My guess is your answer isn’t: “another proprietary standard!” OK, I agree ― but please bear with me.

I remember the days of SNA. It ruled, it worked, it offered a huge jump forward and it got killed by the Internet, or more exactly TCP/IP. I remember the debate at IBM about the difference between “open”, “proprietary” and “de facto” standards. It seemed to make a big difference (at the time).

In those days, hardware or software specifications that were controlled by one company were what today we call “proprietary” standards. When a proprietary standard becomes widely used, it generally becomes a “de facto” standard even though it is not governed by a standards organization. “Open” standards, on the other hand, are typically developed by a standards organization or a consortium and are (with thanks to techweb), “available to the public for developing compliant products, open standards imply ‘open systems’; that an existing component in a system can be replaced with that of another vendor.”

So, to the point of this blog: graphics and Stream computing standards. There are many, but I’d like to compare one that is widely considered de facto, one that is currently proprietary but would like to become de facto, and one that is open.

Let us start with DirectX

Among other things DirectX is a Microsoft technology that gives the game player or video watcher accelerated graphics, video and sound performance within Windows. Today we are at DirectX 10.1 and heading to DirectX 11 later this year. DirectX and the similarly widely adopted Khronos Group’s OpenGL have generally replaced proprietary standards like Glide from the former 3dfx.

While you could argue that DirectX too started as a proprietary standard, mass adoption has made it a de facto industry standard – like it or not.

Next up: CUDA vs. OpenCL

There is a need in the PC world for a programming model that allows both the CPU and the GPU to work together to excite applications. At AMD we call this Stream or Accelerated Computing. NVIDIA’s focus is on its proprietary standard CUDA, which competes with OpenCL ― which is the open standards-based approach, again governed by the Khronos group.

Recently at GDC, we demonstrated an OpenCL version of the Havok engine.  And we expect to see more companies embracing OpenCL over time.

In the area of physics simulation, which is an example of Stream computing, NVIDIA links CUDA with its proprietary physics engine, PhysX, while AMD has chosen a different path in favor of open standards. OpenCL, which could also be described as a language and a set of APIs, ushers in a new era of computing by allowing applications to call on CPUs and GPUs in unified manner, resulting in the right processor accelerating the workload. And unlike the proprietary PhysX, OpenCL also allows many companies to develop and offer physics engines and other plug-ins of their own. 

In an industry that loves a war, the new one to take note of may be between CUDA with PhysX against OpenCL and an army of numerous engines & plug-ins from independent companies.  

In the end, the industry almost always comes to agreement on standards. In the PC industry we are currently driven by “de facto” standards, which generally come into use faster but can limit choice for users. When we all agree on “open” standards, on the other hand, we differentiate on a level playing field.

And history suggests that is really good for consumers.

The CUDA and OpenCL battle will be fought over the next few years, with applications and ― I suspect ― users as the battleground. In an ideal world we could all save time and money by agreeing on one or the other. Given that we believe in open standards, we vote for OpenCL.

Which do you vote for?

Nigel Dessau is senior vice president and chief marketing officer at AMD. His postings are his own opinions and may not represent AMD’s positions, strategies or opinions. Links to third party sites are provided for convenience and unless explicitly stated, AMD is not responsible for the contents of such links sites and no endorsement is implied.