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.