radeon historically gimped the double precision less badly than nvidia, one might say radeons were more suited for scientific compute. actual scientific compute that cares about numbers and precision.
idk about bad bets, they were just slow to release rdna for desktop when they had it already for consoles. there wasn't conflict between cdna and rdna, cdna was product for their data center. they slow-walked rdna chips because they were busy selling them to consoles. and they never invested in software like nvidia did. they wanted outside people to make openCL work when nvidia was directly investing.
these kind of amateur takes are like a poor distillation of whatever you read in the hardware news. sorda muddying the waters a bit with your confusion.
idk about bad bets, they were just slow to release rdna for desktop when they had it already for consoles. there wasn't conflict between cdna and rdna, cdna was product for their data center. they slow-walked rdna chips because they were busy selling them to consoles. and they never invested in software like nvidia did. they wanted outside people to make openCL work when nvidia was directly investing.
these kind of amateur takes are like a poor distillation of whatever you read in the hardware news. sorda muddying the waters a bit with your confusion.