News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:2080 Ti TensorFlow GPU Benchmarks by TTPrograms on Thursday October 11, 2018 @06:59PM (#18197710)
If AMD developed CUDA transpilers / DL backends / CUDNN equivalents people would switch over in a heartbeat. It's fully their fault for not investing in the software.

If they did that and had a card that got 2x performance / $ or more I would switch in a heartbeat.

Re:2080 Ti TensorFlow GPU Benchmarks by JoshuaJB on Friday October 12, 2018 @12:11AM (#18199151)
AMD has a CUDA Transpiler (https://github.com/ROCm-Developer-Tools/HIP) and a multitude of other open source libraries through GPUOpen ( https://gpuopen.com/professional-compute/).

The quality and open source nature of their tools has resulted in much of my research group (real-time vision) increasingly and voluntarily moving to work on AMD platforms (we were previously almost exclusively using CUDA).

Re:2080 Ti TensorFlow GPU Benchmarks by ratsimihah on Friday October 12, 2018 @04:47AM (#18200139)
But the GPU needs to support ROCm, which is quite recent right? e.g. The MBP 2015's Radeon m370x doesn't seem to support it.
Re:2080 Ti TensorFlow GPU Benchmarks by gcb0 on Friday October 12, 2018 @10:26AM (#18201634)
less recent than a 1080 or 2080ti
Re:2080 Ti TensorFlow GPU Benchmarks by ratsimihah on Friday October 12, 2018 @10:53AM (#18201807)
2080 Ti is brand new :/
Re:2080 Ti TensorFlow GPU Benchmarks by auslander on Friday October 12, 2018 @03:08AM (#18199823)
Here is it: https://github.com/ROCm-Developer-Tools/HIP

Also, AMD does not limit FP performance on consumer cards.

Re:2080 Ti TensorFlow GPU Benchmarks by twtw on Saturday October 13, 2018 @12:25PM (#18208718)
> Also, AMD does not limit FP performance on consumer cards.

I don't understand this meme. The consumer cards are different chips with slow fp64 hardware. In what sense is that "limiting" performance relative to the enterprise cards?

Re:2080 Ti TensorFlow GPU Benchmarks by auslander on Saturday October 13, 2018 @09:18PM (#18210867)
On AMD, if I'm not not mistaken, FP16 is twice of FP32, as it should be

"For their consumer cards, NVIDIA has severely limited FP16 CUDA performance. GTX 1080’s FP16 instruction rate is 1/128th its FP32 instruction rate, or after you factor in vec2 packing, the resulting theoretical performance (in FLOPs) is 1/64th the FP32 rate, or about 138 GFLOPs."

https://www.anandtech.com/show/10325/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-...

"FP16 performance is 1/64th and FP64 is 1/32th of FP32 performance."

https://blog.inten.to/hardware-for-deep-learning-part-3-gpu-...