GPU: Difference between revisions

From GRASS-Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(+Modules of interest to be parallelized)
(OpenCL vs CODA)
Line 5: Line 5:
* [http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/2008-March/036109.html Comment]
* [http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/2008-March/036109.html Comment]
* [http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-user/2009-December/053476.html Comment]
* [http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-user/2009-December/053476.html Comment]
* As I understand it, CODA is 100% dependent on the closed-source binary driver from nVidia and works on their video cards alone. Which is fine for today for people with nVidia hardware using their binary video card driver. If nVidia decides in a couple of years to stop supporting, CODA, your old card, your specific OS or distro, your OS or distro version+cpu type, or if they decide to go out of business or be bought/sold to another company who is not interested, the work becomes useless. For this reason code written for OpenCL, even if less advanced, seems to have a brighter long-term future. -- ''HB''


== Modules of interest to be parallelized ==
== Modules of interest to be parallelized ==

Revision as of 07:30, 1 April 2010

Comments from the mailing list concerning GRASS and GPU parallelization:

  • As I understand it, CODA is 100% dependent on the closed-source binary driver from nVidia and works on their video cards alone. Which is fine for today for people with nVidia hardware using their binary video card driver. If nVidia decides in a couple of years to stop supporting, CODA, your old card, your specific OS or distro, your OS or distro version+cpu type, or if they decide to go out of business or be bought/sold to another company who is not interested, the work becomes useless. For this reason code written for OpenCL, even if less advanced, seems to have a brighter long-term future. -- HB


Modules of interest to be parallelized

The target version will be GRASS 7 (alias SVN trunk).