[gpapilion]

They weren’t interested in creating an open solution. Both intel and AMD have been somewhat short sighted and looked to recreate their own cuda, and the mistrust of each other has prevented them from a solution for both of them.

[pbalcer]

Disclaimer: I work on this stuff for Intel

At least for Intel, that is just not true. Intel's DPC++ is as open as it gets. It implements a Khronos standard (SYCL), most of the development is happening in public on GitHub, it's permissively licensed, it has a viable backend infrastructure (with implementations for both CUDA and HIP). There's also now a UXL foundation with the goal of creating an "open standard accelerator software ecosystem".

[stonogo]

This is all great, but how can we trust this will be supported next year? After Xeon Phi, Omnipath, and a host of other killed projects, Intel is approaching Google levels of mean time to deprecation.

[J_Shelby_J]

Neat. Now release 48gb GPUs to the hobbyist devs and we’ll use intel for LLMs!

[ur-whale]

Actual links to the github would be much appreciated, as well a half-page tuto on how to get this up an running on a simple Linux+Intel setup.

[arresin]

What’s happening with intel wino? That seemed like their cuda ish effort.

[wyldfire]

OpenCL was born as a cuda-alike that could be apply to GPUs from AMD and NVIDIA, and general purpose CPUs. NVIDIA briefly embraced it (in order to woo Apple?) and then just about abandoned it to focus more on cuda. NVIDIA abandoning OpenCL meant that it just didn't thrive. Intel and AMD both embraced OpenCL. Though admittedly I don't know the more recent history of OpenCL.