Greatly increase support for GPU programming in C#
-Support GPU programming in C# -both general and graphical- on at least equal level with C++. On every Microsoft platform.
-Design the future versions (or successor) of DirectX with C# in mind.
Hybridizer generates cuda code from msil assemblies. It supports generics, virtual function, automatic memory management. Parallel.For is mapped to a CUDA-like loop (threadIdx.x...). It also gives full control to developer (explicit loops, intrinsic functions -- handwritten cuda functions -- explicit memory management...).
The free version generates CUDA binaries from c# code, and is distributed as a Visual Studio Extension.
Native support for 3D graphics in .Net sounds good to me. No more interop slowdown to call down into C++.
Libraries could be organized by shader model, and implemented using DirectX/OpenGL depending on platform. So, for example, System.Graphics.ShaderModel.SM3_0 would contain classes, structs, enums, etc., relating specifically to 3D graphics using Shader Model 3.0, and System.Graphics.ShaderModel.Generic would automatically route to the highest supported Shader Model.
Anil Kumar commented
Developers can be empowered by giving them AI client apis who will in turn empower every people by building intelligent apps.
There are lots of mid range powered laptops (& desktops) which contain mid range GPUs & CPUs. There is a huge market for GPU computing.
New developers can easily get these mid range devices.
These mid range GPUs will very easily trump high end CPUs in AI programming.
I think 2 tools that Microsoft can provide are: Builtin .NET AI api in UWP (for doing high level AI) & Task Parallel Libriary (TPL) like .NET library for GPGPU (for doing low level AI).
With a huge market & tools in ecosystem, developers will come.
And we already have an example of a similar tool: CNTK.CPU & CNTK.GPU.
Moreover there is less of a privacy issue when AI runs on client systems.
This would make the .Net framework very powerful.
I absolutely agree, but it should be kept in mind, that i should be a generic solution. OpenCL is not such a solution. There must be something that scales to every CPU and/or GPU. Having only the things for nvidia does not help at all. You need upwards and downwards solutions depending on the system you have. Creating adapted code for each GPU in nvidia to get the best performance is not generic. For hardcore/high-performance developers yes, but not for the broad mass.
Daniel Egloff commented
Alea GPU version 3 currently in development will have fully automated memory management to communicate with GPU
Daniel Egloff commented
With Alea GPU we offer a complete professional solution for GPU programming with .NET languages, including debugging, profiling and a growing collection of GPU primitives and libraries that integrate with our stack. It is cross platform and self contained hence does not need any further tools or compilers installed (e.g. CudaFy requires the NVIDIA CUDA C/C++ compiler installed) - fee community version - check it out here http://www.quantalea.com/
Or just move to F# - http://fsharp.org/use/gpu/
No need for Microsoft to be the first mover here - if you want to make a framework for doing this or contribute to the C#/F# frameworks listed on the above page your more than welcome. More contributors to open source frameworks to do this would be great - IMO C# and F# already support features that make it possible to compile/translate .NET code into GPU code (expressions, quotations)
This can be done in managed way and without corrupting debuging expirience.
Look at Cudafy:
They support debugging via emulation, all GPu cards and CPU (OpenCL) and NVidia (CUDA).
So basically you would write functions as usual but decorated with some attribute:
static void SomeFunc(CLThread thread, int someParam)
//normal C# code
Ben Voigt commented
.NET is highly intertwined with a runtime, dynamic memory allocation, garbage collection. The experience on the GPU wouldn't be the same at all. You're going to have to write GPGPU code as C-with-classes anyway... wouldn't better integration of C++AMP into C# be as good as trying to create a C#-AMP?
Miha Markic commented
Perhaps a good option is to use C++ AMP stuff (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh265137.aspx) in a separate library and create a managed wrapper around it that communicates the minimum possible data. BTW I've made C# framework for doing GPU a while back ago. It was like you were programming in C# using a custom C# library and the generated code would be compiled for the GPGPU during compilation time. It was working but later hadn't have time to push it forward.
i think the xna5 ,
.net in xbox one
or Sim d
is better to place your votes
Lionel Bernard commented
I wished to see a new version of Managed DirectX, from Microsoft, on 1 january 2013! ;-)
Gary Birch commented
The capability of writing GPGPU code for various types of calculations should be available to all .Net languages i.e. VB, F#, etc... not just C++ programmers. I would also like to see layers of abstraction added to the stack to allow other capablilties with data types other than integers and float types. In particular allowing the use of Strings in arrays along with the implementation of their related functions would provide extremely useful capabilities for development in all languages.
Timmothy Posey commented
+3. OpenCL is being done by Java, why can't C# do the same?
Use SharpDX, I have been using it for almost 18 months and it is great, it gets updated frequently and the support / performance is great, if you actually look at Win8 development (although SharpDX can be used with XP / 7 depending on DX version you want to support) MS do in fact recommend using it.
It is also opensource and free, maybe MS could help with advertising. Oh and SharpDX is also available via NuGet
Farhan Khan commented
Gavin Williams commented
Both SlimDX and SharpDX provide the ability to use DirectX from C#, they are both excellent wrappers. I noticed SharpDX was mentioned at Build. But Microsoft needs to accept that people want to program in C# and have full access to DirectX. So either provide an ongoing managed wrapper, that is maintained with DirectX or provide some support for these independent projects. They do need support. And why not encourage people to use those wrappers ? Instead of telling people that C++ is how games should be made on Windows now, because a lot of people don't want to program in C++.