OpenCL spec gets finalized, Snow Leopard says "purrrr"

It's just taken a relatively short six months, but it looks like the team behind the Open Computing Language (or OpenCL) have already delivered the final spec for the standard, which puts it right on track for inclusion in OS X Snow Leopard. In fact, the team credits Apple with helping them meet the "impossible deadline," with Intel's Tim Mattson saying that Apple's decision to "support it in Snow Leopard was a huge plus to us," even if it forced them to "divorce our families" and left them "almost dead." The standard itself, which allows for greater leveraging of GPUs and other hardware, isn't quite ready to be implemented just yet, however, as it still has to go through the final stage of being vetted by all 20 partner companies for patent issues and whatnot. Once that's done, which will take a "minimum" of 30 days, they'll release the actual spec and begin the usual round demos.

[Via Ars Technica]

[Tarnation @ Nov 21st 2008 1:19PM]

Yay another Video Standard. At leas this one is "Open". Wonder if Microsoft will attempt to include this in Windows ever. (seriously doubt it)

[loocas @ Nov 21st 2008 1:22PM]

No... :( DX is way too precious and profiatble for them.

[Ray @ Nov 21st 2008 1:24PM]

The words "open" and "apple" never seemed to like each other.

Soo tech heads, how long before we ditch the CPU all together now? lol.

[jason brennan @ Nov 21st 2008 1:39PM]

This isn't a video standard at all. What part of "Open Computing Language" lead you to believe it was?

It's for leveraging graphics cards for more general purpose computing.

[Verlin James Gradney @ Nov 21st 2008 1:45PM]

Hopefully they fix that problem in Leopard where I keep losing my pants. I can't wait for Snow Leopard.

[Verland @ Nov 21st 2008 1:58PM]

Who needs pants? I don't even wear underwear..

[Joachim Bengtsson @ Nov 21st 2008 1:59PM]

They include OpenGL, so why not also OpenCL?

Does Microsoft even have a GPGPU toolkit? I thought everyone used CUDA or hacked it with shaders.


@Ray: opensource.apple.com, macosforge.org, webkit.org

[MioTheGreat @ Nov 21st 2008 3:45PM]

"They include OpenGL, so why not also OpenCL?"

Microsoft doesn't implement OpenGL, nVidia, AMD, and Intel do.

[nerdtalker @ Nov 21st 2008 2:14PM]

Video standard? Are you completely daft and lost, or do you just not understand what OpenCL is?

OpenCL is one thing I'm extremely happy with apple for including, supporting, and getting into mainstream, as it truly is a forward looking language. The ability to offload computationally intensive, massively parallel tasks to the GPU in a standardized, straightforward manner is huge for desktop processing. It's been possible for a while now, but it always involved tricking the GPU into loading arrays as "textures," doing manipulations as one would with "shaders," and so forth, and only recently do the shader registers themselves meet IEEE double precision floating point spec. Sure, CUDA is and remains a step in the right direction, but OpenCL is what everything now and in the future is going to be developed with.

OpenCL represents a huge cost-to-develop reduction which will make it possible for just about anything and everything to take advantage of the vector-math powerhouse that's been sitting, largely underutilized, in your computer for so long (that is, of course, unless you cheaped out and went with sub-par integrated *cough* Intel Integrated *cough* graphics).

It hurts me to say it, it really does, but if Snow Leopard pulls this off right, it might be a compelling reason for me to get a mac. (::gasp::, did I really say that?)

[Tarnation @ Nov 21st 2008 2:38PM]

No one really even read my comment did they. I didn't say will Nvidia, AMD, or other company implement the standard in Windows. I am betting that Microsoft like the often do will develop some completely proprietary standard rather than back an Open standard. IE Direct X as compared to OpenGL. Windows is the only OS that utilizes DirectX. Every other desktop OS Mac, Linux, Unix, etc. use OpenGL instead. Thus creating two seperate standards that create problems for developers. Why the hell do you think the majority of PC games are on Windows based PCs all those companies use DIRECT X as opposed to OpenGL. When push comes to shove are developers end up develop using OpenCL or whatever Microsoft ends up coming up with? That is what I asked.

If a company like Microsoft were to get behind this standard what would happen. The truth is they won't, because they are Microsoft.

[Vanillacide @ Nov 21st 2008 2:58PM]

OpenGL is used in plenty of professional CAD packages, hence hardware support for OpenGL in nVidia and ATi's professional cards.

You are right that most PC games developers have moved to DirectX, but iD still use OpenGL; plus OpenGL is effectively what PS3 uses, and anything that is not Windows or Xbox is OpenGL too. e.g. Nokia phones.

OpenCL is indeed the open standard for multi-core CPU and general purpose GPU coding; Microsoft are not planning on implementing this, instead they are going to offer GPGPU in DirectX 11 using their own proprietary standard.

[nerdtalker @ Nov 21st 2008 3:01PM]

@Tarnation,

I've read your post a number of times. Quite honestly, I can't figure out if even *you* know what you're asking about. Was that last post a statement or a question?

You still said "Video Standard," which this isn't. The only bearing this has on video hardware at all is that it physically runs on GPUs. Either way you put it, GPGPU computing is coming. Differing implementations will gave way to one language eventually.

[jdechko @ Nov 21st 2008 3:09PM]

@Vanillacide

Unfortunately, it looks like some of the CAD/Viz packages are moving to Direct3D as well. Autodesk is with their 3D Studio line (2009, I believe, requires the installation of DX9.0c or higher to work).

However, I also realize that Autodesk is very crappy with support for only Windows in the majority of its products (Maya notwithstanding). It tries not support Windows on Apple hardware and even says so on its support pages.

[Tarnation @ Nov 21st 2008 3:21PM]

@nerdtalker
Excuse me for calling it a Video Standard. It is a piece of software written to utilize the power of GPUs on what, a Video Card that was my reasoning for calling it a Video Standard. Just because it doesn't render shiny men with big guns doesn't mean you can call me an idiot for calling it a video standard.

I am a computer nut I get what this does. My whole point was the frustration with competing standards.

Examples:

BluRay
HDDVD

DirectX
OpenGL

HDMI
DisplayPort

16:9
16:10

All these things are necessary that still doesn't make them less annoying when you have to choose between them. It was nice when DVD came out there was no real competition everything else was either too ridiculous (Laser Disc) or just plane stupid (DIVX), so I didn't have to decide whether I wanted to put a DVD player in my computer or a Laser Disc it was obvious.

[Ray @ Nov 21st 2008 4:35PM]

@Tarnation

Competition isn't all bad, it brings out the best in these businesses. Look at mac, back when xp first came out, i would've never even thought of getting an iAnything. They wanted to compete and now they are a viable alternative. As long as new technologies are bread, im happy.

Now, the problem is with unnecessary competition. These companies will often claim something is an improvement over another when its not. Im pretty sure this is not the case with OpenCL, but say, 16:9 and 16:10, its all about preference and confusing the consumer.

[buu700 @ Nov 21st 2008 5:24PM]

@Tarnation

You are entitled to your own opinion about DivX, but please don't slander/libel it by calling it a competitor to DVD.

[Vanillacide @ Nov 21st 2008 7:37PM]

@ buu700

n00b

DIVX (Digital Video Express) was the competitor to DVD that was watchable for 48-hours after first play; the idea was rental DVD. Three studios backed it -- Dreamworks, Paramount Pictures, and 20th Century Fox (quelle suprise) -- and were DIVX exclusive, and were thus late coming to the DVD party.

When I bought my first DVD player in 1997, and movies cost more than Blu-ray ones did at launch, DIVX was a PITA as it meant no movies from three large studios, it was only when DIVX was well and truly dead that they reluctantly announced support for DVD. Unsurprisingly Blu-ray versus HD DVD had a similar split of studios backing each format.

PC World named DIVX one of the top 25 worst tech products of all time, go Google.

DivX codec was named after DIVX the shiny disc.

[Tarnation @ Nov 21st 2008 8:12PM]

@buu700

Just wow. DIVX and DivX are two completely different things. I use DivX the video codec all the time. I won't have DIVX the self destructing disc format in my house.

[Evoss-X @ Nov 22nd 2008 8:45AM]

naaah the new version should call lynx or lion those cats

[who? @ Nov 21st 2008 1:20PM]

Yay! I can't wait! Go Snow Leopard!

[Joseph @ Nov 21st 2008 4:59PM]

I was hoping that: Snow Leopard say, "purrrfect"

[loocas @ Nov 21st 2008 1:21PM]

OpenCL FTW!

[EMoShunz @ Nov 21st 2008 1:22PM]

is nvidia included in the 20 companies? i'd love to see the gpgpu/cuda/opencl stuff all be 1 standard out of the gate. all this multiple proprietary standard stuff really seems to be a hindrance. let competition be based on price/quality/service, not lock-in.

[Joachim Bengtsson @ Nov 21st 2008 1:55PM]

Yes, nVidia is on board on OpenCL, and AFAIK OpenCL will supercede CUDA. With twenty orgs behind it (one of them being the khronos group), hopefully OpenCL will become the industry standard.

[EMoShunz @ Nov 21st 2008 2:00PM]

woohoo!
i heard ms is working on their own standard for windows 7. if these 20 companies also say they won't support that, ms will have to get on board as well.

[Skemo @ Nov 21st 2008 3:34PM]

Unfortunately I don't think you Microsoft =P

[KarlW @ Nov 21st 2008 7:30PM]

From what I've been told, OpenCL is very similar indeed to CUDA (in terms of implementation and design)

So yea, NVidia is probably on board.

[Vanillacide @ Nov 21st 2008 8:30PM]

Except CUDA is limited to general purpose computing on GPU whereas OpenCL also includes support for many core CPUs.

OpenCL enables programmers to distribute tasks over say a quad-core CPU and a many-core GPU by writing to one API.

[Mark Anderson @ Nov 21st 2008 1:24PM]

Nice to see the emergence that of drivers that will inevitably play second fiddle to Direct X 11.

*Sigh*

[216 @ Nov 21st 2008 1:26PM]

As much as I hate many of Apple's practices I'm always cool for anything "Open" (dedicated Windows user btw)

[d?niel @ Nov 21st 2008 1:26PM]

the picture reminds me of ceiling cat...

[Jash Sayani @ Nov 22nd 2008 10:56AM]

It reminds me of someone shouting "Look out Steve... Run for your Life !!!!"

:D

[d?niel @ Nov 22nd 2008 11:33AM]

iz in ur appl, upgradin ur standars

[xcrunk @ Nov 21st 2008 1:27PM]

Apple, release a non-supported, non-apple hardware version of OSX.

C'mon do it....till then it's OSX86 for me. Tanks'.

[Patriks7 @ Nov 21st 2008 1:58PM]

You want way too much..
But if you complain so much, just get the real deal dude >_>

[xcrunk @ Nov 21st 2008 2:15PM]

Wow...talk about sensitive....what a bunch of pansies.

Sorry that my OSX86 rig is better than any Intel based rig Apple can put together. Just not as pretty.

Release the OS for all already. Just to think of the bank their losing out on....they could take 30% of the market overnight EASILY.

[Mark @ Nov 21st 2008 4:12PM]

If the osx86 rig is better why do you want apple to release it to everyone? Market share? If the osx86 rig is better then apple would've gotten the 30% already.

[Patriks7 @ Nov 21st 2008 4:36PM]

But like I said, that won't happen because people will only buy the OS then and put it on some cheaper computers, which will = a lot of loss for Apple

[John @ Nov 21st 2008 1:35PM]

Apple cat is watching you use open graphics standards.

[$money&hoes @ Nov 21st 2008 1:56PM]

hmm, wonder what d?niel is doing.

[fieldcar @ Nov 21st 2008 1:58PM]

nVidia's CUDA = OpenCL.
They are both bridges between the hardware and software, how that bridge works doesn't really matter, its up to the software developers to integrate that bridge. On a mac platform, there is little use for an open source platform, whereas this could be really beneficial for pc's.

Correct me if I'm wrong but... What sucks is that mac users don't realize that Apple is pulling a "DX10 only on Vista" stunt.

[Joachim Bengtsson @ Nov 21st 2008 2:08PM]

I never understood that complaint. The point of a major version update is to introduce large, new features. Snow Leopard does this in spades; OpenCL, Grand Central Dispatch, completing their 64bit compatibility, and so on. Are you suggesting that Apple back-port all these features to 10.5 and release them as free system updates?

Is it perhaps because these new features aren't accompanied by applications and new fancy UI? Just because they are features "only" developers can exploit doesn't mean there hasn't been several years of development on them.

[EMoShunz @ Nov 21st 2008 2:14PM]

"nVidia's CUDA = OpenCL"
isn't that like saying DirectX = OpenGL. they are both ways of programmers displaying 3d content.

[nerdtalker @ Nov 21st 2008 2:23PM]

@EMoShunz,

Wrong. Nvidia's CUDA and OpenCL are nothing of the sort. Engadget didn't really explain it, and apparently it's a tough topic for most of the mac following to swallow down (which is understandable considering how elusive/abstracted away the gpu functionality has been in OS X for so long), but OpenCL is _NOT_ a 3D graphics API. In fact, it is quite the opposite. It allows one to run software on the GPU itself which isn't explicitly destined for video output. Shaders/stream processors/whatever are essentially CPUs that run specific code. These cores can be utilized to huge computational gains for applications which lend themselves to being parallelized.

NvidiaCUDA/OpenCL = GPGPU languages != OpenGL or DirectX (These are 3D APIs)

[EMoShunz @ Nov 21st 2008 2:30PM]

nerdtalker: i realize OpenCL and CUDA are not the same as OpenGL and DX. I was pointing out that OpenCL and CUDA are as much the same as OpenGL and DX. They perform the same task, but in a different way, i.e. not compatible. an OpenGL game will not run on DX.

[fieldcar @ Nov 21st 2008 2:46PM]

@Joachim Bengtsso:
So you agree that you are getting scammed by apple, and what could be a simple driver is forced to be exclusive to the newest OS.

@EMoShunz
Yep, they do the same thing, but there is no actual benefit to the end user one way or the other, the only result is the developer having to do more code porting to make it work on more than one platform. This all reminds me of PS3 vs Xbox 360 in terms of competing architecture for interfacing with hardware, it only means headaches for the game makers.

[fieldcar @ Nov 21st 2008 2:57PM]

@Everyone:
Don't get me wrong here, I want OpenCL to supercede CUDA/DirectX 11. But the only way it can do that is to take hold on many platforms, not just the mac platform.

And I'm not trying to put you apple fans in your place, I'm just confused because I have XP on my gaming rig and Vista on my laptop, they both enjoy CUDA processing for games and Folding@home, but it was just a driver, Why cant openCL be that on your platform?

[Pavelz @ Nov 21st 2008 2:07PM]

OpenCL is a bag of hurt

[who? @ Nov 21st 2008 6:06PM]

I'll give YOU a bag of hurt.

[spam_free @ Nov 21st 2008 2:15PM]

Personally I prefer square demos. The rounds ones are sooo over-done.