3 ms·

Wouldn't a virtual ISA be against the interests of hardware designers who benefit from ISA lockin?

by regehr 15y ago

nivertech 15y ago
Intel and NVidia want large piece of small pie AMD and ARM want small piece of large pie
- jgmatpdx 15y ago
  Even NVIDIA isn't crazy enough to try to get everyone to use the same ISA again; they're trying to get you to buy into their compiler chain, not into the architecture of a particular generation of GPU.
  - nivertech 15y ago
    Is PTX really ISA? It's also virtual, but very limited ... Unlike PTX, FSAIL will work on both CPUs and GPUs and even will allow system calls from discrete GPUs.
    - jgmatpdx 15y ago
      PTX seems quite reasonable to me, but I don't think it's really intended to be a programmer-facing abstraction. NVIDIA wants you to target CUDA, and they'll (try to) ensure that CUDA has sufficient performance advantages to make it worth your while to do so.
sitkack 15y ago
It would but none of the players have the mindshare, capital or cred to do this. We are at a near perfect astable state in terms of competition. I am really stoked about all of this.
- VaporGhost 15y ago
  One word. Microsoft, if them AMD and ARM are onboard that's it. Remember nVidia is an ARM licensor/developer
  - sitkack 15y ago
    AMD is definitely not on board with Microsoft taking over the scene. AMD is 100% behind standards, standards like OpenCL. Look at the way MS implemented their AMP C++ GPU story, http://herbsutter.com/2011/06/16/c-amp-keynote/ http://herbsutter.com/2011/06/16/c-amp-keynote/ that looks to me like it targets and has all the limitations of DirectCompute (MS specific GPGPU). If MS really wants to make this a standard then most likely AMD will implement that standard using Open64 (http://www.open64.net/ http://www.open64.net/) and emit OpenCL kernels which will be handed off to their device specific OpenCL compilers. I don't think MS has the power you give it credit for.
    - VaporGhost 15y ago
      Think of it this way. OpenCL like OpenGL is an API that says you can build it however you want so long as it comply's with this standard. DirectX and DirectCompute are the same. Despite their vast architectural difference both AMD and nVidia GPU's work on them just fine, All FSAIL does is bring it all closer to the metal and encompasses the CPU as well, (instead of just GPU alone). You're telling me Microsoft (still OS marketshare leader) want's to split arch dev teams between x86,ARM or whatever else the future brings. They'll probably come up with their own version of FSAIL but I think they'd be stupid if they weren't on board (at least with their own version).
    - Create 15y ago
      MS has money, which most people accept. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:AMD_K5_PR166_Front.jpg https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:AMD_K5_P... btw: there is a story about a company committed to Open stuff (Linux, Qt), just to [d|b]itch it.
      - sitkack 15y ago

Wouldn't a virtual ISA be against the interests of hardware designers who benefit from ISA lockin?

by regehr 15y ago

Wouldn't a virtual ISA be against the interests of hardware designers who benefit from ISA lockin?

nivertech 15y ago

Intel and NVidia want large piece of small pie AMD and ARM want small piece of large pie

jgmatpdx 15y ago
Even NVIDIA isn't crazy enough to try to get everyone to use the same ISA again; they're trying to get you to buy into their compiler chain, not into the architecture of a particular generation of GPU.
- nivertech 15y ago
  Is PTX really ISA? It's also virtual, but very limited ... Unlike PTX, FSAIL will work on both CPUs and GPUs and even will allow system calls from discrete GPUs.
  - jgmatpdx 15y ago
    PTX seems quite reasonable to me, but I don't think it's really intended to be a programmer-facing abstraction. NVIDIA wants you to target CUDA, and they'll (try to) ensure that CUDA has sufficient performance advantages to make it worth your while to do so.

sitkack 15y ago

It would but none of the players have the mindshare, capital or cred to do this. We are at a near perfect astable state in terms of competition. I am really stoked about all of this.

VaporGhost 15y ago
One word. Microsoft, if them AMD and ARM are onboard that's it. Remember nVidia is an ARM licensor/developer
- sitkack 15y ago
  AMD is definitely not on board with Microsoft taking over the scene. AMD is 100% behind standards, standards like OpenCL. Look at the way MS implemented their AMP C++ GPU story, http://herbsutter.com/2011/06/16/c-amp-keynote/ http://herbsutter.com/2011/06/16/c-amp-keynote/ that looks to me like it targets and has all the limitations of DirectCompute (MS specific GPGPU). If MS really wants to make this a standard then most likely AMD will implement that standard using Open64 (http://www.open64.net/ http://www.open64.net/) and emit OpenCL kernels which will be handed off to their device specific OpenCL compilers. I don't think MS has the power you give it credit for.
  - VaporGhost 15y ago
    Think of it this way. OpenCL like OpenGL is an API that says you can build it however you want so long as it comply's with this standard. DirectX and DirectCompute are the same. Despite their vast architectural difference both AMD and nVidia GPU's work on them just fine, All FSAIL does is bring it all closer to the metal and encompasses the CPU as well, (instead of just GPU alone). You're telling me Microsoft (still OS marketshare leader) want's to split arch dev teams between x86,ARM or whatever else the future brings. They'll probably come up with their own version of FSAIL but I think they'd be stupid if they weren't on board (at least with their own version).
  - Create 15y ago
    MS has money, which most people accept. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:AMD_K5_PR166_Front.jpg https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:AMD_K5_P... btw: there is a story about a company committed to Open stuff (Linux, Qt), just to [d|b]itch it.
    - sitkack 15y ago