61–65 of 65 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure why you were down voted. CUDA is developed by NVIDIA. CUDA is a registered trademark by NVIDIA - https://trademarks.justia.com/850/30/cuda-85030071.html Here is the CUDA webpage https://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-zone
Because it's a pointless answer that basically just repeats part of the question, providing absolutely no new information.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regardless of what i'd personally need it for, it is still something that NVIDIA's drivers provide and AMD/Mesa lack and thus a negative on Mesa's side (especially considering that NVIDIA not only provides all that extra stuff but they still manage to be faster than the implementations - like Mesa and Apple - that do not). Now as for what I would need the compatibility profile, it is very simple: i just find it more…
The hard truth is that OpenGL 3.0 was far too tame when it came to breaking compatibility. Initially, they tried to design something much closer to Vulkan (back in 2008!), but ended up with a far too conservative final specification to make backwards compatibility possible. The disappointment among OpenGL users after the release of the final 3.0 specification was very real. If you have a good understanding of how GPU…
That is your opinion, mine is that breaking compatibility is the wrong answer in all but the most extreme cases (of which OpenGL was not).
Keep in mind however that i am talking about OpenGL. IMO they should have indeed created a more low level API similar to Vulkan back in 3.0, but instead of calling it OpenGL 3.0 they should have called it something else (like, i dunno, Vulkan :-P) and left OpenGL 3.0 alone to be an easy to use and fully backwards compatible API without creating an unnecessary schism (like the one we have with Apple/Mesa and everyone else today).
Of course that is what they eventually did with Vulkan, but i'd rather have that without the damage that they made to OpenGL.
> Instead of clinging to OpenGL 1.x or 2.x for no good reason
I have a good reason, i already explained it in my post.
> you should really switch to a high level drawing library or rendering engine
That library already exists and is called OpenGL with the compatibility profile. The only problem is that it isn't supported by every vendor that claims OpenGL support.
Tangentially related question - is there any good Vulkan tutorial/online class one can take that would allow learning how to build own 3D engine/VR/AR system from the scratch? I am in the mood... Thanks!
AMD has been working for years to make them the most Linux friendly GPU option. Sadly the legacy of the Linux community talks like AMD doesn't work in Linux and NVIDIA is the only real choice. Kind of like Windows users complaining about AMD drivers when they haven't been an issue for over five years. I had AMD on my Linux boxes for eight years and I have haven't had an issue for the past six years.
I built a new system recently, Ryzen 7 with an AMD Vega 64... I've yet to get the Vega 64 to work right with Debian Testing (Or Ubuntu 17.10/16.04). I am hoping I have some time to fiddle with it and maybe get it working before Christmas :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait Vulkan is for compute like opencl is?
It does both compute and graphics.
