AMD GPUOpen has arrived
Click here to post a comment for AMD GPUOpen has arrived on our message forum
mitzi76
Is it though, really?
Just a webpage...lets see results first before claiming something is huge no?
zer0_c0ol
I mean the amount of into on it and the amount of usable tech...
think before being a downer 🙂
mitzi76
I am thinking...and keeping an open mind. Yes it appears promising on paper but until there's results you can claim diddly squat.
And that' a fact. Not being down or anything just realistic/pragmatic.
Your initial title should be "amdguopen looks very promising indeed".
Smacks of fanboyism. Which no-one likes at all. Period.
zer0_c0ol
I did not claim anything actually, just the fact that it is huge in the amount of stuff that it has.. well damn you went all pragmatic over nothing
CalculuS
Its not that huge, its a big help for game developers but its not as big for us gamers.
jura11
If you are working in pro SW which support or require CUDA and you are have AMD GPU then this will be great help as hopefully CUDA SW porting should be just easy now
Thanks,Jura
fantaskarsef
Then they've bought the wrong GPU I'd say. Or the wrong program. OpenGPU could change that but it doesn't really help with people getting the wrong hw/sw in the first place. Nothing personal, it's just the logic behind such an argument is beyond me. 🙂
That said, I think it's positive that there's people trying to break up monopolies. We players won't see much use of that, I agree with Calculus, but it helps devs. Would be nice to see better optimized games, an aspect of games which has been lacking greatly over the last months imho.
HeavyHemi
Umm okay...it been awhile since I've seen that large of a collection of what closely resembles boiler plate corporate mission statements...but there it is. I guess I'm a bit jaded with all the tech elites like Nvidia, AMD, Apple, intel...all coming up short of their flowery promises.
jura11
Really depends,have look on OSX platform,where most of new Mac or iMac are AMD based and getting NVIDIA GPU you will need to get eGPU box etc,but when you can have CUDA on AMD then there is no reason buying extra eGPU box
Most of people who I know use AMD due the OpenCL and NVIDIA can try,but still they have poor OpenCL implementation and then here is OCL 2.0 which will support shared memory(if you have two 4GB card then you have 8GB in total)
I do work with CUDA apps,but I work too with OpenCL apps too and getting good performance with OCL from NVIDIA under OSX is just pain and if you are using Sony Vegas then you are out of luck
Or on other hand have look on Blender CUDA vs OpenCL,R9 390X is faster than my bloody Titan X and this is not one program where my Titan X is struggling against the AMD cards
Regarding the gaming,I don't think this will change as per pro this can be great,if you don't use pro apps then this OpenGPU is pointless like putting FreeSync monitor on yours NVIDIA GPU:)
Thanks,Jura
Clouseau
same as it always was...same as it always was
Welcome to the new version of AMD PR/Marketing Hype. Cannot take anything seriously that has been made to resemble the new gpu driver ui. Something this revolutionary needs its own identity; not tied to the connotations that the drivers bring.
Marketing failure right out of the gate.
kegastaMmer
besides the OP, everyone missed a point
mohiuddin
With so much curiosity in my head, I tried to convert a 250MB YouTube video with AVC just to compare those methods. Be advised, I am a noob in this sector .
My configuration, CPU x5650 @3.8ghz GPU gtx 670 4gb ,8gb 1600bus ram
Three way is being tested in AVC.
1. Without opencl ,without CUDA . using only CPU. CPU being used 90-98%. Time needed 7min23sec. Converted video quality was the best.
2. With opencl , CPU being used 80-95% ,GPU 30% around 730mhz . time 7min30sec .Quality was near the best.
3. With CUDA , CPU used 8-10% GPU 97% 1160mhz, time 8min 15sec .QUALITY was noticeably worst.
And using Handbrake , CPU used 95-97% time 4min around , quality equal to or near equal to the Best.
jura11
Hi there
I use mostly Sony Vegas where OpenCL plays big part,on other hand with Adobe CS6 where CUDA still plays big part,but Final Cut X which using OpenCL and really all depends in which SW I work
Handbrake that's what I use too there and really if you have X5650 then there yours 12 threads only helps
Not sure regarding the AVC,I know in past,I've tested with my old GTX560Ti and there I've very poor results with OpenCL(time wise there),regarding CUDA that's strange you should have better results with CUDA
All depends on the developer how they done it there and sometimes there are issues,I remember with Premiere I've got better results with Titan X and in Vegas borrowed R9 390X has killed my Titan X in render times
Hope this helps
Thanks,Jura
Herem
You mean except for all the code on GitHub which is linked to from the following two pages?
http://gpuopen.com/games-cgi/
http://gpuopen.com/professional-compute/
Herem
And what is it exactly that you think game developers produce?
Denial
Yeah Idk, bunch of debbie downers in this thread. I give props to AMD for delivering it although I think they should have paired it with a title for marketing purposes.
Hopefully it will help companies speed up design and delivery and force Nvidia to either improve Gameworks or open it as well.
fantaskarsef
My next question would be, if you're programming or using pro software that requires CUDA, why does a company buy a Mac for it? And why can't they afford a PC in addition as Macs are expensive? Just the way I was wondering.
But if you're using both (like you said), this can seriously kill off Nvidia's Tesla cards and their appeal. Why should you take them for CUDA performance when you could technically adopt AMD cards for both CUDA and OpenCL? So with this argument I see why you actually will profit from it in professional fields 🙂
And yes, I'm very much hoping for combined VRAM for gaming to if they finally get the idea of implementing split frame rendering in more games once dx12 gives them the API to 'easily' do so. I just don't see it happening since it does not pay off for a dev to spend extra work time / money on such a feature that totally ignores consoles and only helps CFX / SLI users, which are the minority still.
LimitbreakOr
Unless you're paid by nvidia, I don't see how anyone can be negative about this. Every effort made to keep software open and accessible on multiple hardware is great for the end user. Nvidia has been enjoying a large market share and has been abusing its position for too long, they threat the customers like the enemy with their shady marketing practises. I'm sure that if amd had a larger market share than nvidia that they would eventually become evil too but that is why it's important to keep the software open so that we can punish these companies when they misbehave.
People who are biased because of a childlike preference over one company over another are not hardware enthusiasts and actually harm the industry for us garners and true enthusiast. I wish there was a cure for this mental illness causing people to be biased, Great things would happen then!
DiceAir
I'm actually so excited about this. This is a step in the right direction for AMD and gaming in general. Hope we get lot's of developers on this. This will benefit us as gamers greatly
CalculuS
Sure it helps the production for games but literally everything in there is underwhelming for the gamer.
If the game has TressFX or not does not matter to me. Neither do the tools which the developers used.
