Re: DPH and CUDA status

I'm personally pessimistic about the STI Cell, but it's a reasonable example wrt the difficulty of writing the backends. Barring the data and message orchestration, which also aflicts GPUs, there's the decision function as to when to migrate a computation to the accelerator (GPU, SPU, ...) Not so much of a problem in chip symmetric mcore, but gets pretty dicey for hybrid mcore. Been trying to wrap my head around that problem for a couple of years. -scooter Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Heard Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:06:02 To: Brad Larsen Cc: GHC Users Subject: Re: DPH and CUDA status You're quite correct. I should say supplant for normal uses. The OpenCL drivers are built on top of CUDA, and they intend CUDA to continue to be available, but OpenCL is more portable and thus something that we should probably target at some point. On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Brad Larsen wrote:

On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Jeff Heard wrote:

...

[...]  One thing though, is that CUDA is being supplanted by OpenCL in the next few years, and OpenCL can handle data parallelism on multicore CPUs as well as GPUs with the same code. It's a little more flexible overall than CUDA, and will be portable across ATI/nVidia/Intell/AMD/Sony Cell in the end, and is well supported on Linux, Mac, and Windows systems. [...]

I have been told by NVIDIA folks that CUDA is not going to disappear. Its C++ API (as opposed to its ``driver interface'') is quite a bit higher level than OpenCL, suitable for (painful) application development, whereas OpenCL seems more targeted for compiler and framework writers.

Sincerely, Brad

_______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users