clspv VS Thrust

See https://github.com/google/clspv for an OpenCL implementation on Vulkan Compute. There are plenty of quirks involved because the two standards use different varieties of SPIR-V ("kernels" vs. "shaders") and provide different guarantees (Vulkan Compute doesn't care much about numerical accuracy). The Mesa folks are also looking into this as part of their RustiCL (a modern OpenCL implementation) and Zink (implementing OpenGL and perhaps OpenCL itself on Vulkan) projects.

Vulkan Compute backends for numerical compute (as typified by both OpenCL and SYCL) are challenging, you can look at Google's cspv https://github.com/google/clspv project for the nitty gritty details. The lowest-effort path is actually via some combination of Rocm (for hardware that AMD bothers to support themselves) and the Mesa project's Rusticl backend (for everything else).

D3D12 has more compute features than Vulkan has. It works out for DXVK because games often don’t use those, but it’ll cause much more issues with CLon12.

By the way, if you are ready to have a _limited_ implementation without a full feature set because of Vulkan API limitations, clvk is a thing. The list of limitations of that approach is at https://github.com/google/clspv/blob/master/docs/OpenCLCOnVu...

tldr: Vulkan and OpenCL SPIR-V dialects are different, and the former has significant limitations affecting this use case

For OpenCL on DX12, the test suite doesn't pass yet. Every Khronos OpenCL 1.2 CTS test passes on at least one hardware driver, but there's none that pass them all. That is why CLon12 isn't submitted to Khronos's compliant products list yet.

The pointer semantics that Vulkan has aren't very amenable to implementing a compliant OpenCL implementation on top of. There are also some other limitatons: https://github.com/google/clspv/blob/master/docs/OpenCLCOnVu....

Vulkan is much more limited, notably because of Vulkan's SPIR-V dialect limitations. That makes a compliant OpenCL 1.2 impl on top of Vulkan impossible. (see: https://github.com/google/clspv/blob/master/docs/OpenCLCOnVulkan.md)

OpenCL really is your best bet for a cross-platform GPU-capable framework. OpenCL 3.0 cleared out a lot of the cruft from OpenCL 2.x so it's seeing a lot more adoption. The most cross-platform solution is still OpenCL 1.2, largely for MacOS, but OpenCL 3.0 is becoming more and more common for Windows and Linux and multiple devices. Even on platforms without native OpenCL support there are compatibility layers that implement OpenCL on top of DirectX (OpenCLOn12) or Vulkan (clvk and clspv).

this is frankly starting to sound a lot like the ridiculous "blue bubbles" discourse.

AMD's products have generally failed to catch traction because their implementations are halfassed and buggy and incomplete (despite promising more features, these are often paper features or career-oriented development from now-departed developers). all of the same "developer B" stuff from openGL really applies to openCL as well.

http://richg42.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-truth-on-opengl-driv...

AMD has left a trail of abandoned code and disappointed developers in their wake. These two repos are the same thing for AMD's ecosystem and NVIDIA's ecosystem, how do you think the support story compares?

https://github.com/HSA-Libraries/Bolt

https://github.com/NVIDIA/thrust

in the last few years they have (once again) dumped everything and started over, ROCm supported essentially no consumer cards and rotated support rapidly even in the CDNA world. It offers no binary compatibility support story, it has to be compiled for specific chips within a generation, not even just "RDNA3" but "Navi 31 specifically". Etc etc. And nobody with consumer cards could access it until like, six months ago, and that still is only on windows, consumer cards are not even supported on linux (!).

https://geohot.github.io/blog/jekyll/update/2023/06/07/a-div...

This is on top of the actual problems that still remain, as geohot found out. Installing ROCm is a several-hour process that will involve debugging the platform just to get it to install, and then you will probably find that the actual code demos segfault when you run them.

AMD's development processes are not really open, and actual development is silo'd inside the company with quarterly code dumps outside. The current code is not guaranteed to run on the actual driver itself, they do not test it even in the supported configurations.

it hasn't got traction because it's a low-quality product and nobody can even access it and run it anyway.

For a higher level GPU interface, Thrust provides "standard library"-like functions that run in parallel on the GPU (Nvidia only)

For GPGPU, I like thrust. C++-idiomatic way of writing CUDA code, passing between host and device, etc.

Users should work with higher level primitives like tasks, parallel loops, asynchronous functions etc. Think TBB, Thrust, Taskflow, lparallel for CL, etc.