better revenue strategy for the developer would've been to retain both oneAPI and ROCm/HIP support and see if he could find any CUDA users interested in sponsoring further development (i.e. features or optimizations).

Also, it's pretty clear that if AMD had wanted a CUDA clone, they could've made HIP be exactly that. It's already a very near-clone, which I think they differentiated just to avoid claims of copyright infringement.

 

[DiegoSynth]

ROCm is not equivalent either to oneAPI or CUDA. AMD has a CUDA-like API, called HIP.

Both AMD and Intel also have porting tools, which facilitate developers doing ports of codebases from CUDA to either oneAPI or HIP. Both companies would rather you switch from CUDA to these competing APIs, rather than leaving your code reliant on CUDA and merely using a compatibility-shim to run it on their GPUs.

That is why they both turned him down, I'm sure. It's not that they don't see the importance of CUDA, but that their strategy involves trying to peel people away from CUDA, rather than building essentially second-tier implementations of Nvidia's CUDA-native GPUs.

BUT it doesn't matter to end users. At the end of the day, what we need is an answer to this question: If I mount an AMD gpu on my motherboard, will I be able to run software (3d rendering or whatever) that runs CUDA code?
If the answer is "no", any further explanation may only be of the companies' interest.

 

[bit_user]

BUT it doesn't matter to end users. At the end of the day, what we need is an answer to this question: If I mount an AMD gpu on my motherboard, will I be able to run software (3d rendering or whatever) that runs CUDA code?
If the answer is "no", any further explanation may only be of the companies' interest.

Yes, I get it. And that's why I think he could probably find people & companies willing to fund further development on it.

As I said, I think the main reason AMD and Intel haven't (quite) cloned CUDA is out of fear of copyright infringement. A secondary reason is probably that they're hoping to peel away some software and get it to use HIP or oneAPI, instead. I doubt the latter strategy will be very successful.