1. Programs built against MLX -> Can take advantage of CUDA-enabled chips
but not:
2. CUDA programs -> Can now run on Apple Silicon.
Because the #2 would be a copyright violation (specifically with respect to NVidia's famous moat).
Is this correct?
1. Programs built against MLX -> Can take advantage of CUDA-enabled chips
but not:
2. CUDA programs -> Can now run on Apple Silicon.
Because the #2 would be a copyright violation (specifically with respect to NVidia's famous moat).
Is this correct?
You can get 90% of the way there with a small team of compiler devs. The rest 10% would take hundreds of people working ten years. The cost of this is suspiciously close to the billions in financial incentive you mentioned, funny how efficient markets work.
Can one really speak of efficient markets when there are multiple near molopolies at various steps in the production chain with massive integration, and infinity amounts of state spending in the process?
Additionally the tooling is horrendous, plain old C, with the same compilation model as OpenGL.
It took getting a hard beating from CUDA, to finally add a bytecode format (SPIR), and at least support C++ as well.
Additionally the other mobile OS big name never cared about OpenCL, rather pushed their own thing, Renderscript.