![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
NVIDIA releases certified OpenCL drivers.
- Thread starter Atech
- Start date
*nods*
I was using the pre-release version up till recently. Good to see no major issues were found after the Beta program
NVIDIA has a big focus on GPGPU....unlike AMD, so it's no surpirse to me.
Brook is going EOL and I wonder when AMD will get their OpenCL drivers ready.
But good for NVIDIA.
Yeah, Stream/Brook+/CTM never took off and their OpenCL efforts so far seem to be half-hearted. I don't recall hearing about a dev Beta program like nVidia had for OpenCL, nor about any press releases announcing a fixed date.
I guess nVidia will be throwing a small party
I know I am, because now I can move my company's products to OpenCL (assuming a performance benefit or equality compared to CUDA) without having to force pre-release drivers upon my customers Yeah, Stream/Brook+/CTM never took off and their OpenCL efforts so far seem to be half-hearted. I don't recall hearing about a dev Beta program like nVidia had for OpenCL, nor about any press releases announcing a fixed date.
I guess nVidia will be throwing a small party
I am more excited about this:
GF100 (Geforce Fermi unlike the previous Geforce Tesla)...indicating a new MIMD architechture...tailored for GPGPU
)GF100 apparently is the correct name for the artist formerly known as "GT300"
Nenu
[H]ardened
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 20,315
Now AMD (with a nod from Intel) need to port Havok to OpenCL and give us some GPU goodness.
Something tells me this isnt going to happen though.
Something tells me this isnt going to happen though.
Nenu
[H]ardened
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 20,315
They need OpenCL drivers before porting anything
Aye you already mentioned that, mebbe this will make AMD get a shift on.
Then again, NVidia having OpenCL will probably make AMD decide to never port Havok to OpenCL !
Politics grrr.
Vermillion
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,417
AMD has no say in porting Havok to OpenCL...that is Intel's say
Thus why once again I say things like PhysX and Havok should not be owned by direct competitor's. It only hinders advancement...
Yeah, becuase NVIDIA isn't pushing PhysX and hardly anyone uses their
API...erhmm...wait?
There are opensopurce alternatives outhere...they just don't have the same "pondus" as either PhysX or Havok.
AMD dosn't have their own physics middleware...but that is their own fault.
Vermillion
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,417
Where did I even talk about PhysX or any vendor by name? Seriously dude you need to check your PhysX crusade at the door. Anytime somebody says something you assume it's bashing PhysX. I don't hate PhysX. I just hate what Nvidia is doing with it. I also hate what Intel is doing with Havok. I see them both as hindering physics development.
AMD doesn't have a say in PhysX being ported to OpenCL either. Neither does Intel. Nvidia likewise has no say in what Havok does. That's the issue. We have three vendors and two in control of two different technologies that can both lead to the same results with further development.
We need 3 vendors and NONE of them in direct control of a technology that is hardware independent and can be used on CPU or GPU.
Anything else is hindering development.
alg7_munif
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 5,862
Their SDK is available here:
http://developer.amd.com/GPU/ATISTREAMSDKBETAPROGRAM/Pages/default.aspx
Good to know that AMD is in the game as well
Can't wait for their release version so that people can start benchmarking nVidia & AMD GPUs with OpenCL apps Tamlin_WSGF
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2006
- Messages
- 3,123
Nenu
[H]ardened
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 20,315
Already covered in post #7AMD has no say in porting Havok to OpenCL...that is Intel's say
You pushing for a battle?