CUDA 10.2 Released With VMM APIs, libcu++ As Parallel Standard C++ Library For GPUs

[galad]

Exactly, so why create Metal, when they could've opted for just Vulkan? Metal is most certainly pulling resources away from other development efforts.

Metal shipped two years before Vulkan on iOS. I guess Apple wanted to have its own api and not be bound to anyone else.

I could've sworn they didn't support MoltenVK? For example, I thought apps on Apple's App Store had issues of being removed because of MoltenVK. Or maybe I'm confusing it with whatever the OpenGL->Metal converter is called.

There are no issue with MoltenVK on the App Store. MoltenVK added some code that calls a public api on macOS but a private one on iOS, and was meant to be macOS only, they fixed it and now all is fine.

To my understanding, a large chunk of it isn't open source. The hackintosh efforts, to my knowledge, involved a lot of reverse engineering and meddling with BSD kernels.

Apple has got a few big open source projects: webkit, swift, clang (primarily supported by Apple when it was created), foundation-db, cups.

[schmidtbag]

Apple has enough big-spending customers inside its walled garden that premium app developers will bend over backwards to support Apple's platform. Even if it means using a custom API. So, from Apple's perspective, supporting Vulkan has two negatives:

1. Added support & development costs.
2. Making it easier for developers to support other platforms, which lowers the value proposition of theirs.

...and virtually no upside.

How exactly does the first point you bring up favor Metal over Vulkan? Vulkan would reduce development costs, because pretty much the rest of the entire industry has done all the work for them. To create Metal leaves Apple at least 50% responsible (with AMD/Intel being the other half), but I'd argue Apple is more responsible since they entirely control what the Metal spec is.

Still, why would they support more APIs than they need to? Developers & support costs money. Or, to look at it another way, it pulls resources away from their other product development efforts.

Exactly, so why create Metal, when they could've opted for just Vulkan? Metal is most certainly pulling resources away from other development efforts.

Anyway, they tacitly support MoltenVK (a Vulkan implementation that runs atop Metal, sort of like DXVK, except upside down). So, it's not like they're trying to completely shut out Vulkan from their platform.

I could've sworn they didn't support MoltenVK? For example, I thought apps on Apple's App Store had issues of being removed because of MoltenVK. Or maybe I'm confusing it with whatever the OpenGL->Metal converter is called.

Their kernel is still open source, but I don't know if that includes everything you need to actually install & run it on a Mac.

To my understanding, a large chunk of it isn't open source. The hackintosh efforts, to my knowledge, involved a lot of reverse engineering and meddling with BSD kernels.

[CochainComplex]

...btw this new 440 Drivers screwed my Linux system once again. I really regret having a Nvidia Quadro in my work notebook. Next time AMD it is ...even if there is less performance and no cuda. This proprietary drivers are an insult to each Linux user.

[coder]

the thing I don't get is why didn't they support Vulkan? To my recollection, Metal came after Vulkan. There are enough developers who seem fine with it, so, what's so special about Apple's needs to reject it entirely? It's an open platform, so, they can implement whatever extensions they want, even if they don't expect anyone else to use them.

Apple has enough big-spending customers inside its walled garden that premium app developers will bend over backwards to support Apple's platform. Even if it means using a custom API. So, from Apple's perspective, supporting Vulkan has two negatives:

1. Added support & development costs.
2. Making it easier for developers to support other platforms, which lowers the value proposition of theirs.

...and virtually no upside.

Of course, a lot of app developers just use some middleware like Unity3D, which itself is portable between platforms. So, point #2 probably doesn't often apply. Still, why would they support more APIs than they need to? Developers & support costs money. Or, to look at it another way, it pulls resources away from their other product development efforts.

Anyway, they tacitly support MoltenVK (a Vulkan implementation that runs atop Metal, sort of like DXVK, except upside down). So, it's not like they're trying to completely shut out Vulkan from their platform.

[coder]

Nvidia strikes the middle ground quite well as they support both Cuda and OpenCl.

Barely. They don't support OpenCL in their SoCs, and not for any technical reason. I doubt we'll ever see them get 2.0 support out of Beta for their dGPUs.

[coder]

As for Xe, it will be interesting to see if Apple goes that route or develops its own GPU! Of course this assumes that Intel can even make a competitive GPU. If Apple goes ARM in Macs (not a given) I would expect Apple GPUs.

Apple is now making its own GPUs for their mobile SoCs. It's not a stretch to imagine them scaling up for desktops, though I wonder if they'd even bother. The size of the Mac Pro market is probably so small that they'll just keep using AMD (or perhaps Intel) for dGPUs.

[coder]

Also, isn't Apple still using CUPS and fragments of FreeBSD? Otherwise yeah, for the most part they've killed off just about anything open source.

Their kernel is still open source, but I don't know if that includes everything you need to actually install & run it on a Mac.

[Ipkh]

Apple designed a laptop with an nvidia gpu. Apple had to recall said laptop due to overheating leading to the gpu coming loose in the socket/bga. Nvidia also announced a GPU deal ahead of Apple. Steve Jobs holds a grudge like no other. Apple has essentially blocked Nvidia ever since. Especially since they launched the MacPro Cylinder which removed internal pcie slots. They then crippled the thunderbolt support for external GPUs to thwart Nvidia. With the move to signed software they essentially banned Nvidia by refusing to sign any drivers.

They have since dropped all support for OpenGL/CL because they wanted to focus on the metal api. All the opensource underpinnings of MacOS have slowly been stripped out and replaced. This has lead to several embarrassing problems with bonjour and other intranet communications between Apple products.

I'm not a partisan of either Windows, Linux or OSX, but the writing has been on the wall for a long time now. Appke doesn't care about the enthusiast anymore. At best they'll placate the pros, but without Nvidia support it will ring hollow. AMD just doesn't have the software chops to compete with Nvidia in the high end render space. Intel is years away and not targeting the same market as Apple. It's ironic that Microsoft and Intel are becoming more open as Apple becomes more proprietary. Nvidia strikes the middle ground quite well as they support both Cuda and OpenCl.

[schmidtbag]

Apple still does plenty of open source! I do think they ended up frustrated with the OpenGL group and thus OpenCL and said the hell with them. Now dropping OpenGL May look foolish but I don’t see it as a big factor in most Mac software. If is safe to say that Metal is just one example of the industry turning away from OpenGL.

What open source projects is Apple still involved in today? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm legitimately curious.
I don't blame them for wanting to get away from OpenGL, but the thing I don't get is why didn't they support Vulkan? To my recollection, Metal came after Vulkan. There are enough developers who seem fine with it, so, what's so special about Apple's needs to reject it entirely? It's an open platform, so, they can implement whatever extensions they want, even if they don't expect anyone else to use them.

what is more interesting to me is what did NVidia do to so piss off Apple? Whatever it was it sure did help AMD during the dark years.

It's been a while so I don't remember all the details, but something a while back happened where certain Macs with Nvidia chips had production issues (on Nvidia's end), causing a lot of hardware failures in those Macs. Apple was understandably pissed off. I thought I recalled Nvidia getting irritated with Apple over something a couple years ago (something driver related) but I don't remember any of the details.
Either way, both companies are notoriously stubborn and neither one is going to try to make amends. Nvidia doesn't need Apple, and it seems Apple is trying to further remove their dependency from 3rd party chip makers. So as far as I'm concerned, we'll probably never see another Mac shipped with an Nvidia chip in it.

[wizard69]

macOs is dying, old news...

Surprisingly it isn’t dying, if anything they grew sales even when actively ignoring the platform. From what I can see management didn’t give a rats ass about the Mac for atleast 5 years. Even now they can’t seem to come up with highly marketable hardware. In stead they build niche machines that lock out a good portion of the potential market.

the real attraction for the Mac is the operating system which for many trumps the half assed hardware. Mac OS is still the most trouble free OS out there. I run Mac OS, Fedora Linux and Windows at work, it really is no contest MAC OS beats the others when it comes to reliability. Even with the great my improved Windows 10, MS still comes in at last place.

frankly Mac OS with stood Apples effort to scuttle it. So no it isn’t dying.