I'm looking for comparisons between OpenCL and DirectCompute, but I haven't found anything. OpenCL's advantages of being cross-platform and having a wider range of supported GPUs don't matter to me. I'm fine with coding on Windows against DX11 GPUs only. Assuming that, what are the pros and cons of each API?
I know this question was raised before, but I'm looking for more details.
I'm not interested in CUDA, since I don't want to restrict myself to only Nvidia hardware.
Probably the biggest difference for a coder is that DirectCompute is programmed by a language which is similar to HLSL, and OpenCL is programmed via a C-like language.
Another difference to consider is that, generally, for commodity level GPUs, the DirectX support is better (faster and less buggy) than OpenGL support on Windows. This may translate to more stable support for DirectCompute, but really, this is just speculation.
Well the major advantage of OpenCL is that it is not just limited to graphics cards. You can make use of your multicore CPU, Graphics Card and potentially any number of other hardware acceleration devices (DSPs etc) all from the same program.
I'm not sure if DirectCompute allows that freedom.
The OpenCL cross-platform-ness is not just a detail, as the host code (the one calling the OpenCL API and submitting kernels) can itself be cross-platform (see link text, link text...).
Write once, run on any GPGPU, anywhere.
Otherwise the OpenCL tooling is really getting better, with an ATI Stream plugin for Visual Studio, the NVidia & ATI SDKs that contains tons of samples, etc...
Another option now is C++ AMP which gives you modern C++ syntax without a need for a seperate compiler while still preserving hardware portability. Please follow links from here for more info and feel free to post questions as you have them: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/nativeconcurrency/archive/2011/09/13/c-amp-in-a-nutshell.aspx
I use OpenCL because i can easily port my App to Linux but with DirectCompute this is not possible.
I think also that the performance of the OpenCL implementation will increase with time (that it comes at the same Level like CUDA for NVidia Cards) and also that the (driver)bugs will (hopefully ;) ) be eliminated with time.
Related
Can we use openCL on consoles like Xbox One and PS4 for General purpose GPU? If yes, can we use openCL framework like ArrayFire - http://arrayfire.com/ ?
No.
While the AMD GPU hardware on the most recent version of each console is similar enough to desktop hardware that has OpenCL support, the console vendors do not offer OpenCL as a programming API (unless it's not public information and only available under NDA). If enough game devs asked for it perhaps it would happen.
I was also looking for it too! And I've found this discution: here
Apparently, up to now, the only way out is to use HLSL for Xbox, and PSSL on Playstation. According to a guy on the topic above. They (the APIs) are different, but very similar in such a way that shall be possible to write a code that compiles under both platform using some preprocessors.
PS.: I'm also looking for a good answer for that question. So, if you've found anything around, please post here, I'd love to know ^^
I want to ship OpenCL code that should work on all OpenCL 1.1 compatible GPUs. Rather than buying a bunch of GPUs and testing on them, are there any tools that can help ensure reliability?
If anyone has experience shipping OpenCL applications to a wide hardware base, I'd be interested in knowing about any other methods for testing reliability.
I've a bit of knowledge on this. Unfortunately, the answer is: depends on what the kernel is doing.
My biggest gripe is with NVIDIA and OpenCL, since they don't seem to support: vectors (float2, 4, etc) and global offsets. Kind of obnoxious. Intel and ATI are both solid, but even then vector sizes can differ. The above doesn't really matter if you are doing image convolution.
It matters if you want to run AMD FFT on an NVIDIA card, are doing matrix math, etc. To address the vector issue, you can write multiple kernels that each have a different vector size and call the right one: MatrixMult_float4(...).
You can check whether your code compiles by using the AMD KernelAnalyzer2, although this does need some component of the Catalyst drivers so it only works for me on PCs with AMD GPUs. There is also the Intel Kernel Builder, which works for devices with Intel OpenCL SDK support. Nvidia's implementation has bugs in it, especially on newer GPUs in my experience so there the best is to test one GPU from each generation.
To avoid extensions and validate CL language versions, one could try to test compile the code using the LLVM, or just getting the grammar for validation, e.g. as BNF.
There's a promising open source project, which probably contains useful stuff: http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~pocl/pocl/master/files/head:/lib/CL/
However, the problems I encountered were:
Newline characters caused build breakers on certain implementations (CR, LF, CRLF) in OpenCL source files. Specifying one of these as the only valid line ending would be just stupid. If one is editing source files on different platforms in conjunction with an SCM, it could get inconvenient. So I remove comments and clean up line breaks before compilation.
Performance: Feeding the GPU efficiently using multithreading; different hardware constellations have different bottlenecks. Here I needed a client side pipeline with multiple dispatcher threads. Of course, the amount of work that remains for the CPU depends on the task or capabilities, amount and resources of computing devices. Things that needed serialized execution or dynamic loop counts have been such candidates.
In my last question I asked whether there was a better way to rotate images than I had thought of. I ended up discovering jpegtran and have since found libjpeg-turbo.
Now I am looking for a better way to resize the images (jpegs) than imagemagick and graphicsmagick.
Is there a specialized commandline tool to resize the images in a more efficient way than imagemagick or graphicsmagick? Maybe the resizing can be done on the GPU using opencl or opengl?
The provided hardware is the same as in the other post:
Intel Atom D525 (1,8 Ghz)
Mobility Radeon HD 5430 Series
4 GB of RAM
SSD Vertility 3
Check this link out: http://leocharre.com/articles/faster-image-resizing-in-linux/
In particular the author mentions that imgresize is faster than imagemagick, and epeg is extremely fast.
epeg (http://www.systhread.net/texts/200507epeg1.php) seems quite well documented for generating thumbnails. If the quality is good enough, this could be the solution.
OpenCL is a standard for cross-platform, parallel programming of modern processors found in personal computers, servers and handheld/embedded devices. It's directly supported by ATI. You'll need to get AMD APP SDK (formerly known as AMD Stream SDK) to get GPU support (also check out this getting started guide).
Take a look at Intel's IPP - Integrated Performance Primitives. It's a multi-threaded software library of functions for multimedia and data processing applications. Among other features, it's has functions to resize images (bilinear, nearest neighbor, etc). Unfortunately, it is not free (cheapest version costs $199).
VIPS is a free image processing system. It claims that compared to most image processing libraries, VIPS needs little memory and runs quickly, especially on machines with more than one CPU. See the Speed and Memory Use page for a simple benchmark against other similar systems.
You can actually do a lot of bulk processing like this with GIMP's CLI options.
http://www.gimp.org/tutorials/Basic_Batch/
There is also djpeg and cjpeg from the Independent JPEG Group which can rescale and image to an M/N fraction. Not perfect but very fast.
Simply use FFMpeg.exe. It can resize , convert , change quality and so on.
And also it works with almost all known types of videos/audios/pictures.
It works in linux/unix too, and there is open source code for it written in C++.
You can get it Here (for Windows/compiled exe) or Here (source code and so on).
If you are developing a program, I recomend you to use standard GDIPlus library.
It does everything with pictures.
This videocard (Radeon HD 4850) conforms only with OpenCL 1.0, per AMD Compatibility table. I need some hardware to conduct intensive financial calculations with doubleN types (no floats at all!). According to this cardtable, this card is able to work with double types. Now I have the possibility to buy it at quite an attractive price.
I'd greatly appreciate if an answerer has real experience in working with this card for OpenCL with fp64 extension. Of course, if there are problems with this card, please put two lines here.
Thank you and sorry for my English.
I haven't used this card with DP before, but if the spec says it is supported, then it's worth a try.
In my opinion, you should go with a newer model card though. There are a lot of cheap cards out that will outperform the 4850, and they will support some new features as well.
This card supports double precision but the 4xxx series doesn't include local memory in the chip. As the standard mandates local memory support it is emulated with global memory and very slow. Many algorithms require local memory for obtaining a good speed-up. So, a newer card 5xxx and higher is a lot better.
In addition, some combinations of older cards/older SDK versions only support double precision through the cl_amd_fp64 extension (not the official cl_khr_fp64 extension) because of some small things from the standard that are not supported. For the most part, this doesn't matter much except that you need to change the extension name in your code to make it work with doubles.
As a general tip, I would try to avoid the 4xxx series if you intend to make serious GPGPU development. Keep in mind also, that the newer 7xxx series it is much more optimized for GPU computations than both the 5xxx and 6xxx series closing much of the gap with NVIDIA cards. So, if you can, try to aim for a 7xxx with double precision support.
our workgroup is slowly trying a little bit of OpenCl in a side project. So far 'everybody' is working on NVIDIA Quadro FX 580. Now we are planning to buy new computers for new colleages and instead of the FX 580 we could buy ATI FirePro V4800 instead, which costs only 15Eur more and give us 1Gig instead of 512Gig of Ram which will benificial for our data intensive tasks.
So, how much trouble is it to develop OpenCl code at the same time on Nvidia and ATI?
I read the following SO question, Running OpenCL on hardware from mixed vendors, which was very pessimistic about developing on/for different vendors. On the other side, the question is already a year old.
What do you reccomend?
I have previous worked extensively with CUDA programming language.
I have been planning to start developing apps using OpenCL. As you mentioned one of the best features with OpenCL is running on many vendor hardware (Intel, AMD and Nvidia).
One project that I came across that used openCL extensively for large scale development is http://sourceforge.net/projects/hypgad/. It might be a good idea to look at the source code from this group and understand how they have developed their application on so many hardware including sony cell processor.
Another approach would be to use PyOPENCL, which provides higher abstraction than OpenCL and can significantly reduce the coding effort.
Do you need the code to run unchanged on both bits of hardware? If so you may have to develop for a limited subset of common functions.
If you can run slightly different c ode on each you will probably get better performance - in CUDA/OpenCL you generally have to tune the algorithms for the amount of ram, number of GPU engines anyway so it shoudldn't be much more work to also tweak for NVidia/AMD
The biggest problem is workgroup sizes. Some ATI cards I have used crash at above 64, but then it may be the Apple OSX 10.6 drivers I am using.
Developing for both ATI and NVIDIA is actually not too difficult so long as you avoid using any part of either vendor's SDK. Stick to OpenCL as it is defined in the OpenCL spec. (www.khronos.org/opencl) and your code will stay syntax portable. Due to differences in the underlying architectures, performance portability may be an issue. Local & Global worksizes really have to be determined independently for each card to maximize performance. Another thing to pay attention to is the types being used. Vector types (float2, float4) are especially useful on ATI cards, as each processing element actually contains 4 execution units (one for each RGB color channel, plus aplha).