AMD Rejects Tiny Corp’s Request of Benchmarking Instinct MI300X AI Accelerator On MLPerf, Raising New Questions
AMD has declined the request of the AI startup Tiny Corp to put the Instinct MI300X AI accelerator on the MLPerf benchmarks.
AMD Shows Reluctance With Instinct MI300X AI Accelerators & Its Performance, Rejects Benchmarking Request
AMD's journey in the AI industry has been a roller coaster ride, and they are eager to achieve a breakthrough yet are restricted for multiple reasons. Despite having one of the most potent AI product lineups, AMD hasn't managed to attract market attention, well at least on the same level as NVIDIA but much better than what Intel has so far procured, where the obvious reasons include the inclination towards NVIDIA, but that isn't everything.
Related Story AMD Strix Point “Ryzen AI 9 365” APU Benchmarks Revealed Zen 5’s IPC, Latency, Throughput & Various Performance Aspects
The whole Tiny Corp-AMD fiasco has shown that Team Red seems reluctant to cater to clientele interests. Despite multiple attempts by Tiny Corp to promote AMD's products, the chipmaker always takes a step back.
A few days ago, Tiny Corp offered AMD to put their Instinct MI300X AI accelerators on the next round of MLPerf benchmarks for a million dollars and two units of the AI GPUs. For those unaware, the MLPerf is an industry-standard benchmark suite designed to measure the performance of AI products, especially accelerators. The important thing about them is that they are transparent, similar to PC counterparts like 3DMark. Hence, they are deemed important in the eyes of potential customers of an AI product.
As of right now, NVIDIA's AI accelerators remain at the top in MLPerf while Intel's Gaudi chips are the only benchmarked alternative, showcasing relatively strong perf/$.
However, AMD might have shown reluctance to upload MLPerf benchmarks for its Instinct MI300X AI accelerators, invalidating the GPU's claims to be superior to competitor alternatives. To top it all off, Team Red decided to reject Tiny Corp's request as well, showing that something is wrong in the
Read more on wccftech.com
