i-love-compute VS HIP

Good luck. Regarding amd opencl on linux you can find more resources and install scripts here

From the Arch wiki, which has a list of GPU runtimes (but not TPU or QPU runtimes) and arch package names: OpenCL, SYCL, ROCm, HIP,: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/GPGPU :

> GPGPU stands for General-purpose computing on graphics processing units.

- "PyTorch OpenCL Support" https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/issues/488

- Blender re: removal of OpenCL support in 2021 :

> The combination of the limited Cycles split kernel implementation, driver bugs, and stalled OpenCL standard has made maintenance too difficult. We can only make the kinds of bigger changes we are working on now by starting from a clean slate. We are working with AMD and Intel to get the new kernels working on their GPUs, possibly using different APIs (such as CYCL, HIP, Metal, …).

- https://gitlab.com/illwieckz/i-love-compute

- https://github.com/vosen/ZLUDA

- https://github.com/RadeonOpenCompute/clang-ocl

AMD ROCm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROCm

AMD ROcm supports Pytorch, TensorFlow, MlOpen, rocBLAS on NVIDIA and AMD GPUs:

>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.