On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 20:48, Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> wrote: > I don't think we should be looking at either CUDA or OpenCL directly. > We should be looking for a generic library that can target either and > is well maintained and actively developed.
I understand your point about using some external library for the primitives, but I don't see why it needs to support both CUDA and OpenCL. Libraries for GPU-accelerated primitives generally target OpenCL *or* CUDA, not both. As far as I understand (and someone correct me if I'm wrong), the difference between them is mostly the API and the fact that CUDA had a head start, and thus a larger developer community around it. (All the early adopters went to CUDA) But OpenCL already acts as an abstraction layer. CUDA is NVIDIA-specific, but OpenCL is supported by AMD, Intel as well as NVIDIA. It's pretty rare for servers to have separate graphics cards, but recent Intel and AMD CPUs already have a GPU included on die, which is another bonus for OpenCL. So I'd say, the way things are heading, it's only a matter of time before OpenCL takes over and there will be little reason to look back. Regards, Marti -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
