<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Comparing Performance and Portability between CUDA and SYCL for Protein Database Search on NVIDIA, AMD, and Intel GPUs · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2309.09609/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2309.09609/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Comparing Performance and Portability between CUDA and SYCL for Protein Database Search on NVIDIA, AMD, and Intel GPUs — mentioned by hjabird</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38707079</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2309.09609:38707079</guid><pubDate>Wed, 20 Dec 2023 10:13:49 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; The performance of any application on SYCL is currently quite poor. SYCL can get pretty much equivalent performance in Kernels to eg. CUDA. Try looking at SYCL performance papers on Arxiv. Eg. see [1]. That isn&amp;#x27;t to say that SYCL code is optimised on every platform without tweaking - you do still need to put effort into target specific optimizations to get the best performance, like you would in the CUDA or HIP. &amp;gt; Why drop ROCm (used on the world&amp;#x27;s largest supercomputer?) Some of the world&amp;#x27;s largest super-computers / HPC applications do use SYCL for AMD! The application I&amp;#x27;m most aware of…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2309.09609/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.PL</category></item></channel></rss>
