I doubt there is major difference. And if anything, AMD caught up to Nvidia in other areas. CUDA isn't used because Nvidia hardware is better. If it was about hardware, Nvidia wouldn't have used lock-in.

AMD doesn't even have the performance crown, by a long shot. NVIDIA did hold that pretty much non-stop since... Maxwell 2?

As of no difference in compute workloads, I can put Blender as an example: https://techgage.com/article/blender-2-91-best-cpus-gpus-for...

(6900 XT is 20.6 TFLOPS FP32, RTX 3090 is 35.6 TFLOPS FP32 _and_ also has the tensor cores, AMD can't win there because of sheer brute force)

And AMD's software stack removes them from consideration for a huge extent of compute workloads. If they aren't ready to have a proper one, it doesn't matter how good how much their hardware is good or not, it might as well be a brick.

I don't see Nvidia leading in raw compute power, both in GPGPU and in gaming. At most there will be parity going forward. Which will prompt Nvidia to double down on lock-ins like CUDA.

Either way, CUDA should be gone for good and replaced with something that's not tied to specific GPU. I welcome competition in hardware. I have no respect for lock-in shenanigans.

They’re leading right now by a bit, and when it comes to workloads involving tensor cores or ray tracing they’re burying AMD.

I wish CUDA wasn’t vendor locked, too, but AMD and Intel need to start taking GPGPU software seriously. They’ve dug themselves a massive hole at this point.

I don't see a need to whitewash Nvidia here. They are nasty lock-in proponents. That doesn't mean AMD and Intel shouldn't invest more in improving the software side of things. Which I think they are doing (like the actual post example), so it should be getting better.