Tim Smith wrote:
> In article <giq1ds$nnm$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Hadron <hadronquark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > What we've got now are several vendor-specific systems (CUDA from
>> > NVidia, and Stream Computing SDK from AMD, for example). You don't
>> > think having a portable, standard way to do GPGPU stuff is something
>> > we need!?
>> No. I dont. At this time we need a shove of the existing standards. And
>> b "we" I mean the Linux side. Gods knows its having enough difficulty
>> keeping up and getting SW vendors on their side.
> What existing standards? As far as I know, there isn't an existing
> standard. If I want to do, say, a GPU-accelerated FFT, I have to decide
> if I'm going to target NVidia GPUs or ATI GPUs, then use either NVidia's
> CUDA software or AMD's Stream Computing SDK, respectively.
> With OpenCL, I'll be able to write my GPU-assisted FFT code in a way
> that doesn't depend on the particular GPU. How is that not a good and
> much needed thing?
Simply *because* it is a good thing Hadron Quark is against it.
Not only because it is "choice" (something Hadron *hates* like few other
things), but also because it is good for OpenGL. Can't have that, as MS
favours DirectX and wants to bury OpenGL, the sooner the better
Don't abandon hope: your Tom Mix decoder ring arrives tomorrow