3 ms·

Plus on AMD's side we have their inability to commit to fully supporting any specific system long term, limiting open source interest in doing things for them.

• Melatonic 4y ago
  I thought AMD was all in on OpenCL?
  • dotnet00 4y ago
    Nope, their OpenCL support has been kind of stagnant for a while, especially on Windows. On top of that, part of why Blender dropped its OpenCL supporting renderer was that AMD's OpenCL was still pretty buggy, making the renderer a pain to maintain. Lately their focus is ROCm and their CUDA equivalent language, but it also has limited official hardware support and AFAIK the Windows SDK for it is still not public. Similar commitment issues have plagued their custom renderers.
    • my123 4y ago
      AMD's OpenCL driver is significantly worse than NVIDIA's since ages afaik...
      • jjoonathan 4y ago
        Yep, this has been true for many years. Hopefully now that AMD has money they can turn things around. As much as it pains me to admit, giving up on OpenCL and focusing on the CUDA clone is probably the correct strategic move. OpenCL is just far too different to facilitate porting, and there's a lot of porting to do before AMD can start to take compute marketshare.
        • imtringued 4y ago
          It isn't because it further fragments the market. Now you have Nvidia CUDA, AMD "CUDA", Intel oneAPI. At least Intel is building their oneAPI on top of OpenCL via SYCL which means all AMD has to do is implement a bunch of Intel's OpenCL extensions, which are far from unreasonable (for example, unified shared memory which should have been in OpenCL 2.x instead of shared virtual memory).