4 ms·
I don't use it at all currently because the problems it solves do not come up at my job. But if they did, I would gladly use it. If your job involves a lot of
by giovannibonetti 2y ago
I don't use it at all currently because the problems it solves do not come up at my job. But if they did, I would gladly use it.
If your job involves a lot of heavy number crunching it might be useful.
- winwang 2y agoI don't use it because it didn't seem stable for CUDA when I tried it out. As for number crunching, I'd probably use CuPy (outside of the typical ML stuff).
- almostgotcaught 2y agoLololol then why are you recommending it like you know anything about it? I will never understand this kind of comment on hn - like you don't get why hyping something up that you don't actually understand is bad?
- tucnak 2y agoI agree with your comment in principle, but also disagree in this instance. I'd also recommend Futhark even though I'm not using it in production based on positive experience I've had with it previously. I happened to own an AMD Instinct MI50 (32 GB) card which more or less sucks for AI, but has really nice FP64 performance so figured I might have a stab at "scientific computing". Believe it or not, Futhark was one thing that worked, made sense, and worked reliably, too. It's quite intuitive piece of compiler although I'm sure it's a far-cry from something like cache-optimised CUDA C, HIP, or whatever in terms of raw performance, but surely there's something you could do to the OpenCL emitter, if you really wanted to. Although on second thought something like JAX is probably the better choice these days anyway.