Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 108

Thread: The Ideal (Hypothetical) Gaming Processor

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pyre Vulpimorph View Post
    What types of instructions do modern video games make the most use of? Do games find integer performance most important, floating point performance, or both? If floating-point calculations can be offloaded to the GPU, can the CPU's floating-point units be excised to make the chip smaller and cheaper, or would that harm system performance? If FP power is still important, would adding complex 256- or even 512-bit units be beneficial to total system performance, or just a waste of space?
    If floating points are handled by your CPU, make sure they are deterministic. http://nicolas.brodu.numerimoire.net...lop/index.html describes the problems you can encounter on current PCs.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,798

    Default

    Q, please pull your head out of your ass. Seriously. I already posted what FPS is. You don't understand what this is about and, worse, you are unable to admit it.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    wen you start talking about framerate in a raytracing tropic you just LIE!

    the Framerate doesn't matter you can force 1000fps! by GOD LAW! it just doesn't matter!

    but you get a lot of "murmuring"

    so please stop spamming bullshit to me.

    Real Time Ray-tracing is all about "murmuring" and not frames per second.
    Dude CALM DOWN. If you actually READ my posts, I'm describing how quality scaling in interactive raytracers is usually done. I know you can scale the quality up/down to hit a particular FPS target - I SAY THAT IN MY POST, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!

    Seriously though, if you expect to hit 1000FPS on current commodity hardware, you're going to be throwing out very few rays. That means either a very low resolution image, an incredibly low-complexity scene, or lots of large gaps between your primary rays. Worst case scenario would be that you only actually have the power available to cast 1000 rays per second, which means the first 999 of your 1000 frames will be unrecognisable garbage, or - if the camera is moving - you have 1000 frames rendered from a grand total of one ray each, i.e. each image is just one huge rectangle of a single colour value.

    It's true that you can't really compare FPS in a polygon engine to FPS in an interactive raytracer, especially one with dynamic quality control, but it doesn't mean you can magically raytrace complex scenes in real time on a fucking 286.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mangobrain View Post
    It's true that you can't really compare FPS in a polygon engine to FPS in an interactive raytracer, especially one with dynamic quality control, but it doesn't mean you can magically raytrace complex scenes in real time on a fucking 286.
    yes you can raytrace complex scenes in real time on a fucking intel286 with a murmuring rate of 99,99999x%

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    yes you can raytrace complex scenes in real time on a fucking intel286 with a murmuring rate of 99,99999x%
    Which means you're only casting a couple of rays per frame, which means only a couple of pixels have colour values based on the scene itself. The rest of the pixel colours will be made up using interpolation. Did you read what I said about casting primary rays? Each primary ray cast gives you one colour value, not one complete image.

    If you're scaling the number of rays per frame down to below the point where a standard polygon engine looks better, then you might as well use a polygon engine. This is why commercial games in the real world still use polygon engines. It doesn't mean raytracing is nonsense. I for one would love to see hardware & software get to the point where raytracers can exceed the quality of polygon engines, at similar frame rates, for the types of complex scenes we see in AAA titles these days - but the industry hasn't got there yet.

    There is no conspiracy to keep raytracing down. If there was, I would not be part of it.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mangobrain View Post
    Which means you're only casting a couple of rays per frame, which means only a couple of pixels have colour values based on the scene itself. The rest of the pixel colours will be made up using interpolation. Did you read what I said about casting primary rays? Each primary ray cast gives you one colour value, not one complete image.

    If you're scaling the number of rays per frame down to below the point where a standard polygon engine looks better, then you might as well use a polygon engine. This is why commercial games in the real world still use polygon engines. It doesn't mean raytracing is nonsense. I for one would love to see hardware & software get to the point where raytracers can exceed the quality of polygon engines, at similar frame rates, for the types of complex scenes we see in AAA titles these days - but the industry hasn't got there yet.

    There is no conspiracy to keep raytracing down. If there was, I would not be part of it.
    answer me this question about your suggestion: "The rest of the pixel colours will be made up using interpolation." why?

    no you don't need interpolation to get a real time raytracing complex scene on a 286

    and i think the 286 is to slow for the interpolation.

    Quote Originally Posted by mangobrain View Post
    If you're scaling the number of rays per frame down to below the point where a standard polygon engine looks better, then you might as well use a polygon engine.
    finally you make a good point! yes you are right here

    Quote Originally Posted by mangobrain View Post
    There is no conspiracy to keep raytracing down.
    this is wrong. "intel" for example make sure that anyone only gets the calculation speed what they pay for and they make sure the price for calculation is to high for ray tracing.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
    If floating points are handled by your CPU, make sure they are deterministic. http://nicolas.brodu.numerimoire.net...lop/index.html describes the problems you can encounter on current PCs.
    very interesting article can you make a example for a cpu fit into your count and a example for a bad cpu ?

    x87 sure bad and what level of SSE do you need? sse1 or sse2 or sse4.2 or AVX?

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    107

    Default


  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    answer me this question about your suggestion: "The rest of the pixel colours will be made up using interpolation." why?
    no you don't need interpolation to get a real time raytracing complex scene on a 286
    and i think the 286 is to slow for the interpolation.
    A 286 is too slow for interpolation but fast enough for interactive raytracing, are you serious?

    You need to interpolate because you get one pixel per ray. If you have an image resolution of 1920 x 1200 then you need to shoot 2,304,000 (= 1920 x 1200) rays to get a colour value for each pixel (let's forget about reflection, refraction, etc. for the time being). If you reduce the number of rays to reach interactive speeds this means you no longer get a colour value for each pixel. Hence you need to calculate the remaining pixels by interpolating between those pixels you do have.

    Also, your "I can ramp up the fps as much as I want" is only true if you're willing to completely sacrifice image quality. If you want any kind of consistent image quality then you need to use a consistent number of rays. Otherwise there's no point in using a raytracer in the first place.
    Last edited by Wildfire; 03-12-2012 at 10:31 AM. Reason: Typos

  10. #30
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    answer me this question about your suggestion: "The rest of the pixel colours will be made up using interpolation." why?
    Because if you haven't got the computing power to cast at least one real primary ray per pixel, you either just leave the rest of the pixels black, or you fill them in based on the colours of nearby pixels where you *have* cast primary rays.

    For example, if you imagine a grid of 10x10 squares on your screen, and cast primary rays at every point where two grid lines meet, you can "guess" the colours of the rest of the pixels by blending the colours from the corners of the squares. You won't have a lot of detail in the resulting image, but it will at least cover the screen. This is just a naive example, there are better ways of deciding where to cast primary rays than a fixed-space grid.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    and i think the 286 is to slow for the interpolation.
    Bilinear interpolation can be performed much quicker than the calculations needed to cast a primary ray, unless your scene is really, really simple. When I say interpolation in this context, I basically mean "colour blending".

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •