• We've upgraded our forums. Please post any issues/requests in this thread.

New CUDA 4.0 Release Makes Parallel Programming Easier

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
34,317 (9.23/day)
Likes
17,423
Location
Hyderabad, India
System Name Long shelf-life potato
Processor Intel Core i7-4770K
Motherboard ASUS Z97-A
Cooling Xigmatek Aegir CPU Cooler
Memory 16GB Kingston HyperX Beast DDR3-1866
Video Card(s) 2x GeForce GTX 970 SLI
Storage ADATA SU800 512GB
Display(s) Samsung U28D590D 28-inch 4K
Case Cooler Master CM690 Window
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster Recon3D PCIe
Power Supply Corsair HX850W
Mouse Razer Abyssus 2014
Keyboard Microsoft Sidewinder X4
Software Windows 10 Pro Creators Update
#1
NVIDIA today announced the latest version of the NVIDIA CUDA Toolkit for developing parallel applications using NVIDIA GPUs. The NVIDIA CUDA 4.0 Toolkit was designed to make parallel programming easier, and enable more developers to port their applications to GPUs. This has resulted in three main features:
  • NVIDIA GPUDirect 2.0 Technology -- Offers support for peer-to-peer communication among GPUs within a single server or workstation. This enables easier and faster multi-GPU programming and application performance.
  • Unified Virtual Addressing (UVA) -- Provides a single merged-memory address space for the main system memory and the GPU memories, enabling quicker and easier parallel programming.
  • Thrust C++ Template Performance Primitives Libraries -- Provides a collection of powerful open source C++ parallel algorithms and data structures that ease programming for C++ developers. With Thrust, routines such as parallel sorting are 5X to 100X faster than with Standard Template Library (STL) and Threading Building Blocks (TBB).

"Unified virtual addressing and faster GPU-to-GPU communication makes it easier for developers to take advantage of the parallel computing capability of GPUs," said John Stone, senior research programmer, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Show full news post
 
Joined
Aug 10, 2007
Messages
96 (0.03/day)
Likes
18
Location
West Deptford, NJ
System Name iLLz-CreaTionZ
Processor Intel Core i5 6600K @ 4.5 Ghz
Motherboard Asus Z170-A
Cooling Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO
Memory 16GB G.SKILL TridentX DDR4 @ 3000 Mhz
Video Card(s) eVGA GTX 960 SSC 4GB @ 1287 MHz Core (1400 MHz Boost)
Storage Corsair Force SSD 240GB; 2 x Seagate 7200.10 320GB RAID 0; 1 x WD 1TB; External Seagate Pro 500GB
Display(s) Samsung SyncMaster 226BW
Case DeepCool Tesseract
Power Supply PCP&C SilentCool 750 Quad Black
Mouse Logitech G500
Keyboard Razer DeathStalker
Software Windows 10 x64 Pro
#2
This is interesting. I would love to see some real world implementations tested.
 
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
865 (0.29/day)
Likes
165
Location
Porto
Processor Phenom II X3 720BE @ 3.3GHz, 4th core unlocked
Motherboard Asus M4A78-E
Cooling Schythe Ninja + Dual 120mm
Memory GEiL 2*2GB Gold
Video Card(s) Gigabyte HD5870 1GB + PhysX/Computing 8800GTS 512MB
Storage Intel X25-M 80GB O.S. + WD 500GB Data
Display(s) HP 2408w 24" LCD
Case Antec Plusview 1000
Audio Device(s) X-Fi XtremeMusic + Gigaworks SB750 7.1 THX
Power Supply BeQuiet Dark Power Pro 650W
Software Windows 7 64bit
#3
As an owner of both CUDA-enabled nVidia GPUs and ATI GPUs, I say down with CUDA. Just make way for better OpenCL implementations.

In 2011, I see CUDA solely as nVidia's "evil" commitment to try to keep GPGPU to themselves and closed-source.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
2,481 (0.63/day)
Likes
340
Location
Your house.
System Name Jupiter-2
Processor Intel i3-6100
Motherboard H170I-PLUS D3
Cooling Stock
Memory 8GB Mushkin DDR3L-1600
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1050ti
Storage 512GB Corsair SSD
Display(s) BENQ 24in
Case Lian Li PC-Q01B Mini ITX
Audio Device(s) Onboard
Power Supply Corsair 450W
Mouse Logitech Trackball
Keyboard Custom bamboo job
Software Win 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores Finished Super PI on legendary mode in only 13 hours.
#4
As an owner of both CUDA-enabled nVidia GPUs and ATI GPUs, I say down with CUDA. Just make way for better OpenCL implementations.

In 2011, I see CUDA solely as nVidia's "evil" commitment to try to keep GPGPU to themselves and closed-source.
I'm the same way. I really do respect Nvidia for the work they did with CUDA -- supporting developers in this type of programming when no one else was -- but the time has come for a truly open GPU computing method that everyone can support without paying someone royalty fees, or being at the mercy of a competitor's development practices.
 
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
5,822 (1.56/day)
Likes
618
Processor Core I7 3770K@4.3Ghz
Motherboard AsRock Z77 Extreme
Cooling Cooler Master Seidon 120M
Memory 12Gb G.Skill Sniper
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 1070
Storage Sandisk SSD + 1TB Seagate Barracuda 7200
Display(s) IPS Asus 26inch
Case Antec 300
Audio Device(s) Xonar DG
Power Supply EVGA Supernova 650 G2
Software Windows 10/Windows 7
#5
4.0 . . . . . is there a 3.0

edit

oh the newest is 3.2
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
860 (0.28/day)
Likes
117
Location
Manteca, Ca
System Name Rebirth
Processor Intel i5 2500k @4.5Ghz
Motherboard Asus P8P67 Pro
Cooling Megahalem 120x25 x2 GT AP-15 Push/Pull
Memory 2x4Gb Corsair Vengeance
Video Card(s) Sapphire HD7950 Vapor-X + MSI HD7950 TF3
Storage Samsung 840 Pro 120 SSD + Seagate 7200.12 1TB + 500gig WD + 3TB Hitachi
Display(s) X-Star Glossy DP2710
Case Antec 1200
Audio Device(s) Asus Xonar STX
Power Supply Antec CP-850
Software Microsoft Windows 8 Pro x64
#6
I'm the same way. I really do respect Nvidia for the work they did with CUDA -- supporting developers in this type of programming when no one else was -- but the time has come for a truly open GPU computing method that everyone can support without paying someone royalty fees, or being at the mercy of a competitor's development practices.
I agree and AMD has stepped out big with OpenCL, i really hope Nvidia mans up and meets them half way.
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
510 (0.17/day)
Likes
73
Location
UK South
System Name AMD FX
Processor AMD FX 8350 @ 4.8Ghz
Motherboard Asus Sabretooth 990FX R2.0
Cooling Corsair H100
Memory 16GB Corsair Vegance 1866
Video Card(s) AMD HD7970 Gigabyte
Storage Sandisk Extreme SSD, 500gb SG Sata
Display(s) Samsung 2333sw
Case HAF 922
Audio Device(s) Realtek HD Audio
Power Supply Thermaltake Toughpower 750w
Software Windows 10 Professional x64
#7
they will grasp at cuda until the very end, its been around for years and still nothing much to show for it.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
731 (0.22/day)
Likes
102
Processor Intel Core i5-3470 3.2 GHz Quad-core Ivy Bridge
Motherboard ASUS P8Z77-M Z77
Cooling ID-COOLING IS-50 TDP 130W
Memory Kingston HyperX Genesis 2x4 GB DDR3 @ 1866MHz 9-11-9-27-1T
Video Card(s) ZOTAC GeForce® GTX 1070 AMP Edition (ZT-P10700C-10P)
Storage WD SiliconEdge Blue 64 GB SSD, Kingston SSDNow! 240 GB SSD, WD RE4 1 TB HDD
Display(s) LN-T4065F FullHD LCD TV
Power Supply Raidmax RX-1000AE 1000W 80 Plus Gold
Mouse Logitech G402 Hyperion Fury FPS Gaming Mouse (Defective MOUSE3)
Keyboard Logitech K120
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
#8
In 2011, I see CUDA solely as nVidia's "evil" commitment to try to keep GPGPU to themselves and closed-source.
Why would CUDA be evil? It may be proprietary (e.g. works with only with NVIDIA CUDA cores) but it is open and anybody can utilize the SDK. It's also more developed than OpenCL at the moment. (Offers more functions, just like NVIDIA's OpenGL Extensions.)

CUDA is easily portable to OpenCL, but there will be performance issues when compiling using AMD cards.

I agree and AMD has stepped out big with OpenCL, i really hope Nvidia mans up and meets them half way.
NVIDIA has supported OpenCL just as long as AMD has. In fact, from personal experience, their implementation seems more solid compared to AMD's current SDK.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
865 (0.29/day)
Likes
165
Location
Porto
Processor Phenom II X3 720BE @ 3.3GHz, 4th core unlocked
Motherboard Asus M4A78-E
Cooling Schythe Ninja + Dual 120mm
Memory GEiL 2*2GB Gold
Video Card(s) Gigabyte HD5870 1GB + PhysX/Computing 8800GTS 512MB
Storage Intel X25-M 80GB O.S. + WD 500GB Data
Display(s) HP 2408w 24" LCD
Case Antec Plusview 1000
Audio Device(s) X-Fi XtremeMusic + Gigaworks SB750 7.1 THX
Power Supply BeQuiet Dark Power Pro 650W
Software Windows 7 64bit
#9
Why would CUDA be evil?
(...)
CUDA is easily portable to OpenCL, but there will be performance issues when compiling using AMD cards.
You just answered yourself.
 
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
2,680 (0.89/day)
Likes
693
Location
Reaching your left retina.
#10
Nvidia is doing for OpenCL as much as AMD if not more, AMD is just being more vocal about it now that they can finally use it as an advantage (i.e they have Fusion and Intel has nothing). But because Nvidia supports OpenCL, that does not mean they should stop development on CUDA. It's the absolute opposite. Creating and evolving an open source API takes a lot of time, because of all the parties involved. i.e. not only matters WHAT things the API does but also HOW they are done and everyone involved wants it to be their way, so it takes time and the API is always one step behind what the actual users NEED. This is less of a problem in mature markets and APIs like DirectX/OpenGL* because the market is "stagnated" and it's the users who are one step behind. But on a emerging market like GPGPU new needs are created on a daily basis and for the actual people using them it's critical to get them ASAP. Nvidia actually helps them by evolving CUDA and exposing to their hardware all those things that developers need, without the requirement to go through months or years of certifications and whatnot. It's because of this that CUDA is successful and REQUIRED in the industry. For actual users is imperative to have those features now. Let's discuss this in a few years.

*And even then it's more than known that OpenGL has been 1 even 2 steps behind and still is in many way. It's also known how that has affected the market and most people would agree that advancement in DX has been a good thing. Well it is.

You just answered yourself.
That works the other way around too. That's the most stupid thing that people don't seem to understand. OpenCL may be cross-platform, but its optimizations certainly aren't. Code optimized for Nvidia GPUs would be slow on AMD GPUs and code optimized for AMD would be slow on Nvidia. Developers still have to code specifically for every platform, so what's so bad about Nvidia offering a much better and mature solution again? Nvidia should deliberately botch down their development so that the open for all platform can catch up? The enterprise world (i.e medical/geological imaging) should wait 2 years more in order to get what they could have now just because you don't want to feel in disadvantage in that little meaningless application or that stupid game? Come on...

"To hell the ability to best diagnose cancer or predict hearthquakes/tornados, I want this post process filter run as fast in my card as in that other one. That surely should be way up on their list, and to hell the rest. After all, I spend millions helping in the development of GPGPU and/or paying for the program afterwards... NO. Wait. That's the enterprises :banghead:, I'm actually the little whinny boy that demands that the FREE feature I get with my $200 GPU is "fair".
 
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
865 (0.29/day)
Likes
165
Location
Porto
Processor Phenom II X3 720BE @ 3.3GHz, 4th core unlocked
Motherboard Asus M4A78-E
Cooling Schythe Ninja + Dual 120mm
Memory GEiL 2*2GB Gold
Video Card(s) Gigabyte HD5870 1GB + PhysX/Computing 8800GTS 512MB
Storage Intel X25-M 80GB O.S. + WD 500GB Data
Display(s) HP 2408w 24" LCD
Case Antec Plusview 1000
Audio Device(s) X-Fi XtremeMusic + Gigaworks SB750 7.1 THX
Power Supply BeQuiet Dark Power Pro 650W
Software Windows 7 64bit
#11
Nvidia is doing for OpenCL as much as AMD if not more, AMD is just being more vocal about it now that they can finally use it as an advantage (i.e they have Fusion and Intel has nothing). But because Nvidia supports OpenCL, that does not mean they should stop development on CUDA. It's the absolute opposite. Creating and evolving an open source API takes a lot of time, because of all the parties involved. i.e. not only matters WHAT things the API does but also HOW they are done and everyone involved wants it to be their way, so it takes time and the API is always one step behind what the actual users NEED. This is less of a problem in mature markets and APIs like DirectX/OpenGL* because the market is "stagnated" and it's the users who are one step behind. But on a emerging market like GPGPU new needs are created on a daily basis and for the actual people using them it's critical to get them ASAP. Nvidia actually helps them by evolving CUDA and exposing to their hardware all those things that developers need, without the requirement to go through months or years of certifications and whatnot. It's because of this that CUDA is successful and REQUIRED in the industry. For actual users is imperative to have those features now. Let's discuss this in a few years.
Vendor specific APIs have never had good results in the long term.
No matter what you say about CUDA being more developed than OpenCL, the truth is that nVidia works on CUDA in order to differentiate its GPUs, and not just to help the computing community.



That works the other way around too. That's the most stupid thing that people don't seem to understand. OpenCL may be cross-platform, but its optimizations certainly aren't.
Neither are DirectX and OpenGL vendor-specific graphics optimizations. But at least in that case all the participants get a fighting chance through driver optimization.
What is so odd and stupid to you seems pretty simple to me.


Code optimized for Nvidia GPUs would be slow on AMD GPUs and code optimized for AMD would be slow on Nvidia. Developers still have to code specifically for every platform, so what's so bad about Nvidia offering a much better and mature solution again?
It only works in their GPUs. It's in all customers' interest to have competitive choices from various brands.



Nvidia should deliberately botch down their development so that the open for all platform can catch up?
No, they should redirect their efforts in CUDA because it is a vendor-specific API, and as such it has no long-term future.



The enterprise world (i.e medical/geological imaging) should wait 2 years more in order to get what they could have now just because you don't want to feel in disadvantage in that little meaningless application or that stupid game? Come on...
"To hell the ability to best diagnose cancer or predict hearthquakes/tornados, I want this post process filter run as fast in my card as in that other one. That surely should be way up on their list, and to hell the rest.
LOL yeah convince yourself that's the reason why nVidia is pushing CUDA, in an era where a dozen of GPU makers (nVidia, AMD, VIA, PowerVR, ARM Mali, Vivante, Broadcom, Qualcomm, etc) are supporting OpenCL in their latest GPUs.
 
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
2,680 (0.89/day)
Likes
693
Location
Reaching your left retina.
#12
Vendor specific APIs have never had good results in the long term.
No matter what you say about CUDA being more developed than OpenCL, the truth is that nVidia works on CUDA in order to differentiate its GPUs, and not just to help the computing community.




Neither are DirectX and OpenGL vendor-specific graphics optimizations. But at least in that case all the participants get a fighting chance through driver optimization.
What is so odd and stupid to you seems pretty simple to me.



It only works in their GPUs. It's in all customers' interest to have competitive choices from various brands.




No, they should redirect their efforts in CUDA because it is a vendor-specific API, and as such it has no long-term future.




LOL yeah convince yourself that's the reason why nVidia is pushing CUDA, in an era where a dozen of GPU makers (nVidia, AMD, VIA, PowerVR, ARM Mali, Vivante, Broadcom, Qualcomm, etc) are supporting OpenCL in their latest GPUs.
What do you fail to understand? Nvidia IS supporting OpenCL. It's not hurting the development of OpenCL one bit. IN THE MEANTIME CUDA is the best option for the developers that's why they use CUDA to begin with.

Vendor specific is meaningless in the enterprise world and has always been. EVERYTHING is vendor specific in the enterprise world. They compile their code, x86 code for the specific CPU brand they chose for their server, using the best compiler available for there needs, they've been doing for decades, but now it's bad because it's Nvidia...

SOOOO once again what's wrong about Nvidia delivering the best API they can to those customers?

What you fail to understand is that Nvidia does not need to drop CUDA in order to support OpenCL. In fact every single feature, every single optimization they make for CUDA can help develop and evolve OpenCL.

It only works in their GPUs. It's in all customers' interest to have competitive choices from various brands.
And when the most competitive, robust and easy to use combo right now is Nvidia GPU+CUDA is in customers best interest to get that and not wait 2+ years until OpenCL is in the same state for either AMD or Nvidia... really it's not that hard to understand...:shadedshu
 
Last edited:

Fourstaff

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
9,376 (3.20/day)
Likes
2,100
Location
Home
System Name Asus K50-X5DAB \\ Orange!
Processor Athlon QL-65 2.2Ghz \\ 3570K
Motherboard Laptop \\ ASRock z77 Extreme4
Cooling Laptop \\ H100i
Memory 1x1GB + 1X2GB \\ 2x4Gb 1600Mhz CL9 Corsair XMS3
Video Card(s) Mobility Radeon HD4570 512mb \\ Zotac 660Ti OC 2Gb
Storage 250Gb \\ Samsung 840 250Gb + Toshiba DT01ACA300 3Tb
Display(s) 15.6" 1366x768 \\ LG 22EA53VQ
Case Laptop Chassis \\ NZXT Phantom 410 Black/Orange
Power Supply Power Brick \\ Corsair CXM500w
#13
Coming from an academic's point of view, CUDA is easier to work with, OpenCL takes a lot more effort to learn, and support sometimes is not there. Hence sticking with CUDA for the time being because of ease of use and also its "standard" (as in a lot more people are using CUDA than others). Not from me, its from GPU programmers' here that I have met.

"How about OpenCL then? Isn't it better to support an open source project?" Reply: I don't give a s**t as long as I can finish my work with the least amount of hassle, and CUDA supports that view.

Probably in the future OpenCL will be the leader, but for now CUDA does the job more efficiently than OpenCL.
 

Mussels

Moderprator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
46,096 (9.58/day)
Likes
13,521
Location
Australalalalalaia.
System Name Daddy Long Legs
Processor Ryzen R7 1700, 3.9GHz 1.375v
Motherboard MSI X370 Gaming PRO carbon
Cooling Fractal Celsius S24 (Silent fans, meh pump)
Memory 16GB 2133 generic @ 2800
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X (BIOS modded to Gaming Z - faster and solved black screen bugs!)
Storage 1TB Intel SSD Pro 6000p (60TB USB3 storage)
Display(s) Samsung 4K 40" HDTV (UA40KU6000WXXY) / 27" Qnix 2K 110Hz
Case Fractal Design R5. So much room, so quiet...
Audio Device(s) Pioneer VSX-519V + Yamaha YHT-270 / sennheiser HD595/518 + bob marley zion's
Power Supply Corsair HX 750i (Platinum, fan off til 300W)
Mouse Logitech G403 + KKmoon desk-sized mousepad
Keyboard Corsair K65 Rapidfire
Software Windows 10 pro x64 (all systems)
Benchmark Scores Laptops: i7-4510U + 840M 2GB (touchscreen) 275GB SSD + 16GB i7-2630QM + GT 540M + 8GB
#14
CUDA is still strong because it has better support, but we all want openCL to win out in the long run (even if they have to update it majorly before that happens)
 
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
2,680 (0.89/day)
Likes
693
Location
Reaching your left retina.
#15
CUDA is still strong because it has better support, but we all want openCL to win out in the long run (even if they have to update it majorly before that happens)
Everyone wants that, but not because the strongest combatant leaves the arena (playing Oblivion :laugh:). OpenCL must win when it's better, by it's own merits, not because Nvidia drops CUDA or because they purposely slow down it's development, which is what some people here want apparently.
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
731 (0.22/day)
Likes
102
Processor Intel Core i5-3470 3.2 GHz Quad-core Ivy Bridge
Motherboard ASUS P8Z77-M Z77
Cooling ID-COOLING IS-50 TDP 130W
Memory Kingston HyperX Genesis 2x4 GB DDR3 @ 1866MHz 9-11-9-27-1T
Video Card(s) ZOTAC GeForce® GTX 1070 AMP Edition (ZT-P10700C-10P)
Storage WD SiliconEdge Blue 64 GB SSD, Kingston SSDNow! 240 GB SSD, WD RE4 1 TB HDD
Display(s) LN-T4065F FullHD LCD TV
Power Supply Raidmax RX-1000AE 1000W 80 Plus Gold
Mouse Logitech G402 Hyperion Fury FPS Gaming Mouse (Defective MOUSE3)
Keyboard Logitech K120
Software Windows 10 Pro 64-bit
#16
LOL yeah convince yourself that's the reason why nVidia is pushing CUDA, in an era where a dozen of GPU makers (nVidia, AMD, VIA, PowerVR, ARM Mali, Vivante, Broadcom, Qualcomm, etc) are supporting OpenCL in their latest GPUs.
They're pushing CUDA because it is successful, especially with a backing of huge software developers like Adobe (After Effects and Premiere are perfect examples) and MATLAB.

What you fail to understand is that Nvidia does not need to drop CUDA in order to support OpenCL. In fact every single feature, every single optimization they make for CUDA can help develop and evolve OpenCL.
Exactly. One thing you may not know about CUDA is that the applications can be ported very easily to OpenCL since they share the same exact functions (both support C99 and a ton of other languages) plus more. It's computational range is in fact similar to each other, and hell, even DirectCompute.

If anything, AMD/ATI should've took the offer to utilize CUDA in their GPUs back when NVIDIA was giving the chance. With that kind of backing, it could've formed a true basis for OpenCL, especially since even Apple was even thinking about using it as it's foundation in the beginning before the Khronos Group adopted it.
 

Wile E

Power User
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
24,318 (5.95/day)
Likes
3,682
System Name The ClusterF**k
Processor 980X @ 4Ghz
Motherboard Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD5 BIOS F12
Cooling MCR-320, DDC-1 pump w/Bitspower res top (1/2" fittings), Koolance CPU-360
Memory 3x2GB Mushkin Redlines 1600Mhz 6-8-6-24 1T
Video Card(s) Evga GTX 580
Storage Corsair Neutron GTX 240GB, 2xSeagate 320GB RAID0; 2xSeagate 3TB; 2xSamsung 2TB; Samsung 1.5TB
Display(s) HP LP2475w 24" 1920x1200 IPS
Case Technofront Bench Station
Audio Device(s) Auzentech X-Fi Forte into Onkyo SR606 and Polk TSi200's + RM6750
Power Supply ENERMAX Galaxy EVO EGX1250EWT 1250W
Software Win7 Ultimate N x64, OSX 10.8.4
#17
Have to agree with Benetanegia on this one. CUDA is not a bad thing. It is leagues ahead of OpenCL right now, not only in terms of abilities, but also market adoption and ease of development for it.

When OpenCL catches up, then we can talk about how CUDA might be a hindrance to the market.
 
Joined
Nov 4, 2005
Messages
9,946 (2.25/day)
Likes
2,309
System Name MoFo 2
Processor AMD PhenomII 1100T @ 4.2Ghz
Motherboard Asus Crosshair IV
Cooling Swiftec 655 pump, Apogee GT,, MCR360mm Rad, 1/2 loop.
Memory 8GB DDR3-2133 @ 1900 8.9.9.24 1T
Video Card(s) HD7970 1250/1750
Storage Agility 3 SSD 6TB RAID 0 on RAID Card
Display(s) 46" 1080P Toshiba LCD
Case Rosewill R6A34-BK modded (thanks to MKmods)
Audio Device(s) ATI HDMI
Power Supply 750W PC Power & Cooling modded (thanks to MKmods)
Software A lot.
Benchmark Scores Its fast. Enough.
#18
If some people put green in gas and called it Nvidgas........
 
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
865 (0.29/day)
Likes
165
Location
Porto
Processor Phenom II X3 720BE @ 3.3GHz, 4th core unlocked
Motherboard Asus M4A78-E
Cooling Schythe Ninja + Dual 120mm
Memory GEiL 2*2GB Gold
Video Card(s) Gigabyte HD5870 1GB + PhysX/Computing 8800GTS 512MB
Storage Intel X25-M 80GB O.S. + WD 500GB Data
Display(s) HP 2408w 24" LCD
Case Antec Plusview 1000
Audio Device(s) X-Fi XtremeMusic + Gigaworks SB750 7.1 THX
Power Supply BeQuiet Dark Power Pro 650W
Software Windows 7 64bit
#19
What do you fail to understand? Nvidia IS supporting OpenCL. It's not hurting the development of OpenCL one bit.
And you fail to understand that it is hurting the development of OpenCL while feeding a vendor-specific competitor API to the developers.

You also fail to understand that this has been nVidia's strategy for quite some time.
As Jen-Hsu Huang said, "were a software company".

IN THE MEANTIME CUDA is the best option for the developers that's why they use CUDA to begin with.
Sure, it's been there for longer.
And so was Glide, when it came down.


Vendor specific is meaningless in the enterprise world and has always been. EVERYTHING is vendor specific in the enterprise world.
lol, wrong. Costs go way down if you adopt open source software.




They compile their code, x86 code for the specific CPU brand they chose for their server, using the best compiler available for there needs
x86 code that can be run by all x86 cpu makers. Hence why sometimes we see design wins for AMD, others we see the same for Intel.
Well, there was this instruction-set specific tryout from Intel to the server market. Look how well that went, lol.



they've been doing for decades, but now it's bad because it's Nvidia...

SOOOO once again what's wrong about Nvidia delivering the best API they can to those customers?
Because there are non-vendor-exclusivie alternatives, open source or not.




What you fail to understand is that Nvidia does not need to drop CUDA in order to support OpenCL. In fact every single feature, every single optimization they make for CUDA can help develop and evolve OpenCL.
And what you fail to understand is that nVidia could do that same optimization in OpenCL to start with.



And when the most competitive, robust and easy to use combo right now is Nvidia GPU+CUDA is in customers best interest to get that and not wait 2+ years until OpenCL is in the same state for either AMD or Nvidia... really it's not that hard to understand...:shadedshu
2 years?!?? LOL. I just made a list of eight GPU vendors pushing OpenCL 1.1 compatibility in their latest GPUs right now.
 

Fourstaff

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
9,376 (3.20/day)
Likes
2,100
Location
Home
System Name Asus K50-X5DAB \\ Orange!
Processor Athlon QL-65 2.2Ghz \\ 3570K
Motherboard Laptop \\ ASRock z77 Extreme4
Cooling Laptop \\ H100i
Memory 1x1GB + 1X2GB \\ 2x4Gb 1600Mhz CL9 Corsair XMS3
Video Card(s) Mobility Radeon HD4570 512mb \\ Zotac 660Ti OC 2Gb
Storage 250Gb \\ Samsung 840 250Gb + Toshiba DT01ACA300 3Tb
Display(s) 15.6" 1366x768 \\ LG 22EA53VQ
Case Laptop Chassis \\ NZXT Phantom 410 Black/Orange
Power Supply Power Brick \\ Corsair CXM500w
#20
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.
 

JEskandari

New Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
9 (0.00/day)
Likes
0
System Name MoonGlade
Processor Core I7 920
Motherboard MSI X58 Pro
Cooling PCcooler HP1216X
Memory Crucial Ballistix BL3KIT25664BN1608
Video Card(s) Palit GTX460 Sonic
Storage WCD WD1001FALS-00E3A0 + STM31000528AS
Display(s) LG W2262TQ
Case CoolerMaster HAF 922
Audio Device(s) ALC 888s
Power Supply SilverStone DA850
#21
I wonder Why these Cuda haters that claim it's not open source
are not so Vocative when it come to OpenGl and DirectX maybe because
one GPU vendor run OpenGL better than the other one

it's right that cuda is not opensource but as I understand it's royalty
free and the only reason that the programs written for it are not able
to use it is because AMD did not wanted to come of it's high hours
and develop a CUDA driver for it's card or probably their software
engineers could not do it who knows ?

by the way Cuda is portable to everywhere if you like you can tomorrow
make a toaster that utilize CUDA for it's work and the Good point is that
it's royalty free not as something like DirectX that relay on Bloat-Ware to
run
 

Mussels

Moderprator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
46,096 (9.58/day)
Likes
13,521
Location
Australalalalalaia.
System Name Daddy Long Legs
Processor Ryzen R7 1700, 3.9GHz 1.375v
Motherboard MSI X370 Gaming PRO carbon
Cooling Fractal Celsius S24 (Silent fans, meh pump)
Memory 16GB 2133 generic @ 2800
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X (BIOS modded to Gaming Z - faster and solved black screen bugs!)
Storage 1TB Intel SSD Pro 6000p (60TB USB3 storage)
Display(s) Samsung 4K 40" HDTV (UA40KU6000WXXY) / 27" Qnix 2K 110Hz
Case Fractal Design R5. So much room, so quiet...
Audio Device(s) Pioneer VSX-519V + Yamaha YHT-270 / sennheiser HD595/518 + bob marley zion's
Power Supply Corsair HX 750i (Platinum, fan off til 300W)
Mouse Logitech G403 + KKmoon desk-sized mousepad
Keyboard Corsair K65 Rapidfire
Software Windows 10 pro x64 (all systems)
Benchmark Scores Laptops: i7-4510U + 840M 2GB (touchscreen) 275GB SSD + 16GB i7-2630QM + GT 540M + 8GB
#22
I wonder Why these Cuda haters that claim it's not open source
are not so Vocative when it come to OpenGl and DirectX

it's right that cuda is not opensource but as I understand it's royalty
free and the only reason that the programs written for it are not able
to use it is because AMD did not wanted to come of it's high hours
and develop a CUDA driver for it's card or probably their software
engineers could not do it who knows ?

by the way Cuda is portable to everywhere if you like you can tomorrow
make a toaster that utilize CUDA for it's work and the Good point is that
it's royalty free not as something like DirectX that relay on Bloat-Ware to
run
because everyone is welcome to use directX (video card manufacturers). the same is not true for Cuda. CUDA is exclusive to nvidia hardware. they never offered it to AMD, that was a rumour that had zero fact behind it.


also, where is this info about directX being bloatware? the only bloat about it is that it requires windows...
 

JEskandari

New Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
9 (0.00/day)
Likes
0
System Name MoonGlade
Processor Core I7 920
Motherboard MSI X58 Pro
Cooling PCcooler HP1216X
Memory Crucial Ballistix BL3KIT25664BN1608
Video Card(s) Palit GTX460 Sonic
Storage WCD WD1001FALS-00E3A0 + STM31000528AS
Display(s) LG W2262TQ
Case CoolerMaster HAF 922
Audio Device(s) ALC 888s
Power Supply SilverStone DA850
#23
because everyone is welcome to use directX. the same is not true for Cuda. CUDA is exclusive to nvidia hardware. they never offered it to AMD, that was a rumour that had zero fact behind it.


also, where is this info about directX being bloatware? the only bloat about it is that it requires windows...
Well you Said it DirectX need a Bloat Ware Called Windows ,By the way let's just say the people who
use Linux or Mac are not that welcome the world of DirectX

by the way did ATI really need an offer ?
isn't it free to develop your CUDA Hardware and software implementation ?
 
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
865 (0.29/day)
Likes
165
Location
Porto
Processor Phenom II X3 720BE @ 3.3GHz, 4th core unlocked
Motherboard Asus M4A78-E
Cooling Schythe Ninja + Dual 120mm
Memory GEiL 2*2GB Gold
Video Card(s) Gigabyte HD5870 1GB + PhysX/Computing 8800GTS 512MB
Storage Intel X25-M 80GB O.S. + WD 500GB Data
Display(s) HP 2408w 24" LCD
Case Antec Plusview 1000
Audio Device(s) X-Fi XtremeMusic + Gigaworks SB750 7.1 THX
Power Supply BeQuiet Dark Power Pro 650W
Software Windows 7 64bit
#24
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.
Windows allows hardware differentiation and promotes hardware competiteveness.
CUDA does not.
At most, you could compare it to MacOS X, since it only supports whatever hardware that Apple choses to include in their computers at a given time.

Regardless of how well seen it is from a developer's point of view, it's just one more method for nVidia to try to sell more hardware with an exclusive computing API.
 

Mussels

Moderprator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
46,096 (9.58/day)
Likes
13,521
Location
Australalalalalaia.
System Name Daddy Long Legs
Processor Ryzen R7 1700, 3.9GHz 1.375v
Motherboard MSI X370 Gaming PRO carbon
Cooling Fractal Celsius S24 (Silent fans, meh pump)
Memory 16GB 2133 generic @ 2800
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X (BIOS modded to Gaming Z - faster and solved black screen bugs!)
Storage 1TB Intel SSD Pro 6000p (60TB USB3 storage)
Display(s) Samsung 4K 40" HDTV (UA40KU6000WXXY) / 27" Qnix 2K 110Hz
Case Fractal Design R5. So much room, so quiet...
Audio Device(s) Pioneer VSX-519V + Yamaha YHT-270 / sennheiser HD595/518 + bob marley zion's
Power Supply Corsair HX 750i (Platinum, fan off til 300W)
Mouse Logitech G403 + KKmoon desk-sized mousepad
Keyboard Corsair K65 Rapidfire
Software Windows 10 pro x64 (all systems)
Benchmark Scores Laptops: i7-4510U + 840M 2GB (touchscreen) 275GB SSD + 16GB i7-2630QM + GT 540M + 8GB
#25
Well you Said it DirectX need a Bloat Ware Called Windows ,By the way let's just say the people who
use Linux or Mac are not that welcome the world of DirectX
on that whole front (i guess you're a linux or mac user), none of the OS's are software compatible between themselves. directX is one of... well, everything. its illogical thinking to make an example of one specific part of windows, when NOTHING that runs on windows runs on mac or linux, and vice versa.

by the way did ATI really need an offer ?
isn't it free to develop your CUDA Hardware and software implementation ?

uhhh... no. if someone started slapping CUDA on their products in any way, even advertising on the box, nvidia would sue their asses off.

you have to pay, and get nvidias approval to use cuda for a commercial product. Hell, look how much of a tightarse they've been with hardware accelerated physX, which runs on CUDA.