I wish AMD would just drop ROCm at this stage, and focus on SYCL. The rocRAND/hipRAND woes in this article are if anything showing ROCm in a better light than it really is; here it at least worked and performed within the same ballpark as CUDA. Often it simply does not work at all, or if it works it's behind by a lot more. At work I simply gave up on our 4x Radeon Pro W6800 workstation because launching Tensorflow with more than 1 GPU would cause a kernel panic every time, and AMD engineers never offered a fix other than "reinstall Ubuntu".<p>ROCm feels like such a half assed product that (to me at least) feels like it's been made to tick a box and look cool in corporate presentations. It's not made with the proper mindset to compete against CUDA. Lisa Su claims they're doubling down on ROCm but to me it feels like they're falling behind relative to Nvidia, not catching up.<p>Banding together with Intel to support SYCL would in my opinion<p>1. Ensure there's a lot more momentum behind a single, cross-platform, industry-standard competitor<p>2. Entice other industry heavyweights like MSFT, Qualcomm, ARM etc to also take the cross-platform solutions more seriously<p>3. Encourage heavy investment into the developer experience and tooling for the cross-platform solution