“Apple got bored of it when they decided Metal was the future. AMD got bored of it when they developed rocm and HIP”
Apple backed OpenCL because they needed an alternative after their divorce with Nvidia. No one was going to target an AMD alternative when they had such a trivial market share, so it had to be an open standard. Initially this arrangement was highly productive and OpenCL 1.x enjoyed terrific success. Vendors across compute markets piled support behind OpenCL and many even started actively participating in it. However this success is what precipitated the disastrous OpenCL 2.x series. In other words, OpenCL 2.x was far too revolutionary for many and far too conservative for others. What followed was Apple pulling out to pursue Metal, AMD having shoddy drivers, Nvidia all but ignoring it, and mobile chip vendors basically sticking to 1.2 and nothing more. Eventually this deadlock was fixed after OpenCL 3.0 walked back the changes of 2.x, but this was in large part because the backers of 2.x moved to SYCL.
As for AMD, OpenCL was a tremendous boon when it was first introduced. At least initially it gave them a fighting chance against CUDA. But it was never realistic for OpenCL to be a complete CUDA alternative. I mean, any standard that is basically “everything in CUDA and possibly more” is a standard no one could afford or bother to implement. ROCm and HIP are basically AMD using an API people are already familiar with software underneath to play to the strengths of their hardware.
“AMD are also the main competitor in the space but all but totally dropped support for GPGPU in desktop cards, trying to instead focus on gaming for Radeon and compute in MI/CDNA.”
Keep in mind that AMD has been under intense pressure to deliver world class HPC systems, and they managed to do so with ORNL Frontier. I don’t blame them for being selective with ROCm support because most of those product lines were in flight before ROCm started development in earnest. That said, Nvidia is obviously the clear leader for hardware support, as therefore the safest option for desktop users.
Apple backed OpenCL because they needed an alternative after their divorce with Nvidia. No one was going to target an AMD alternative when they had such a trivial market share, so it had to be an open standard. Initially this arrangement was highly productive and OpenCL 1.x enjoyed terrific success. Vendors across compute markets piled support behind OpenCL and many even started actively participating in it. However this success is what precipitated the disastrous OpenCL 2.x series. In other words, OpenCL 2.x was far too revolutionary for many and far too conservative for others. What followed was Apple pulling out to pursue Metal, AMD having shoddy drivers, Nvidia all but ignoring it, and mobile chip vendors basically sticking to 1.2 and nothing more. Eventually this deadlock was fixed after OpenCL 3.0 walked back the changes of 2.x, but this was in large part because the backers of 2.x moved to SYCL.
As for AMD, OpenCL was a tremendous boon when it was first introduced. At least initially it gave them a fighting chance against CUDA. But it was never realistic for OpenCL to be a complete CUDA alternative. I mean, any standard that is basically “everything in CUDA and possibly more” is a standard no one could afford or bother to implement. ROCm and HIP are basically AMD using an API people are already familiar with software underneath to play to the strengths of their hardware.
“AMD are also the main competitor in the space but all but totally dropped support for GPGPU in desktop cards, trying to instead focus on gaming for Radeon and compute in MI/CDNA.”
Keep in mind that AMD has been under intense pressure to deliver world class HPC systems, and they managed to do so with ORNL Frontier. I don’t blame them for being selective with ROCm support because most of those product lines were in flight before ROCm started development in earnest. That said, Nvidia is obviously the clear leader for hardware support, as therefore the safest option for desktop users.