Open eyalroz opened 2 years ago
Hello @eyalroz,
If you scroll down VkFFT main page you can find these two graphs:
They compare the performance of VkFFT to cuFFT and rocFFT.
If you are interested in analysis of them, feel free to watch my GTC 2021 session explaining them:
https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/on-demand/session/gtcspring21-s31300/
Best regards, Dmitrii
@DTolm I missed that somehow... anyway, edited the issue to focus on other aspects of comparison. Will check out the session to understand what the GB/sec mean.
@eyalroz There is also documentation that explains currently implemented features in VkFFT: https://github.com/DTolm/VkFFT/blob/master/documentation/VkFFT_API_guide.pdf
@DTolm : Ok, but it's not a comparison... here is a nice example of a comparison table for several C++ unit testing frameworks. I was hoping for something like that.
@eyalroz to do such a comparison of features I need to know the structure of other libraries/have their developers verify that there is no better way of implementing the needed features. It is best to be done by a third party, I believe. So far I just state what I have implemented in VkFFT myself in the readme.
I still have some cuFFT/hipFFT comparison of benchmarks scripts in respective folders, which I believe to be equivalent (no one improved the benchmark scripts yet). You can check them as a guide for porting cuFFT/rocFFT initialization to VkFFT.
I am soon going to need an FFT library utilizing GPUs. I know about a few: cuFFT, this one, clFFT; and probably there are others. However - I am not seeing a comparison between these different libraries, anywhere. Your README says:
... but I cannot find the indications of better performance; the benchmark results you link to seem to be for VkFFT only. Would you consider adding, say A wiki page or README section with a table comparing various features of VkFFT with other libraries? Mostly aspects other than "GB/sec" performance.