4 ms·

Nobody else is even bothering to compete, so standards don't really matter. Let them do their job: I'd rather have faster GPUs.

tanderson92 9y ago
Standards matter if you care about software and hardware freedom.
- nightski 9y ago
  You really don't have freedom if there are no legitimate competitors.
  - throw2016 9y ago
    But accepting a monopoly standard guarantees loss of freedom and rules out any future prospect of legitimate competition.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- zurn 9y ago
  Successful open systems tend to have standards that "just happened", not prescriptive standards. Like x86 PCs or Linux or most programming languages. Cuda seems to be clearly winning over OpenCL in the real world so other vendors should just adopt it. AMD already has a CUDA compiler IIRC.
  - slizard 9y ago
    The point where you suggested that x86 PCs are "open systems" (listing it next to "Linux" of all things!) I realized that you don't get it. We are where we are with Intel ripping off the consumers and companies alike exactly because nobody realized that x86 is everything but open. A similar mistake is about to happen, but luckily on the software side where losses can be cut quick and mistakes can be reversed easier -- though many will suffer when they have to reimplement their precious library from ground up because they did (or could) not take into account the fact that CUDA is as proprietary as it gets. AMD has no CUDA compiler BTW. And CUDA is not a programming language FYI. ;)
    - zurn 9y ago
      I'm pretty sure I referred to open systems and CUDA in their commonly understood meanings. Here are some links that may help to clarify the concepts: http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/48478/open-system http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/48478/open-system http://www.anandtech.com/show/9792/amd-sc15-boltzmann-initiative-announced-c-and-cuda-compilers-for-amd-gpus http://www.anandtech.com/show/9792/amd-sc15-boltzmann-initia... Aside: I have no position on whether is CUDA's Fortran and C++ dialects constitute their own languages, nor did I refer to CUDA as a programming language.
      - slizard 9y ago
        > http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/48478/open-system http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/48478/open-system Sadly, that's a very problematic, borderline BS definition. "A system that allows third parties to make products that plug into or interoperate with it. For example, the PC is an open system." Intel allows some third parties to interoperate with their system (ref Intel vs NVIDIA etc.) and they pick and choose to their liking, kill some and promote others exactly because they control the open-ness of their systems. > http://www.anandtech.com/show/9792/amd-sc15-boltzmann-initiative-announced-c-and-cuda-compilers-for-amd-gpus http://www.anandtech.com/show/9792/amd-sc15-boltzmann-initia... HIP is still not a CUDA compiler. http://gpuopen.com/compute-product/hip-convert-cuda-to-portable-c-code/ http://gpuopen.com/compute-product/hip-convert-cuda-to-porta... > nor did I refer to CUDA as a programming language. You did refer to "CUDA compiler". My comment was admittedly a nitpick as well as a serious point too. CUDA can be seen as a C++ language + extensions -- something you can compile --, but it's also more than that (stuff that you can't compile), e.g.: API, programming tools, etc. all strongly adapted for NVIDIA hardware.
slizard 9y ago
I don't wish you the suffering vendor lock-in can cause after 10 years (hell, even less) of faithfully following the NVIDIA path, but... actually I do because that probably the best way to realize what's wrong with proprietary systems that pitch themselves as "de-facto" standards.

tanderson92 9y ago

Standards matter if you care about software and hardware freedom.

nightski 9y ago
You really don't have freedom if there are no legitimate competitors.
- throw2016 9y ago
  But accepting a monopoly standard guarantees loss of freedom and rules out any future prospect of legitimate competition.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
zurn 9y ago
Successful open systems tend to have standards that "just happened", not prescriptive standards. Like x86 PCs or Linux or most programming languages. Cuda seems to be clearly winning over OpenCL in the real world so other vendors should just adopt it. AMD already has a CUDA compiler IIRC.
- slizard 9y ago
  The point where you suggested that x86 PCs are "open systems" (listing it next to "Linux" of all things!) I realized that you don't get it. We are where we are with Intel ripping off the consumers and companies alike exactly because nobody realized that x86 is everything but open. A similar mistake is about to happen, but luckily on the software side where losses can be cut quick and mistakes can be reversed easier -- though many will suffer when they have to reimplement their precious library from ground up because they did (or could) not take into account the fact that CUDA is as proprietary as it gets. AMD has no CUDA compiler BTW. And CUDA is not a programming language FYI. ;)
  - zurn 9y ago
    I'm pretty sure I referred to open systems and CUDA in their commonly understood meanings. Here are some links that may help to clarify the concepts: http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/48478/open-system http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/48478/open-system http://www.anandtech.com/show/9792/amd-sc15-boltzmann-initiative-announced-c-and-cuda-compilers-for-amd-gpus http://www.anandtech.com/show/9792/amd-sc15-boltzmann-initia... Aside: I have no position on whether is CUDA's Fortran and C++ dialects constitute their own languages, nor did I refer to CUDA as a programming language.
    - slizard 9y ago
      > http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/48478/open-system http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/48478/open-system Sadly, that's a very problematic, borderline BS definition. "A system that allows third parties to make products that plug into or interoperate with it. For example, the PC is an open system." Intel allows some third parties to interoperate with their system (ref Intel vs NVIDIA etc.) and they pick and choose to their liking, kill some and promote others exactly because they control the open-ness of their systems. > http://www.anandtech.com/show/9792/amd-sc15-boltzmann-initiative-announced-c-and-cuda-compilers-for-amd-gpus http://www.anandtech.com/show/9792/amd-sc15-boltzmann-initia... HIP is still not a CUDA compiler. http://gpuopen.com/compute-product/hip-convert-cuda-to-portable-c-code/ http://gpuopen.com/compute-product/hip-convert-cuda-to-porta... > nor did I refer to CUDA as a programming language. You did refer to "CUDA compiler". My comment was admittedly a nitpick as well as a serious point too. CUDA can be seen as a C++ language + extensions -- something you can compile --, but it's also more than that (stuff that you can't compile), e.g.: API, programming tools, etc. all strongly adapted for NVIDIA hardware.

slizard 9y ago

I don't wish you the suffering vendor lock-in can cause after 10 years (hell, even less) of faithfully following the NVIDIA path, but... actually I do because that probably the best way to realize what's wrong with proprietary systems that pitch themselves as "de-facto" standards.