4 ms·
Vulkan has a very atrocious developer experience by GPGPU standards. The chance of it winning over CUDA is at zero. And that's _before_ considering its API gap
by my123 4y ago
Vulkan has a very atrocious developer experience by GPGPU standards.
The chance of it winning over CUDA is at zero. And that's _before_ considering its API gaps compared to modern OpenCL.
(Yes, even OpenCL is a much better compute API choice than Vulkan. Vulkan does not even have SVM)
- lalaland1125 4y agoDoes CUDA have SVM either? Seems like a pretty niche feature IMHO
- my123 4y agoYes CUDA does, since Kepler, under the CUDA Unified Memory naming. It's not a niche feature at all, but one that is essential to lower the barrier for developer adoption.
- VHRanger 4y agoYou should think more of vulkan as an IR endpoint than the actually usable API here. Vulkan is well supported by most GPUs because it's so low level. Performance tends to be good everywhere. What would make vulkan succesful is having APIs that "compile" to this IR. Stuff like vulkan Kompute are good ideas in this direction.
- my123 4y agoVulkan is not a suitable API for even implementing Khronos's very own SYCL on top of. SYCL requires shared virtual memory capabilities that Vulkan just doesn't have.
- mhh__ 4y agoVulkan is fairly atrocious, GPGPU or not IMO. Obviously it tries to do something intrinsically complex but I've never enjoyed working with it.