> The overhead of vulkan is absolutely insane
Overstatement of the year award candidate.
Vulkan and OpenGL both already support mesh shaders, which is a compute-oriented alternative to the traditional rasterization pipeline.
Overstatement of the year award candidate.
Vulkan and OpenGL both already support mesh shaders, which is a compute-oriented alternative to the traditional rasterization pipeline.
Mesh shaders are a step in the right direction, but they are still embedded in all that unnecessary Vulkan fluff. I would want these things in CUDA because it does the opposite approach of Vulkan - it makes the common things easy, and the hard/powerful things optional. Just let me draw things directly in CUDA, and maybe give access to the hardware rasterizer via a CUDA call.
Only if the common thing does not include running on hardware of more than one vendor. Which is a pretty common requirement for any consumer software.
I think he meant development overhead, not performance overhead.
OpenGL is exactly what you said, "an API where the common things are easy, and the super powerful low-level optimizations are optional."
Of course I'm not saying that these libraries don't exist, but they haven't taken off in the way they expected
I'm guessing this niche is just pretty small in commercial sense; most people probable end up just using UE/Unity/... as their graphics API.
GPU compute is awful, almost as bad as GPU rendering.