dream-textures VS HIP

I'm a long time advanced AE user and would gladly give feedback according to how I envision a nice workflow to be if you want. I recently got into dream textures for blender, which I think is a great reference for the direction things could be heading. It's still not viable for consistent video, but I love how they expose multiple control nets and their weights to be animatable for example. I also suggested them exposed (animatable) prompt weights, which the author now also plans for future release. I see you have such things planned as well for this plugin so big thumbs up!

Dream Textures (SD for Blender) - https://github.com/carson-katri/dream-textures

Yes, and it can also automatically bake the texture onto the original UV map instead of the projected UVs. The guide is here: https://github.com/carson-katri/dream-textures/wiki/Texture-Projection

Dream AI latest release: https://github.com/carson-katri/dream-textures/releases

>ROCm or HIP?

I'm not sure that's even the right question to ask. Afaik ROCm is the name of that entire tech stack and HIP is AMD's equivalent to CUDA C++ (they basically replicated the API and replaced every "CUDA" by "hip", they have functions called "hipmalloc" and "hipmemcpy").

The repository is located at https://github.com/ROCm/HIP.

Is it perhaps because they want people to use HIP?

> HIP is very thin and has little or no performance impact over coding directly in CUDA mode.

> The HIPIFY tools automatically convert source from CUDA to HIP.

1. https://github.com/ROCm/HIP

AMD has released HIP and a tool called HIPIFY which kind of behaves like this but at the source level¹. Rather than try and just translate CUDA to work on AMD compute they are more focused on higher level tooling.

Currently they seem to have a particular focus on AI frameworks and tools like PyTorch/Tensorflow/ONNX. They have sponsored and helped with a lot of PyTorch development for example, so PyTorch support for AMD is much better than it was this time last year².

¹(https://github.com/ROCm/HIP)

²(https://pytorch.org/blog/experience-power-pytorch-2.0/)

> what would be the point for someone to add ROCm support to various pieces of software which currently require CUDA

It isn't just old cards though, CUDA is a point of centralization on a single provider during a time when access to that providers higher end cards isn't even available and that is causing people to look elsewhere.

ROCm supports CUDA through the included HIP projects...

https://github.com/ROCm/HIP

https://github.com/ROCm/HIPCC

https://github.com/ROCm/HIPIFY

The later will regex replace your CUDA methods with HIP methods. If it is as easy as running hipify on your codebase (or just coding to HIP apis), it certainly makes sense to do so.

AMD's equivalent is HIP [1], for sufficiently flexible definitions of "equivalent". I can't speak to how complete/correct/performant it is (I'm just a guy running tutorial/toy-level ML stuff on an RDNA1 card), but part of AMD's problem is that it might not practically matter how well they do this because the broader ecosystem support specifically for the CUDA stack is so entrenched.

[1] https://github.com/ROCm-Developer-Tools/HIP

From what I know, modern GPUs are still programmed with C++ exclusively. See CUDA [0] for Nvidia and ROCm [1] for AMD.

Why is this? Why Rust is not loved there?

[0] https://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/

[1] https://github.com/ROCm-Developer-Tools/HIP

Go ahead and try to ship ROCm code that works on multiple consumer graphics cards on Linux, MacOS, and Windows. As an example of how much AMD cares about it, the installation notes linked to in the readme returns a 404.