34
submitted 4 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] [email protected] 21 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

It's funny how the article asks the question, but completely fails to answer it.

Nvidia discovered there was a demand for compute in datacenters that could be met with powerful GPU's, and they were quick to respond to it, and they had the resources to focus on it strongly, because of their huge success and high profitability in the GPU market.

AMD also saw the market, and wanted to pursue it, but just over a decade ago where it began to clearly show the high potential for profitability, AMD was near bankrupt, and was very hard pressed to finance developments on GPU and compute in datacenters. AMD really tried the best they could, and was moderately successful from a technology perspective, but Nvidia already had a head start, and the proprietary development system CUDA was already an established standard that was very hard to penetrate.

Intel simply fumbled the ball from start to finish. After a decade of trying to push ARM down from having the mobile crown by far, investing billions or actually the equivalent of ARM's total revenue. They never managed to catch up to ARM despite they had the better production process at the time. This was the main focus of Intel, and Intel believed that GPU would never be more than a niche product.
So when intel tried to compete on compute for datacenters, they tried to do it with X86 chips, One of their most bold efforts was to build a monstrosity of a cluster of Celeron chips, which of course performed laughably bad compared to Nvidia! Because as it turns out, the way forward at least for now, is indeed the massively parralel compute capability of a GPU, which Nvidia has refined for decades, only with (inferior) competition from AMD.

But despite the lack of competition, Nvidia did not slow down, in fact with increased profits, they only grew bolder in their efforts. Making it even harder to catch up.

Now AMD has had more money to compete for a while, and they do have some decent compute units, but Nvidia remains ahead and the CUDA problem is still there, so for AMD to really compete with Nvidia, they have to be better to attract customers. That's a very tall order against Nvidia that simply seems to never stop progressing. So the only other option for AMD is to sell a bit cheaper. Which I suppose they have to.

AMD and Intel were the obvious competitors, everybody else is coming from even further behind.
But if I had to make a bet, it would be on Huawei. Huawei has some crazy good developers, and Trump is basically forcing them to figure it out themselves, because he is blocking Huawei from using both AMD and Nvidia AI chips. And the chips will probably be made by Chinese SMIC, because they are also prevented from using advanced production in the west, most notably TSMC.
China will prevail, because it's become a national project, and they have a massive talent mass, so nothing can stop it now.

IMO USA would clearly have been better off allowing China to use American chips. Now China will soon compete directly on that too.

[-] [email protected] 13 points 4 days ago

The answer is monopoly capitalism. We are unarmed against globalist monopolies.

We need to break up monopolists and massively fund small competitors. Its not that hard.

[-] [email protected] 12 points 4 days ago

Nvidia did have competition 25 years ago, but it also had a culture of winning at all costs. Where people tried to build in openness and objectivity into the graphics industry, Nvidia worked to turn it to their benefit.

If a standard didn't benefit them, they made an alternative and then pressured it's use in the industry. If a benchmark didn't show them in a good light they'd "optimise" it in a way that would corrupt what it was trying measure. So often there was the open way of doing something and the Nvidia way, and Nvidia would use its market position to make sure people used the Nvidia way. This normally left the competition at least a generation behind.

From day one they've had an anticompetitive nature and if Radeon hadn't become part of AMD, Nvidia would have no competition. ATI died and only becoming part of a company with other product lines saved Radeon. If the FTC was still anything to be reckoned with, Nvidia would have been split up a long time ago.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Not only are Nvidia’s AI chips faster and more powerful than most other chips out there, Naji said the firm has also “developed the broadest ecosystem” of developers and software.
“And so it's just so much easier to … build an application, build an AI model on top of those chips,” he said.

Where are the other semiconductor companies? The Intels and AMDs of the world, surely they can build an AI chip and software somebody wants?

The article first mentions the reason Intel and AMD has a hard time competing (the development/software for AI are all focused on running on Nvidia and CUDA) and then asks where they are?
The chips are here already... well almost

https://www.amd.com/en/products/graphics/workstations/radeon-ai-pro/ai-9000-series/amd-radeon-ai-pro-r9700.html
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/243916/intel-arc-pro-b60-graphics/specifications.html

[-] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

The card you linked just shows how AMD isn't really competitive, 32GB at 640 GB/s for a 2025 pro ai card?

The 5090 already does 32GB at 1.6TB/s

The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell does 96GB at 1.6TB/s

[-] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

They will most definitely be cheaper than the 5090 though, and if 640GB/s is good then the AMD card could be interesting as it matches the 32GB. But then it falls down to software support and Nvidia gets a really good lead in usability again.

And Intels card is even further behind:

  • Memory 24 GB GDDR6
  • Graphics Memory Bandwidth 456 GB/s
this post was submitted on 30 May 2025
34 points (100.0% liked)

Buy European

5965 readers
498 users here now

Overview:

The community to discuss buying European goods and services.


Matrix Chat


Rules:

  • Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. No direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments.

  • Do not use this community to promote Nationalism/Euronationalism. This community is for discussing European products/services and news related to that. For other topics the following might be of interest:

  • Include a disclaimer at the bottom of the post if you're affiliated with the recommendation.

  • No russian suggestions.

Feddit.uk's instance rules apply:

  • No racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia or xenophobia
  • No incitement of violence or promotion of violent ideologies
  • No harassment, dogpiling or doxxing of other users
  • Do not share intentionally false or misleading information
  • Do not spam or abuse network features.
  • Alt accounts are permitted, but all accounts must list each other in their bios.
  • No generative AI content

Benefits of Buying Local:

local investment, job creation, innovation, increased competition, more redundancy.

European Instances

Lemmy:

Matrix:


Related Communities:

Buy Local:

Continents:

European:

Buying and Selling:

Boycott:

Countries:

Companies:

Stop Publisher Kill Switch in Games Practice:


Banner credits: BYTEAlliance


founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS