3 ms·
Sure, but if the OctaneRender folk wanted to support AMD, then I highly doubt they'd be interested in a CUDA compatability layer either - they'd want to be usin
by HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
Sure, but if the OctaneRender folk wanted to support AMD, then I highly doubt they'd be interested in a CUDA compatability layer either - they'd want to be using the lowest level API possible (Vulkan?) to get close to the metal and optimize performance.
- pjmlp 2y agoSee, that is where you got all wrong, they dropped Vulkan for CUDA, and even made a talk about it at GTC. https://www.cgchannel.com/2023/11/otoy-releases-first-public-preview-of-octanerender-2024-1/ https://www.cgchannel.com/2023/11/otoy-releases-first-public... https://www.cgchannel.com/2023/11/otoy-unveils-the-octane-2024-product-roadmap/ https://www.cgchannel.com/2023/11/otoy-unveils-the-octane-20... And then again, there are plenty of other cases where Pytorch makes absolute no sense in GPU, which was the whole starting point.
- HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago> See, that is where you got all wrong I said that if they wanted to support AMD they would use the closest-to-metal API possible, and your links prove that this is exactly their mindset - preferring a lower level more performant API to a higher level more portable one. For many people the tradeoffs are different and ability to write code quickly and iterate on design makes more sense.