6 ms·

Could someone explain what kinds of useful things will become possible with it? I don't get it yet, but HN seems excited about it, so I'd like to understand it

by tikkun 3y ago

Could someone explain what kinds of useful things will become possible with it? I don't get it yet, but HN seems excited about it, so I'd like to understand it. What I get so far - running models that can be run on consumer sized GPUs will become easier, because users won't need to download a desktop app to do so. This is limited for now by the lack of useful models that can be run on consumer GPUs, but we'll get smaller models in the future. And it'll be easier to make visualizations, games, and VR apps in the browser. Is that right and what other popular use cases where people currently have to resort to WebGL or building a desktop app will get easier that I'm missing?

sebzim4500 3y ago
It's not so much that people want to run the models in the browser. They want to be able to write and publish one desktop app that e.g. runs a LLaMA quality model and runs decently across the hundreds of different GPUs that exist on their users' machines.
- tikkun 3y ago
  So it's more of a CUDA alternative for building desktop apps that are GPU powered?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - dm33tri 3y ago
    Nowhere near CUDA. Maybe OpenCL and Metal replacement because nobody bothers to support them, so just a fallback option for AMD and ARM chips.
    - tikkun 3y ago
      So then: If your app needs CUDA, you'd need to write it in CUDA. If you don't need CUDA, you'd write it for WebGPU instead? If you benefit from CUDA but don't strictly require it, then you can write it in CUDA with a WebGPU fallback. Is that right?
      - dm33tri 3y ago
        I think you only write WebGPU code if you are using JS or Rust for your hobby project
p0nce 3y ago
HN was similarly excited about Vulkan, but this is newer.
- sebzim4500 3y ago
  This fixes the main problem with Vulkan, which is that there were no big tech companies pushing them. WebGPU has Apple, Google and Microsoft all committing to support it in their browser/OS.
  - kllrnohj 3y ago
    Not quite. The main problem with Vulkan is, as the blog post goes into, one of usability. Vulkan isn't designed for end developers to use, it's designed for middleware vendors to use. Vulkan is already being pushed by many major big tech companies include Google, Nvidia, AMD, etc... It's really only Apple that's a problem here. WebGPU is basically a middleware for those that just want to use graphics, not all of unity, unreal, etc...
    - connicpu 3y ago
      The Vulkan situation on Apple is incredibly funny, especially once you look at the landscape of gaming. There's games out there (I believe Final Fantasy XIV is like this) where the official Mac client runs in wine, using a DirectX -> Vulkan translation layer, on top of a Vulkan -> Metal translation layer.
      - pjmlp 3y ago
        One can go that way, or use one of the middleware engines that has support for Metal for several years now.
    - pjmlp 3y ago
      There is no Vulkan on game consoles, those little devices HN keeps forgeting about. Yes, the Switch supports Vulkan alongside OpenGL 4.6, but if one wants the full power of the games console, the name of the game is NVN. As for Apple, all relevant middleware has support for Metal.
tormeh 3y ago
> because users won't need to download a desktop app to do so Not only that, WebGPU is OS and hardware neutral. It'll work regardless of what machine you have. Currently it's Nvidia or get lost.
- Conscat 3y ago
  If this is something users actually care about, wouldn't Vulkan AI be a big deal? It has way more features for AI than WebGPU will likely ever have, and it's widely available today.
  - rodgerd 3y ago
    The blog spends a lot of time pointing out that it is not, in fact, widely available today in any practical sense.
    - Conscat 3y ago
      It spends a little time on the topic, and imho doesn't argue the point very well. It points out that MoltenVK doesn't work very well, and I agree, although I think it's questionable whether the Molten-compatible subset is worse than WebGPU or not. It says that Vulkan has driver issues on Linuxes, but provides no citations for that, and in my experiences, Vulkan drivers and developer tools have been the best for Linux, overall (my experience is limited to Nvidia, so maybe that's why, Idk).

by tikkun 3y ago

sebzim4500 3y ago

It's not so much that people want to run the models in the browser. They want to be able to write and publish one desktop app that e.g. runs a LLaMA quality model and runs decently across the hundreds of different GPUs that exist on their users' machines.

tikkun 3y ago
So it's more of a CUDA alternative for building desktop apps that are GPU powered?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dm33tri 3y ago
  Nowhere near CUDA. Maybe OpenCL and Metal replacement because nobody bothers to support them, so just a fallback option for AMD and ARM chips.
  - tikkun 3y ago
    So then: If your app needs CUDA, you'd need to write it in CUDA. If you don't need CUDA, you'd write it for WebGPU instead? If you benefit from CUDA but don't strictly require it, then you can write it in CUDA with a WebGPU fallback. Is that right?
    - dm33tri 3y ago
      I think you only write WebGPU code if you are using JS or Rust for your hobby project

p0nce 3y ago

HN was similarly excited about Vulkan, but this is newer.

sebzim4500 3y ago
This fixes the main problem with Vulkan, which is that there were no big tech companies pushing them. WebGPU has Apple, Google and Microsoft all committing to support it in their browser/OS.
- kllrnohj 3y ago
  Not quite. The main problem with Vulkan is, as the blog post goes into, one of usability. Vulkan isn't designed for end developers to use, it's designed for middleware vendors to use. Vulkan is already being pushed by many major big tech companies include Google, Nvidia, AMD, etc... It's really only Apple that's a problem here. WebGPU is basically a middleware for those that just want to use graphics, not all of unity, unreal, etc...
  - connicpu 3y ago
    The Vulkan situation on Apple is incredibly funny, especially once you look at the landscape of gaming. There's games out there (I believe Final Fantasy XIV is like this) where the official Mac client runs in wine, using a DirectX -> Vulkan translation layer, on top of a Vulkan -> Metal translation layer.
    - pjmlp 3y ago
      One can go that way, or use one of the middleware engines that has support for Metal for several years now.
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    There is no Vulkan on game consoles, those little devices HN keeps forgeting about. Yes, the Switch supports Vulkan alongside OpenGL 4.6, but if one wants the full power of the games console, the name of the game is NVN. As for Apple, all relevant middleware has support for Metal.

tormeh 3y ago

> because users won't need to download a desktop app to do so Not only that, WebGPU is OS and hardware neutral. It'll work regardless of what machine you have. Currently it's Nvidia or get lost.

Conscat 3y ago
If this is something users actually care about, wouldn't Vulkan AI be a big deal? It has way more features for AI than WebGPU will likely ever have, and it's widely available today.
- rodgerd 3y ago
  The blog spends a lot of time pointing out that it is not, in fact, widely available today in any practical sense.
  - Conscat 3y ago
    It spends a little time on the topic, and imho doesn't argue the point very well. It points out that MoltenVK doesn't work very well, and I agree, although I think it's questionable whether the Molten-compatible subset is worse than WebGPU or not. It says that Vulkan has driver issues on Linuxes, but provides no citations for that, and in my experiences, Vulkan drivers and developer tools have been the best for Linux, overall (my experience is limited to Nvidia, so maybe that's why, Idk).