2 ms·
Having used both, it is true that CUDA has the "enterprise edge" of being a proprietary, paid for product, backed by an (almost) trillion dollar company. There
by softfalcon 2y ago
Having used both, it is true that CUDA has the "enterprise edge" of being a proprietary, paid for product, backed by an (almost) trillion dollar company. There are features and conveniences in CUDA that aren't present in OpenCL.
That being said though, for how little funding, research, and support OpenCL receives, it is an astoundingly capable tool.
I don't think it's fair to compare apples and oranges, even if they're clearly both "fruit" with a "high sugar content".
- pjmlp 2y agoIt isn't as if the Intel and AMD enterprises ever managed to produce anything comparable to CUDA tooling.
- seanw444 2y agoNvidia has brand recognition and momentum on their side. It's not that Apple or AMD are incapable.
- pjmlp 2y agoAMD has more than proven its incapability to provide proper OpenCL tooling during the last 10 years. Apple gave up on OpenCL, after disagreements how Khronos managed it. Metal Compute provides a CUDA like development experience.
- softfalcon 2y ago> Apple gave up on OpenCL, after disagreements how Khronos managed it. Ah yes, the old "I can't completely control it, cause I'm Apple, so I'm taking my ball and leaving" ploy. Though, I will admit, AMD was also playing this game at the same time, so a disagreement was bound to happen between them and Apple. > Metal Compute provides a CUDA like development experience. And there it is. Proving my prior statement, Apple didn't want an open compute platform, what they wanted was their own compute platform and it would have "been nice" if they could pretend it was "open" and they "shared" nicely with the other tech kids. Before people come at me as an Apple hater, please know that there are many, many Apple devices in my home. I'm not an Apple hater, but I call it like I see it.