HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
ROCm
hip
C++2016–2025
ROCm / hip

hip

HIP: C++ Heterogeneous-Compute Interface for Portability

44Distinct people
47Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
4.4KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

HIP: C++ Heterogeneous-Compute Interface for Portability

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use was verified in the last source check.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

Mentioned in the same Hacker News threads. That is not proof they are substitutes.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 10:01:16 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year47 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2016-05-08 13:55:36 UTC to 2025-08-09 21:51:04 UTC.

02468102016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 7 mentions; 1 submissions, 6 comments20162017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 10 mentions; 0 submissions, 10 comments2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 6 mentions; 1 submissions, 5 comments2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 0 submissions, 4 comments2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 6 mentions; 0 submissions, 6 comments20202021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 6 mentions; 1 submissions, 5 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 1 submissions, 3 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 1 submissions, 1 comments2025

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC716
20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC10010
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC615
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC404
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC606
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC615
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC413
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC211

What Hacker News says

6 sources
In case someone from AMD is reading here, you should probably gift out some of the cards to generate some traction. For example, send one to me ;) But joke aside, the ROCm documentation seems so wacky that I would not dare to purchase an expensive AMD card without recommendation by someone that I trust. For example, rocmdocs.amd.com appears to be the official documentation, but the front page doesn't mention any popular AI framework. Opening the "Deep Learning" box in the sidebar, I see that there should be a TensorFlow 2.2.0-beta1 release. But on https://github.com/ROCmSoftwarePlatform/tensorflow-upstream the featured release is "2.0.0-rocm", the docker link says it's TensorFlow 2.3 and the "Official Builds" at the bottom of the readme point to CUDA versions ... The whole GitHub repo kind of feels like a bad copy&paste job. I manage to e
Read the rest
ventually download the TensorFlow 2.3.1 + ROCm source from GitHub, only to find that it doesn't compile. I need the hip_hcc library https://github.com/ROCm-Developer-Tools/HIP/ but apparently that one has been renamed some months ago, but the ROCm TensorFlow port has not been updated yet. After spending half a day trying to install a ROCm-compatible TensorFlow, I gave up. Obviously, I wouldn't want to hope on those issues getting resolved when I buy an as-is unusable $6400 accelerator card. That said, the MI100 could be a great deal if I could get it to work. AMD hardware is a lot more affordable than comparable NVIDIA products, plus the MI100 has lots of fast RAM. I work on optical flow (think autonomous selfie drone) and that needs lots and lots of GPU RAM. Plus I'm very happy with my AMD CPU. But like I said in the beginning, I wouldn't dare buying an AMD GPU unless there was believable evidence that I can get my TF2.3 model running with ROCm in a reasonable timeframe. I'm not trying to blame AMD for having bugs here. I have run into a fair share of issues with NVIDIA GPUs, too, like for example a RAM corruption bug inside CUDA 10.0 and a reproducible kernel freeze in CUDA 10.1. But for NVIDIA, the initial setup is quick and easy. And the CUDA documentation looks like they have a dedicated team that cares about developer productivity. For AMD's ROCm, on the other hand, even the marketing material reads more like someone hopes that the open source community will fix things for free. "first open-source software development platform for HPC/Hyperscale-class GPU computing" sounds great until you notice that in this context, "open-source" apparently means "no binaries + no support".
In AMD at a Tipping Point with Instinct MI100 GPU Accelerators
This is a complete novice, ill informed, question. So forgive it in advanced, but why have an AMD specific backend at all? Couldn't you just use AMD's HIP/HIP-IFY tool on the CUDA backend and get an AMD friendly version out? https://github.com/ROCm-Developer-Tools/HIP I realize these sort of tools aren't magic and whatever it spites out will need work, but it seems like a really good thin starting place for AMD support with a lower overhead for growth. After the original CUDA bits can ""cross-compile"", the workflow is greatly reduced, right? Workflow: - update CUDA code - push through the HIPIFY tool - Fix what is broken (if you can fix it on the CUDA side) After enough iterations, the CUDA code will grow friendly to HIPification...
In Julia GPU

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.