upvote

points

by bigyabai11 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby boredatoms11 hours ago|
next
[-]
Maybe a not-Khronos org should try
reply
upvoteby high_na_euv11 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Wdym American Vendors?

Intel uses SPIRV iirc

reply
upvoteby my12310 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> Intel uses SPIRV iirc

They're migrating away from SPIR-V to their own, Intel PISA: https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-upstreaming-the-pisa-backen...

reply
upvoteby swerner10 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
To my knowledge, SPIR-V on Intel will stay, and be it only because it’s part of the OpenCL and Vulkan standards.
reply
upvoteby my12310 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Yeah talking about the (vendor-preferred) compute part here

Vulkan's SPIR-V dialect is substantially different from the OpenCL one, notably with the former having structured control flow. They're incompatible between each other.

reply
upvoteby swerner9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Yes, unfortunately. Otherwise we could just implement all of SYCL and OpenCL on top of Vulkan and live happily ever after.
reply
upvoteby bigyabai11 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I'm talking about holistic efforts like OpenCL, and standards that would be equivalent to Nvidia's "Compute Capability" versioning.

The basic underlying tech can be agreed on, but Apple/AMD/Intel all have different GPU priorities that limit their ability to agree on a CUDA-adjacent hardware platform.

reply
upvoteby omcnoe5 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Ultimately AMD missed the most important boat with their woeful support for GPU compute. 10 years ago they needed to go all in and offer something to compete with CUDA - whether that was internal or something standard from Khronos. They just couldn't commit to it as a business, didn't have the vision.

Intel missed for a different reason - they didn't invest in the product space at all for decades. In terms of units they had the most market share (millions of Intel Integrated Graphics chips), but it wasn't seen as important. Bare minimum to render Windows and Office UI, nothing more.

reply
upvoteby swerner11 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
What do you mean by holistic? SYCL is an open versioned standard that allows for vendor specific extensions. The problem is not that there isn’t a proper standard, the problem is that many hardware vendors - or software developers simply don’t want to adopt it.

Intel (via Codeplay) was handing it out on a silver platter - Nvidia on SYCL, full top chain, and people still wouldn’t want it.

reply
upvoteby bigyabai10 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Isn't OneAPI a good example of the problem, alongside Mojo/ONNX/TensorRT? The industry doesn't need a fifteenth competing standard. They need hardware buy-in.

By holistic, I mean hardware architecture cooperation. Nvidia can hold onto their lead forever if GPU designers fight over what a GPGPU hardware baseline looks like. The current ecosystem fragmentation is not competitive, and future fragmentation probably wouldn't work either. I think the fastest way to kill Nvidia would be a hardware consortium.

reply
upvoteby swerner10 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The problem with OneAPI is naming. It leads people to believe that is another competing standard where in fact is is simply just an implementation of a standard compliant SYCL compiler. If it just had been named “Intel SYCL compiler”, similar to the existing and accepted Intel OpenCL compiler, it would have been easier.

What would you expect the hardware consortium to coordinate on? Unified ISA?

reply
upvoteby my12310 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
oneAPI is effectively an Intel-only platform not a standard.

Yes they have implementations on top of CUDA but they're maintained by... Intel. They didn't get buy-in for cross-vendor collaboration

reply
upvoteby swerner10 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
They were maintained by Codeplay - paid for my Intel. Nvidia can make contributions anytime they want, and here is the problem: Nvidia does not want to. Until each vendor starts pitching in with contributing their backend to an open standard, you will have to rely on others doing it for them.
reply