On 23 joulu, 01:07, Hadron <hadronqu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > In article <giosmb$9f...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > Hadron <hadronqu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> MS always had openGL support. Or rather the video drivers did. What you
> >> DONT need is ANOTHER open standard from Apple.
>
> >> Are you guys nuts?
>
> > Yes, we do need it. It is not what you think it is:
>
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCL>
>
> No. We dont need it.
>
We don't need computers. We could all live in caves and eat berries,
fruits, etc. But that's besides the point. Check what the 'C' in
OpenCL stands for; it's not for graphics. It is for computing; doing
computations. There are a lot of interesting things you can compute
with a computer.. you still with us, or do we need to simplify this
for you?
Okay, now, for using the CPU, which stands for Central Processing
Unit, you can write programs in many interesting programming
languages. You can use binary, assembly, C, C++, Java, Fortran, Basic
and other languages. The OpenCL is language and API to support the
language for more generic computing hardware. Think of Intel's
Larrabee, GPU's, CELL, etc.. they have a lot more power than CPU+FPU
(FPU = Floating Point Unit). This enables us programmers to write
software to use that raw computing power.
It's not about needing or not needing OpenCL. We _need_ something
similar to use the processing power that we have. If it's not OpenCL,
then it's compute shaders in DirectX 11 or CUDA. OpenCL will just work
more hardware and platforms. I think your argument boils down to if we
need to use the hardware or not. You say we don't need to use it,
fine, you don't. No argument there. You know best what _you_ need. But
when the context is HOW we going to use the hardware, suddenly we DO
need OpenCL or similar API.
That's the topic people here are discussing. You are, like, commenting
on the wrong discussion.
|
|
