When we take a look at the amount of code between the
ROCm runtime and
Intel's compute runtime, the Intel runtime has like over ~200k more LOC compared to the ROCm equivalent. Another way to see that having a SPIR-V backend was a disaster is that Intel still doesn't have a oneAPI backend for their GPUs in
Tensorflow which is the most popular ML framework so they're making less progress on outside projects ...
Which might have more to do with a shift in priorities. Tensorflow is predominant for research applications or targeting NVidias platforms, but has hardly any relevance in deployed applications for the integrated solutions which Intel has acquired for so much money. Tensorflow integration of oneAPI was supposed to pave the way for Nervana, which has been terminated last year. With the switch from Nervana to Habana, there is already a fully functional Tensorflow integration outside the oneAPI family (SynapseAI). No good reason to even try and integrate that with the oneAPI fly trap when large scale customers have already adopted the existing interfaces, too.
The other leg for oneAPI is the upgrade chain CPU -> iGPU -> dGPU/FPGA, but neural networks are no longer competitive on these platform familiies, so this aims solely at GPGPU alike tasks / DSP nowadays. That be said, for half the target audience (the one ending up on the FPGA path, unless they make the ultimate step to ASIC), half the assumed generalizations in this thread are not even applicable.
And even though it has been yet another year, nothing changed on the statement that targeting anything but the CPU still requires a strict focus on a specific target platform, and unless we are talking about NVidia here, none of the competitors actually has a uniform product lineup, but at least a duality of CPU/dGPU, or like Intel, even an entire zoo of specialized accelerators.
Intel having 200k LOC more doesn't even mean a thing. Development on Intels side is still just 2 senior full-time (and a handful of part-time junior) developers hacking away for the last 2 years, and that is by no means any indicator of them running out of resources in any form. Unless you seriously suggest that Intel only consists of only about 20-30 senior software developers in total. Heck, pulling in only one or two major customers means this investment in publicity has already amortized itself.
What you can say for certain though, is that both Intel and AMD are investing only abysmally small budgets into proper foundation work (and I'm not even talking standardization, but their proprietary stuff), while the vast majority of developers resources are sunk straight into invisible customer engineering projects.
Especially for Intel, which should at least be able to keep up with NVidia, if it wasn't for a butchered product strategy.
And AMD has a bad habit of getting the public projects only to a certain level of completion, and then to effectively stop development just before they would have to invest into customer-engineering in opensource 3rd-party projects to get the developed technologies to visible adoption....