DirectX Compute Ocean Demo Running on NVIDIA CUDA-enabled GPU

[HypnoticSuggestion]

I hope Nvidia will redo this using DirectCompute 5.0, this can be done to look 3x better, since their GPU's are now about that much stronger.

[levimoreno]

It's only a matter if time before graphics look better than real life... Then we'll all go insane because the real world will look like shit compared to the best graphics.

[TheHalflife123]

crysis has better water

[seacuracao]

to much of the same wave pattern, needs some wave random movement.

[ThiagoZeppLE]

Its REAL ???

[XWXS2]

Crysis ??

[GRUNTS2009]

EVERYONE!

(QUESTION NUMBER 1.) My computer has a AMD Athlon II x4 640 processor ( 3.0GHz ) with 4GB DDR3 SDRAM system memory. So I guess my computer can't run the NVIDIA GeForce GTX-460 Graphics Card? Or can it?

(QUESTION NUMBER 2.) Also, it's also a Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit. But my computer already has the NVIDIA GeForce GT430( With 1GB dedicated graphics memory and support for Microsoft DirectX 11 ). Will that work? If not, then what Graphics card do you recommend me?

[Kloborgg]

@GRUNTS2009

Sorry this is a little late.

The processor is not an issue for compatibility. The only issue when considering the GPU vs. CPU is processor bottlenecking. Your CPU isn't at the top-end of things, but a GTX 460 will work absolutely fine with it. The only thing worth considering is the PSU, I recommend 500w+ quality brand.

[anshmits]

@GRUNTS2009 Lol, u have to know ur motherboard type, not the processor to know will the GTX 460 run.



[10shanwei]

@GRUNTS2009 You can try to ask the graphics card sellers whether it is compatible

[found817]

what is cuda?? how does it work is it something you install??

[chipaputalaguea]

this is the most realistic water ive ever seen, fuck the cry engine this looks awesome

[sharkie541]

impossible! you mustve just recorded an real ocean!

[Larsson19933]

Where can i download this? :)

[roger82it]

:-o

[AndrewSpec]

And that's why OGL just sux ;]

[AdeonC]

@AndrewSpec Please elaborate.

[Stalkerdim]

making water in any game is wery problematic proces

[sachem31]

Reminds me of my math teacher... *shiver*

[GrevMivlos]

Too uniform :/

[unbelievabubble]

yeah..and my CPUs faster than yours

[Baleur]

the water in silent hunter v looks better tbh :)

[xXSCARFACE1983Xx]

is it possible that just cause 2 uses the same tech for cuda exclusive water effects?

[VenchCause]

i guess ;)

[Andyw1228]

I think you are quite right.

[LLOYD19851012]

yes just cause 2 does use cuda for water.

[JannisAdmek]

i looks so cool but not real

[XenoPhobic321]

i love pentium 1

[DeXtmL]

This is not really showing off the stunning new possibility and flexibility of next-gen GPGPU.

Crysis does this in DX9, almost the same speed.

[15Protech]

yes, the cry engine has a nice simulation of water, but with DX11 tesselation the detail and iterations would be much higher,... this water has much more detail than the one in thw crysis game, althoug i have not yett seen a physics based water with Dx11 tesselation for any game engine... then i would be impressed,

but if mental images completes their latest render software for realtime rendering... sorry cant remember the name incremental or some thing, then we will have ultra quality

[Daputti]

I think I've already had enough replies so you can just add a comment instead of replying mine.

Push your opinion, push your opinion...

[gevelegian]

@Daputti OMG you idiot... so if a 2ghz processor isn't any different than a 2ghz dual-core (in your opinion) Why did they even make dual core? BTW have you worked with say... 3DsMax? you'll notice if you have a multi-core cpu it'll render two times faster and if you have a quad-core four times faster... four boxes rendering individually so it's 2ghz dual core = a 4ghz processor but frequency isn't even that important!

[TheVideoGuardian]

@gevelegian THANK YOU! Thank you for being sane. I had almost given up hope!

So many people just don't seem to get that the frequency is NOT the same as the total processing rate...

I wonder what these people would do if somebody told them that even the single core Pentium 4's have 20 stage pipelines? They'd be called a heretic for sure...

[skytreker]

I can see a geometric pattern of the waves near the horizon. Which is not the case with the real ocean.

They just seem unable to make it just right.

[andruluvsu]

Are you sure it's not a moire pattern from the projector and camera?

[vasedeny]

if you wanna render more real ocean, you should render oil on it.....

[digitaldud]

Cool, now do volumetric fluids like clouds.

[solidox113]

the ocean is way to repetive.

[mattej00]

have you ever been out on open ocean? :S

[solidox113]

Waves are messed up, at this level of waves there should be certain of foam on the top. And there sure should be windy, something i don't get feeling of there. and they are a sort of repetive, i can easily spot that they are unreal.

[TheVideoGuardian]

That's not the point! It's NOT a graphics demonstration! That ocean was generated procedurally in real time!

*ahem*

That was a demonstration of DirectX compute.

It's not a graphics API, it's allows developers to write highly parallelized code that runs on the graphics card.

Think about it, what has more computing power, a quad core intell chip @ 3Ghz (total of 12 GHz) or a 128 core graphics card & 700Mhz (total of 89 GHz)

Now imagine that you had three graphics cards...

[Daputti]

Very nice, but... cores don't count as independent processors, for example if you have a dual-core processor at 2 GHz it's 1 GHz per core...

What you're talking about is more likely a 12GHz Quadcore and a 89GHz GPU xD which is unlikely lol

[TheVideoGuardian]

'3Ghz' is the clock rate. "12Ghz" was a theoretical equivalent processing power.

dual core 2Ghz = single 4Ghz (not in reality, but in terms of simple FLOPS)

Anyway, the clock rate on a processor is how frequently it can execute an instruction. Higher clock = more instructions per second. Having 2 cores means that for each clock cycle, TWO instructions can be performed.

So for a simple comparison, the clock rate can be multiplied by the number of cores.

(Though it IS very lose...)

[Daputti]

Having 2 cores means that for each clock cycle, TWO instructions can be performed.

Yes, but when you have 2GHz dual-core and a 2GHz single core, it's the same since one core is 1GHz. The two instructions is two for two cores, four for four cores, etc. It doesn't matter in the terms of executing instructions.

But where the dual-core really shines is that WHICH core executes WHICH instructions. Run bg apps with one core, game with others. Great win.

[TheVideoGuardian]

That is not correct. Following your logic, my Q9450 (stock 2.66) is really just 4 cores @ (665Mhz)? Give me a break!

A single thread can only run on ONE core at a time. If the app is not multi-threaded, it can only use ONE core.

For instance a typical game would run as though I had only one processor clocked at 665Mhz!

A Video encoder on my quad core machine runs twice as fast as my dual core machine (same clock rate)

Think of clock rate as like highway speed, and Cores as # of lanes.

[Daputti]

Following YOUR logic, your Q9450 Quad @ 2.66 GHz is supposed to be 10.64 GHz?

Your Q9450 is four cores EACH AT 665MHZ.

Why are you so stupid?

Dual-core/Quad-core =/= Dual processor/Quad processor.

[TheVideoGuardian]

Yes. My processor is effectively equal to a 10Ghz single core. (But each individual thread can only be processed at a rate of 2.66Ghz)

And since you've called me stupid I've lost all sympathy for you.

Go to read about how processors work, please.

For someone of you're level, I'd recommend a nice easy site like YAHOO ANSWERS!

[Daputti]

Yahoo Answers has a lot higher level of knowledge than YouTube. Every single kid like you that comment on YT are just pushing for their own opinion, it's useless for us smarter ones to even try to educate you. Grow up.

Goodbye.

[invisible726]

@TheVideoGuardian That's not how it works at all, you don't know what you're talking about. A quad core processor is not like 4 cores at 2.66 GHz at all, you seem to be forgetting about some overhead issues related to multi-threaded code. Also, the organization of the ALU would be a lot different on one fast core than on 4 cores each 1/4 of the speed. Before you tell somebody off for being so uneducated about processors, try to at least be correct yourself.

[TheVideoGuardian]

@invisible726 Um... I'm a programmer. The overhead of threading is not that big. You cannot gain 100% efficiency, but you can get very close.

Now, about the ALU... The alu is now split across several smaller more specialized components as part of a pipeline. This is what is called "instruction level parallelism."

It has to be re-organized for every processor design anyway. It's true that it can greatly affect the performance of a processor, but not by THAT much.

[TheVideoGuardian]

@invisible726

If you take a quad @ 2 Ghz, and a single @ 1.8

(With this "1/4 speed" reasoning, each core of the quad core is @ 500MHz)

Say we bench test these machines with a single threaded program. 1 thread means the quad is like a single core @ 500Mhz. (But a little better since the OS can run whatever else is running on the other cores.)

It would be 500 Mhz vs 1.8 Ghz, the single core machine should win by a mile, right?

Well, it won't.

If you don't believe me, try it.

[Schwerter08]

@TheVideoGuardian what are you talking about?

a quad @ 2Ghz has 4 cores with 2Ghz EACH.

nearly every software can use up to 4 cores today and if not, win 7 will manage it

sry for my bad english

[redefn199]

@Schwerter08 Well, many current games are still only able to utilize as much as 2 cores.

And there's no possible way to turn single-thread algorithms into a multi-threaded ones.

[xilix]

@TheVideoGuardian How can he try it when what you're talking about doesn't exist? A multi-core CPU's clock rate is not determined by the sum of it's cores' clock speeds. I mean, you HAVE to be aware of this, right? Are you just making an analogy or a hypothetical? If so, then I see what you're trying to say. If not, then please let us know which programs you code for, so I can avoid them.

[ArchangelChi]

Daputti - where did you get your Computer Science degree - a box of Cracker Jacks?

Multicore processors run EACH core at the rated clock speed - the clock speed isn't divided between the cores - they ALL run independently at that speed - so YES, a quad core processor running with a 3 GHz clock has a theoretical overall processing capability of a single 12 GHz core - somewhat less due to bus and memory congestion but pretty close.

[bitlyphtr]

You could have all the multi-cores in the world but if the app is single threaded, which many still are, it'll still only take advantage of one core.

[ArchangelChi]

Daputti (continued) -

And YES, a quad core processor is basically four old single core processors crammed onto a single processor die - but performing better than the old four processor/socket config

Don't call others stupid when you don't know what you're talking about

[diotecktec2]

No mate, you're wrong -- In actuality, each core has its own clock.. Due to bus traffic, a dual core at 2ghz is not effectively as good as a single core 4ghz, but it's pretty damn close. My CPU is a Q6600 with liquid cooling at 3.81ghz, it's essentially equal to a 10ghz single core (Dues to bus issues) Trust me, #1: I went to college for computer design, #2: I'm an avid overclocker, #3: I build gaming computers for a living. -- Also, i'm a programmer and I love working with multithreaded stuff.

[snake172]

are u fuking rtarded its not just the bus that comes into play its software support along with the cpu's cache performance.

even the best dual core and quad core enabled software wont run at top efficiency when you have limiting factors such as those.

in other words that shit processor of yours wont even get as far as 5 ghz of real time performance.

fuking assclown.

[ryanThornhill1]

@mattej00 its alot more wild then that water, my bathtub has more waves

[drmrboy]

@mattej00 not really.. does it not look like that?

[LamarsaElectro]

Very true

[oneChuckNorris]

In games that do not utilize pixel shading. In this video i can see any loop because its just to complex to tell

[HWGuyEG]

"DirectX Compute Shader"

Isn't that standard in DirectX 11?

ATi is starting to show off DirectX 11 hardware but i haven't seen any on the green side... and what ever happened to throwing in 10.1?

[Mallaien]

Flood: is a in house simulation, at least what I managed to find on Google. Realflow does have a demo reel. I agree that its full of bugs, but I have had better results and less headaches using it to solve fluid and rigid body work. I spend more time tweaking things in Maya doing the same stuff, when I can build the layout, export it and start processing the work faster.

[gohilurvish]

This can be used in movies for special effects...

[SukhoiSu37Terminator]

With that micro-stutter? I don't think so...

[super999999]

They don't need to, this is realtime, movies aren't in real time. They already rendered previously so you won't need a super powerful graphics card to watch a movie. You would only need this to watch things like realtime cut-scenes inside of video games.

[cherrynutz]

Every time I think I've seen the best looking water, I am corrected, and this is yet another time, sweeeeeet. 5/5 Beautiful!

[Capeau]

every existing liquid simulator out there kind of sux because water is a goddamn pain in the ass to simulate. The complexity is enormous

[Solado]

Looks like Crytech engine.

[computergasm]

Only this is faster and more capable than the crytech engine... ;)

[pwEclipse]

first, it's Crytek, and no, this is not faster at all, as Crysis runs on years old machines. Also this is not an engine, only a demo

[moffe247]

If you could have that in a game, it would be awsome. It looks great!

[operationturkey]

Looks a lot like the water on Empire: Total War...

[Poki3]

I want to see how splashes look...

[IMakeOrWatchVideos]

i dont care until this is actually in a game.

[Noobfryer]

exactly!

[yalolol]

This isn't just game material.

[IMakeOrWatchVideos]

its not game material to start. any way what other main stream use of real time water other than games. and any one who modeling for movies and building already have the power. so what else will this be used for other than games?

[Capeau]

for modeling and movies because its so much faster using cuda

[IMakeOrWatchVideos]

i was talking about the H2O.

[Capeau]

So? That doesnt change anything.

CUDA can be used to accelerate current water simulations used in the movie VFX industrie. It will go much much faster then before.

[IMakeOrWatchVideos]

im talking about the water demo not cuda. yes cuda made the water. But thats all im talking about. the water you see in that demo. i want to see that water in a game.

[Capeau]

No, u asked what else it could be used for other then games.

U'll see water like this (or mayb e better) in games over a year or maybe more. .

[IMakeOrWatchVideos]

oh yeah your right. well ok.

[nxmoparmatt84]

depends on what configuration this demo was run on, this could very well be run the gt300 series cards that are soon to be released by nvidia.

[Mallaien]

If you know what software the movie companies use for water and fluid simulations then you would know that there all CPU calculated. They do not use the GPU for anything. Look up a program called Realflow. I have it running on my system and it uses all 4 of my CPU's and not my video card.

[siedlikmasterek]

u are so stupid omg

why not get nvidia quadro for making movies ??

[Mallaien]

Your GPU has NOTHING to do with how a movie is going to look. you think they have some Nvidia installed at every projector in all the theaters? NO, the only thing a GPU has to do with movies is how the crap will look on the artists screen before its rendered. even rendering is sent off to a server farm. how long do you thing a full length movie at 25Fps would take to render on one computer? let alone the terabytes of file footage you would need storage for. go to film school for gods sake.

[siedlikmasterek]

How movie gonna look is only up to u.

U right sorry i just wake up.

[Capeau]

gpu's can be used to accellerate simulations.

What u are talking about was true 10yrs ago but not anymore

[Mallaien]

Yea I have already seen work out there that can take advantage of GPU power. I messed around with "folding @ home" for a bit using there ATI GPU program. I would be nice to use my GPU alongside my quad core, and extra power will be worth it.

[Capeau]

thats quite funny because i work in the VFX industry and last time i checked they allmost all use something called 'flood' (google it) which u cant buy.

Realflow is a commercial piece of crap full of bugs.

And as we speak they are rewriting all physics accelerations to run on a GPU.

Why they dont use gpu now? because its quite new since you can do that on a gpu.

[sivadfa]

@Mallaien But movie software are starting to make support for GPU calculations.

the VFX in 2012 was nearly entirely done GPU.

[CrusherFTW]

Nice again. :D

[deepakm]

dx11 will be on vista also

[LETHLSS]

for current Vista owners? hope so, i have home premium.. hope it'll receive a DX11 update when available.

[xX20AxFreedomx]

Ultimate for me. Nothing special though. Just only got it for the sounds and Vista

[aqnfx]

you think Dx11 is coming to vista?? think again my friend windows will want more money from you for that. and ATi FTW

[LETHLSS]

so Win7 exclusive? i wouldn't be surprised! pay more, to experience more i guess, but you never know.

[phuKKah]

or pirate

[TheRageFest]

++ for that one haha

[someotherguy560]

Nice. Can't wait to see what water will look like on dx 11.