Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

oneAPI-Focused UXL Foundation Now Collaborating With The Khronos Group

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Svyatko
    replied
    Originally posted by Jumbotron View Post

    Remember 3DNow! as an alternative to Intel’s MMX ?
    3DNow! is an alternative to Intel’s SSE (SSE1 - SSE3). And 3DNow! was useful for some time.
    Now industry uses AMD64 with Intel's SSE & SSE2 plus Prefetch command from 3DNow! instruction set.
    Today Windows requires Prefetch command (from 3DNow! ).​


    Originally posted by Jumbotron View Post

    What I meant was is that if all C/C++ projects stopped this instant and we went over to Rust or something else you would still have a huge viable market for C/C++ coders for decades simply for maintenance, analogous to COBOL programmers coming back for Y2K and beyond. But for the next few decades there is no real alternative to C++ in the realm of HPC and AI. Sad…but true because C++ is truly a hideously bad engineered language.
    There are 3 languages for HPC computing: C, C++, Fortran (and all three are supported by Nvidia). And C/C++ for HPC use a lot of additions for HPC.
    Rust is good, but not for HPC.
    Fortran is better for HPC because now it becomes DSL for HPC, and participants can add needed HPC extensions in language standard because HPC is exclusive client.
    Last edited by Svyatko; 24 June 2024, 04:26 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • qarium
    replied
    Originally posted by Jumbotron View Post
    What I meant was is that if all C/C++ projects stopped this instant and we went over to Rust or something else you would still have a huge viable market for C/C++ coders for decades simply for maintenance, analogous to COBOL programmers coming back for Y2K and beyond. But for the next few decades there is no real alternative to C++ in the realm of HPC and AI. Sad…but true because C++ is truly a hideously bad engineered language.
    to this COBOL argument i can fully agree its "Sad" but true. but tell me is the basis of the COBOL argument really what you want to promote ?

    you literally say Intel products is for legacy only LOL. well Legacy is a big market of course.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jumbotron
    replied
    Originally posted by qarium View Post

    "literally trillions of lines of C/C++ code in place"

    you know that this is called code rot software decay



    they did not solve this problem yet. more code and a trillion lines of code does not make the situation better.
    What I meant was is that if all C/C++ projects stopped this instant and we went over to Rust or something else you would still have a huge viable market for C/C++ coders for decades simply for maintenance, analogous to COBOL programmers coming back for Y2K and beyond. But for the next few decades there is no real alternative to C++ in the realm of HPC and AI. Sad…but true because C++ is truly a hideously bad engineered language.

    Leave a comment:


  • qarium
    replied
    Originally posted by Jumbotron View Post
    As a fantasy I would agree. But the literally trillions of lines of C/C++ code in place right now not to mention being put into production going forward means your vision won’t ever have a hope of even halfway becoming a reality until well into the 2040s at the earliest.
    "literally trillions of lines of C/C++ code in place"

    you know that this is called code rot software decay



    they did not solve this problem yet. more code and a trillion lines of code does not make the situation better.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jumbotron
    replied
    Originally posted by qarium View Post

    i do not share your vision because C++ was a language is death.

    i think in the long run Rust writen Vulkan Compute will take over.

    also keep in mind that CUDA is well established and ROCm/HIP is just a legal trick to allow ZLUDA​ to happen.

    to me its pretty clear that oneAPI/intel will lose big here because C++ is death.

    CUDA+ROCm/HIP+ZLUDA​ in the short time and Rust+Vulkan Compute in the long run will eat it alive.
    As a fantasy I would agree. But the literally trillions of lines of C/C++ code in place right now not to mention being put into production going forward means your vision won’t ever have a hope of even halfway becoming a reality until well into the 2040s at the earliest.
    Last edited by Jumbotron; 14 June 2024, 02:09 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • qarium
    replied
    Originally posted by Jumbotron View Post
    First of all yes, AMD should immediately cancel and drop ROCm even though they have a well earned reputation of developing initiatives and frameworks that do not garner industry wide support even though initiatives and frameworks showed technical merit at first. Dropping ROCm will not do much further damage to their reputation for that reputation has been earned over the last 25 years. oneAPI now has the big development momentum in the marketplace and has industry wide support through foundations and groups like UXL and Kronos. They as well as Intel have a credible plan and are excuting on that plan in a way that AMD never could do nor can they now. Hardware is nothing without software. The industry knows and accepts AMD as the best x86 CPU manufacturer and Xilinx now owned by AMD is the industry leading FPGA solution over Intel’s Altera. Also the industry has accepted that AMD’s Infinity Architecture is the heterogenous fabric of choice of tying together GPUs particularly across pods. But that’s where the industry support stops for AMD. When it comes to GPUs and software stacks to run those GPU workloads it’s Nvidia and CUDA….full stop. Not so much AMD and certainly not Intel at least with GPU tech as of now. That’s changing. Not so much with Intel suddenly becoming a GPU powerhouse even with buying out half of AMD’s GPU team a few years back. But as they make their REAL GPU play this year and going forward in the HPC and AI segment Intel will have a leg up in penetrating that hardware market with great compilers and software frameworks like oneAPI. Not to mention that oneAPI was designed not just for GPUs but all accelerators. oneAPI is the only credible competitor to CUDA….full stop. So what that El Capitan and Frontier are using AMD software. Those systems were designed YEARS ago and the only halfway credible solution at the time was AMD because this was pre-Pat Gelsinger Intel which was rapidly going into the toilet and perpetually stuck at 14nm+++++++++. By the time Capitan and Frontier are decommissioned oneAPI will be only non Nvidia solution left and even then it can run on any and all AMD CPUs and GPUs and FPGAs.
    As far as you poo-pooing foundations. Agreed…until there are only those left who have universal support by all industry players with the biggest of all being Intel. And Intel heads them all up. From interconnects to APIs to even endorsing AMD’s Infinity Architecture now called UALink which doesn’t care if ROCm is flowing through that fabric or oneAPI. Everybody in the industry that’s not named Nvidia are all in these groups…::
    CXL
    UXL
    oneAPI
    UAlink
    Ultra Ethernet
    And Intel heads three of the five with the exception of UAlink and Ultra Ethernet but Intel endorsed both so now the industry is comfortable supporting it and not just AMD and Cisco.
    This is the stack that is going to compete against Nvidia, CUDA, NVLink and Infiniband. With the above in mind….tell me with a straight face ROCm stands a chance of ever seeing widespread adoption in the industry. ROCm is the 3DNow! of compute.
    i do not share your vision because C++ was a language is death.

    i think in the long run Rust writen Vulkan Compute will take over.

    also keep in mind that CUDA is well established and ROCm/HIP is just a legal trick to allow ZLUDA​ to happen.

    to me its pretty clear that oneAPI/intel will lose big here because C++ is death.

    CUDA+ROCm/HIP+ZLUDA​ in the short time and Rust+Vulkan Compute in the long run will eat it alive.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jumbotron
    replied
    Originally posted by boboviz View Post
    Great Lisa, HSA Foundation was a little joke without future.
    And she brought back the money to AMD.


    For the HSA Foundation? Are you kidding?


    Usually, these BIG foundations, with a lot of partecipants (with different needs) produce....much ado about nothing


    A few lines above you say that AMD is not reliable about sw developing and now you ask to AMD to abandon a 8 years project that is used on some of the biggest HPC systems in the world (El Capitan, Frontier, etc).
    So, Amd had to say "ehi, guys, from tomorrow we do no support your systems and we pass to Intel development platform"
    That's a great idea!
    First of all yes, AMD should immediately cancel and drop ROCm even though they have a well earned reputation of developing initiatives and frameworks that do not garner industry wide support even though initiatives and frameworks showed technical merit at first. Dropping ROCm will not do much further damage to their reputation for that reputation has been earned over the last 25 years. oneAPI now has the big development momentum in the marketplace and has industry wide support through foundations and groups like UXL and Kronos. They as well as Intel have a credible plan and are excuting on that plan in a way that AMD never could do nor can they now. Hardware is nothing without software. The industry knows and accepts AMD as the best x86 CPU manufacturer and Xilinx now owned by AMD is the industry leading FPGA solution over Intel’s Altera. Also the industry has accepted that AMD’s Infinity Architecture is the heterogenous fabric of choice of tying together GPUs particularly across pods. But that’s where the industry support stops for AMD. When it comes to GPUs and software stacks to run those GPU workloads it’s Nvidia and CUDA….full stop. Not so much AMD and certainly not Intel at least with GPU tech as of now. That’s changing. Not so much with Intel suddenly becoming a GPU powerhouse even with buying out half of AMD’s GPU team a few years back. But as they make their REAL GPU play this year and going forward in the HPC and AI segment Intel will have a leg up in penetrating that hardware market with great compilers and software frameworks like oneAPI. Not to mention that oneAPI was designed not just for GPUs but all accelerators. oneAPI is the only credible competitor to CUDA….full stop. So what that El Capitan and Frontier are using AMD software. Those systems were designed YEARS ago and the only halfway credible solution at the time was AMD because this was pre-Pat Gelsinger Intel which was rapidly going into the toilet and perpetually stuck at 14nm+++++++++. By the time Capitan and Frontier are decommissioned oneAPI will be only non Nvidia solution left and even then it can run on any and all AMD CPUs and GPUs and FPGAs.

    As far as you poo-pooing foundations. Agreed…until there are only those left who have universal support by all industry players with the biggest of all being Intel. And Intel heads them all up. From interconnects to APIs to even endorsing AMD’s Infinity Architecture now called UALink which doesn’t care if ROCm is flowing through that fabric or oneAPI. Everybody in the industry that’s not named Nvidia are all in these groups…::

    CXL
    UXL
    oneAPI
    UAlink
    Ultra Ethernet

    And Intel heads three of the five with the exception of UAlink and Ultra Ethernet but Intel endorsed both so now the industry is comfortable supporting it and not just AMD and Cisco.

    This is the stack that is going to compete against Nvidia, CUDA, NVLink and Infiniband. With the above in mind….tell me with a straight face ROCm stands a chance of ever seeing widespread adoption in the industry. ROCm is the 3DNow! of compute.
    Last edited by Jumbotron; 11 June 2024, 02:40 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • boboviz
    replied
    Originally posted by Jumbotron View Post
    Then Lisa Su came in and killed off Fusion and HSA and devoted AMD’s resources into Zen and eventually chiplets.
    Great Lisa, HSA Foundation was a little joke without future.
    And she brought back the money to AMD.

    The market once again saw that you can’t trust AMD to stick by a program for long enough for it to take root nor provided adequate or competent tooling.
    For the HSA Foundation? Are you kidding?

    and wholeheartedly adopt UXL and oneAPI, even going so far as to outwardly show this support by joining the UXL foundation so they can have a seat at the table and be able to help steer UXL and oneAPI’s direction going forward.
    Usually, these BIG foundations, with a lot of partecipants (with different needs) produce....much ado about nothing

    AMD needs to adopt the same attitude with ROCm by dropping it and adopting oneAPI.
    A few lines above you say that AMD is not reliable about sw developing and now you ask to AMD to abandon a 8 years project that is used on some of the biggest HPC systems in the world (El Capitan, Frontier, etc).
    So, Amd had to say "ehi, guys, from tomorrow we do no support your systems and we pass to Intel development platform"
    That's a great idea!
    Last edited by boboviz; 11 June 2024, 11:36 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • boboviz
    replied
    Originally posted by Lockal View Post
    4) Alternative SYCL compiler implementation exist, with AMD as first-class citizen. It was known as hipSYCL/OpenSYCL, now renamed to AdaptiveCpp due to legal reasons. That's what you need to know about "open standards": you can't even use word SYCL, if you want to control "citizenship".
    5) Even though SYCL standard is open, OneAPI relies on internal DPC++ headers and Intel-specific extensions. Therefore it won't be possible to build oneDNN with AdaptiveCpp compiler.
    Open......but not too much!
    Last edited by boboviz; 11 June 2024, 11:36 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jumbotron
    replied
    Originally posted by Type44Q View Post
    It will be if AMD's onboard.
    But they’re not. AMD could have been ruling the roost on this matter back 13 years ago when in the course of their Fusion program they released Kaveri with full HSA (Heterogeneous System Architecture) support with Carrizo and Bristol Ridge to follow. There was an UXL like foundation also called HSA headed up by AMD like intel heads up UXL and it also contained Qualcomm and Samsung and ARM and Imagination and it was driving adoption of HSA and OpenCL to do the very thing UXL and Intel is doing now with oneAPI. AMD really only got one big market player to get on board and that was Oracle who began to wire up HSA support in Java through an initiative called Project Sumatra. Then Lisa Su came in and killed off Fusion and HSA and devoted AMD’s resources into Zen and eventually chiplets. The market once again saw that you can’t trust AMD to stick by a program for long enough for it to take root nor provided adequate or competent tooling. So now you have Intel who controls CXL which now combines Gen-Z and CCIX and OpenCAPI and Intel controls UXL with oneAPI with UXL being the replacement of AMD’s HSA. This is why I have called and will continue to call for Lisa Su and AMD to abandon ROCm and hipSYCL….errr…AdaptiveCpp….whatever….and wholeheartedly adopt UXL and oneAPI, even going so far as to outwardly show this support by joining the UXL foundation so they can have a seat at the table and be able to help steer UXL and oneAPI’s direction going forward. It’s not like AMD has dropped initiatives before. Remember 3DNow! as an alternative to Intel’s MMX ? The aforementioned HSA. CCIX heterogeneous interconnect which is what Xilinx FPGAs used before AMD bought Xilinx (BTW I think Xilinx was part of HSA before Lisa Su killed it). Well ARM gave over CCIX to Intel and the CXL consortium. If AMD REALLY wants to compete with Nvidia it’s going to take them dropping ROCm and putting those human resources and money into backing UXL and teaming with Intel. Only with a united x86 front with Intel backed CXL, UXL and oneAPI can there be any hope of competing with Nvidia in the HPC world much less the AI space. AMD will have to be satisfied that the only market acceptance for them, other than CPUs, is the new GPU to GPU interconnect standard that the Compute Industrial Complex has adopted called UAlink which is based on AMD’s Infinity Architecture. But the only reason UAlink was adopted was that Intel got on board with it and adopted it as well. They could have bitched and moaned about CXL being better but it was obvious that it wasn’t for this use case. AMD needs to adopt the same attitude with ROCm by dropping it and adopting oneAPI.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X