AMD does reverse GPGPU, announces OpenCL SDK for x86

[blindbox]

They produce processors too Talonman. I have to admit though, it sounds more like an intel's thing (just a thought. They created x86 anyway. It made me think that AMD did intel a favour).

[zanzabar]

They produce processors too Talonman. I have to admit though, it sounds more like an intel's thing (just a thought. They created x86 anyway. It made me think that AMD did intel a favour).

not really with amd creating the sdk and compiler that allows them to have optimized code, the largest problem with amd server parts is that x86 with heavy int on sse1/2 runs drastically different depending on what compiler u use as to the performance comparison on amd and intel. so this is a huge boost for amd in the long run, since who controls the compiler controls the optimization path for the hardware

it also makes it so intel wont be so hasty to remove the x86 licensing and may give amd enough to claim that they changed x86 enough to get their own rights and wont have to pay licensing for x86 GF parts

I don't think OpenCL runs on top of CUDA API, because it's not a higher level API, but the opposite if any. Obviously, it surely runs on top of CUDA architecture, since that's a commercial name to their architecture, but that has nothing to do with developement times, obviously for all vendors, the API will run on top of their architecture...

open CL is higher than cuda, cuda is a low lvl C, openCL is closer to C++. and there is a cuda interface on the driver that it has to run through no matter what GPGPU language ends up on it.

[Farinorco]

open CL is higher than cuda, cuda is a low lvl C, openCL is closer to C++. and there is a cuda interface on the driver that it has to run through no matter what GPGPU language ends up on it.

Maybe, I don't know the APIs themselves (yet, I will when I have some time for it ), but I read the interview with the Khrono's president (also Nvidia's VP of Embedded Content) published in TechReport and posted here by Trinibwoy where he said the following about OpenCL and CUDA:

OpenCL and C for CUDA are actually at very different levels. OpenCL is the typical Khronos API. Khronos likes to build the API as close as possible to the silicon. We call it the foundation-level API that everyone is going to need. Everyone who's building silicon needs to at some point expose their silicon capability at the lowest and most fundamental, and in some ways the most powerful, level because we've given the developer pretty close access to the silicon capability—just high enough abstraction to enable portability across different vendors and silicon architectures. And that's what OpenCL does. You have an API that you have control over the way stuff runs. It gives you that level of control.

Whereas C for CUDA, it takes all of that low-level decision making and automates it. So you just write a C program, and the C for CUDA architecture will figure out how to parallelize. Now, some developers will love that, because it's much easier, and the system is doing a lot more figuring out for you. Other developers will hate that, and they will want to get down to bits and bytes and have a more instant level of control. But again, it's all good, and as long as the developers are educated as to what are the various approaches that the different programming languages are taking, and are enabled to pick the one that best suits their needs, I think that's a healthy thing.

Here is the complete interview: http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/17321/1

This is why I said that OpenCL isn't a higher level than CUDA but the opposite if any, that's what he's saying there...

Of course, given that NVIDIA names with CUDA from the hardware achitecture to the higher level language/API, any GPGPU are going to be on top of some CUDA layer...

[Talonman]

A handy picture...