Unreal Engine 4 has PhysX built-in, so it doesn't utilize Apple's OpenCL drivers. And I think Mr. Ciccone is being too kind to Nvidia. They've been underdeveloping their OpenCL drivers to promote their own CUDA API for years. I think Apple gets caught in that BS because they seem to switch between Nvidia and AMD GPUs with every refresh of a Mac model line, so the OS guys have to hamstring AMD performance just to get things (barely) running on Nvidia.

It's just the different priority Apple and Microsoft placed on OpenCL in their operating systems. Apple considered OpenCL a key feature of OS X when they introduced it in 10.6 Snow Leopard. They intended it to work on top of their Grand Central Dispatch concurrency API. Their intent was to allow developers to run OpenCL calls through GCD so the OS could load-balance GPU compute units and CPU cores on the fly. OpenCL is a Khronos Group standard, just like OpenGL/Vulkan, so Apple wasn't trying to co-opt it or conceal it. If they're guilty of anything, it's building a secondary function dependent on component vendors so close to the core of the OS.

Microsoft, on the other hand, considered OpenCL competition for DirectX, just like OpenGL, so they did what they had done with OpenGL driver support: Washed their hands of it and left it to AMD, Nvidia, and Intel. And since neither OpenGL nor OpenCL are popular with game developers, neither gets properly optimized. Windows still has it better than OS X just on an Incumbent 800 lb. Gorilla basis.

Explains why Apple didn't bother putting resources into OpenCL.

Interesting the following paragraph was found on https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3263017?page=2

Quote:

[b]Cupertino, We have a problem...
I've recently started tagging "Faces" after updating to iPhoto '11. It's really cool, but there's a really big problem. My friends and family are multiracial. As a former art historian who spent 15 yrs. teaching courses about the visual representation of race, I am very much aware of the technical problems involved in photographing people with dark skin tones or including people with strongly contrasting skin tones in the same frame. But I am also aware that, as British film scholar Richard Dyer and others have pointed out, people who work with images--photographers, art directors, digital designers, etc.--make choices about lighting, resolution, etc. that reflect their social, economic and aesthetic priorities.[/b]

OK, that's a perhaps highfalutin way of saying I get really frustrated when "Faces" won't let me tag ANY of the dozen of so art historians (most, but not all of whom, are African American) in a group photo from a conference I particularly cherish. Yes, it's a flash photo taken outside a restaurant at night, so the overall lighting is dim. But if I can make out details like the color and shape of the earrings I and several other participants are wearing, I don't see why "Faces" can't recognize that the large ovals (in various shades of pink, beige and brown) to which these earrings are attached are, well, faces. . .

And it isn't just a problem that occurs with low-light photos. I've just added some old photos from a childhood visit to my grandfather's desert ranch in Arizona. They're all outdoor shots and very brightly lit. "Faces" offers tags for all the light-skinned family members and for medium-toned ones if they aren't surrounded by shadows. But my really dark-skinned grandfather? Forget it! Whether he's in shade or bright sunlight, I had to use "Add a Face" every time.

I think this is a "technical difficulty" the geniuses in Cupertino will want to resolve as they seek to stay relevant in our rapidly changing world. . .

[i]Intel iMac G5, Mac OS X (10.6.8)

Posted on Aug 14, 2011 4:53 PM[/i]

Emphasis provided by me.

This is an interesting bot. I wonder what its goal is, other than to put those two words used in the user's signature in front of our faces?