3d ago
I tried ROCm. I bought a supported card (RX570/RX580 series). Within 12 months, AMD dropped support. Newer versions of ROCm didn't work with the card. Older versions didn't actually work either, since all other tooling assumed newer versions. Dependency hell. When things kinda started working in one context, where I could use old tooling (not the one I wanted to use ROCm in), it CUPy was slower than CPU, and then hard crashed my computer randomly. I read a web page that the card can either act as HIP or a graphics card, but not both at the same time. I have no idea if that's right, but if it is, it's dumb.

AMD had no support. Card maker said this didn't fall under warranty. I got burned over and over.

I bought NVidia. It just worked.

I'm working on a potentially major piece of infrastructure, and AMD is accumulating debt. If it worked out-of-the-gate, I imagine we would have kept support. Within 6 more months, we'll be NVidia-specific. AMD will be that much further in the hole for support.

I'd love for ROCm to win, since I think open is critical here. On the other hand, I can't imagine it will. AMD would need to run this as a loss leader for a while, and engineer this at a level to get this competitive with NVidia.

A half-baked product like ROCm seems like a money hole for everyone involved. Customers get burned, and I can't imagine AMD comes out positive.

In the meantime, NVidia is minting gold here.

It's something that has very little uptake because it's not supported on mainline GPUs?

I want to use it for compute on something like a rx 6800 and to my knowledge can't

I have been using ROCm for 2y+. The investment in this infrastructure was a big mistake. The biggest burner was the need to do a clean install on each new ROCm release. Clean here means manually finding and deleting all traces from the previous ROCm version, and recompilation of apps like pytorch. Good upgrades took hours, bad ones days ... . Finally I settled to freeze the system and not touch it anymore until retirement of the cards, hopefully soon.
Is this like 3rd or 4th GPGPU programming framework to come out of AMD? They will never get any adoption at this rate.
esistgut this show some numbers on ROCm performances.
Having to choose between Steam support and ROCm drivers is a pain - it stops tinkering.

Almost everyone on Linux will have experience of breaking their drivers at some point, and installing another alternate set is a big risk.

It seems silly to not have OpenCL and HIP access without having to use this alternate stack.

Add an indication as to where 'ROCm' comes from. Wikipedia redirects to [0]. Still have no clue where the 'm' comes from (is it the last letter of platfor'm'?)


There should be some Rust based generic GPU programming solution that's not tied to any specific GPU. That should be able to replace CUDA and Co. in the long run.