alt Hacker News> He refused. It had to come from AMD. That's absurd and extortionist.
I'm on the wrong side of the Twitter wall to read the source, but that doesn't sound absurd. Extortionist, maybe. Hotz's major complaint (last time I checked, anyway) is pretty close to one I have - AMD appears to have between little and no strategic interest in consumer grade graphics cards having strong GPGPU support leading to random crashes from the kernel drivers and a certain attitude of "meh, whatever" from AMD corporate when dealing with that.
I doubt any specific boxes or testing regime are his complaint, he'd be much more worried about whether AMD management have any interest in companies like his succeeding. Third parties providing some support doesn't sound like it'd cut it. The process of being burned by AMD leaves one a little leery of any alleged support without some serious guarantees that more major changes are afoot in their management view.
Replies
> AMD appears to have between little and no strategic interest in consumer grade graphics cards having strong GPGPU support leading to random crashes from the kernel drivers and a certain attitude of "meh, whatever" from AMD corporate when dealing with that.
AMD has little interest in software support in general.
Their Adrenalin software is riddled with bugs that have been here for years.
Having watched some of his streams on the topic, I think you've captured it well. He's basically saying he's done wasting time on AMD unless/until they get serious. It's not so much that he wants free hardware from them, rather he wants to see them put some skin in the game as they basically blew him off the last time he tried to engage with them.
> ...he'd be much more worried about whether AMD management have any interest in companies like his succeeding.
This reads as incredibly entitled. AMD owes him nothing, especially if he's opposed to the leadership's vision[1] and being belligerent about it.
There is maybe 1 or 2 companies with enough cachet to demand management changes at a supplier like AMD - and they have market caps in the trillions.
1. Lisa Su hasn't been shy about AMD being all about partnering with large partners who can move volume. My interpretation of this is AMD prefers dealing with Sony, Microsoft, hyperscalers, and HPC builders, then possibly tier II OEMs. Small startups are probably much further down the line, close to consumers at the tail end of AMD's attention queue. I don't like it as a consumer, but it seems like a sound strategy since the partners will shoulder most of the software effort, which is a weakness AMD has against Nvidia. They can focus on cranking out ok-to-great hardware at more-than-ok prices and build up a warchest for future investments, and who knows when this hype bubble will burst and take VC dollars with it, or someone invents an architecture that's less demanding on compute (if you're more optimistic)