Could we already have CGI graphics?

This is supposedly a real-time tech-demo for R700 on which the Wii U GPU will be based upon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YjXCae4Gu0

The difference between this demo and most other demos is that this demo uses many visionary rendering technologies like voxels and ray-tracing.

The fact is that modern game graphics are held back by their APIs and ancient rendering methods which are still stubbornly used instead of innovative new technologies.

Of course the hardware plays a role here too.

100-core CPUs are already a reality and tech for 1000-core ones exists.

In the next few years they should be totaly affordable, having superior performance compared to current 4 to 8 core home user CPUs.

The reason why Intel and AMD still stick to so low core CPUs is simply because most applications and games don't make use of more than four or even two cores.

Furthermore, CPUs could easily replace graphics cards if they added more graphics functions to them.

The difference between a CPU and a GPU is not really that big, it's simply that CPUs are used for general processing whereas GPUs are used for graphics acceleration.

If they added more graphics functions to CPUs there would be no need for dedicated GPUs.

I believe it's AMD and Nvidia who don't want that to happen so they can continue selling their dedicated GPUs which are constantly getting new features which could actually be rendered by the CPU alone.

Infact the tech for GPU-less graphics rendering already exists and is looking very promising.

It seems to me we live in very exciting times for technology yet it doesn't nearly get utilized as well as it could.

Also note that this isn't important only for graphics but also for things like physics, AI, interactivity, dynamically changing and massive game worlds, ect.

Yeah cos im sure that's all 100% real time. and that Unlimited Detail thing is VERY old and it's a scam.

If it was possible to have CGI graphics nowadays we would have it. It takes a lot of power to be able to do those things and a crap load of memory

Also the animations in that girl/robot video are awful

The difference between a CPU and a GPU is not really that big, it's simply that CPUs are used for general processing whereas GPUs are used for graphics acceleration.

If they added more graphics functions to CPUs there would be no need for dedicated GPUs.

I believe it's AMD and Nvidia who don't want that to happen so they can continue selling their dedicated GPUs which are constantly getting new features which could actually be rendered by the CPU alone.

nameless12345

AMD GCN already includes X86-64/AMD64 IP while AMD APUs includes Radeon HD IP. For AMD, the fusion process is on both GPU and CPU side.

Current "fat" GpGPUs has advanage of ALU count over the CPUs i.e. it doesn't worry about CPU related transistor allocation, but AMD GCN is the first GPU to include X86-64 IP.

Both Intel (i.e. Larrabee/Knights Corner) and AMD(i.e. post-GCN roadmap) are working on "many-core" lite X86-64.

This is supposedly a real-time tech-demo for R700 on which the Wii U GPU will be based upon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YjXCae4Gu0

The difference between this demo and most other demos is that this demo uses many visionary rendering technologies like voxels and ray-tracing.

The fact is that modern game graphics are held back by their APIs and ancient rendering methods which are still stubbornly used instead of innovative new technologies.

Of course the hardware plays a role here too.

100-core CPUs are already a reality and tech for 1000-core ones exists.

In the next few years they should be totaly affordable, having superior performance compared to current 4 to 8 core home user CPUs.

The reason why Intel and AMD still stick to so low core CPUs is simply because most applications and games don't make use of more than four or even two cores.

Furthermore, CPUs could easily replace graphics cards if they added more graphics functions to them.

The difference between a CPU and a GPU is not really that big, it's simply that CPUs are used for general processing whereas GPUs are used for graphics acceleration.

If they added more graphics functions to CPUs there would be no need for dedicated GPUs.

I believe it's AMD and Nvidia who don't want that to happen so they can continue selling their dedicated GPUs which are constantly getting new features which could actually be rendered by the CPU alone.

Infact the tech for GPU-less graphics rendering already exists and is looking very promising.

It seems to me we live in very exciting times for technology yet it doesn't nearly get utilized as well as it could.

Also note that this isn't important only for graphics but also for things like physics, AI, interactivity, dynamically changing and massive game worlds, ect.

nameless12345

Yeah cos im sure that's all 100% real time. and that Unlimited Detail thing is VERY old and it's a scam.

If it was possible to have CGI graphics nowadays we would have it. It takes a lot of power to be able to do those things and a crap load of memory

Also the animations in that girl/robot video are awful

seanmcloughlin

LOL.

Maybe at 320x240.

That tech demo was never proven to be real time. It was for the ATI 4870 if I remember correctly.

Sure, it's possible to do, however not feasible that someone will have a console any time soon which will run CGI like graphics, this doesn't mean graphics won't become photorealistic in the near future, but it will always lack the fine detail of CGI.

I thought this was a stupid thread made in 2008 that was bumped. TC you're an idiot. PC4lifeman2233

How so? A lot of the things I'm mentioning are pretty relevant for future graphics (multi-core CPUs, CPUs with graphics functions, voxel and ray-tracing rendering, ect.).

Physics based lighting looks pretty real to me. I can only hope that we'll see within this decade another quantom leap like with the PS1 to PS2. Future technology and logistics are simply too hard to predict.

When they run those tech demos, they usually run them with three high end graphics cards, like 3 GTX 580's or 3 ATI Radeon 7000 series cards. Modern CGI takes days to pre-render on computer farms, I don't think they will be able to reproduce those effects in real time on a gaming computer.

Probably..

PS3 already has with Uncharted 3BullyRay44

This should answer TC's question. Just change the resolution accuracy to .5. Realtime raytracing is possible, but not practical for games atm.

http://glsl.heroku.com/e#1044.6

http://glsl.heroku.com/e#1600.1

http://glsl.heroku.com/e#1745.0

http://glsl.heroku.com/e#1673.0

source below. Awesome site. Source code is available for every project. There is a huge amount of content.

http://glsl.heroku.com/

[QUOTE="BullyRay44"]PS3 already has with Uncharted 3ShadowsDemon

Maybe if devs stop focusing on consoles for once.

[QUOTE="ShadowsDemon"][QUOTE="BullyRay44"]PS3 already has with Uncharted 3BullyRay44

[QUOTE="BullyRay44"][QUOTE="ShadowsDemon"] No it doesn't...ShadowsDemon

That's ispeakfact's alt. He doesn't even own a PS3.

Physics based lighting looks pretty real to me. I can only hope that we'll see within this decade another quantom leap like with the PS1 to PS2. Future technology and logistics are simply too hard to predict.

6_Dead_360s

The new FOX engine is said to have Physics based lighting and we will see it in action soon after it's revealed at GDC

[QUOTE="ShadowsDemon"][QUOTE="BullyRay44"] Someone's jelly they don't own a PS3.Tikeio

That's ispeakfact's alt. He doesn't even own a PS3.

Of course, check out The Witcher 2 x360 editionIoosingENDS

[QUOTE="IoosingENDS"]Of course, check out The Witcher 2 x360 editionjohny300

He was banned and now he's back. If we ever needed proof of ban dodging this is it

[QUOTE="johny300"][QUOTE="IoosingENDS"]Of course, check out The Witcher 2 x360 editionseanmcloughlin

He was banned and now he's back. If we ever needed proof of ban dodging this is it

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="johny300"] Huh ? you are level 1 ? i thought it was 18 ?johny300

He was banned and now he's back. If we ever needed proof of ban dodging this is it

Mind = fvcked :shock:

Is it possible? Maybe, probably so in fact.

However, it's not feasible. The hardware would cost a fortune, the software would cost a ton to develop and therefore a ton to buy. It's simply not needed.

That tech demo was never proven to be real time. It was for the ATI 4870 if I remember correctly.

GTSaiyanjin2

When they run those tech demos, they usually run them with three high end graphics cards, like 3 GTX 580's or 3 ATI Radeon 7000 series cards. Modern CGI takes days to pre-render on computer farms, I don't think they will be able to reproduce those effects in real time on a gaming computer.

Flavorysoup

3 GTX 580 = 3 ATI Radeon 79x0 would be unwise i.e. "fat" Radeon HDs has pure shader advantage e.g. AMD's smallLuxGPU raytracer benchmarks beats NVs.

[QUOTE="johny300"][QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

He was banned and now he's back. If we ever needed proof of ban dodging this is it

seanmcloughlin

Mind = fvcked :shock:

It's a capital 'i', guys. ;) :P

Once we have ATI It's over 9000!! series graphics we will have CGI level graphics

[QUOTE="johny300"][QUOTE="IoosingENDS"]Of course, check out The Witcher 2 x360 editionseanmcloughlin

He was banned and now he's back. If we ever needed proof of ban dodging this is it

Not with current technology, it takes dozens of computers in a cluster hours to render a single frame for CGI movies, trying to get a system to render 30-60 frames like that a second? Impossible with current tech.

Not with current technology, it takes dozens of computers in a cluster hours to render a single frame for CGI movies, trying to get a system to render 30-60 frames like that a second? Impossible with current tech.

zarshack

It depends on what level of CGI. For Avatar, you need about 40,000 processors (Intel Xeon/Core ?? non-AVX/non-FMA type FP units). 256bit wide AVX+FMA could reduce it to 20,000 to 30,000 processor range.

Larrabee's 512bit wide SIMD could reduce down to 10,000 to 15,000 range.

AVX can be extended to 1024 bit wide SIMD i.e. it could reduce it down to 5000 to 7000 range.

AMD GCN's 4-way SIMD4 CU is effectively 512bit wide SIMD which is aligned to a single Larrabee 512 bit SIMD unit. AMD GCN already includes X86-64 IP...