Vulkan and OpenCL to merge into a single "compute graphics" API?!

[zMeul]

12 hours ago, FakezZ said:

uhmm since it is open-source (correct me if I'm wrong I am too bored to look) that means that it cannot be a monopoly.

Vulkan - open source

OpenCL - not open source, Apple holds the licence

[leadeater]

Quote

OpenCL was initially developed by Apple Inc., which holds trademark rights, and refined into an initial proposal in collaboration with technical teams at AMD, IBM, Qualcomm, Intel, and Nvidia. Apple submitted this initial proposal to the Khronos Group. On June 16, 2008, the Khronos Compute Working Group was formed[21] with representatives from CPU, GPU, embedded-processor, and software companies. This group worked for five months to finish the technical details of the specification for OpenCL 1.0 by November 18, 2008.[22] This technical specification was reviewed by the Khronos members and approved for public release on December 8, 2008.[23]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCL

 

Quote

The essential function of a trademark is to exclusively identify the commercial source or origin of products or services, so a trademark, properly called, indicates source or serves as a badge of origin. In other words, trademarks serve to identify a particular business as the source of goods or services. The use of a trademark in this way is known as trademark use. Certain exclusive rights attach to a registered mark.

 

Quote

OpenCL™ (Open Computing Language) is the open, royalty-free standard for cross-platform, parallel programming of diverse processors found in personal computers, servers, mobile devices and embedded platforms.

https://www.khronos.org/opencl/

 

Apple only holds trademark rights to OpenCL.

 

Quote

If you are a software developer, you are free to use Khronos APIs to program software tools, applications and middleware with no restrictions of any kind.

 

Adopters

If you or your company is developing a product that implements a Khronos API then you must pass conformance tests defined by Khronos before you can use the name or logo of the API in association with your product or call your product ‘compliant’ or ‘conformant’ with a Khronos specification. This is to ensure that Khronos APIs are consistently implemented by multiple vendors to create a reliable platform for developers.

To enable companies to test their products for conformance, Khronos has established an Adopters Program for each API. A company that signs a Khronos Adopter Agreement for an API is called an Adopter:

• there is a small fee to become an Adopter for an API – so Khronos can cover its costs. The Adopter fee is typically $15K for an unlimited number of products that implement the API. Khronos members typically receive a discount
• the Khronos Adopters Agreement includes a source license to the Khronos Conformance Tests for the API – which the Adopter downloads, ports and runs on their platform to generate test result logs
• Adopters are provided access to an Adopters Mailing list; a priority channel for 2-way interaction with Khronos working group members
• Khronos provides a server to upload your test logs - which are then reviewed by the API working group – and after 30 days your products are deemed conformant
• The Adopter Agreement also contains a trademark license agreement which lets you use the API names and logos in association with your conformant product
• The associated Khronos Group Conformance Test Process Procedures document contains details about fees, what products are covered by a submission, how to update products submissions and what happens if issues are found with your submission etc.
• The Khronos Trademark Guidelines provide more details about precisely how and when Khronos trademarks can be used by Adopters during the development and conformance process
• When you use Khronos trademarks you should follow the Khronos Trademark Usage Guidelines

Khronos will promote your conformant products on its web-site once they have passed conformance.

https://www.khronos.org/conformance/

 

OpenCL is an open and free standard that anyone can use, the only restriction is on displaying the OpenCL logo or state your product is OpenCL compliant. The adopters program is also for hardware products i.e. GPUs. The conformance test is to ensure that the hardware product properly executes all tested API functions.

[zMeul]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

 

I'm on mobile and I can't quote, but Apple requires entities that whant OprmCL implementation to be members of the Khronos Group and pass the compliance test

[VanayadGaming]

4 minutes ago, zMeul said:

I'm on mobile and I can't quote, but Apple requires entities that whant OprmCL implementation to be members of the Khronos Group and pass the compliance test

He just did a big quote that it says the exact opposite! wtf.

As he mentioned, you only have to pay the 15k$ (which really, is not much for a dev, maybe for some random guy on the interwebs) if you want to use the logos/say that you are OpenCL certified and stuff. >.>

[zMeul]

6 minutes ago, VanayadGaming said:

He just did a big quote that it says the exact opposite! wtf.

As he mentioned, you only have to pay the 15k$ (which really, is not much for a dev, maybe for some random guy on the interwebs) if you want to use the logos/say that you are OpenCL certified and stuff. >.>

He quoted Wikipedia

OpenCL is an open standard, but it is not open source

[leadeater]

14 minutes ago, zMeul said:

I'm on mobile and I can't quote, but Apple requires entities that whant OprmCL implementation to be members of the Khronos Group and pass the compliance test

Apples doesn't require anything. Khronos imposes those requirements for any of their API's they control, OpenCL is only one of them. Apple has no control over OpenCL, they only hold the trademark rights to the name.

[XenosTech]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Apples doesn't require anything. Khronos imposes those requirements for any of their API's they control, OpenCL is only one of them. Apple has no control over OpenCL, they only hold the trademark rights to the name.

You would think that if apple owned it as he claims that they would make a killing off game devs and other applications capitalizing on it so much.

[zMeul]

Just now, leadeater said:

Apples doesn't require anything. Khronos imposes those requirements for any of their API's they control, OpenCL is only one of them. Apple has no control over OpenCL, they only hold the trademark rights to the name.

Yes they do, there's a page on Apple's domain

on the previous page I quoted from it

[leadeater]

On 5/17/2017 at 11:49 AM, zMeul said:

mate, they own everything

here's what Apple says regarding companies who want to implement OpenCL: "Become a Khronos Group Adopter and complete the Conformance Test process detailed on the Khronos Group website." - they mandate who does what

 

2 minutes ago, zMeul said:

Yes they do, there's a page on Apple's domain

on the previous page I quoted from it

 Apples says that as it is a requirement of the Khronos group.

[IanDrexP]

Khronos and Apple could go into a Joint Venture to try and compete with Microsoft's Direct X. It would be very good for the gaming community.

[Bananasplit_00]

On 2017-05-17 at 1:18 AM, tom_w141 said:

Yes please kill DirectX. 

that has been my dream since i herad about the Vulcan API... gameing on Linux would be so nice, not haveing to use Windows would be awesome  

 

16 hours ago, Senzelian said:

No one forces you to use Windows. If everyone would start to use Linux, then Linux would suddenly be the 'evil' OS.

 

You can either do something or keep complaining. But complaining will only give you higher blood pressure and maybe a heart attack in the future.

anyone that wants to play any decent quality game is basically forced to use Windows because of DX. Linux is to a major extent comunity managed and dosent have a huge company that you pay for them to spy on you either.

 

13 hours ago, tom_w141 said:

Your point lacks one key element. My argument was I'd ditch windows in a heartbeat if it wasn't for games.

 

Tell me how to play 100% of games on Linux and I will do a clean install right now.

 

So no I cannot do anything about it at present.

wellcome to what i have been trying to do for the last forever... i wouldent care if the games ran at like 50% lower FPS even, just as long as they worked, but no windows emulation software like Wine, play on linux or any of the others i have tried but havent rememberd work with any of the games i want to play. if Paladins had a Linux version my windows install would be out the window probably

[FakezZ]

4 hours ago, zMeul said:

Vulkan - open source

OpenCL - not open source, Apple holds the licence

What? We were talking about 3d APIs with the person I quoted, I do not see what OpenCL has to do with it... Anyway I looked at it and it depends on the implementation of OpenCL. There are some open source and some proprietary ones. 

[zMeul]

31 minutes ago, FakezZ said:

What? We were talking about 3d APIs with the person I quoted, I do not see what OpenCL has to do with it... Anyway I looked at it and it depends on the implementation of OpenCL. There are some open source and some proprietary ones. 

have you read the title and the contents of the OP? please do - OpenCL has everything to do with it

 

now and for the last time: OpenCL is not open source - open standard does not mean open source

[Sniperfox47]

1 hour ago, zMeul said:

have you read the title and the contents of the OP? please do - OpenCL has everything to do with it

 

now and for the last time: OpenCL is not open source - open standard does not mean open source

You're right but you're wrong. It's not open source because there is no source code. It's a specification, not a program. It cannot by definition be open source.

 

OpenCL is not trademark free nor is it patent free but that's not the same as not being open source.

 

As far as implementations go there are a number of open source OpenCL implementations. See pocl and the Mesa Clover OpenCL driver.

 

Just for the record, Vulkan is not Open Source either. It's an open specification with some open source implementations (e.g. Mesa) and some closed source implementations (e.g. Nvidia's proprietary drivers)

[leadeater]

35 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

You're right but you're wrong. It's not open source because there is no source code. It's a specification, not a program. It cannot by definition be open source.

 

OpenCL is not trademark free nor is it patent free but that's not the same as not being open source.

 

As far as implementations go there are a number of open source OpenCL implementations. See pocl and the Mesa Clover OpenCL driver.

 

Just for the record, Vulkan is not Open Source either. It's an open specification with some open source implementations (e.g. Mesa) and some closed source implementations (e.g. Nvidia's proprietary drivers)

Thanks for saying this. Was also going to mention that about Vulkan but I stopped giving a shit.

 

Even software that uses GPLv3, The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL or GPL), has constraints that you need to adhere to. Free and Open Source doesn't mean it's a free for all and you can do anything you like.

 

There have been multiple cases taken to court for violations of GNU/GPL.

[goodtofufriday]

On 5/17/2017 at 7:43 AM, Senzelian said:

Yay, monopolies for the win! 

Isnt it free to use the vulcan api? 

[Senzelian]

1 hour ago, goodtofufriday said:

Isnt it free to use the vulcan api? 

Afaik it is, but that doesnt matter. Competition does not only lower prices, but also increases quality and pushes technologies forward. 

[leadeater]

9 hours ago, Senzelian said:

Afaik it is, but that doesnt matter. Competition does not only lower prices, but also increases quality and pushes technologies forward. 

I'm not sure how them merging or not merging effects that at all, both are controlled by Khronos so were basically debating labels since they can reuse/copy anything they like between them. What they are basically saying is it's pointless to have both.

[zMeul]

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I'm not sure how them merging or not merging effects that at all, both are controlled by Khronos so were basically debating labels since they can reuse/copy anything they like between them. What they are basically saying is it's pointless to have both.

hmmm

I'm thinking more in the way of using OpenCL to accelerate the physics engine, much in the way nVidia uses CUDA to accelerate PhysX (depending on the implementation)

there could be all sorts of things that Vulkan doesn't do natively but could be offloaded to a compute API

[handymanshandle]

On 5/16/2017 at 6:10 PM, M.Yurizaki said:

Why not? DirectX has a 3D component and a compute component.

 

Also Apple released OpenCL to Khronos as a royalty-free open standard. So in effect, they own OpenCL.

To Apple, they've got their own API now. Not sure how well Apple's Metal API is actually doing. Mostly seemed like a renamed OpenCL or w/e

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

hmmm

I'm thinking more in the way of using OpenCL to accelerate the physics engine, much in the way nVidia uses CUDA to accelerate PhysX (depending on the implementation)

there could be all sorts of things that Vulkan doesn't do natively but could be offloaded to a compute API

True but fundamentally both are parallel computing standards and that is what a GPU is. Logically it makes sense to have separate rendering APIs and compute APIs with the differentiation being that the render APIs has well render output but you can quite easily merge them in to one API.

 

I'm assuming Khronos wants to do this to reduce the amount of work to maintain both which could be good for us as it might allow faster development, it could also be worse as being a much bigger API could slow down development. Another thing Khronos might be hoping is that if they merge them in to one more game engine developers might start using OpenCL acceleration as they will be able to guarantee support/availability of it at the hardware level and software level.

 

I'm not sure if this is a good thing or not, I can see pros and cons for both.

[zMeul]

38 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I'm assuming Khronos wants to do this to reduce the amount of work to maintain both which could be good for us as it might allow faster development, it could also be worse as being a much bigger API could slow down development. Another thing Khronos might be hoping is that if they merge them in to one more game engine developers might start using OpenCL acceleration as they will be able to guarantee support/availability of it at the hardware level and software level.

as far as I'm aware, MS is working into introducing serious compute into DirectX

they also bought Havok

[Valentyn]

7 hours ago, wcreek said:

To Apple, they've got their own API now. Not sure how well Apple's Metal API is actually doing. Mostly seemed like a renamed OpenCL or w/e

Metal is not OpenCL. It's their replacement for OpenGL, and low level like Vulkan. 

It's already been used to port games to OS X as well. 

[Senzelian]

8 hours ago, leadeater said:

I'm not sure how them merging or not merging effects that at all, both are controlled by Khronos so were basically debating labels since they can reuse/copy anything they like between them. What they are basically saying is it's pointless to have both.

My comment originally responded to a guy that said that DirectX should be killed. It wasnt about the merge. 

[leadeater]

53 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

My comment originally responded to a guy that said that DirectX should be killed. It wasnt about the merge. 

That's not the way it looked after a few replies etc, it read like you were saying OpenCL and Vulkan merging would be a bad idea. But yes having two independent graphics APIs is much better than one, cross platform or what ever. No competition no innovation, that's a rather well proven thing.