They weren’t interested in creating an open solution. Both intel and AMD have been somewhat short sighted and looked to recreate their own cuda, and the mistrust of each other has prevented them from a solution for both of them.

Disclaimer: I work on this stuff for Intel

At least for Intel, that is just not true. Intel's DPC++ is as open as it gets. It implements a Khronos standard (SYCL), most of the development is happening in public on GitHub, it's permissively licensed, it has a viable backend infrastructure (with implementations for both CUDA and HIP). There's also now a UXL foundation with the goal of creating an "open standard accelerator software ecosystem".

Neat. Now release 48gb GPUs to the hobbyist devs and we’ll use intel for LLMs!

Apple is your savior if you are looking at it as a CPU/GPU/NPU package for consumer/hobbyists.

I decided that I have to start looking at Apple's AI docs

The Intel A770 is currently $230 and 48GB of GDDR6 is only like a hundred bucks, so what people really want is to combine these things and pay $350 for that GPU with 48GB of memory. Heck, even double that price would have people lining up.

Apple will sell you a machine with 48GB of memory for thousands of dollars but plenty of people can't afford that, and even then the GPU is soldered so you can't just put four of them in one machine to get more performance and memory. The top end 40-core M4 GPUs only have performance comparable to a single A770, which is itself not even that fast of a discrete GPU.

Actual links to the github would be much appreciated, as well a half-page tuto on how to get this up an running on a simple Linux+Intel setup.

This link should cover everything: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/tools/onea...

This is all great, but how can we trust this will be supported next year? After Xeon Phi, Omnipath, and a host of other killed projects, Intel is approaching Google levels of mean time to deprecation.

What’s happening with intel wino? That seemed like their cuda ish effort.

OpenCL was born as a cuda-alike that could be apply to GPUs from AMD and NVIDIA, and general purpose CPUs. NVIDIA briefly embraced it (in order to woo Apple?) and then just about abandoned it to focus more on cuda. NVIDIA abandoning OpenCL meant that it just didn't thrive. Intel and AMD both embraced OpenCL. Though admittedly I don't know the more recent history of OpenCL.