undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbigyabai11mo ago0 comments

It can be argued that they already did. AMD and Apple worked with Khronos to build OpenCL as a general competitor. The industry didn't come together to support it though, and eventually major stakeholders abandoned it altogether. Those ~10 wasted years were spent on Nvidia's side refining their software offerings and redesigning their GPU architecture to prioritize AI performance over raster optimization. Meanwhile Apple and AMD were pulling the rope in the opposite direction, trying to optimize raster performance at all costs.

This means that Nvidia is selling a relatively unique architecture with a fully-developed SDK, industry buy-in and relevant market demand. Getting AMD up to the same spot would force them to reevaluate their priorities and demand a clean-slate architecture to-boot.

0 comments

pjmlp11mo ago

Maybe because Apple got pissed on how Khronos took over OpenCL, AMD and Intel never offered tooling on par with CUDA in terms of IDE integration, graphical debuggers and library ecosystem.

Khronos also never saw the need to support a polyglot ecosystem with C++, Fortran and anything else that the industry could feel like using on a GPU.

When Khronos finally remember to at least add C++ support and SPIR, again Intel and AMD failed to deliver, and OpenCL 3.0 is basically OpenCL 1.0 rebranded.

Followed by SYCL efforts, which only Intel seems to care, with their own extensions on top via DPC++, nowadays openAPI. And only after acquiring Codeplay, which was actually the first company to deliver on SYCL tooling.

However contrary to AMD, at least Intel does get that unless everyone gets to play with their software stack, no one will bother to actually learn it.

bigyabaiOP11mo ago

Well, Apple has done nothing to replace the common standard they abandoned. They failed to develop their proprietary alternatives into a competitive position and now can't even use their own TSMC dies (imported at great expense) for training: https://www.eteknix.com/apple-set-to-invest-1-billion-in-nvi...

However you want to paint the picture today, you can't say the industry didn't try to resist CUDA. The stakeholders shot each other in a 4-way Mexican standoff, and Nvidia whistled showtunes all the way to the bank. If OpenCL was treated with the same importance Vulkan was, we might see a very different market today.

pjmlp11mo ago

Yes they did, it is called Metal Compute, and everyone using Apple devices has to use it.

Vulkan you say?

It is only relevant on GNU/Linux and Android, because Google is pushing it, and still most folks still keep using OpenGL ES, no one else cares about it, and already turned into the same spaghetti mess as OpenGL, to the point that there was a roadmap talk at Vulkanised 2025 on how to sort things out.

NVidia and AMD keep designing their cards with Microsoft for DirectX first, and Vulkan, eventually.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsbigyabai11mo ago0 comments

0 comments

pjmlp11mo ago

Maybe because Apple got pissed on how Khronos took over OpenCL, AMD and Intel never offered tooling on par with CUDA in terms of IDE integration, graphical debuggers and library ecosystem.

Khronos also never saw the need to support a polyglot ecosystem with C++, Fortran and anything else that the industry could feel like using on a GPU.

When Khronos finally remember to at least add C++ support and SPIR, again Intel and AMD failed to deliver, and OpenCL 3.0 is basically OpenCL 1.0 rebranded.

However contrary to AMD, at least Intel does get that unless everyone gets to play with their software stack, no one will bother to actually learn it.

bigyabaiOP11mo ago

pjmlp11mo ago

Yes they did, it is called Metal Compute, and everyone using Apple devices has to use it.

Vulkan you say?

NVidia and AMD keep designing their cards with Microsoft for DirectX first, and Vulkan, eventually.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse