Nvidia may be using an EULA to try and make people not use a translation layer, but if the EULA doesn’t apply or the consequences of breaking it don’t prevent you continuing then what Nvidia wants means diddly.
I don’t use CUDA or Nvidia so I don’t know but Google release Android Studio and have an EULA saying you can’t do bla bla bla. But Android Studio is open source so if I don’t use their binary and compile it myself then (as far as I know) their EULA doesn’t apply (only the open source license used before they added an EULA on top of it for distribution).
Perhaps not even when you use an Nvidia product like if I buy Nvidia hardware but don’t use their software (i.e. use open source drivers instead). I don’t know enough about CUDA to say if you’re not using Nvidia software (normally, the topic discusses a reverse-engineered one which doesn’t infringe on Nvidia’s copyright of their software).
But they’re probably still selling more CPUs to your average buyer who always buys Intel, doesn’t read tech news and never even heard about the controversy.
Amd dominanace started with 5000 series 4 years ago, it takes time for corpos to change vendor like that I would assume. So it takes years to play out.
This is a short term loss for a potential long term improvement. By eliminating dependency on translation APIs they can force the use of more open solutions like oneAPI which is even getting buy-in from companies like Imagination.
AMD Doing everything they can to make sure Intel and nVidia stay on top.
Well, it does say that Nvidia does not allow a translation layer like this.
Nvidia may be using an EULA to try and make people not use a translation layer, but if the EULA doesn’t apply or the consequences of breaking it don’t prevent you continuing then what Nvidia wants means diddly.
I don’t use CUDA or Nvidia so I don’t know but Google release Android Studio and have an EULA saying you can’t do bla bla bla. But Android Studio is open source so if I don’t use their binary and compile it myself then (as far as I know) their EULA doesn’t apply (only the open source license used before they added an EULA on top of it for distribution).
An EULA is an End User License Agreement. It has no legal authority over a customer who does not even use an nvidia product, let alone a company.
Perhaps not even when you use an Nvidia product like if I buy Nvidia hardware but don’t use their software (i.e. use open source drivers instead). I don’t know enough about CUDA to say if you’re not using Nvidia software (normally, the topic discusses a reverse-engineered one which doesn’t infringe on Nvidia’s copyright of their software).
Intel are on top?
No, but that’s not AMD’s fault.
Not in reliability…
But they’re probably still selling more CPUs to your average buyer who always buys Intel, doesn’t read tech news and never even heard about the controversy.
And they’re still somehow generating twice the revenue with Xeons vs. what AMD does with EPYCs. Who keeps buying all these Xeons!?
Amd dominanace started with 5000 series 4 years ago, it takes time for corpos to change vendor like that I would assume. So it takes years to play out.
This is a short term loss for a potential long term improvement. By eliminating dependency on translation APIs they can force the use of more open solutions like oneAPI which is even getting buy-in from companies like Imagination.
Keeping cuda alive is a bad idea.