"CAL" and "CUDA" are the names we chose a long time ago >to describe ATI (now AMD) and NVIDIA GPUs. >We should have called them ATI and NVIDIA instead. No! We should call them CAL and CUDA exactly! Cause it's not about vendor, it's about API ! My extrapolation with AMD releasing some different device was about. On your logic we will call that new non-GPU device ATI (AMD). But it will only add issues!
> >The problem with having a separate OpenCL coproc type is that then >the client would run 2 jobs on 1 GPU. No, it will not if BOINC do it's job. > >The client's job is to schedule hardware; Exactly! > >for the most part it doesn't care about what APIs applications use. And this should be changed cause it attempts to enumerate devices, and this enumeration possible only in some particular API. > >I think there's a way to handle a situation where there 2 AMD GPUs, >one of which can't do OpenCL, using anonymous platform. >I'll describe this in another email. Hope so, but hardly it exist. _______________________________________________ boinc_dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and (near bottom of page) enter your email address.
