Re:Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster
by edwinjones on Thursday August 07, 2025 @06:30PM
(#44831201)
I agree. AMD should just go all in on vulkan I think, The ROCm compatibility list is terrible compared to...every modern device and probably some ancient gpus that can be made to work with vulkan as well.
Considering they created mantle, you would think it would be the obvious move too.
Re:Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster
by MindSpunk on Thursday August 07, 2025 @09:37PM
(#44832463)
Vulkan is Mantle. Vulkan was developed out of the original Mantle API that AMD brought to Khronos. What do you mean "AMD should just go all in on Vulkan"? They've been "all in" on Vulkan from the beginning because they were one of the lead authors of the API.
Re:Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster
by dagmx on Friday August 08, 2025 @12:10AM
(#44833317)
Vulkan is a derivative of mantle sure, but it is quite different than what Mantle was.
There was a period in between where AMD basically EOL’d mantle and Vulkan wasn’t even in the works yet.
Re:Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster
by edwinjones on Friday August 08, 2025 @03:18AM
(#44834417)
I would say vulkan derives from mantle, mantle development stopped some time ago.
Re:Benchmark Framework Desktop Mainboard and 4-node cluster
by zozbot234 on Friday August 08, 2025 @03:00AM
(#44834304)
iGPUs (and NPUs) are not very useful for LLM inference, they only help somewhat in the prompt pre-processing phase. The CPU has worse bulk compute but far better access to system memory bandwidth, so it wins in token generation where that's the main factor.
My conspiracy theory is that it would help if contributors kept the Vulkan Compute proposed support up to date with new Ollama versions; no maintainer wants to deal with out-of-date pull req's.
ROCm support is not wonderful. It's certainly worse for an end user to deal with than Vulkan, which usually 'just works'.