Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz
And you fail to understand that it is hurting the development of OpenCL while feeding a vendor-specific competitor API to the developers.
Sure, it's been there for longer.
And so was Glide, when it came down.
lol, wrong. Costs go way down if you adopt open source software.
Well, there was this instruction-set specific tryout from Intel to the server market. Look how well that went, lol.
And what you fail to understand is that nVidia could do that same optimization in OpenCL to start with.
Well, its not like Nvidia is not offering OpenCL, and by that argument you might as well say Windows is the ultimate evil, it hurts Linux, which is absurd.
Yes, CUDA has been around longer, receives more support, and is a better product in almost all ways then OpenCL. That alone should be enough reason why people choose CUDA: not everybody is bothered about "open source" and things like that, they just want to complete their work.
Initial costs for open source is low, but once you factor in support it goes right back up. Also, I don't really see the difference between CUDA and OpenCL: Both are "free", not in the traditional sense, but in the relative sense.
Intel tried to break away from the x86, its own standard. It failed hard. Not applicable here.
Yes, Nvidia can do the same optimisation at start, but on the other hand, OpenCL was still in its infancy when Nvidia started pushing CUDA. I think its because it doesn't want to be bothered with "external standards" and prefer to have its own list of requirements.