![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Yeah, I don't see why the OP is surprised.
Even OpenGL games use DX for input and sound. A standardized interface is better than nothing, and in case you haven't heard, Windows has around a 95% share of installed desktop OSs.
It will be used under Windows, at least as an alternative to the few Brook+ holdouts who are sick of how fragile it is.There are hundreds of publicly available CUDA applications (and likely many more in-house projects), and it's the primary API course offered in universities, taken by thousands of students already. The market for GPU parallel processing is small and CUDA has the lion's share of support. It is nowhere near an even start when OpenCL has an implementation released. OpenCL will have a lot of ground to make up, which is why I have doubts if it will catch on.
CUDA has low level and high level Interfaces. I'll take your second statement in light of your misunderstanding of what CUDA is.What I like about OpenCL is that it'll be supported by all major GPU manufacturers (heck, even S3 is onboard), and that it's more low-level than CUDA. Low-level is good
CUDA will probably be aimed at 'n00bs' and intermediate programmers (GPGPU), while OpenCL will be used more to optimize the heck out of things by advanced programmers. Not a bad setup.
BTW, CUDA is used in the highest end GPGPU applications, including oil exploration and financial modeling. I'm sorry to say there is really no 'n00b' level of parallel programming, at least for anything that does something useful at least semi-efficiently.CUDA has low level and high level Interfaces. I'll take your second statement in light of your misunderstanding of what CUDA is.
Even OpenGL games use DX for input and sound. A standardized interface is better than nothing, and in case you haven't heard, Windows has around a 95% share of installed desktop OSs.
You seem to be confused. On Windows, most commercial OGL games use DX for input and/or sound. Pick up any of your OGL game boxes and look at the system requirements. You'll see "DirectX Compatible sound card" under requirements on almost all modern Windows games, DX or OGL.
Actually, quite incorrect.
Actually, quite incorrect.
OpenAL is a layer on top of the host OS sound (DirectSound on Windows, CoreAudio on Mac, etc.), which is why a DirectSound compatible sound card is required even for Windows OpenAL games.
(emphasis added)
C'mon already. OpenAL only has a native interface on Creative Audigy (some) and Xi-Fi cards (and licensed other models), now a tiny fraction of the market. For other sound cards, it is a layer above the *DirectSound compatible driver for the sound card* on Windows. Believe it or not, the system requirements on the game boxes are accurate.
You won't get very far. I have a feeling it may also affect the creative cards since those libraries are also used for enumerating sound devices and capabilities... hence *OpenAL games still use ds*, the whole point of this pointless sub-topic. C'mon already. OpenAL only has a native interface on Creative Audigy (some) and Xi-Fi cards (and licensed other models), now a tiny fraction of the market. For other sound cards, it is a layer above the *DirectSound compatible driver for the sound card* on Windows. Believe it or not, the system requirements on the game boxes are accurate.
Whether DS/DS3D is hardware accelerated doesn't matter. I don't get why you brought that up. OpenAL on most cards (excluding native models mentioned above) won't be hardware accelerated under Vista either unless the sound card driver (you know, the directsound compatible one) has a native interface.
If you still don't believe it, rename your ds*.dll driver files and try to run a OpenAL game under Windows (excluding native models mentioned above).