Re:Testing AMD's Giant MI300X
by singhrac on Tuesday June 25, 2024 @02:01PM
(#40791533)
The problem is that we all have a lot of FUD (for good reasons). It's on AMD to solve that problem publically. They need to make it easier to understand what is supported so far and what's not.
For example, for bitandbytes (a common dependency in LLM world) there's a ROCm fork that the AMD maintainers are trying to merge in (https://github.com/TimDettmers/bitsandbytes/issues/107). Meanwhile an Intel employee merged a change that made a common device abstraction (presumably usable by AMD + Apple + Intel etc.).
There's a lot of that right now - super popular package that is CUDA-only is navigating how to make it work correctly with any other accelerator. We just need more information on what is supported.
For example, for bitandbytes (a common dependency in LLM world) there's a ROCm fork that the AMD maintainers are trying to merge in (https://github.com/TimDettmers/bitsandbytes/issues/107). Meanwhile an Intel employee merged a change that made a common device abstraction (presumably usable by AMD + Apple + Intel etc.).
There's a lot of that right now - super popular package that is CUDA-only is navigating how to make it work correctly with any other accelerator. We just need more information on what is supported.