[HN Gopher] GPU Video acceleration in the Windows Subsystem for ... ___________________________________________________________________ GPU Video acceleration in the Windows Subsystem for Linux now available Author : Fudgel Score : 37 points Date : 2023-02-13 21:48 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (devblogs.microsoft.com) (TXT) w3m dump (devblogs.microsoft.com) | dharma1 wrote: | For GPU accelerated ML in Win11 (PyTorch w/ CUDA) - is WSL enough | nowadays, or still dual boot to Linux? | sxp wrote: | I was able to get Stable Diffusion and other similar ML systems | working in WSL2 on Win11. There might be performance | differences between WSL and a native system. I haven't | benchmarked AI in different configs, but my main use case is | Rust+wgpu and there were noticeable performance differences | because the GPU driver exposed by WSL didn't have as many | features as the GPU driver used on Windows. I also had problems | with other APIs on WSL such as Optix. | Fervicus wrote: | I want to be able to use IntelliJ from WSL. Can I do that yet? | shmerl wrote: | I'd prefer MS to stop pushing DX12 NIH for a change and start | using Vulkan. | gjsman-1000 wrote: | NIH? Vulkan was released nearly a year _after_ DX12. And DX12 | follows a long line of DirectX versions. | kevingadd wrote: | What's stopping Intel, AMD and NVIDIA from offering native | Vulkan support in WSL, then? | | This 'NIH' (not so as already explained by another commenter) | is offering graphics acceleration to WSL guests based on | existing Windows drivers, which compensates for the fact that | the GPU vendors aren't already offering acceleration - Vulkan | or otherwise - for WSL guests. | | I'm actually not sure how I would get stable acceleration, | Vulkan or otherwise, in a Linux host in any VM. In my | experience acceleration in VMWare and VirtualBox are both a | crapshoot to the point of not being worth using. | bitwize wrote: | For 25 years now the standard for 3D graphics has been DirectX. | Why would you expect Microsoft, of all companies, to support | anything else? | Femtiono wrote: | You are aware of the history of DX right? | | Their SDK is old and really good. | | Just because Vulkan exist doesn't mean DX is invalid. | | Good to have more than one thing. Innovation and stuff | kevingadd wrote: | Arguably without the OpenGL vs D3D and now Vulkan vs D3D back | and forths, along with experimental APIs like MANTLE, we | definitely wouldn't have a lot of the robust tech we have | access to today. | | OpenGL's freeform experimentation and evolution with | extensions let people test things out in production | environments to figure out what worked, while D3D's stable | feature set meant that games and productivity software could | - if it made sense for the developer - choose to ship a more | limited feature set that worked _everywhere_ , all of the | time. | | D3D also has consistently offered great debugging tools and a | robust reference rasterizer, things you simply can't get in | an OpenGL environment. As a game developer it's invaluable to | be able to swap over to a Direct3D backend for debugging even | if you end up using OpenGL as your default. (These days, | Vulkan has first-class debugging support too, which is | great.) | | Now we have Vulkan as the new home for experimentation and it | has great debugging and validation layers, while D3D pushes | forward on certain new features and provides a more | consistent baseline on Windows desktops. For console games as | well, you can use Vulkan on (AFAIK) Nintendo Switch, while | using D3D12 on Xbox, so each API is providing value for | console game devs as well. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-02-13 23:00 UTC)