Khronos Releases OpenCL Spec

kpesler writes "Today, the Khronos Group released the OpenCL API specification (which we discussed earlier this year). It provides an open API for executing general-purpose code kernels on GPUs — so-called GPGPU functionality. Initially bolstered by Apple, the API garnered the support of major players including NVIDIA, AMD/ATI, and Intel. Motivated by inclusion in OS X Snow Leopard, the spec was completed in record time — about half a year from the formation of the group to the ratified spec."

what does it DO?

[Bizzeh]

is this simply a spec that people expect ati and nvidia to conform to? or is this another api outside of CUDA and CAL, that wraps the two up so that a single api can execute code on all GPGPU's?

What about other chipmakers?

[elh_inny]

While I see quite a few members that I wasn't expecting (Creative Labs), my concern is that there are some companies that should definitely be participating in this but aren't.
By that I mean gfx chip makers such as Via or S3, as for now it seems we're tied to the major players (nVidia, AMD, Intel) for desktop/laptop implementations and that's never good for the consumer.

Either way the spec itself is a great initiative and I can't wait to get my hands on beta bulids of Snow Leopard to try it out...

Re:What about other chipmakers?

[elh_inny]

Oops.. I just noticed S3 is on the list, they managed to get a lot of companies on board after all.

Re:what does it DO?

[moogord]

It has applications further than that, the SIMD architecture of gpus makes them almost perfect as a hugely powerful non general purpose processor. Do you want to use this to handle AI? no. do you want to use this to enable millions of crates to go flying every which way when you fire a rocket? yes. Its essentially what glsl is to Nvidia's Cg, but instead of cg its an open (that's the important thing) CUDA replacement.

Re:What about other chipmakers?

[larry bagina]

Open Source means all of us. X.org and Mesa don't have a magic cow that shits code, it has to be written by people in their spare time (and X.org is stagnating due to a lack of developer interest). Nobody on the OpenCL list particularly give a shit about linux, and adoption will happen with or without linux or open source. Instead of waiting for other people to tell you how to feel, maybe you should sit down and read the spec.

No way for CUDA on ATI

[DrYak]

CUDA on ATI can't be done easily.
As a writer of CUDA code, I can tell you that a lot of CUDA isn't as high level as nVidia's marketing would like you to believe. And thus is very much linked to specific properties of the current hardware from nVidia.

The lower-level of CUDA enables the programmer to do some really clever optimisations. But as the hardware peculiarities aren't abstracted away, writing a compatible implementation for chips from a different manufacturer which aren't exactly the same underneath isn't trivial, even if the specifications of CUDA *are* published.

On the other hand, the Brook language is a really a high level language which completely abstracts the details of hardware implementation. The BrookGPU implementation supports several back-end, including en OpenGL + GLSL back-end which as well on GPUs from both ATI and nVidia.
Though I didn't follow the latest development since ATI hired the main guy to write Brook+ for them.

Because it is supposed to be vendor neutral, OpenCL looks promising too, but I haven't read the specifications yet.