I am torn on the options.
There is particles scene proof of concept in the SDK.
the simulation runs in cpu, and is at the edge of what is practical.
the most unexpected part of the entire experiment is the problem of rendering the mesh.
there are two ways,
1-rendering particle and do rendering tricks.
2-buidl an iso surface.
believe or not rendering the particles became many times over more expensive that the rest of the simulation.
The reason is that loading 6 points, per particle to draw a quad, becames very expensive.
so I reduced to just one point and using geometry shader to make a quad,
but even them, loading the date is the bottleneck.
so that leaves the particle draw as a debug option only.
the secund option is the more attractive, but harder.
there iso surface code already. and I will go back to it next year.
The answer is that the reason I am exploring the GPU, is that that kind of things, required visual representation, and because they rely on big data, it is better to have them be on GPU.
so that one of the goal to have a GPU solution.
yes, CPU are big theses days, but not everyone has them, while almost everyone has a decent GPU.
and when you go to Mobiles and Console, those big GPU will never make to that ecosystem.
at the beginning of the year, I tried to experiment with intel CYCL
https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-on ... -p/1353852but I guess I was too early. there was not way to test, unless you have an intel embedded GPU,
and windows support was almost non existing.
I have not really hope that there will even be windows support, but they are claiming support of other devices and OS is more develop, so that's worth trying.
I them switch to CUDA, and it is still as disappointed as it was in the pass.
yes, you can probably get something going but the amount of dedication and willing to bend you nvidia demands is not something I will ever do.
so the answer is that I next year I will try sycl again, and is that goes fine, the on windows we can always do DX12.