Monday, July 8th 2024

AMD is Becoming a Software Company. Here's the Plan

Just a few weeks ago, AMD invited us to Barcelona as part of a roundtable, to share their vision for the future of the company, and to get our feedback. On site, were prominent AMD leadership, including Phil Guido, Executive Vice President & Chief Commercial Officer and Jack Huynh, Senior VP & GM, Computing and Graphics Business Group. AMD is making changes in a big way to how they are approaching technology, shifting their focus from hardware development to emphasizing software, APIs, and AI experiences. Software is no longer just a complement to hardware; it's the core of modern technological ecosystems, and AMD is finally aligning its strategy accordingly.

The major difference between AMD and NVIDIA is that AMD is a hardware company that makes software on the side to support its hardware; while NVIDIA is a software company that designs hardware on the side to accelerate its software. This is about to change, as AMD is making a pivot toward software. They believe that they now have the full stack of computing hardware—all the way from CPUs, to AI accelerators, to GPUs, to FPGAs, to data-processing and even server architecture. The only frontier left for AMD is software.
Fast Forward to Barcelona
We walked into the room in Barcelona expecting the usual fluff talk about how AI PC is the next big thing, and how it's all hands on deck to capture market share—we've heard that before, from pretty much everyone at Computex Taiwan. Well, we did get a substantial talk on how AMD's new Ryzen AI 300 series "Strix Point" processors are the tip of the spear for the company with AI PCs, and how it thinks that it brings a winning combination of hardware to see it through; but what we didn't expect was to get a glimpse into how much the company AMD is changing things around to gain competitiveness in this new world, which led to a stunning disclosure by the company.

AMD has "tripled our software engineering, and are going all-in on the software." This not only means bring in more people, but also allow people to change roles: "we moved some of our best people in the organization to support" these teams. When this transformation is completed, the company will more closely resemble contemporaries in the industry such as Intel and NVIDIA. AMD commented that in the past they were "silicon first, then we thought about SDKs, toolchains and then the ISVs (software development companies)." They continued "Our shift in strategy is to talk to ISVs first...to understand what the developers want enabled." which is a fundamental change to how new processors are created. I really like this quote: "the old AMD would just chase speeds and feeds. The new AMD is going to be AI software first, we know how to do silicon"—and I agree that this is the right path forward.

AMD of the Old: Why Hardware-first is Bad for a Hardware Company in IT
AMD's hardware-first approach to tech has met with limited market success. Despite having a CPU microarchitecture that at least matches Intel, the company barely commands a quarter of the market (both server and client processors combined); and despite its gaming GPUs being contemporary, it barely has a sixth of this market. This is not for a lack of performance—AMD makes some very powerful CPUs and GPUs, which are able to keep competitors on their toes. The number-one problem with AMD's technology has been relatively less engagement with the software vendor ecosystem—to make best use of the hardware's exclusive and unique capabilities through first-party software technologies—APIs, developer tools, resources, developer networking, and optimization.

For example, Radeon GPUs have had tessellation capabilities at least two generations ahead of NVIDIA, which was only exploited by developers after Microsoft standardized it in the DirectX 11 API, the same happened with Mantle and DirectX 12. In both cases, the X-factor NVIDIA enjoys is a software-first approach, the way it engages with developers, and more importantly, the install-base (over 75% of the discrete GPU market-share). There have been several such examples of AMD silicon packing exotic accelerators across its hardware stack that haven't been properly exploited by the software community. The reasons are usually the same—AMD has been a hardware-first company.

Why is Tesla a hotter stock than General Motors? Because General Motors is an automobile company that happens to use some technology in its vehicles; whereas Tesla is a tech company that happens to know automobile engineering. Tesla vehicles are software-defined devices that can transport you around. Tesla's approach to transportation has been to understand what consumers want or might need from a technology standpoint, and then building the hardware to achieve it. In the end, you know Tesla for its savvy cars, much in the same way that you know NVIDIA for GPUs that "just work," and like Tesla, NVIDIA's revenues are overwhelmingly made up of hardware sales—despite them being software-first, or experience-first. Another example of exactly this would be Apple who have built a huge ecosystem of software and services that is designed to work extremely well together, but also locks people in their "walled garden," enabling huge profits for the company in the process.

NVIDIA's Weakness
This is not to say that AMD has neglected software at all—far from it, the company has played nice-guy by keeping much of its software base open-source, through initiatives such as GPUOpen and ROCm, which are great resources for software developers, and we definitely love the support for open source. It's just that AMD has not treated software as its main product, that makes people buy their hardware and bring in the revenues. AMD is aware of this and wants "to create a unified architecture across our CPU and RDNA, which will let us simplify [the] software." This looks like an approach similar to Intel's OneAPI, which makes a lot of sense, but it will be a challenging project. NVIDIA's advantage here is that they have just one kind of accelerator—the GPU, which runs CUDA—a single API for all developers to learn, which enables them to solve a huge range of computing challenges on hardware ranging from $200 to $30,000.

On the other hand, this is also a weakness of NVIDIA, and an advantage for AMD. AMD has a rich IP portfolio of compute solutions, ranging from classic CPUs and GPUs, to XDNA FPGA chips (through the Xilinx acquisition), now they just need to bring them together, exposing a unified computing interface that makes it easy to strategically shift workloads between these core types, to maximize performance, cost, efficiency or both. Such a capability would give the company the ability to sell customers a single-product combined accelerator system comprised of components like a CPU, GPU and specialized FPGA(s)—similar to how you're buying an iPhone and not a screen, processor, 5G modem and battery to combine them on your own.

Enabling Software Developers
If you've sat through NVIDIA's GTC sessions like we have, barely 5-10% of the showtime is spent talking about NVIDIA hardware (their latest AI GPUs or accelerators up and down the stack), most of the talk is about first-party software solutions—problems to solve, solutions, software, API, developer tools, collaboration tools, bare-metal system software, and only then the hardware. AMD started its journey toward exactly this.

They are now talking to the major software companies, like Microsoft, Adobe and OpenAI, to learn what their plans are and what they need from a future hardware generation. AMD's roadmaps now show the company's plans several years into the future, so that their partners can learn what AMD is creating, so the software products can better utilize these new features.

Market Research
We got a detailed presentation from market research firm IDC, which AMD contracted to study the short- and medium-term future of AI PCs, and the notion that PCs with native acceleration will bring a disruptive change to computing. This happened before, when bricks became iPhones, when networks became the Internet, and when text-based prompts were banished for GUI interfaces. To be honest, generative AI has taken a life of its own, and is playing a crucial role in the mainstreaming of this new tech, but the current implementation relies on cloud-based acceleration. Running everything in the cloud comes with huge power usage and expensive NVIDIA GPUs are used in the process. Are people willing to buy a whole new device just to get some of this acceleration onto their devices for privacy and latency? This remains to be seen. Even with 50 TOPS, the NPU of AMD "Strix" and Intel "Lunar Lake" won't exactly zip through image generation, but make text-based LLMs viable, as would certain audiovisual effects such as Teams webcam background replacements, noise suppression, and even live translation.

AMD is aware of the challenges, especially after Intel (Meteor Lake) and Microsoft (Copilot) spammed us with "AI" everywhere, and huge chunks of the userbase fail to see the convincing arguments. Privacy and Security are on AMD's radar, and you need to "demonstrate that you actually increase productivity per workload. If you're asking people to spend more money [... you need to prove that] you can save hours per week....that could be worth the investment, [but] will require a massive education of the end-users." There is also a goal to give special love to "build the most innovative and disruptive form factors" for notebooks, so that people are like "wow, there's something new here". Specifically in the laptop space they are watching Qualcomm's Windows on Arm initiative very closely and want to make sure to "launch a product only when it's ready," and to also "address price-points below $1000."

Where Does AMD Begin in 2024?
What's the first stop in AMD's journey? It's to ensure that it's able to grow its market-share both on the client side with AI PCs, and on the data-center side, with its AI GPUs. For AI PCs, the company believes it has a winning product with the Ryzen AI 300 series "Strix Point" mobile processors, which it thinks are in a good position to ramp through 2024. What definitely helps is the fact that "Strix Point" is based on a relatively mature TSMC 4 nm foundry node, with which it can secure volumes; compared to Intel's "Lunar Lake" and upcoming "Arrow Lake," which are both expected to use TSMC's 3 nm foundry node. ASUS already announced a mid-July media event where it plans to launch dozens of AI PCs, all of which are powered by Ryzen AI 300 series chips, and meet Microsoft Copilot+ requirements. Over on the data-center side, AMD's MI300X accelerator is receiving spillover demand from competing NVIDIA H100 GPUs, and the company plans to continue investing in the software side of this solution, to bring in large orders from leading AI cloud-compute providers running popular AI applications.

The improvements to the software ecosystem will take some time, AMD is looking at a three to five year timeframe, and to support that, AMD has greatly increased their software engineer headcount as mentioned before. They have also accelerated their hardware development: "we are going to launch a new [Radeon] Instinct product every 12 months," which is a difficult task, but it helps react quicker to changes in the software markets and its demand. On the CPU side, the company "now has two CPU teams, one does n+1 [next generation] the other n+2 [two generations ahead]," which reminds us a bit of Intel's tick-tock strategy, which was more silicon manufacturing focused of course. When asked about Moore's Law and its demise, the company also commented that it is exploring "AI in chip design to go beyond place and route," and that "yesterday's war is more rasterization, more ray tracing, more bandwidth," the challenges of the next generations are not only hardware, but software support for nurturing relations with software developers plays a crucial role. AMD even thinks that the eternal tug-of-war between CPU and GPU could shift in the future: "we can't think of AI as a checkbox/gimmick feature like USB—AI could become the hero."

What's heartening though is that AMD has made the bold move of mobilizing resources toward hiring software talent over acquiring another hardware company like it usually does when its wallet is full—this will pay off in the coming years.
Add your own comment

139 Comments on AMD is Becoming a Software Company. Here's the Plan

#51
rv8000
ir_cowIf AMD can't make good drivers for their own GPUs, how can anyone trust them to be a software company?
Are you still trying to crossfire some 3850s or something? “Bad drivers” hasn’t really been a thing for 2+ years now. Strictly from a UI, accessibility, and unification standpoint, the actual drivers AMD provide are much better than what Nvidia offers when it comes to gaming; the Nvidia Beta APP is still an abomination lacking feature parity to AMD.

Both vendors will still have bugs, but no need to perpetuate the myth.
Posted on Reply
#52
AusWolf
A Computer GuyWith Windows becoming more intrusive maybe it's time for AMD to partner to produce a serious alternative desktop? Linux + Steam + AMD = The future of desktop gaming? :rolleyes:
Combine that with affordable hardware, and I'm game!
Posted on Reply
#53
Vayra86
Assimilatortl;dr right decision, wrong reason, way wrong timing.
This is the story of AMD's life unfortunately
A Computer GuyWith Windows becoming more intrusive maybe it's time for AMD to partner to produce a serious alternative desktop? Linux + Steam + AMD = The future of desktop gaming? :rolleyes:
I think AMD has the gaming market captured in its own way. Those handhelds we got now are also driven by AMD and they're neat. Real neat.

Still, then you think of marketing and you wonder why AMD's logo doesn't briefly appear when you boot up your Deck, right?

AMD should have been all over this. They're still not presenting themselves as the gaming hardware company, I don't get it at all. They have everything except any Intel PC on lockdown! They didn't follow up proper on the RT push - not even by saying loudly and repeatedly that it ain't ready and they're biding their time. They just don't say anything, there was this one burp many moons ago about them waiting for RT to appear in the midrange... and here we are. They're grossly behind. You'd think they'd have taken that time proper to get up to speed, or otherwise have a marketing story why its not required.

None of all that. Now they're becoming a software company. And they'll make lots of software I have no doubt. But then there's selling it.
Posted on Reply
#54
TechLurker
I just want them to succeed and bring more competition instead of still being stuck "chasing" the lead. Improving software would help go a long way; moreso if they can democratize it with more open-source solutions that can still be competitive. Heck, they already have majority control in the console and gaming portable space and could leverage improved software to make it much easier to port games onto AMD and Linux faster and more easily. Aside from Sony's special memory chip, there aren't exactly any ultra-proprietary elements in consoles that should be held back from the PC space.

I also wonder if they'll start leveraging their Xilinx IP to provide dedicated RT/AI capabilities that can be repurposed when not in use for gaming or rendering.
Posted on Reply
#55
Vayra86
OnasiThis honestly feels like something that should have started the moment AMD acquired ATI. And then they wasted that momentum on weird initiatives like pushing APUs as the “future of heterogeneous computing” and making GPUs with massive compute potential (higher than that of NVIDIA at the time), but with absolutely no software stack to even support it. It’s good that they finally woken up to the reality that apart from console chips the Radeon division was essentially a dead weight stuck in limbo for a decade now, but they have to actually commit to transforming themselves this time around and prepare contingencies other than banking heavily on the AI fad.
Yeah at the time that whole strategy did sound like a plan though right? This software company thing strikes me as similar. It feels similarly unfocused, not really worked out, just general ideas flying over the table there about some sort of new direction while keeping the old. Everyone feels that something is needed and that it is probably found 'in software'. But there's no strategy involved any deeper than 'we need to cover this space'. No shit, sherlock.

You know what it reminds me of? Volkswagen 'switching to the EV'. They've produced some okay EV's but nothing special in any sort of way, while the competition is racing past them left and right, both in the West and East. They're still making ICE's, still spending tons of resources on it, still really not changing anything and thinking they can do EV's 'on the side'. It really spells lack of commitment, and I think AMD is guilty of the same thing. Its the story of their GPU architectures' lives too. Good start, sometimes a good followup, and then things stall again. The only space where they keep their commitment (renewed...) is CPU.
Posted on Reply
#56
dragontamer5788
AssimilatorYeah it's very much a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. My biggest fear is that 2029 rolls around, AMD has finally got some decent software, the AI bubble bursts, all the software engineers get let go and the software gets outsourced, and the company squanders the goodwill they managed to build in that intervening half-decade. That would completely destroy any future possibility of getting into businesses, and probably end AMD as a company.

tl;dr right decision, wrong reason, way wrong timing.
Aside from NVidia, who is even competing in this space?

Software wise, its Vulkan and DirectX12Ultimate for up-to-date graphics programming... and of course CUDA. Intel has OneAPI going but who knows how long that will take for Intel to cancel / change methodologies??

AMD ROCm, as bad as it is compared to NVidia, continues to improve. Further investments into ROCm push AMD ahead of everyone else. NVidia hardware continues to grow in price far exceeding the hardware, the only thing holding back AMD is the software.

The "AI stuff" for coding isn't even that much of an effort. Port some GPU kernels to TensorFlow or whatever else is popular in the AI Field. The bulk of the infrastructure to get ROCm loaded and running is kernel device drivers, the llvm clang compiler, a whole slew of infrastructure libraries and compilers + assemblers + linkers for AMD's CDNA and RDNA GPU instruction sets.
Posted on Reply
#57
Sound_Card
rv8000Are you still trying to crossfire some 3850s or something? “Bad drivers” hasn’t really been a thing for 2+ years now. Strictly from a UI, accessibility, and unification standpoint, the actual drivers AMD provide are much better than what Nvidia offers when it comes to gaming; the Nvidia Beta APP is still an abomination lacking feature parity to AMD.

Both vendors will still have bugs, but no need to perpetuate the myth.
I had crossfire HD 6950's and not a single problem.

This is a great move by AMD. If they can unify their hardware through software, this would be a major advantage over the other companies. More importantly, they need to execute on releasing products and focus on being first to market for once.
Posted on Reply
#58
AdmiralThrawn
P4-630The underdogs.
AMD is a multibillion dollar company. They are not underdogs.
Posted on Reply
#59
dragontamer5788
AdmiralThrawnAMD is a multibillion dollar company. They are not underdogs.
NVidia is a 3 Trillion dollar company and has very few investments into CPUs.

AMD is mostly a CPU company (by revenue) with a sizable GPU side-project and is only worth Billions. They're absolutely the underdogs in this scenario. AMD's GPUs are 2nd best in the world but 2nd best is still much much smaller than NVidia in the great scheme of things.

"Multibillion" is surprisingly passe in today's economy. We're in the age of Trillions.
Posted on Reply
#60
DaemonForce
I get that there's a HUGE dropoff after #1 and that's a pretty ridiculous thing even in thought.
I haven't had AMD driver issues in ~6 years but tuning for stability has been a nightmare.
Gotta get things exactly right, which is also insane to think about.
When AMD starts to hyperfocus on the software side of things, the rest will come very quickly.
Everything we do in this computer space has us marked as users first. We need new software.
Posted on Reply
#61
Ravenas
Thank you for the post. Great information.
Posted on Reply
#62
Neo_Morpheus
evernessinceI hope that AMD continues to push open source because I frankly do not want even more features in games that can only be used on a specific video card brand.
Same here but given how we “suddenly” went from fight lock-in tech (PhysX, Hairworks, GameWorks, etc) to “all worship” DLSS i dont blame them for trying.
Hell, the local Ngreedia fanbois love to go after anyone that dares stating this or saying “I support FSR for the greater good of sustaining an open PC gaming platform “
AusWolfThis a million times over. Unfortunately, I read the opposite in articles like this one.
Please see above.
ir_cowIf AMD can't make good drivers for their own GPUs, how can anyone trust them to be a software company?
This is really sad coming from a staff member that should know better. The bad drivers is a lie, please stop spreading FUD.
NordicIf you want a steam deck like experience get Bazzite.
Also ChimeraOS, really nice experience.

And actually, the devs of both distros are working together in making both better.
Vayra86Still, then you think of marketing and you wonder why AMD's logo doesn't briefly appear when you boot up your Deck, right?
I agree with you that they should do more, but i think one of the reasons why everyone loves to work with AMD is that they dont pull things like this.
But yes, they should at least, show their logo somewhere.
Posted on Reply
#63
ir_cow
Neo_MorpheusThis is really sad coming from a staff member that should know better. The bad drivers is a lie, please stop spreading FUD.
So I'm not allowed to have independent thought? My personal experience with AMD drivers has been sub-par. Yes it is subjective, but it makes me question how well AMD will do in other ventures. I'm sure it's a different team of people, but it just looks bad on them.
Posted on Reply
#64
Makaveli
NordicThis already exists. Valve has made Linux gaming viable. 90% or more games on steam work out of the box and perform well on Linux. No technical knowledge necessary. You don't need to install and drivers on Linux. AMD just works. AMD doesn't need to do a thing because their Linux drivers are amazing.

If you want to give Linux a try, check out EndeavorOS or Nobara. If you want a steam deck like experience get Bazzite.
Does that 90% include games with anti cheat?
ir_cowSo I'm not allowed to have independent thought? My personal experience with AMD drivers has been sub-par. Yes it is subjective, but it makes me question how well AMD will do in other ventures. I'm sure it's a different team of people, but it just looks bad on them.
It does go both ways i've been using ATI Radeons still the 64DDR model so like almost 20 years now and my experience has been above par.

I haven't had any major issues that I said you know what I need to switch.
Posted on Reply
#65
evernessince
ir_cowSo I'm not allowed to have independent thought? My personal experience with AMD drivers has been sub-par. Yes it is subjective, but it makes me question how well AMD will do in other ventures. I'm sure it's a different team of people, but it just looks bad on them.
I don't think the issue he had was that you have an opinion but that you expressed it as a broadly applicable fact that AMD has bad drivers. If you are speaking for yourself you need to be verbose about it as in your case you are TPU staff. Had your first comment been "My person experience with AMD drives has been sub-par" is a good example of a measured comment but unfortunately in this case it's your 2nd stab at it. In addition, working for a company does come with some compromises in terms of free speech as your actions reflect on said company. If something could be considered inflammatory extra consideration should be taken and there's always the option of not commenting and letting whatever TPU's stance on a specific matter stand. I have seen quiet a few staff members express opinions as of late that do not align with TPUs own reviews or articles on the respective topics and often have only served to further inflame the comments section. If TPU doesn't already, it should have rules in regards staff member conduct in the forums / comments.

You could also hold your opinion but also acknowledge the strides AMD has taken in regards to their driver quality. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Posted on Reply
#66
ir_cow
@evernessince TPU staff have independent thought. We can say whatever we please outside a review. Also not all staff are reviewers either. Remember that.

I didn't say TPU hates AMD and that is exactly what you are making it seem like.
Posted on Reply
#67
unwind-protect
When was the last time that the AMD drivers caused memory corruption? I honestly don't know.
Posted on Reply
#68
Neo_Morpheus
MakaveliDoes that 90% include games with anti cheat?
You know, given how many (maybe all?) anticheat software runs (ring 0 access in the windows kernel) I am actually ok that they dont run in Linux at all.

Some people way smarter than I have said that the anticheat software should be server side, not client side.

We have enough to worry in our systems to now have a program with absolute access to it.
Posted on Reply
#69
dir_d
@W1zzard Great Article.
I do believe that AMD is late on this by many years but can still turn this around. I know that AMD wants to start at the high end but it would be nice if ROCm trickles down further than just the 7900XTX. I read higher up that the tinkers don't dabble on high end hardware and i agree. If AMD wants help "Open Source" they need to extend this down to the lower models so other can play with APIs for cheap.

On the topic of Marketing, like others have been stating if they can get Sony, Microsoft and Steam to splash screen the AMD logo even for 3 sec on boot it would help exponentially. This could help get rid of that stigma that's been around for ages and may bring in some more sales. Which in turn adds up to be able to add more software engineers in the long run.
Posted on Reply
#70
Neo_Morpheus
dir_dwould be nice if ROCm trickles down further than just the 7900XTX
I’m trying to find the post from an AMD employee, but the gist is that it does work on other AMD gpus (as old as Vega VII i think) but AMD itself hasnt “officially tested/certified” hence why are not listed.

Yes, I know, that’s completely BS on AMD part, but some have indeed got ROCm to work on other gpus besides the 7900 xtx.
Posted on Reply
#71
evernessince
ir_cow@evernessince TPU staff have independent thought. We can say whatever we please outside a review. Also not all staff are reviewers either. Remember that.

I didn't say TPU hates AMD and that is exactly what you are making it seem like.
I pointed out (with a whole lot of nuance that you aren't mentioning) that your actions reflect on TPU, particularly when your comments don't make it clear if it's a personal opinion or not.

I'm not trying to make it seem like anything, I pointed out the facts of the discussion thus far. If you think that your own words reflect badly on TPU, there's an easy solution. Condition your statements as personal ones or cool the rhetoric.

I'm hoping you take one of those options but given the malicious use of the lol emoji I'm not holding my breath.
Posted on Reply
#73
ir_cow
evernessinceI'm hoping you take one of those options but given the malicious use of the lol emoji I'm not holding my breath.
I was laughing inside that you think staff views should always align with TPU reviews. That's is a bit extreme in my opinion.

If you want to attach "nuance" and made up rules to my original comment, that's on you.
Posted on Reply
#74
evernessince
ir_cowI was laughing inside that you think staff views should always align with TPU reviews. That's is a bit extreme in my opinion.

If you want to attach "nuance" and made up rules to my original comment, that's on you.
This was your original comment for reference:
ir_cowIf AMD can't make good drivers for their own GPUs, how can anyone trust them to be a software company?
I didn't attach nuance to your comment, I pointed out the complete lack of it. The "nuance" I had in my comment was recommendations as to how you could word it better but clearly you'd rather fight than consider constructive criticism.

"you think staff views should always align with TPU reviews" is simply a scarecrow argument on your part, not what I said. You are trying to strip my argument of context because you know such a statement doesn't stand when taken in whole.

"I was laughing inside" reacting with an emoji is an externalization.
Posted on Reply
#75
RJARRRPCGP
Jismit became very obvious that in those days clockspeed was not everything. There where chips out there like AMD or Cyrix that where clocked slower but executed instructions faster. Many people did not understand that concept.
Just like how multiple automobile manufacturers, realized that moon-high-RPMs are not the answer to everything, and thus started using turbos. Back in the '00s, that was their version of the stereotypical P4, LOL. Also, thus going back to longer-stroke.
Now back to computers, I like how they went to having more IPC.

Interestingly, a Northwood 2.4 I had, acted more like an Athlon! 2.8 GHz performed well, despite people claiming I would need a lot more than 2.8 GHz!
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Oct 6th, 2024 12:41 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts