PS3 CAN DO REALTIME RAYTRACING (fanboys owned)

Take a look at this

IBM LINK: http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/irt

VIDEOS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6yoz4iL8kQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLte5f34ya8

in the 2nd video they use 3 PS3's BUT: (note the youtube videos and side information are from the ppl at alpha works)

"The iRT is totally scalable and only requires one Cell SPE to run. More PS3s = More SPEs = Higher client frame rates."

SO PS3 can do realtime raytracing, and the KIllzone 2 dev was not lying

Video that the killzone 2 dev mentions ray-tracing http://www.gametrailers.com/player/34201.html

This is freaking old!Krigon

This is old now mate, been out for about a year.

Does killzone 2 use any kind of ray tracing?

This is old now mate, been out for about a year.

Does killzone 2 use any kind of ray tracing?

anthonydwyer

Take a look at this

IBM LINK: http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/irt

VIDEOS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6yoz4iL8kQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLte5f34ya8

in the 2nd video they use 3 PS3's BUT: (note the youtube videos and side information are from the ppl at alpha works)

"The iRT is totally scalable and only requires one Cell SPE to run. More PS3s = More SPEs = Higher client frame rates."

SO PS3 can do realtime raytracing, and the KIllzone 2 dev was not lying

zomgwtfbbqlol1

It is like 2 million rays and only does primary rays...

I think a dual core could run that better almost as good as the triple PS3 setup did...

It CANNOT do real-time ray tracing in any applicable situations. This is just BS hype and marketing. And you bought it...

As for the Killzone 2 dev... Considering Guerrilla did an entire GDC presentation on their lighting model(which it somewhere online.. read basically the complete outline of it)and never once mentioned ray tracing, I would say he was just mistake and merely said the wrong thing...

Guerrilla's lighting model may be good, but you would have to be absolutely ****ing crazy to believe it is ray-tracing.

realtime raytracing is still not viable on any of todays platform. At least there are easier lighting techniques that do almost just as good as raytracing. So its really not worth the effort involved for minimal improvement.diped

Indeed, real time raytracing is like 2 generations ahead.

edit: I mean it being applied in a game.

realtime raytracing is still not viable on any of todays platform. At least there are easier lighting techniques that do almost just as good as raytracing. So its really not worth the effort involved for minimal improvement.diped

[QUOTE="anthonydwyer"]

This is old now mate, been out for about a year.

Does killzone 2 use any kind of ray tracing?

zomgwtfbbqlol1

he was mistaken...

They outlined their lighting model from top to bottom at GDC in 2007.... It may be great but it IS NOT RAY TRACING. Not even REMOTELY.

And if you keep insisting that it IS, I will only be able to label you as an ignorant fanboy for the rest of eternity. Because, as I said, they outlined their entire lighting model from top to bottom.

It is Deferred Rendering. Which is in no way even remotely related to Raytracing.

I knew that heres another video of it real time. The only people denying it are those who are PC and 360 fanboys. Crysis still has 2D fire! :lol: And no ray tracing. How is that cutting edge?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDdStxjGELk

[QUOTE="zomgwtfbbqlol1"]

Take a look at this

IBM LINK: http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/irt

VIDEOS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6yoz4iL8kQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLte5f34ya8

in the 2nd video they use 3 PS3's BUT: (note the youtube videos and side information are from the ppl at alpha works)

"The iRT is totally scalable and only requires one Cell SPE to run. More PS3s = More SPEs = Higher client frame rates."

SO PS3 can do realtime raytracing, and the KIllzone 2 dev was not lying

horrowhip

It is like 2 million rays and only does primary rays...

I think a dual core could run that better almost as good as the triple PS3 setup did...

It CANNOT do real-time ray tracing in any applicable situations. This is just BS hype and marketing. And you bought it...

As for the Killzone 2 dev... Considering Guerrilla did an entire GDC presentation on their lighting model(which it somewhere online.. read basically the complete outline of it)and never once mentioned ray tracing, I would say he was just mistake and merely said the wrong thing...

Guerrilla's lighting model may be good, but you would have to be absolutely ****ing crazy to believe it is ray-tracing.

seriously ur a joke

I knew that heres another video of it real time. The only people denying it are those who are PC and 360 fanboys. Crysis still has 2D fire! :lol: And no ray tracing. How is that cutting edge?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDdStxjGELk

nVidiaGaMer

lol @ you if you think ps3 is more powerful than a mid range or even high end pc.

So how does this own fanboys?Blackbond

[QUOTE="diped"]realtime raytracing is still not viable on any of todays platform. At least there are easier lighting techniques that do almost just as good as raytracing. So its really not worth the effort involved for minimal improvement.zomgwtfbbqlol1

To put it in perspective... A complex ray-tracer that would even have a remote chance of beating rasterization has 5 million rays, renders at 1024x768 resolution and has 1 reflection level... Even that, Rasterization can still theoretically do more with better performance.

Anyway, the ray tracer mentioned above has been run on both the Cell, Intel Xeon 8 core (Skulltrail) and a 32 core Larrabee prototype...

Cell(fully enabled with every SPU going) get a whole 8FPS. The Xeon gets 12 FPS.

The 32 core Larrabee get 40FPS.

And Larrabee is over 1 year off....

That ray tracer is not plausible for real-time rendering. Not in ANY way.

[QUOTE="nVidiaGaMer"]

I knew that heres another video of it real time. The only people denying it are those who are PC and 360 fanboys. Crysis still has 2D fire! :lol: And no ray tracing. How is that cutting edge?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDdStxjGELk

perfect_chao

lol @ you if you think ps3 is more powerful than a mid range or even high end pc.

[QUOTE="horrowhip"][QUOTE="zomgwtfbbqlol1"]

Take a look at this

IBM LINK: http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/irt

VIDEOS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6yoz4iL8kQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLte5f34ya8

in the 2nd video they use 3 PS3's BUT: (note the youtube videos and side information are from the ppl at alpha works)

"The iRT is totally scalable and only requires one Cell SPE to run. More PS3s = More SPEs = Higher client frame rates."

SO PS3 can do realtime raytracing, and the KIllzone 2 dev was not lying

zomgwtfbbqlol1

It is like 2 million rays and only does primary rays...

I think a dual core could run that better almost as good as the triple PS3 setup did...

It CANNOT do real-time ray tracing in any applicable situations. This is just BS hype and marketing. And you bought it...

As for the Killzone 2 dev... Considering Guerrilla did an entire GDC presentation on their lighting model(which it somewhere online.. read basically the complete outline of it)and never once mentioned ray tracing, I would say he was just mistake and merely said the wrong thing...

Guerrilla's lighting model may be good, but you would have to be absolutely ****ing crazy to believe it is ray-tracing.

seriously ur a joke

Honest to GOD, there will NEVER be a ray tracing engine for a GAME on the PS3.

That ray tracing thing they showed was PATHETICALLY low quality.

only has primary rays and is fairly low poly. Also, low resolution, and low amount of rays...

I am a freaking Computer Science major. Believe me, that is nothing more than BS hype that you are buying into...

[QUOTE="zomgwtfbbqlol1"]

[QUOTE="diped"]realtime raytracing is still not viable on any of todays platform. At least there are easier lighting techniques that do almost just as good as raytracing. So its really not worth the effort involved for minimal improvement.horrowhip

To put it in perspective... A complex ray-tracer that would even have a remote chance of beating rasterization has 5 million rays, renders at 1024x768 resolution and has 1 reflection level... Even that, Rasterization can still theoretically do more with better performance.

Anyway, the ray tracer mentioned above has been run on both the Cell, Intel Xeon 8 core (Skulltrail) and a 32 core Larrabee prototype...

Cell(fully enabled with every SPU going) get a whole 8FPS. The Xeon gets 12 FPS.

The 32 core Larrabee get 40FPS.

And Larrabee is over 1 year off....

That ray tracer is not plausible for real-time rendering. Not in ANY way.

First of all, this is extremely old. But to be honest, I really think this is impressive. IBM said that the raytracing that was used in those demos was 75x more advanced than today's games (that includes Crysis). That means that the Cell microprocessor may be able to make games up to 25x better than what we have today. Unfortunately, the graphics card and the RAM, as well as other factors bottleneck the system. Perhaps they can use the Cell broadband engine to make really good procedurally generated content. That kind of stuff requires little RAM and GPU power (generally), but a lot of CPU power.

[QUOTE="horrowhip"][QUOTE="zomgwtfbbqlol1"]

[QUOTE="diped"]realtime raytracing is still not viable on any of todays platform. At least there are easier lighting techniques that do almost just as good as raytracing. So its really not worth the effort involved for minimal improvement.zomgwtfbbqlol1

To put it in perspective... A complex ray-tracer that would even have a remote chance of beating rasterization has 5 million rays, renders at 1024x768 resolution and has 1 reflection level... Even that, Rasterization can still theoretically do more with better performance.

Anyway, the ray tracer mentioned above has been run on both the Cell, Intel Xeon 8 core (Skulltrail) and a 32 core Larrabee prototype...

Cell(fully enabled with every SPU going) get a whole 8FPS. The Xeon gets 12 FPS.

The 32 core Larrabee get 40FPS.

And Larrabee is over 1 year off....

That ray tracer is not plausible for real-time rendering. Not in ANY way.

Will try.

Could only find this. Was slightly wrong about the stats

http://softwarecommunity.intel.com/UserFiles/en-us/File/larrabee_manycore.pdf

page 12.

Only has the 8 Xeon cores and Larrabee

Xeon gets 12

Larrabee gets 71 FPS with 32 cores.

But, that scene is way more advanced than the one in your crappy IBM video.

[QUOTE="horrowhip"][QUOTE="zomgwtfbbqlol1"]

[QUOTE="diped"]realtime raytracing is still not viable on any of todays platform. At least there are easier lighting techniques that do almost just as good as raytracing. So its really not worth the effort involved for minimal improvement.zomgwtfbbqlol1

To put it in perspective... A complex ray-tracer that would even have a remote chance of beating rasterization has 5 million rays, renders at 1024x768 resolution and has 1 reflection level... Even that, Rasterization can still theoretically do more with better performance.

Anyway, the ray tracer mentioned above has been run on both the Cell, Intel Xeon 8 core (Skulltrail) and a 32 core Larrabee prototype...

Cell(fully enabled with every SPU going) get a whole 8FPS. The Xeon gets 12 FPS.

The 32 core Larrabee get 40FPS.

And Larrabee is over 1 year off....

That ray tracer is not plausible for real-time rendering. Not in ANY way.

[QUOTE="zomgwtfbbqlol1"][QUOTE="horrowhip"][QUOTE="zomgwtfbbqlol1"]

[QUOTE="diped"]realtime raytracing is still not viable on any of todays platform. At least there are easier lighting techniques that do almost just as good as raytracing. So its really not worth the effort involved for minimal improvement.horrowhip

To put it in perspective... A complex ray-tracer that would even have a remote chance of beating rasterization has 5 million rays, renders at 1024x768 resolution and has 1 reflection level... Even that, Rasterization can still theoretically do more with better performance.

Anyway, the ray tracer mentioned above has been run on both the Cell, Intel Xeon 8 core (Skulltrail) and a 32 core Larrabee prototype...

Cell(fully enabled with every SPU going) get a whole 8FPS. The Xeon gets 12 FPS.

The 32 core Larrabee get 40FPS.

And Larrabee is over 1 year off....

That ray tracer is not plausible for real-time rendering. Not in ANY way.

Will try.

Could only find this. Was slightly wrong about the stats

http://softwarecommunity.intel.com/UserFiles/en-us/File/larrabee_manycore.pdf

page 12.

Only has the 8 Xeon cores and Larrabee

Xeon gets 12

Larrabee gets 71 FPS with 32 cores.

But, that scene is way more advanced than the one in your crappy IBM video.

[QUOTE="Blackbond"]So how does this own fanboys?zomgwtfbbqlol1

This is the biggest ownage I've ever seen.

[QUOTE="zomgwtfbbqlol1"][QUOTE="Blackbond"]So how does this own fanboys?Blackbond

This is the biggest ownage I've ever seen.

[QUOTE="zomgwtfbbqlol1"][QUOTE="Blackbond"]So how does this own fanboys?Blackbond

This is the biggest ownage I've ever seen.

You can do real-time raytracing on a Game Boy, if you wanted to. It's just an alternative technique to rasterization, it doesn't magically product better results or anything.Teufelhuhn

and again im still learning so dont kill me :P

[QUOTE="Blackbond"]

[QUOTE="zomgwtfbbqlol1"][QUOTE="Blackbond"]So how does this own fanboys?EuroMafia

This is the biggest ownage I've ever seen.

You can do real-time raytracing on a Game Boy, if you wanted to. It's just an alternative technique to rasterization, it doesn't magically product better results or anything.Teufelhuhn

Again I reiterate. Race Tracing is the biggest ownage I've ever seen.. Even Game Boy can do it.

kewl thnx for linkzomgwtfbbqlol1

But It does prove one thing..

Theoretically, the cell should be slightly slower than the Xeon cores...

Depends on the methodology, but it is possible it could get like a 50% increase over Xeon in ideal conditions but that scene would only get like 18FPS max with a single Cell processor... Disable cores to get a PS3 level Cell and you are talking 12FPS max...

And that scene renders at 1024x1024 resolution, has 234K triangles and 4 million rays...

In terms of what a game running with a ray tracer would look like... It would be horrible.

At BEST cut the video you saw in half to account for moving objects and action. then slice another large portion off for AI. And another off for textures. And another off for physics...

[QUOTE="zomgwtfbbqlol1"] kewl thnx for linkhorrowhip

But It does prove one thing..

Theoretically, the cell should be slightly slower than the Xeon cores...

Depends on the methodology, but it is possible it could get like a 50% increase over Xeon in ideal conditions but that scene would only get like 18FPS max with a single Cell processor... Disable cores to get a PS3 level Cell and you are talking 12FPS max...

And that scene renders at 1024x1024 resolution, has 234K triangles and 4 million rays...

In terms of what a game running with a ray tracer would look like... It would be horrible.

At BEST cut the video you saw in half to account for moving objects and action. then slice another large portion off for AI. And another off for textures. And another off for physics...

Whatever anyone says Killzone 2 has the most impressive lighting I've ever seen in a game and its still only in the pre-alpha stage.

[QUOTE="zomgwtfbbqlol1"] kewl thnx for linkhorrowhip

But It does prove one thing..

Theoretically, the cell should be slightly slower than the Xeon cores...

Depends on the methodology, but it is possible it could get like a 50% increase over Xeon in ideal conditions but that scene would only get like 18FPS max with a single Cell processor... Disable cores to get a PS3 level Cell and you are talking 12FPS max...

And that scene renders at 1024x1024 resolution, has 234K triangles and 4 million rays...

In terms of what a game running with a ray tracer would look like... It would be horrible.

At BEST cut the video you saw in half to account for moving objects and action. then slice another large portion off for AI. And another off for textures. And another off for physics...

also the Xenon is only 2.6 ghz, while the cell is 3.2 ghz if that would make much of a difference

I knew that heres another video of it real time. The only people denying it are those who are PC and 360 fanboys. Crysis still has 2D fire! :lol: And no ray tracing. How is that cutting edge?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDdStxjGELk

nVidiaGaMer

good luck trying to implant proper ray-traceing into a PS3 game.

Take a look at this

IBM LINK: http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/irt

VIDEOS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6yoz4iL8kQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLte5f34ya8

in the 2nd video they use 3 PS3's BUT: (note the youtube videos and side information are from the ppl at alpha works)

"The iRT is totally scalable and only requires one Cell SPE to run. More PS3s = More SPEs = Higher client frame rates."

SO PS3 can do realtime raytracing, and the KIllzone 2 dev was not lying

zomgwtfbbqlol1

TC,

The answer to this debate is found in your original post. All you have to do is look at the graphs that are posted about scaleability in the source IBM document.

1.6 million triangles at 1080p requires 15 SPEs to hit 2.75 FPS.

6 SPEs, or basically dedicating everything a PS3 has to offer on only their interactive ray tracing results in a little over 1 FPS.

So if you think through the implications for producing an actual game...well it ain't gonna happen. What they are doing, is making their case for cell server clusters to support movie animation....on a scale far larger than a PS3.

http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/irt/faq#01

Scroll down to the graphs. That's all you need to know.

Too bad realtime ray tracing can't get the Mirror's Edge demo up on PSN USA.edward2332

its already up

Man I remember when PS3 fanboys were going on about this back in early '06! :lol:

(damn I've been here a long time...)

When it's actually put into practical application, then we'll talk about how awesome it is. There are a lot of things both of these consoles can do on a theoretical basis and in flashy tech demos. If we never see it in games, then what's the point?

Sure it can at 3fps with nothing on the screen :lol: KZ2 is not using Raytracing get over it,the engine is full of post processing effect which lighting is 1 of them,go look at the Rendering techniques of KZ2..it doesnt say anything about raytracing.MojondeVACA

They are using a form of ray tracing. Thats why it has some of the best lighting in any game.

[QUOTE="MojondeVACA"]Sure it can at 3fps with nothing on the screen :lol: KZ2 is not using Raytracing get over it,the engine is full of post processing effect which lighting is 1 of them,go look at the Rendering techniques of KZ2..it doesnt say anything about raytracing.nVidiaGaMer

They are using a form of ray tracing. Thats why it has some of the best lighting in any game.

[QUOTE="nVidiaGaMer"]

[QUOTE="MojondeVACA"]Sure it can at 3fps with nothing on the screen :lol: KZ2 is not using Raytracing get over it,the engine is full of post processing effect which lighting is 1 of them,go look at the Rendering techniques of KZ2..it doesnt say anything about raytracing.MojondeVACA

They are using a form of ray tracing. Thats why it has some of the best lighting in any game.

And iasnt that bolded part of your post just opinion?

[QUOTE="nVidiaGaMer"]

[QUOTE="MojondeVACA"]Sure it can at 3fps with nothing on the screen :lol: KZ2 is not using Raytracing get over it,the engine is full of post processing effect which lighting is 1 of them,go look at the Rendering techniques of KZ2..it doesnt say anything about raytracing.MojondeVACA

They are using a form of ray tracing. Thats why it has some of the best lighting in any game.

30% of posts in here consist of opinions (sometimes backed by knowledge)... the other 70% consist of trolling posts & stupid fanboyish posts...

on topic, i dont really believe PS3 can do real raytracing or full raytracing (am not that technical)... still though if devs are good doing post processing effects, or utilise best way possible rendering techniques and results are examples such as KZ2, am already happy with what current consoles are capable of..

[QUOTE="horrowhip"]

[QUOTE="zomgwtfbbqlol1"] kewl thnx for linknVidiaGaMer

But It does prove one thing..

Theoretically, the cell should be slightly slower than the Xeon cores...

Depends on the methodology, but it is possible it could get like a 50% increase over Xeon in ideal conditions but that scene would only get like 18FPS max with a single Cell processor... Disable cores to get a PS3 level Cell and you are talking 12FPS max...

And that scene renders at 1024x1024 resolution, has 234K triangles and 4 million rays...

In terms of what a game running with a ray tracer would look like... It would be horrible.

At BEST cut the video you saw in half to account for moving objects and action. then slice another large portion off for AI. And another off for textures. And another off for physics...

Whatever anyone says Killzone 2 has the most impressive lighting I've ever seen in a game and its still only in the pre-alpha stage.

[QUOTE="MojondeVACA"][QUOTE="nVidiaGaMer"]

[QUOTE="MojondeVACA"]Sure it can at 3fps with nothing on the screen :lol: KZ2 is not using Raytracing get over it,the engine is full of post processing effect which lighting is 1 of them,go look at the Rendering techniques of KZ2..it doesnt say anything about raytracing.NinjaMunkey01

They are using a form of ray tracing. Thats why it has some of the best lighting in any game.

And iasnt that bolded part of your post just opinion?