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

#101
AusWolf
wolfDon't they just! Plenty of other examples don't get called out however, some in this very thread, so it seems like personal bias (form absolutely everyone) about the facts and opinions seems to override the compulsion to take exception to every time they're worded incorrectly.
I'm on my phone on a holiday - I can't call out every single person who words their personal opinion as fact. I agree with the notion, though, regardless of which company you're talking about. A staff member should be extra diligent in wording, though, as their posts tend to bear a bit more weight than the rest of ours.
Posted on Reply
#102
Kn0xxPT
AusWolf"Ecosystem" is just a marketing buzzword. AMD GPUs have the exact same feature set for gaming except for DLSS, which isn't necessary when you have FSR. Day-one drivers aren't necessary to run your games, either. AMD drivers work just as well as Nvidia. I know because I own several GPUs from both manufacturers.
Ecosystem is not a buzzword if you know why some people prefer to use CUDA instead of ROCm, and why productivity suites use NVIDIA preferably... because they work has intented without problems.
AMD should make the "software divison" sooner, because Nvidia provided a better support to Game Studios and Developers for years. Something that AMD lacked... they started to ramp up support when Intel entered in the gpu business.
in case you wondering... Support to Developers(either gaming or scientific) is included on the "EcoSystem".
That ecosystem is also one big relief on bugfixing/optimization tools for Developers... it makes their life easear, Nvidia puts that in their pricetag.
Sony/Playstation is the best ally to AMD for the GPU ecosystem ...
Posted on Reply
#103
AusWolf
Kn0xxPTEcosystem is not a buzzword if you know why some people prefer to use CUDA instead of ROCm, and why productivity suites use NVIDIA preferably... because they work has intented without problems.
AMD should make the "software divison" sooner, because Nvidia provided a better support to Game Studios and Developers for years. Something that AMD lacked... they started to ramp up support when Intel entered in the gpu business.
in case you wondering... Support to Developers(either gaming or scientific) is included on the "EcoSystem".
That ecosystem is also one big relief on bugfixing/optimization tools for Developers... it makes their life easear, Nvidia puts that in their pricetag.
Sony/Playstation is the best ally to AMD for the GPU ecosystem ...
CUDA is still just a single feature used by various software. Working together with developers to make sure everything functions as intended... Okay, I'll give you that. But buying an Nvidia or AMD GPU purely for gaming because of "the ecosystem" is bullshit. There is no ecosystem for PC gaming.
Posted on Reply
#104
A Computer Guy
AusWolfCUDA is still just a single feature used by various software. Working together with developers to make sure everything functions as intended... Okay, I'll give you that. But buying an Nvidia or AMD GPU purely for gaming because of "the ecosystem" is bullshit. There is no ecosystem for PC gaming.
DirectX ... DirectX enabled/optimized cards ... various upscaling enablement DLSS/FSR & RT added to games etc... is that not reflective of a hardware/software gaming ecosystem? Maybe I missed the point.
Posted on Reply
#105
Kn0xxPT
AusWolfBut buying an Nvidia or AMD GPU purely for gaming because of "the ecosystem" is bullshit. There is no ecosystem for PC gaming.
Your seeing at a consumer level... the "ecosystem" is in the simple fact that you run a game and it works... the gaming ecosystem is there, and mainly Drivers and Drivers Optmizations... even Vulkan/DirectX.
Working with Developers to provide Drivers optimizations is Nvidia's playfield...
So... yeah ... there is a lot ecosystem in gaming.
Why AMD doesn have better features ? because like the article said .."AMD is a hardware company" they release features on "opensource" because they dont have a dedicated division to enchance those features at Nvidia's level, and to support developers.

Nvidia provides tools to their hardware, AMD doesn't ( or mimimal toolset for it) ... and those tools are the main reason of why Nvidia works best.
Posted on Reply
#106
Assimilator
AusWolfWorking together with developers to make sure everything functions as intended... Okay, I'll give you that.
Games and drivers are the ecosystem in consumer space. And NVIDIA consistently works with game developers to make sure their games work well with NVIDIA hardware, or have NVIDIA-specific feature like DLSS. Not to mention GeForce Experience and GeForce NOW.
Posted on Reply
#107
wolf
Better Than Native
AusWolfBut buying an Nvidia or AMD GPU purely for gaming because of "the ecosystem" is bullshit. There is no ecosystem for PC gaming.
Wrong. Knowing day 1 drivers are there before AAA releases, knowing they will not only work well but support features I want, knowing there is a large community behind it, to report and remedy any issues, choose your word of choice but it's an ecosystem and it's valuable. AMD are pretty decent at this but the software ecosystem evidently needs work to be considered top dog, even they want that, evidently, from their own words in this editorial.
Posted on Reply
#108
AusWolf
A Computer GuyDirectX ... DirectX enabled/optimized cards ... various upscaling enablement DLSS/FSR & RT added to games etc... is that not reflective of a hardware/software gaming ecosystem? Maybe I missed the point.
DirectX is an ecosystem, as it encompasses various technologies under a common brand, but it's supported by every GPU. DLSS/FSR are single features, not a collection of different things, so they're not ecosystems.
Kn0xxPTYour seeing at a consumer level... the "ecosystem" is in the simple fact that you run a game and it works... the gaming ecosystem is there, and mainly Drivers and Drivers Optmizations... even Vulkan/DirectX.
Working with Developers to provide Drivers optimizations is Nvidia's playfield...
So... yeah ... there is a lot ecosystem in gaming.
Why AMD doesn have better features ? because like the article said .."AMD is a hardware company" they release features on "opensource" because they dont have a dedicated division to enchance those features at Nvidia's level, and to support developers.

Nvidia provides tools to their hardware, AMD doesn't ( or mimimal toolset for it) ... and those tools are the main reason of why Nvidia works best.
Yes, I'm looking at a consumer level because I am one. What's wrong with that?
wolfWrong. Knowing day 1 drivers are there before AAA releases, knowing they will not only work well but support features I want, knowing there is a large community behind it, to report and remedy any issues, choose your word of choice but it's an ecosystem and it's valuable. AMD are pretty decent at this but the software ecosystem evidently needs work to be considered top dog, even they want that, evidently, from their own words in this editorial.
I don't need day-1 drivers to run games, but each to their own, I guess.
Posted on Reply
#109
A Computer Guy
AusWolfI don't need day-1 drivers to run games, but each to their own, I guess.
It seems these days you get major defects or just broken games without day-1 drivers. A healthy ecosystem of collaboration is required to get day-1 drivers otherwise we might as well just go back to playing retro consoles. If AMD's software effort includes ensuring working with game devs and providing stable drivers than good although it seems all this software talk is geared toward AI were all the money seems to be going at the moment.
Posted on Reply
#110
AusWolf
A Computer GuyIt seems these days you get major defects or just broken games without day-1 drivers. A healthy ecosystem of collaboration is required to get day-1 drivers otherwise we might as well just go back to playing retro consoles.
I've never had any issue due to not using a game-ready driver. Although I admit, I rarely ever buy games on day one.
A Computer GuyIf AMD's software effort includes ensuring working with game devs and providing stable drivers than good although it seems all this software talk is geared toward AI were all the money seems to be going at the moment.
I'm getting the same vibes, unfortunately.
Posted on Reply
#111
64K
A Computer GuyIt seems these days you get major defects or just broken games without day-1 drivers. A healthy ecosystem of collaboration is required to get day-1 drivers otherwise we might as well just go back to playing retro consoles. If AMD's software effort includes ensuring working with game devs and providing stable drivers than good although it seems all this software talk is geared toward AI were all the money seems to be going at the moment.
Nope. You get games with major problems and sometimes completely broken because Publishers rush the games to market before they are finished properly. It usually takes several patches from the Developer to patch and polish a game to a point where it's fit to play well.
Posted on Reply
#112
maxfly
AMD clearly has something Nvidia lacks and has wanted dearly for many years. Their own series of top tier CPUs in both the consumer and business worlds. Let us not forget the infallible Nvidia with their very expensive wiff in the failed acquisition of ARM (oh my did leather jacket boy want that one bad). Thankfully regulators saved us from that catastrophe (over concerns that Nvidia would unfairly use its ownership of Arm's technology to harm competitors, nuh uh, not our savior Nvidia). Just imagine their market position today had they succeeded...nauseating.

AMD will be fiiiine fine. Their position is much stronger than many want to admit. Lisa Su might have a brain cell or two after all, just maybe. Rather than burying AMD before the tale begins. Personally, I look forward to finding out how this story plays out.
Posted on Reply
#113
bitsandboots
OneMoarAMD Whos software is worst in class is becoming a Software company... but they have _ALWAYS_ Been a software company
It's like a pizza shop who offers a steak dinner
Yeah, they make steak, but they aren't a steakhouse.
And that summarizes AMD's software for me. Not something they worked their hardest on, or are proud of.
Posted on Reply
#114
Assimilator
maxflyAMD clearly has something Nvidia lacks and has wanted dearly for many years.
A finger in both CPU and GPU pies? Except that AMD has spectacularly and consistently failed to purvey that diversity into profits anywhere close to the levels of its competitors.
Posted on Reply
#115
maxfly
AssimilatorA finger in both CPU and GPU pies? Except that AMD has spectacularly and consistently failed to purvey that diversity into profits anywhere close to the levels of its competitors.
And yet, they've managed to somehow survive and even thrive in arguably the two most hostile tech environs out there. Despite the best efforts of both their mighty foes attempts to bury them over the years they continue to creep right along. Somehow beating the odds year after year after year.

Having the wherewithall and courage to make such a drastic pivot (as some here have alluded to)may seem like history repeating itself to some. Or is it simply a smart business move to gain a larger foothold? We shall see. Regardless of what we part time corporate/business professionals may profess. AMD seems to firmly think this is exactly what is required to purvey their diversity into market share and profits.

As I said, I look forward to watching the show. Good, bad or ugly it should be interesting.
Posted on Reply
#116
bitsandboots
AssimilatorA finger in both CPU and GPU pies? Except that AMD has spectacularly and consistently failed to purvey that diversity into profits anywhere close to the levels of its competitors.
Even that isn't true though. Nvidia has ARM CPUs. The Nintendo Switch for example. Tesla cars as another.
But they don't have x86, and either they're unable or unwilling to engage in pushing their CPUs directly into the server business.
It'd be interesting if due to qualcomms ARM laptop efforts if it ever made nvidia enter that segment. But somehow I doubt it. They had ARM in phones, and gave it up. I guess they just didn't find the profit or success in that market to continue it.
Posted on Reply
#117
INSTG8R
Vanguard Beta Tester
I guess after using just AMD since the 9600XT I could be considered a “fan boy” I’ve been part of the GPU driver Beta Testing since 2018.
BUT as others have mentioned and I hold the same grudge… TIMING! They are always just “too late" I’ll give a simple recent example. Starfield “should” have been theyre big chance to launch FSR3, nope months later, the momentum was already gone.The one I did get right was Lisa playing the “long game” With the CPUs Zen shook up everything finally.
I will currently stay optimistic and hope this is another “long game“ play that will end in significant dividends if they play it right and NOT screw up the timing…
AusWolfTo me, ecosystem means a set of features and/or products that work closely with each other to provide a distinct experience. AMD has nothing of the sort.
Mmmm there’s “kinda” a but in there. Now I’m still on AM4 but Zen4 and RDNA3 when combined offer a ”Smart Technology“ suite. I’ll be totally honest I don’t exactly know the details but regardless it’s definitely an ”ecosystem“ of sorts.
Posted on Reply
#121
nguyen
the54thvoidIf you're laughing at AMD buying other companies instead of innovating, you should check what the other players do:

tracxn.com/d/acquisitions/acquisitions-by-nvidia/__Rwvr9cCWEygAYAiBEK0RuL1AbkKNw9sBGPqMEY6zVh4


They both buy smaller companies. Often to mop up their IP and use for themselves. All large companies buy smaller ones.
All fun and game until you see that AMD is almost out of free cash flow, meanwhile Nvidia is on a different planet
INSTG8ROr as Intelligent person would come to the conclusion they are broadening their portfolio? Same as aquiring Xlinx ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Or AMD could have reserved some money paying their beta testers ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Posted on Reply
#122
AusWolf
INSTG8RMmmm there’s “kinda” a but in there. Now I’m still on AM4 but Zen4 and RDNA3 when combined offer a ”Smart Technology“ suite. I’ll be totally honest I don’t exactly know the details but regardless it’s definitely an ”ecosystem“ of sorts.
I've recently used Zen 4 with RDNA 2 and 3 GPUs, and didn't notice any difference. The only reason it kind of feels like an ecosystem is that you control both the Zen 4 iGPU and your dGPU from the same software suite, but that's true with any AMD+AMD architecture. You don't need RDNA 3 for that.
Posted on Reply
#123
INSTG8R
Vanguard Beta Tester
AusWolfI've recently used Zen 4 with RDNA 2 and 3 GPUs, and didn't notice any difference. The only reason it kind of feels like an ecosystem is that you control both the Zen 4 iGPU and your dGPU from the same software suite, but that's true with any AMD+AMD architecture. You don't need RDNA 3 for that.
Hmmm without installing Public drivers I’m not sure I can show you what I’m talking about. I don’t know if the feature is public facing yet.…
Edit: Not as bells and whistles I thought it was. The "main" paired feature is just speeding up encoding.. Not a feature I'd ever use anyway
Posted on Reply
#124
dragontamer5788
nguyenAll fun and game until you see that AMD is almost out of free cash flow
Do you seriously think that AMD, a smaller company with fewer resources, should be hoarding cash?

NVidia or Apple, who sit at the top of the market and have no idea what to spend money on anymore. Their cash flow and cash pile is higher and higher, and that's fine for the stage at which they're at. Saving up cash for when your competition catches up and figuring out what to do later is fine and expected as a strategy.

But any smaller company needs to be burning cash to try to catch up. As long as its not losing profits / net-income, that's fine. Buying up a small (but profitable) company is a lot of cash flow, but the investments are obviously worth it. AMD simply isn't in a position where they can have positive cash flow IMO.
Posted on Reply
#125
the54thvoid
Super Intoxicated Moderator
nguyenAll fun and game until you see that AMD is almost out of free cash flow, meanwhile Nvidia is on a different planet




Or AMD could have reserved some money paying their beta testers ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Your response does absolutely nothing to address my reply to your initial post, which pretty much shows how much you're trolling here. You laughed at AMD for buying companies, yet Nvidia does the same, but somehow, it flies under your pro NV radar.

I've replied as a member, so I'll take no action as a moderator. I've made my point, so now I'll just observe.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 26th, 2024 06:25 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts