Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/threads/research-paper-debunking-the-cuda-myth-towards-gpu-based-ai-systems.21786/
        )

    [addOns] => Array
        (
            [DL6/MLTP] => 13
            [Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070
            [SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200
            [SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010
            [ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970
            [ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570
            [XF] => 2021770
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

    [wordpress] => /var/www/html
)

Research paper: Debunking the CUDA Myth Towards GPU-based AI Systems

Results indicate that Gaudi-2 achieves
energy efficiency comparable to A100, though there are notable
areas for improvement in terms of software maturity. (Lee, Lim, Bang, et al; 2024)
Energy efficiency sounds nice, but " . . . notable areas for improvement in terms of software maturity." sounds like a death sentence for serious consideration by companies and their developers. Also, "software maturity" singularly encompasses so much of what is meant behind the sentiment of 'usability'. So much so, that the term "software maturity" is often enough the sole metric used in the course of tool-acquisition.
Screenshot 2025-01-05 at 16-56-43 Debunking the CUDA Myth Towards GPU-based AI Systems Evaluat...png
 
Energy efficiency sounds nice, but " . . . notable areas for improvement in terms of software maturity." sounds like a death sentence for serious consideration by companies and their developers. Also, "software maturity" singularly encompasses so much of what is meant behind the sentiment of 'usability'. So much so, that the term "software maturity" is often enough the sole metric used in the course of tool-acquisition.

View attachment 2636
Based on what I heard, Gaudi Next (whatever) and Falcon Shores will both support oneAPI.

Here is my recent testing of the Intel ARC GPU:
 
I’m going question the continued focus solely on CUDA model running parity, especially for inference. CUDA is just one piece (crucial of course) at the bottom of the inference system software stack. And this doesn’t even include the cluster management and optimization added with the Run:AI deal. Of course, the criteria are different if you are doing research vs. putting deploying production GenAI systems.

1736095292130.png


 
I’m going question the continued focus solely on CUDA model running parity, especially for inference. CUDA is just one piece (crucial of course) at the bottom of the inference system software stack. And this doesn’t even include the cluster management and optimization added with the Run:AI deal. Of course, the criteria are different if you are doing research vs. putting deploying production GenAI systems.

View attachment 2637

I think the most difficult part is CUDA, but other companies are catching up. Intel is leading the UXL/oneAPI efforts:

Then there’s the Ultra Accelerator:

And Ultra Ethernet:

Intel also has deep experience in:
* Networking/IPUs/FPGAs
* Silicon photonics/Ayar Labs
* Cloud management/Tiber Cloud/CSP customers
* Liquid and immersive cooling technologies

The Gaudi architecture can be scaled into large clusters:

Similar to Nvidia's latest GPUs, the upcoming Falcon Shores can reach up to 1500W of power consumption:

Additionally, Intel generally demonstrates better software engineering capabilities than competitors like AMD. For example:

Overall, I believe Intel has the necessary components to compete effectively in this market. However, Intel should focus on unifying its resources and accelerating its market strategy to gain a stronger competitive edge while being discipline in terms of minimizing un-necessary spending.
 
I need to read the paper in bit more details. I will find a time to do so.

My question is not whether you have read it in detail or not. My question concerns the credibility or quality of this research paper. As far as I can tell, this article hasn't been published in any peer-reviewed publications. Why they chose this route or avoided doing so is an important question.
 
Back
Top