3 ms·

As long as they cant even provide something similiar to a simple CUDA C API on consumer hardware i dont buy their stuff.

• pjmlp 2y ago
  There is no such thing as simple CUDA C API, that is the mistake most folks do when talking about CUDA. It won over OpenCL, because it is a polyglot ecosystem, with first tier support for C, C++, Fortran, and Python (JIT DSL), plus several languages that have toolchains targeting PTX, the IDE integration, graphical debugger, compute and graphical rendering libraries. All of the above AMD and Intel could have provided for OpenCL, but never did when it mattered, not even after SPIR was introduced. Now they finally have GPGPU support for Fortran, C++, Python JIT DSLs, but a bit too late to the party, because contrary to NVidia it isn't like those tools are available regardless of the card.
  • randomNumber7 2y ago
    The early versions had been only C. Then they added a lot of stuff. You don't need all the fancy stuff, but OpenCL (and even more so Vulkan) are too complicated when all you want to do is some gpu number crunching. Being able to write a kernel with something that looks like C. Having pointers on gpu and cpu and being able to call these kernels somewhat conveniently (like CUDA C) would be a great starting point.
    • pjmlp 2y ago
      Early meaning until CUDA 3.0 in 2010, we are now on CUDA 12.8, 15 years later.