OpenGL 3.0 and OpenCL announcement

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
http://www.khronos.org/news/press/re...enerations_of/



Excerpt:



Quote:

Finally, the OpenGL working group is working closely with the newly announced OpenCL working group at Khronos to define full interoperability between the two open standards. OpenCL is an emerging royalty-free standard focused on programming the emerging intersection of GPU and multi-core CPU compute through a C-based language for heterogeneous data and task parallel computing. The two APIs together will provide a powerful open standards-based visual computing platform with OpenCL’s general purpose compute capabilities intimately combined with the full power of OpenGL.



Great news.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 14
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    Great news.



    I realize that not everything is known about open cl, but in your opinion, will this be a big benefit for for dual core machines or is this something that will mostly benefit machines with 4 or more cores? It seems like our current os's (osx, windows and linux) can keep 2 core cpus pretty busy but underutilize the power (for the most part) of machines with 4 or more cores.



    I say this because I'm reluctant to buy a dual core iMac, which is probably all I need, because I'm waiting for a quad core iMac (or iMac with a dual core Nehalem and HT) and open cl. I keep thinking that will be a big leap in performance that I won't want to miss.
  • Reply 2 of 14
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post


    I realize that not everything is known about open cl, but in your opinion, will this be a big benefit for for dual core machines or is this something that will mostly benefit machines with 4 or more cores? It seems like our current os's (osx, windows and linux) can keep 2 core cpus pretty busy but underutilize the power (for the most part) of machines with 4 or more cores.



    I say this because I'm reluctant to buy a dual core iMac, which is probably all I need, because I'm waiting for a quad core iMac (or iMac with a dual core Nehalem and HT) and open cl. I keep thinking that will be a big leap in performance that I won't want to miss.



    OpenCL is a GPGPU tech, so it will benefit machines with powerful (and compatible) graphics cards.
  • Reply 3 of 14
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post


    OpenCL is a GPGPU tech, so it will benefit machines with powerful (and compatible) graphics cards.



    I thought it would allow the os to parallelize tasks and utilize multi core machines better?
  • Reply 4 of 14
    mydomydo Posts: 1,888member
    Yea that's true too. It seems OpenCL doesn't care if it's a GPU or a CPU. It's just looking for a PU. I guess it all depends on the platform specific implementation. If the OpenCL library and the driver for the CPU and GPU are all there then you're in compute heaven.
  • Reply 5 of 14
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post


    I thought it would allow the os to parallelize tasks and utilize multi core machines better?



    That's Grand Central. OpenCL is for GPUs. Even Apple's page on Snow Leopard says so.
  • Reply 6 of 14
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,912member
    [QUOTE=backtomac;1292868]I realize that not everything is known about open cl, but in your opinion, will this be a big benefit for for dual core machines or is this something that will mostly benefit machines with 4 or more cores? It seems like our current os's (osx, windows and linux) can keep 2 core cpus pretty busy but underutilize the power (for the most part) of machines with 4 or more cores.

    [\\quote]

    The way I understand it is that OpenCL is a GPU taegetted C like language with a fall back to the system processor. Now understand that I'm not in the loop, so to speak, so take everything I say in this thread with a grain of salt. Supposedly the key here is run time configuration / compile of the code to run on the hardware available at the time. Thus a programmers code would take advantage of whatever GPU would be installed at the time.



    Quote:



    I say this because I'm reluctant to buy a dual core iMac, which is probably all I need, because I'm waiting for a quad core iMac (or iMac with a dual core Nehalem and HT) and open cl. I keep thinking that will be a big leap in performance that I won't want to miss.



    First if you have an interest in OpenCL then you need to look at MACs with really good GPUs. One of the reasons I bought a MBP 6 months ago was that it had a real GPU. I would suggest that GPUs will become much more important in the future than the are now.



    There are caveats one of which is that there are limitations to what general purpose computing a GPU can accelerate. Don't expect every app to adopt OpenCL.



    As to quad cores the old saying buy a PC when you need it holds true. However at this point there are realities to consider.



    First; Apple is working on tech that would lead to much better use of four cores. That is also part of Snow Leopard. How much that will impact your personal work load is anybodies guess.



    Second; it is very much becoming a multicore world. Right now the goal is to find the economical solution that offers up as many cores as possible. Unfortunately for Apple fans that means dual core right now, unless you can afford a PRO. So if you are looking for a long term investment,a couple of years or more, I'd wait for quad cores. Of course it is always a possibility that your work load may never use all those cores no matter how wee Apple and the developers try to exploit them. This just highlights that the value in all these cores somewhat depends on the user.



    Third; if you wait for Intels new processor tech to hit you will have available to you more benefits than just quad cores. The additional features of Intels coming processors are well worth waiting a few months for. Intact the new processors offer features as compelling as the quad cores.







    Now for some commentary; that MBP was my first dual core machine. Before that I ran a desktop machine with a single core and Linux as the OS. The first thing that I have to say is that Linux is a better multi tasking OS, it is fairly amazing what it could do with a single core. While MacOS might be a little sluggish at times it is pretty clear that dual cores and a well used GPU make for a huge difference in the user experience. This from an OS that simply doesn't use those cores as well as let's say Linux. When Apple improves this issue with Snow Leopard I think they will move to the head of the pack as far as OS performance goes. I expect that Snow Leopard will make very good use of those quad cores



    Dave
  • Reply 7 of 14
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,912member
    [QUOTE=backtomac;1292868]I realize that not everything is known about open cl, but in your opinion, will this be a big benefit for for dual core machines or is this something that will mostly benefit machines with 4 or more cores? It seems like our current os's (osx, windows and linux) can keep 2 core cpus pretty busy but underutilize the power (for the most part) of machines with 4 or more cores.

    [\\quote]

    The way I understand it is that OpenCL is a GPU taegetted C like language with a fall back to the system processor. Now understand that I'm not in the loop, so to speak, so take everything I say in this thread with a grain of salt. Supposedly the key here is run time configuration / compile of the code to run on the hardware available at the time. Thus a programmers code would take advantage of whatever GPU would be installed at the time.



    Quote:



    I say this because I'm reluctant to buy a dual core iMac, which is probably all I need, because I'm waiting for a quad core iMac (or iMac with a dual core Nehalem and HT) and open cl. I keep thinking that will be a big leap in performance that I won't want to miss.



    First if you have an interest in OpenCL then you need to look at MACs with really good GPUs. One of the reasons I bought a MBP 6 months ago was that it had a real GPU. I would suggest that GPUs will become much more important in the future than the are now.



    There are caveats one of which is that there are limitations to what general purpose computing a GPU can accelerate. Don't expect every app to adopt OpenCL.



    As to quad cores the old saying buy a PC when you need it holds true. However at this point there are realities to consider.



    First; Apple is working on tech that would lead to much better use of four cores. That is also part of Snow Leopard. How much that will impact your personal work load is anybodies guess.



    Second; it is very much becoming a multicore world. Right now the goal is to find the economical solution that offers up as many cores as possible. Unfortunately for Apple fans that means dual core right now, unless you can afford a PRO. So if you are looking for a long term investment,a couple of years or more, I'd wait for quad cores. Of course it is always a possibility that your work load may never use all those cores no matter how wee Apple and the developers try to exploit them. This just highlights that the value in all these cores somewhat depends on the user.



    Third; if you wait for Intels new processor tech to hit you will have available to you more benefits than just quad cores. The additional features of Intels coming processors are well worth waiting a few months for. Intact the new processors offer features as compelling as the quad cores.







    Now for some commentary; that MBP was my first dual core machine. Before that I ran a desktop machine with a single core and Linux as the OS. The first thing that I have to say is that Linux is a better multi tasking OS, it is fairly amazing what it could do with a single core. While MacOS might be a little sluggish at times it is pretty clear that dual cores and a well used GPU make for a huge difference in the user experience. This from an OS that simply doesn't use those cores as well as let's say Linux. When Apple improves this issue with Snow Leopard I think they will move to the head of the pack as far as OS performance goes. I expect that Snow Leopard will make very good use of those quad cores



    Dave
  • Reply 8 of 14
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,912member
    [QUOTE=backtomac;1292868]I realize that not everything is known about open cl, but in your opinion, will this be a big benefit for for dual core machines or is this something that will mostly benefit machines with 4 or more cores? It seems like our current os's (osx, windows and linux) can keep 2 core cpus pretty busy but underutilize the power (for the most part) of machines with 4 or more cores.

    [\\quote]

    The way I understand it is that OpenCL is a GPU taegetted C like language with a fall back to the system processor. Now understand that I'm not in the loop, so to speak, so take everything I say in this thread with a grain of salt. Supposedly the key here is run time configuration / compile of the code to run on the hardware available at the time. Thus a programmers code would take advantage of whatever GPU would be installed at the time.



    Quote:



    I say this because I'm reluctant to buy a dual core iMac, which is probably all I need, because I'm waiting for a quad core iMac (or iMac with a dual core Nehalem and HT) and open cl. I keep thinking that will be a big leap in performance that I won't want to miss.



    First if you have an interest in OpenCL then you need to look at MACs with really good GPUs. One of the reasons I bought a MBP 6 months ago was that it had a real GPU. I would suggest that GPUs will become much more important in the future than the are now.



    There are caveats one of which is that there are limitations to what general purpose computing a GPU can accelerate. Don't expect every app to adopt OpenCL.



    As to quad cores the old saying buy a PC when you need it holds true. However at this point there are realities to consider.



    First; Apple is working on tech that would lead to much better use of four cores. That is also part of Snow Leopard. How much that will impact your personal work load is anybodies guess.



    Second; it is very much becoming a multicore world. Right now the goal is to find the economical solution that offers up as many cores as possible. Unfortunately for Apple fans that means dual core right now, unless you can afford a PRO. So if you are looking for a long term investment,a couple of years or more, I'd wait for quad cores. Of course it is always a possibility that your work load may never use all those cores no matter how wee Apple and the developers try to exploit them. This just highlights that the value in all these cores somewhat depends on the user.



    Third; if you wait for Intels new processor tech to hit you will have available to you more benefits than just quad cores. The additional features of Intels coming processors are well worth waiting a few months for. Intact the new processors offer features as compelling as the quad cores.







    Now for some commentary; that MBP was my first dual core machine. Before that I ran a desktop machine with a single core and Linux as the OS. The first thing that I have to say is that Linux is a better multi tasking OS, it is fairly amazing what it could do with a single core. While MacOS might be a little sluggish at times it is pretty clear that dual cores and a well used GPU make for a huge difference in the user experience. This from an OS that simply doesn't use those cores as well as let's say Linux. When Apple improves this issue with Snow Leopard I think they will move to the head of the pack as far as OS performance goes. I expect that Snow Leopard will make very good use of those quad cores



    Dave
  • Reply 9 of 14
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,323member
    http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/38764/140/



    Quote:

    eykjavik (Iceland) – Considering the big news coming out of Intel this week (Larrabee) and the expected big News from Nvidia within the next two weeks (x86 CUDA), AMD is under pressure to match its rivals: AMD is making substantial changes to its GPGPU software strategy and announced at its GPG CTO Technology Day that it will ditch its Close-To-Metal platform and switch to OpenCL.



    In his speech GPG CTO Technology Day held in Iceland’s capital, Raja Koduri, CTO of AMD GPG (ex-ATI), announced that AMD believes that the time for proprietary software solutions such as AMD's own Close-to-Metal and Nvidia's CUDA has passed.



    As a result, AMD will throw its efforts behind DirectX 11 Computational Shaders and the OpenCL GPGPU language and will focus on standardized solutions only. Koduri highlighted the GPGPU advances made by companies such as CyberLink, PeakStream (which was acquired by Google), RapidMind, RogueWave, CAPS, ImageScan, Telenetics, Neurda and many others. It is apparent that many companies are bringing GPGPU-accelerated products to market, but AMD’s is going a somewhat different way as the company’s stream products will be aligned with DirectX 11 and OpenCL.

    Koduri noted that a first product showcasing this strategy will be available in the first quarter of next year. Also, AMD is working on APU (Accelerated Processing Unit) at full speed, which is scheduled for debut in first half of next year.



    The decision to go with OpenCL could be a critical step for AMD to compete with Nvidia and Intel’s GPGPU and cGPU products that are capturing the headlines today. AMD’s low-level programming approach was one of the main reasons why developers preferred Nvidia’s (high-level) CUDA version over the company’s stream processor cards. OpenCL is widely considered to be a possible solution of GPGPU programming that could bridge Nvidia, Intel, AMD and other products and we are hearing more and more developers requesting support for OpenCL.



    The pressure is on Nvidia to announce their move to OpenCL by leveraging their CUDA platform--to offer extensions specific for their solutions while maintaining OpenCL compliancy makes sense, from a business persective.



    I'm looking forward to seeing AMD really making great strides with OpenCL on their cards and expanding product support for OS X.



    FYI: To those that don't know already: Apple, AMD/ATi, Intel and Nvidia et.al are all mebers of the OpenCL Working Group.
  • Reply 10 of 14
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,323member
    The Birds of a Feather discussion is revealed tomorrow that will cover more information on OpenCL.
  • Reply 11 of 14
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post


    That's Grand Central. OpenCL is for GPUs. Even Apple's page on Snow Leopard says so.



    You're right. I'm a bit confused about Open Cl, Grand Central and LLVM.
  • Reply 12 of 14
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,232moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post


    You're right. I'm a bit confused about Open Cl, Grand Central and LLVM.



    Currently, computer code is written in a high-level language and then uses a compiler to convert it (usually at compile time) into executable machine code (binary - hence the name application binary) and the generated code is specific to the target architecture (x86, PPC, ARM etc).



    As I understand it, the new scheme will generate packetized bytecode using LLVM from OpenCL code, which is not specific to any architecture. Grand Central will manage these bytecode packets at runtime and LLVM will compile them at run-time for whichever hardware is best to execute the code whether it's SSE4 optimized CPUs, high-end GPUs or possibly some co-processor.
  • Reply 13 of 14
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post


    You're right. I'm a bit confused about Open Cl, Grand Central and LLVM.



    It's all pretty confusing.
  • Reply 14 of 14
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,409member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post


    It's all pretty confusing.



    Not really.





    But don't worry, its all good. Setting standards is a good thing.
Sign In or Register to comment.