this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2024
321 points (97.6% liked)

Technology

59271 readers
3462 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago

Cuda is the main reason Nvidia has their monopoly. Especially their artifiical limitations on VRAM for more expensive cards would make AMD a lot more interesting if AMD actually had good support.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 8 months ago (1 children)

How does this make sense? If you've got an NVIDIA card, you don't need an emulation level. And if you have a different hardware that needs an emulation layer, you don't have to agree to those NVIDIA terms, because you are not using their products.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The EULA is associated with the CUDA software, not the NVIDIA hardware.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

The "cuda cores" you are probably thinking of are hardware implementations of the cuda software

[–] [email protected] 69 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I guess this is Nvidia's reaction to projects like ZLUDA.

And that's a textbook case why monopolies are bad for pretty much everyone except the shareholders of that monopolistic company.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I am extremely tempted to @ some guy who was shilling for nvidia and saying they weren't a monopoly.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

Part of it depends on how you define things. They're not a monopoly in terms of having eliminated all their competitors, but they're a defacto monopoly in terms of being able to do the things a monopoly can. As an example, they can dictate pricing for the whole market as their margins are better than AMD's, so if AMD undercut them, they can retaliate by dropping their prices to the point AMD would have to sell at cost, so AMD can only sell things in the narrow price window where Nvidia doesn't feel threatened. On the other hand, AMD does exist and does sell things.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

In gaming subs you'll meet them plenty

[–] [email protected] 88 points 8 months ago (3 children)

This feels illegal. Like it's probably not, but it should be.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 8 months ago

That's the neat thing about being in the American oligarchs class. If it's illegal just make it legal.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 8 months ago

Feels like a fantastic base for an anti-trust case at the least.

[–] [email protected] 56 points 8 months ago

It probably is. In the EU APIs aren't copyrightable in the first place, doubly so if it's necessary for interoperability, in the US there's Google vs. Oracle which declared Google's use of Java APIs in Android fair use.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I tried to read the article but i am too stupid. I think nvidia has a proprietary hardware/software combo that is very fast, but because they "own it" they want money; instead other companies are using this without paying... Am i close?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago

It's not about it being fast, it's about it only being available for NVidia GPUs. As long as software for things like machine learning uses CUDA, you need to buy an NVidia GPU to use it. A translation layer would let you use the same software on other companies' GPUs, which means people aren't forced to buy NVidia's GPUs anymore.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You can use graphics cards for more than just graphics, eg for AI. Nvidia is a leader in facilitating that.

They offer a software toolkit for developing programs (an SDK) that use their GPUs to best effect. People have begun making "translation layers" that allow such CUDA programs to run on non-nvidia hardware. (I have no idea how any of this works.) The license of that SDK now forbids reverse engineering its output to create these compatibility tools.

Unless I am very mistaken, Nvidia can't ban the use of "translation layers" or stop people making them, as such. This clause creates a barrier to creating them, though.

Some programs will probably remain CUDA specific, because of that clause. That means that Nvidia is a gatekeeper for these programs and can charge extra for access.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago
[–] [email protected] 88 points 8 months ago

Definitely not anticompetitive in the slightest. No need to look here, FTC.

[–] [email protected] 60 points 8 months ago

Interoperability is illegal now?

[–] [email protected] 53 points 8 months ago

Is this in response to AMD's cuda adaptor

[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Is this not similar to the Android Java interface?

Wikipedia Google Oracle

load more comments
view more: next ›