Talk:CUDA

in fact, the cuda SDK has been released to many registered developers.

references

badly needs references section updating and reformatting —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.37.169.186 (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

CUDA to Run on ATi Cards

Eran Badit editor-in-chief of ngohq.com posted "I can confirm that our CUDA Radeon library is almost done and everything is going as planned on this side. There are some issues that need to be addressed, since adding Radeon support in CUDA isn’t a big deal - but it’s not enough! We also need to add CUDA support on AMD’s driver level and its being addressed as we speak." for more information visit http://www.ngohq.com/news/14254-physx-gpu-acceleration-radeon-update.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-ati-physx,5841.html

Supported GPU section

Article does not cite sources for the listed GPUs. The list given in the article does not agree with the obvious source, the official NVidia list (e.g. in the wiki GeForce 9400M G is listed as supported, on the NVidia website not). If other sources are used the location should be given. By the way: Is the GeForce Go 6600 supported or not?

What are they trying to say?

First paragraph, last line: By opening up the architecture, CUDA provides developers both with the low-level, deterministic, and for repeatable access to hardware that is necessary API to develop essential high-level programming tools such as compilers, debuggers, math libraries, and application platforms. It is so awkward, and the grammar so bad, I am not sure what is trying to be said. If I could understand what they were getting at, I would fix it. Seems to be that they are talking about how CUDA gives programmers an interface to program the GPU. Main bits that are grammatically iffy are from "both with the..." which seems to be followed by three things, rather than the two which" both" implies, and "that is necessary API to". The sentence is a little two long, and the placement of clauses could be improved. Can someone translate? 122.107.110.187 (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I almost left this sentence, but agree it needs truncated. This sounds like market speak from someone with English as their 2nd language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.219.122.138 (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Bilinear filtering?

Currently, the article states:

[Disadvantage]: Only bilinear texture filtering is supported .

And why is this of importance for GPGPU? --Abdull (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"Only bilinear texture filtering is supported – mipmapped textures and anisotropic filtering are not supported at this time."

I thought this claim was bizarre as well, and I think boils down to the conceptual distinction between filtering and interpolation. Bilinear interpolation is supported, and in that spirit it would seem desirable to have higher order interpolation methods as well. Mipmapping and anisotropic filtering, on the other hand, would seem fairly useless and out of place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.253.249.227 (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

so is is it based on open64 or pathscale?

ref says pathscale, unless somebody can provide ref to open64 as a foundation...144.223.173.22 (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The last edit removed information about support for single- v. double-precision floating-point.

The edit titled "Removed duplicated, too complicated text" removed all information about which nVIDIA GPUs and products support double-precision and which only support single-precision floating-point. This information is necessary for people to make make purchase decisions, and should be included.

This could be done by bringing back the "Hardware" section which this edit deleted, or by adding footnotes to the "Supported GPUs" section later in the page.

I would make this change myself, but I do not have information which I believe to be 100% correct.

Bezenek (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Please add comments to source code examples.

Could someone please comment source code examples? Source code without comments is useless as an example. I can only guess where the parallelism is hidden from the Python source and I have no clue about the C++ example. Thanks. 85.222.103.104 (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Reads like an advertisement

"CUDA gives developers access to the native instruction set and memory of the massively parallel computational elements in CUDA GPUs." This is blatant advertising. I'm fixing it now.~-F.S-~(Talk,Contribs,Online?) 16:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no it's not; it's an accurate description. See eg Massive parallel processing. 68.73.84.231 (talk) 07:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Texture rendering is not supported?

I'm pretty shure that it IS supported. At leas int the 2.2 version I'm learning now. 217.67.117.64 (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)