3 ms·
Wasn't this approach taken with good reason though? So the effort to get code running on multiple GPUs was a reasonable? Remember the days of when games would
by nightski 12y ago
Wasn't this approach taken with good reason though? So the effort to get code running on multiple GPUs was a reasonable? Remember the days of when games would only support select GPUs?
Sure you could have a standard like i386. But isn't it the case that there is a lot more innovation happening in the GPU architecture space making this very difficult?
- tree_of_item 12y agoThis is the rhetoric GPU vendors will use to justify their behavior, of course, but $billions and modern technology can address this if AMD and Nvidia feel that it is important.
- chongli 12y agoGCC supports waaaaay more different CPU architectures than these drivers do for GPU architectures. This argument has no merit. The only purpose for these closed architectures is vendor lock-in.
- anon4 12y agoAnd every vendor has an HLSL and a GLSL shader compiler. You also usually don't ship ten different binaries for ten different architectures, which you would need to do for GPUs.
- gnoway 12y agoIn this model I think you'd distribute something in an intermediate bytecode, like .NET does w/ MSIL, and then the target system would be responsible for precompiling. Edit: just saw this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9140001 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9140001
- runeks 12y ago> Sure you could have a standard like i386. We're not talking about standardizing hardware (the ISA), but the API: Vulkan. It really doesn't matter in which form your hardware processing unit comes, as long as its driver accepts SPIR-V and can execute it on said processing unit.