News PathScale plans CUDA killer

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2010/04/28/pathscale-plans-cuda-killer/1

 

Not another one.... all we need imo is OpenCL with proper support from everyone

 

I'll stick with CUDA for now and OpenCL once it has matured some more. I don't think we need another 'standard'.

 

Pretty sure this will crash and burn as it doesn't have the existing support of OpenCL or CUDA.

 

If this technology supports higher level languages natively (instead of C or C++), then I'll give it a shot.
When they say

does it mean that all you have to do to make your algorithm run on the GPU is change the compiler?

 

zero code changes? impossible!

 

Sounds very Steorn-y to me. Depends if they can deliver the goods.

 

How do you know OpenCL is all we need? Are you an experienced GPGPU application developer? (CUDA? OpenCL? ATI Stream? DirectCompute?)

Maybe OpenCL could be improved from PathScale's approach?
(Considering the latter will be open source anyway.)

I don't see a problem in exploring various options to see if one can do things better.

...Its like saying there should be only one brand or form of car, plane, boat, computer, CPU, video card, martial art, etc...And that should be the only way to go.

I say let's see what PathScale has to offer first. Then criticise if the implementation is BS or something of a keeper.

 

there should it would make things so much easier

 

anything but cuda.. need opencl or something better- basically any thing open source

 

If it does make it signficantly easier for the programmer than CUDA, Pathscale could shake the GPGPU market.

 

provided it works with all hardware and isn't proprietary like cuda then it is just another string to our bow...all power to them in their efforts.

 

As long as it is as easy to use as CUDA but multiplatform, I'm all for it :thumbs:

 

Yeah and let all the current apps that support CUDA run instantly on ati hardware and then, only then you have a real winner!

 

Most likely it'll be highly proprietary, require buggy tools, show questionable performance in a lot of situations and lag behind CUDA.

Don't underestimate the optimization done on CUDA and the fact that C/C++ can now run pretty much without modification via CUDA as well. Combined with the generic-ness of OpenCL, PathScale will have an uphill battle.

@borandi: You do realize that CUDA is multi-platform?

 

Can you seriously think of no better way to improve the programming model for offloading to the gpu? The OpenCL drivers will eventually become mature enough, but that's not really the problem here.

#1 It's about an open source foundation to foster further collaboration and research
#2 It's about improving the programming model to make it easier to leverage the gpu.
#3 It's about better performance, tools and innovation.

There's an inaccuracy in the article which I'll try to clarify.

We're doing alpha testing on what we consider the 2nd evolution approach to offloading to the GPU. (Not 3rd)

(That being a pragma or directive based approach to outline regions of code/functions for offloading) This doesn't mean we aren't working on a fully automatic solution, but that's 12-18 months away at the earliest.

Our goals are simple
1) Make the programming model easier. Pure CUDA and OpenCL development is expensive.
2) Equal or better performance compared to pure CUDA. (The directive based approaches currently available lose performance compared to pure CUDA in their source-to-source translations)

We could easily add a CUDA or OpenCL front-end to our compiler, but this was not the preferred programming model for those writing real code to be offloaded to the gpu.

CUDA is *not* easy when you compare it to writing a traditional multithreaded application which can take advantage of multicore processors. (The Nvidia best practices add a lot of gotchas to really achieve the best performance.) I'm not saying we'll solve world hungry, but from our perspective we think the compiler can do a much better job and make things easier.

While Linux dominates the HPC market I'd like to see Linux, FBSD and OpenSolaris support. (Actual platforms not confirmed so do not consider this final)

Do you work for AMD/ATi or something? (jk) ATI's problem is not because they are simply limited on the front-end. Even if that were possible the majority (90% based on the market data I have) of the HPC market is preferring Nvidia hardware. Lets be really blunt here.. ATI's r700 isa and registers are open and publicly available. We surely aren't doing all this extra work for no reason.

We are evaluating adding an ATi backend so please let us know if you need it and will use it in production.

 

Opencl can do the job for us. Or may be there are some other open source options available too. Solr an open source search platform (http://www.lucidimagination.com/Downloads/LucidWorks-for-Solr/Reference-Guide) can also fit in from application developer's perspective.