Ray tracing is the mathematical way to generate photo realistic renderings by tracing light beams, simulating the way they reflect, refract and get absorbed by surfaces. It has been around for a long time. In the beginning it took hours to render one photo realistic image. Now computer hardware got fast enough so that programmers start using ray tracing in realtime. That means no pre-rendered animations but live generated images with realistic material properties and reflections.
de verdad se ve realista, sientes como si estuvieras metido ahí, ese es el futuro aunque todavia falta mucho, si se ponen a ver, aunque un objeto paresca liso a la vista, microscopicamente las particulas tienen volumenes diferentes, lo cual produce microscopicas sombras que hacen variar la intensidad de luz en el objeto de una manera perceptible para el ojo a nivel general, si aplicaran raytracing al nivel de particulas seria super pesado renderizar pero se veria totalmente realista.
GPUs are a lot more powerful than any CPU, just look at the onboard graphics on intel motherboards, they suck balls. Can barely play older games on low settings...
GPUs are and will be superior to the CPU for a long time to come...
Ray tracing is tracing many, many, MANY, beams of light from a light source, mathematically traveling on their path (bouncing off mirrors, etc.), up until they hit the camera, where the resulting color and orientation is rendered onto the screen as a pixel. It produces photo realistic effects, being that it is the exact way humans can see, however, it is extremely cpu-intensive and takes hours to render, days for a TV show, and months for movies.
re-commenting this video: i think this looks great but its a typical tech demo, i want to see a proper "real life" use like in a game or a movie scene where it is clear that ray tracing is involved. that would be not real time i guess, haha.
by raitrascing every pixel on your screen casts a ray of toght that gets scattered all over the scene to determine its colors. this very accurately simulates human vision (in reverse, because naturally light sources scatter light all over and your eve cathes some of them, just the other way around)
@mrJv2k7 it is rendered in realtime, with at least 30 frames per second.
in comparison Pixar studios has choosen a raytracing/rendering performance of 1 frame per 15 hours for the movie "Cars" and 1 frame per 8 hours for the movie "Toy Story 1".
of course they show much more detail in every frame, but you should get the ideaiof "real time now.
i was being sarcastic because i do not believe this to be rendered in realtime because of the reflections
having experience with raytracers, i can tell those reflections would take a long time in an offline rendering engine on a reasonable 4-core machine (mine)
i have seen tech demos on way beefier machines than mine with much less reflections and they were only near-realtime
@superkellerman8D then what are they showing? old software technology able to run 50x faster on a GPU running on a CPU? and if it were cube mapping, why bother raytracing? why would you raytrace diffuse maps?
@mrJv2k7 You wouldn't. This could be realtime, but if it was, it surely wouldn't use raytracing. Just shadow volumes with some advanced pcf, cube-mapping using render-to-texture to be dynamic. It isn't that hard...
@olllj i don't think video productions are rendered at 60fps, they don't render each frame after the one before is finished and not all frames take 15hrs. some take 20, some take 2... so we have 208800 frames (30fps), roughly 238yrs (assuming an avg of 5hrs/frame). but apparently these guys have thousands of cores at their disposal so even with 15 hrs per frame, they meet their deadlines
@olllj Cars is 116 minutes long, which means 6960 seconds and 417600 frames. If each frame had taken 15 hours to be rendered, the whole rendering process would have taken 6264000 hours, which means about 715 years.
Pixar must have been planning that movie since the middle ages.
ray tracing: the creation of a realistic image by tracing light rays.
in forward ray tracing, all rays of light illuminating a scene are traced from the light source to the object they intersect; if there are reflections or refractions the tracing continues until the ray leaves the scene.
in backward ray tracing, rays are traced from the observer to the display screen back to the scene objects and light source.
Correction: The IBM, Sony, and Toshiba Cell processor, a nine-core processor with one general purpose PowerPC core and eight specialized SPUs (Synergystic Processing Unit) optimized for vector operations used in the Sony PlayStation 3.
Raytracing is not real either. Real erflections would come through Photon Mapping and trust me, we are very far from that. Photon mapping is the ingredient that leads to CGI effects that look exactly like the reality. However I can hardly believe that this scene wsa realtime rendered under normal conditions.
@TrickyEmu As far as I know Photon Mapping uses rays to calculate the lighting and reflections between the lightsource and the surface, which would mean that it is actually Raytracing being used. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Yes. But there is a huge difference between just Raytracing and Raytracing+Photon Mapping. Photon Mapping needs way more sources and I think there is no PC that can do raytracing in real time except those super computers.
This scene was rendered in realtime. It's playable Quake 4 at 99 fps. Furthermore, this was done with what is now OLD technology. It was software rendered with two Kentsfield (quad core) processors. Kentsfield processors were released in 2006 at the 65 nm node. Intel has been making sucessors to Kentsfield at the 45 nm node for quite some time and is making 32 nm node chips now.
As far as i know, this scene was around 15 FPS using 4 quad cores connected to work in simulated 16 core enviroment so we are FAR from playable realtime raytracing and that was 1024x 1024
No. this was done on two intel Kentsfield quad core chips (obsolete by now). Google "Intel Ray Tracing." You will find at the top of the list an article called "Real Time Ray-Tracing: The End of Rasterization." That in turn contains a link to a PC Perspective article discussing this video, what it was done on, and what FPS. The "15" at "simulated 16 core environment" you are thinking about is an anticipated MULTIPLE of fifteen times if run on 16 cores. Go back and read the articles.
Eight x86 cores is two Quad-Core Kensfield Chips(which are mounted on one motherboard). The Game had 100 FPS at 1024x1024 on these two Quad-Core Kentsfield Chips.
That's playable real time ray tracing at 1024x1024 on obsolete technology.
@TrickyEmu WTF are you talking about? Photon mapping in real time does exist. Besides, Photon Mapping is a biased rendering method, Which is not as accurate or realistic as the unbiased Path Tracing method. Path Tracing itself is a generalization of Ray tracing. GI is just an extension of ray-tracing. Without ray tracing, you wouldn't have realistic GI.
Ray tracing is great and all, but come on...If this is meant to be a performance discrete graphics card, I want some real world game demos and comparisons.
Meanwhile AMD's Radeon 5870 demo rapes the shit out of everthing, and Nvidia's next gen GPU is still late to the show.
@johnykgr Yes, we do, what you see isn't running on a CPU, it's just being calculated by it, the Processor may be powerful enough to decode Raytracing in real time, but the video processing/output and all the other nifty visuals are still running through the GPU, in this video the only thing that's being done by the processor itself is the physics calculation for the light.
@johnykgr CPU calculates the rays, you still need a GPU to convert it to an image on your screen :) Games will probably rely more on your CPU in the future though..
@EndFlux not true i think u'll see it the other way around with nvidia now focusing on the ARM chip. It will most likely be GPU for gaming CPU for more mundane tasks.
As in most everything else that makes a computer work, apart from the highly glamorous task of tesselating polys and rendering" the glamorous pixels"....
@EndFlux Basically no computer until the late 90s had a dedicated graphics card, they all rendered and displayed the screen with CPU only :) It'd still work - most motherboards don't have a VGA out anymore, though :D
@msqrt right...most motherboards don't have vga out anymore? rethink that man, its been 4 months since your comment and vga out with onboard graphics are still very common for motherboards
@EndFlux Yeah. I am reading that Intel and Apple are working on make a powerful processor that combines the CPU and GPU for faster speed that having it separated.
@EndFlux "CPU calculates the rays, you still need a GPU to convert it to an image on your screen" Not necessarily. You could theoretically hook up a couple of simple DACs to the PCI bridge and write some analog values directly from the CPU at timed intervals. (And I do think johnykgr meant 3D acceleration...)
@EndFlux i dont think that. i programs like 3ds max that is true. but in games there will be elements such as textures which probably will allways be loaded by gpu. also in the future there will be a cpu&gpu in 1 pc part
Gee golly gee whiz Khnightimex, you are so smart aren't you? You even know how to write n00bs! Oh so clever aren't you? You must know just about everything there is to know. And I bet you are not even 20 years old yet :-)
If the geometry was considerably higher, the technology would definitely drop everyones jaws, but I think id and ravensoft really didn't push for anything that much better than what doom 3 had offered.
this crap is the way movies are done (movies like lord of the ring) to look so real, you only look at textures and geometry, but you must know ray tracing is about reflections, shadows and principally... Lightning lightning in ray tracing is processed the way it must be processed, so it can look more "natural" just put on wikipedia and type: r a y t r a c i n g no dude, all together this way it must look: ray tracing right dude!! that demo is original just search, search!! :P cheers my friend
It's completely different. The Cell is basically one PPE and 7 SPE's, those SPE's are worthless on their own, they just have large amounts of floating point power.
This was done on an Intel based 8 core system; they are fully fledged cores, with branch predictors and can handle general processing many times faster than a Cell (SPE).
A cell processor, despite being able to do floating point well, would not be able to do this as accurately as an Intel based CPU.
Google "Intel Ray Tracing" for the article this is based on. This is run on two Kentsfield processors: published specs put each Kentsfield peak power consumption at 100 to 130 Watts, meaning it took 200-260W. This does NOT use appreciable graphics card power.
This is completely software rendered in the CPU (99FPS playable quake 4). "A fair few graphics cards" would be completely useless because they use rasterization for 3d: this is ray tracing.
i heard raytracing takes a heap load of processing power which could bottleneck itself from inefficiency. in order to have more processing power, you would need more processing cores and wouldn't those extra cores add the cost to development pricing? and not only that, are we still going to be using optical media for games or are we going to be solely dependent on harddrives? it doesn't make sense to have optical media that carries so much data that the laser can't read it quickly.
Read the articles this is based on. You don't have to write special code for more processors. That's handled on the API level (the API used for this is OpenRT). I'm not sure what you are talking about when you discuss the drives... rendering like this doesn't require lots more information stored on the drive... this is rendered in real time in the CPU, not stored on the hard disk or optical drive.
well i was referring to reading memory stored in a harddisk and optical drive. it seems that games are going to require more data and it seems that optical media will be sort of outdated considering how much potential hardware failure would result from the laser speeding up just to read the disc at good speeds. i already know that CPU's will be used more primarily when coding for than using a GPU alongside with it. it seems like the unified memory between the GPU+CPU would slow things down.
I don't think raytracing will replace rasterization, although it probably will become not unusual to see in some games. Pixel shaders give us the ability to "fake" a lot of the things that raytracing does. Today, the biggest things that raytracing can do that rasterization can't (or has trouble with) are reflection, refraction, and caustics. These are unarguably awesome, but ultimately minor effects, that people rarely notice are faked in games.
@reclaimerxaoc faking it wont work forever and the fact that u want it that way shows how much of a lazy piece of shit u are. the goal is to make it look more realistic which is impossible with rasterization. u lazy fuck.
@BlackDrakma Easy there guy, what I'm saying is that if we could simulate materials in games at the atomic level - would we do it? No. It's a waste, because we can approximate it for much less. Same goes for raytracing, sure, we could raytrace everything, but why, when we can come really close and use much less processing power with rasterization? What's better, a game where you fight 1 raytraced guy, or a game where you fight 100 rasterized guys?
You dont need to simulate them on an atomic level, fact is that is that a material's properties arent set at the atomic level, but at the molecular level, which is much bigger then an atom and much less difficult to do. Is it needed to get that detailed? No, not for everyday 3D stuff, but for scientific usage it could be verry usable.
@Capeau Okay, I wasn't very clear here - the whole 'atomic level' thing was just an analogy. I'm saying that at some point, the graphical minutiae are cost prohibitive compared to their benefits. In my analogy, the point was that the processing power being spent on the 'atomic level simulation' was wasted because it requires a lot of power, for little benefit. Raytracing is similar in this regard. As to scientific applications - maybe raytracing could be useful, but I doubt it.
The fact they have to use measured BRDF's now is proof of how important it is to get accurate shading models. 1% difference can seem like its not that important on paper, but for the human eye and the perception in our brains it can give a huge difference.
@Capeau BDRFs are a perfect example of what I'm talking about, as is parallax mapping. Rather than actually physically modelling the surface turbulence (BDRFs) or the detail geometry (parallax mapping), we chose to approximate it with something cheaper - because it is a more efficient use of the resources we have at hand. I'm not saying that raytracing will never be used in games, I just don't think it will replace rasterization, because raytracing is much more wasteful.
Raytracers also can use normal mapping, parallax mapping and BRDF's so no difference there. Raytracing is more wastefull if you want to do limited stuff, but for some things you HAVE to use raytracing and cant be done by using raterisation.
I completely agree on that we will first see hybrid solutions; rasterisation for simple shading and raytracing for things like reflection and refraction. But over time it will turn to 100% raytracing, it is less complicated to use.
Well if ps4 games will still be rasterized, so will pc games and then it wont really matter.
Why? because you spend lots of tim & work (and thus money) on writing a graphics engine and that engine is a raytracer OR a rasterizer.
And if you want to be able to reuse it for other games and maybe even license it to other developpers it needs to be able to run on all gaming platforms.
So if the pc gaming market wants to go raytracing then that will only happen if all platforms will.
Uau! Spheres! With reflections! Impressive! Hey Crysis, learn that! PERFECT REFLECTIONS. Not cheap approximations. P-E-R-F-E-C-T. I can't imagine the impact this can have on the gaming industry. No, really, WTF?
i'm afraid that pc games are going to become unplayable with all this new stuff comming out and it will cost like 5k to get a decent pc capable of doing this stuff.
But software goes faster than the Moores law, as for developers as users. As software developer I have to say, that in the current time the software is forcing the hardware designer to create better stuff faster. If that weren't true, they could be just doing the same designs in smaller size, and we could be poking around with super-fast 16 bits computers. Moores law doesnt go for hardware innovation, it's just about price and size.
if you take a look back, you'll see that computers always just got cheaper (im talking about your average gaming PC), twenty years ago a few megs of ram would cost you a huge price etc.
That's a fact, I've never said that that were wrong. I don't talk about the price, I talk about the technology, CPUs gets an speed up because of their small size, but to be up to software that's not enought that's why we see new tech like multi core, and 64bits coming to the average PC. Again we were in a world of CPU of 16bits at 5GHz if speed and price were the unique that matters.
The Cell processor would ever be able to ray trace anything like that; as for a GPU; it would have to be a new Nvidia one with CUDA and even that would be slow.
Yeah it was 3 PS3s, but I'm sure the next generation [Ps4?] will have the power to do such a thing by itself, though it will probably still be mostly rasterized for actual gaming.
Yes the cell is kind of 'outdated' (still a remarkable powerfull cpu today) but as you said ibm is already working on the next one (of course)and they are preparing a mighty beast. ;)
Intel chips are capable of millions of double precision calculations per second. They currently have a 16 core processor and a 128 core one on the way. They have a device capable of ray casting that can fit in your pocket.
The advancement of ray tracing will be lead by Intel, there is no doubt about it.
cell does have 9 cores, you could call the 8 extra ones co processors, but that wont make much difference in how it performs.
You know its not about what they are planning to make or what they are testing and will be available in a few month.
Thats not really a valid argument at all.
You should compare at which one was the best at time of release, thats a more intelligent and fair way but of courses that makes your opinion wrong and you wont accept that.
I wouldn't say that its about which one is best at the time of release, because we are talking about the future of ray-tracing and which will be a successful and usable way of ray tracing effectively.
I personally think that Intel has a better chance because of it's new technologies like Quickpath and new MMX instructions designed for media processing.
We can only guess how it will unfold and of course i hope intel brings us real time raytracing at a reasonable price in everyday computers :)
My point was just that the CELL's design is better fitted for it, but sadly enough its not as simple as just putting a cell in my pc, because our precious intel compiled sofware wont work on it of course, so at the end of the day we wil be using intel or maybe amd (who knows they have a big surprise cooking ;) ).
But yeah thats the thing, there is a huge amount more software available to Intel chips, as well as DirectX API's as well as OpenGL. DirectX 11 has been heard to be helping break into ray-tracing.
But let's face it, who ever brings it here faster and cheaper the better.
Ray tracing is the mathematical way to generate photo realistic renderings by tracing light beams, simulating the way they reflect, refract and get absorbed by surfaces. It has been around for a long time. In the beginning it took hours to render one photo realistic image. Now computer hardware got fast enough so that programmers start using ray tracing in realtime. That means no pre-rendered animations but live generated images with realistic material properties and reflections.
tronlegocy 2 months ago
Can someone explain to me in simple English what realtime ray tracing is??
egyptrules123 2 months ago
16:9 wallpaper. Now.
BoctorPoo 5 months ago
Looks sleek. Although this won't even be practical for another 5-10 years.
Zhiavanja 5 months ago
lol a game cost 50 euros or 60 euros ... wtf? and we need a computer to run this fucking games that seems 2000 euros more for a new pc ... wtf??
Fistler01 5 months ago
de verdad se ve realista, sientes como si estuvieras metido ahí, ese es el futuro aunque todavia falta mucho, si se ponen a ver, aunque un objeto paresca liso a la vista, microscopicamente las particulas tienen volumenes diferentes, lo cual produce microscopicas sombras que hacen variar la intensidad de luz en el objeto de una manera perceptible para el ojo a nivel general, si aplicaran raytracing al nivel de particulas seria super pesado renderizar pero se veria totalmente realista.
sayoncito1 6 months ago
what is the 8-core processor ? I thought so far we were up to 6-core processors with the fastest being the i7-990X (Extreme)
Valsam75 7 months ago
@Valsam75 Most likely some kind of experimental system
DudeOfManyNames 6 months ago
@Valsam75 i think the extreme editions are 8 cores.. someone correct me if i'm wrong.
fell0wbaby 5 months ago
@fell0wbaby no they are only 6 cores with ht i belive however that the westmeres are going to go up to 8.
seanhamson 4 months ago
@Valsam75 The Xeon 7500, I believe, has 8 cores. Currently listed on Newegg for $3.9k USD.... good luck.
iPsyenz 5 months ago
when will larrabe hit the shelves?
moshman33 1 year ago
@moshman33 you're funny
kwajfreak 1 year ago
Larrabee
swiftlaker6 1 year ago
GPUs are a lot more powerful than any CPU, just look at the onboard graphics on intel motherboards, they suck balls. Can barely play older games on low settings...
GPUs are and will be superior to the CPU for a long time to come...
swedisagnostic 1 year ago
what is ray tracing? isnt it "rendering only what is seen"?
M3G4G0TH 1 year ago
@M3G4G0TH no, that is binary-space-partitioning.
Ray tracing is tracing many, many, MANY, beams of light from a light source, mathematically traveling on their path (bouncing off mirrors, etc.), up until they hit the camera, where the resulting color and orientation is rendered onto the screen as a pixel. It produces photo realistic effects, being that it is the exact way humans can see, however, it is extremely cpu-intensive and takes hours to render, days for a TV show, and months for movies.
superkellerman8D 1 year ago
@superkellerman8D alright, thank you for your perfect explanation!
re-commenting this video: i think this looks great but its a typical tech demo, i want to see a proper "real life" use like in a game or a movie scene where it is clear that ray tracing is involved. that would be not real time i guess, haha.
what do you think of this video up there?
M3G4G0TH 1 year ago
@M3G4G0TH search wikipedia for "raytracing"
by raitrascing every pixel on your screen casts a ray of toght that gets scattered all over the scene to determine its colors. this very accurately simulates human vision (in reverse, because naturally light sources scatter light all over and your eve cathes some of them, just the other way around)
olllj 1 year ago
what exactly is real-time here? the playback?
mrJv2k7 1 year ago
@mrJv2k7 it is rendered in realtime, with at least 30 frames per second.
in comparison Pixar studios has choosen a raytracing/rendering performance of 1 frame per 15 hours for the movie "Cars" and 1 frame per 8 hours for the movie "Toy Story 1".
of course they show much more detail in every frame, but you should get the ideaiof "real time now.
olllj 1 year ago
@olllj sorry, should have been more explicit.
i was being sarcastic because i do not believe this to be rendered in realtime because of the reflections
having experience with raytracers, i can tell those reflections would take a long time in an offline rendering engine on a reasonable 4-core machine (mine)
i have seen tech demos on way beefier machines than mine with much less reflections and they were only near-realtime
mrJv2k7 1 year ago
@mrJv2k7 and one more thing.
this video is a shot in the dark if it's true:
we don't know where it comes from,
i haven't seen it anywhere else,
all this discussion because the uploader titled it: "Real-Time Ray Tracing"...... :))
really now
mrJv2k7 1 year ago
@mrJv2k7 Cube mapping?
superkellerman8D 1 year ago
@superkellerman8D then what are they showing? old software technology able to run 50x faster on a GPU running on a CPU? and if it were cube mapping, why bother raytracing? why would you raytrace diffuse maps?
mrJv2k7 1 year ago
@mrJv2k7 You wouldn't. This could be realtime, but if it was, it surely wouldn't use raytracing. Just shadow volumes with some advanced pcf, cube-mapping using render-to-texture to be dynamic. It isn't that hard...
superkellerman8D 1 year ago
@superkellerman8D never said it's not realtime. just not raytraced
@olllj i don't think video productions are rendered at 60fps, they don't render each frame after the one before is finished and not all frames take 15hrs. some take 20, some take 2... so we have 208800 frames (30fps), roughly 238yrs (assuming an avg of 5hrs/frame). but apparently these guys have thousands of cores at their disposal so even with 15 hrs per frame, they meet their deadlines
but i got your joke :))
mrJv2k7 1 year ago
@olllj Cars is 116 minutes long, which means 6960 seconds and 417600 frames. If each frame had taken 15 hours to be rendered, the whole rendering process would have taken 6264000 hours, which means about 715 years.
Pixar must have been planning that movie since the middle ages.
NewLynxChannel 1 year ago
Comment removed
mrJv2k7 1 year ago
the result is that all reflections and shadows appear in the image w/o being specifically described in the scene description.
itzhexen 1 year ago
ray tracing: the creation of a realistic image by tracing light rays.
in forward ray tracing, all rays of light illuminating a scene are traced from the light source to the object they intersect; if there are reflections or refractions the tracing continues until the ray leaves the scene.
in backward ray tracing, rays are traced from the observer to the display screen back to the scene objects and light source.
itzhexen 1 year ago
So RAY TRACING MEANS smooth shaders on metal things, witch mirrors things like light and other stuff ??????
indraluap 1 year ago
@indraluap no, no shaders at all. this is real life light calculations.
superkellerman8D 1 year ago
Can somone explain ray tracing to me? kthx
DukeLuke1020 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do we REALLY need the idiots who say : "Do we REALLY need the graphics cards??!!!! :D" ?!?!?!
vertibirdsoldier 1 year ago
This rocks!
SARGENTSCRUFY 1 year ago
I still havent the slightest clue on what the hell raytracing actually is. lol I am guessing it is relating to graphical lighting?
hopecandecieve 1 year ago
This is actually a game, you can get it on Amazon, it's called "Attack of the very, very shiny objects"
myid9876543 1 year ago
Aaaaaaaaaand now you will see the first ray traced
Bluescreen xD
1nSaN3BG 1 year ago
3 years now, I wonder how far they've come.
jhtrico1850 1 year ago
@jhtrico1850 see nvidia ray tracing demo
super6plx 1 year ago
@TheSupaman123 don't you mean "Y2k"?
danielodors 1 year ago
craaaaaaaaaaazy
omarAbduljawad 1 year ago
SEGA's Model 4 ray tracing capable hardware is currently in development
Further information is to be found at the following address -
fgnonlinedotwebsdotcom
pornostar100 2 years ago
woulkd have been alot better if you held the camera still!
you got alzheimer's?
mychavey 2 years ago
I think you meant "full body tourettes".
pierpaoloGT 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Gamers are so stupid.
julzette32 2 years ago
And do you know that they use an 8 Core CPU? This CPU might not be released before 2012!
TrickyEmu 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The PS3 has an 8-core CPU.
VCat2006 2 years ago
Comment removed
meeiulik 2 years ago
Comment removed
meeiulik 2 years ago
Correction: The IBM, Sony, and Toshiba Cell processor, a nine-core processor with one general purpose PowerPC core and eight specialized SPUs (Synergystic Processing Unit) optimized for vector operations used in the Sony PlayStation 3.
VCat2006 2 years ago
no it doesnt, it has 1 cpu and 6 spes.
FeintBlade 2 years ago
spus*
FeintBlade 2 years ago
Project Keifer: Intels 32-Core Processor In 2010
Google it yourself.
IONZagan 2 years ago
So what? I would be one of the few who would be happy about real time raytracing, because I am a 3d designer. The sooner the better.
TrickyEmu 2 years ago
thats the thing when those processors come out real time raytracing will be no problem for any modern pc.
IONZagan 2 years ago
They used two quad-core CPUs which were commercially available over three years ago.
starsiegeplayer 2 years ago
Raytracing is not real either. Real erflections would come through Photon Mapping and trust me, we are very far from that. Photon mapping is the ingredient that leads to CGI effects that look exactly like the reality. However I can hardly believe that this scene wsa realtime rendered under normal conditions.
TrickyEmu 2 years ago
@TrickyEmu As far as I know Photon Mapping uses rays to calculate the lighting and reflections between the lightsource and the surface, which would mean that it is actually Raytracing being used. Correct me if I'm wrong.
cssima 2 years ago
Yes. But there is a huge difference between just Raytracing and Raytracing+Photon Mapping. Photon Mapping needs way more sources and I think there is no PC that can do raytracing in real time except those super computers.
TrickyEmu 2 years ago
This scene was rendered in realtime. It's playable Quake 4 at 99 fps. Furthermore, this was done with what is now OLD technology. It was software rendered with two Kentsfield (quad core) processors. Kentsfield processors were released in 2006 at the 65 nm node. Intel has been making sucessors to Kentsfield at the 45 nm node for quite some time and is making 32 nm node chips now.
starsiegeplayer 2 years ago
As far as i know, this scene was around 15 FPS using 4 quad cores connected to work in simulated 16 core enviroment so we are FAR from playable realtime raytracing and that was 1024x 1024
Lidve1337 2 years ago
No. this was done on two intel Kentsfield quad core chips (obsolete by now). Google "Intel Ray Tracing." You will find at the top of the list an article called "Real Time Ray-Tracing: The End of Rasterization." That in turn contains a link to a PC Perspective article discussing this video, what it was done on, and what FPS. The "15" at "simulated 16 core environment" you are thinking about is an anticipated MULTIPLE of fifteen times if run on 16 cores. Go back and read the articles.
starsiegeplayer 2 years ago
It clearly says "This is because Daniels demo system had eight x86 cores, a configuration that is destined to become mainstream in a few years."
"... you will see that Daniels game reached almost 100 frames per second at 1024x1024 resolution."
Lidve1337 2 years ago
That is exactly what I was saying.
Eight x86 cores is two Quad-Core Kensfield Chips(which are mounted on one motherboard). The Game had 100 FPS at 1024x1024 on these two Quad-Core Kentsfield Chips.
That's playable real time ray tracing at 1024x1024 on obsolete technology.
starsiegeplayer 2 years ago
@TrickyEmu WTF are you talking about? Photon mapping in real time does exist. Besides, Photon Mapping is a biased rendering method, Which is not as accurate or realistic as the unbiased Path Tracing method. Path Tracing itself is a generalization of Ray tracing. GI is just an extension of ray-tracing. Without ray tracing, you wouldn't have realistic GI.
danielodors 1 year ago
@danielodors LMAO! Link?
TrickyEmu 1 year ago
@TrickyEmu look up "Hardware-Accelerated Global Illumination by Image Space Photon Mapping" on YouTube. It is running on a consumer PC at 26 Hz.
danielodors 1 year ago
Wootbeans is a moron.
gshauger 2 years ago
Ray tracing is great and all, but come on...If this is meant to be a performance discrete graphics card, I want some real world game demos and comparisons.
Meanwhile AMD's Radeon 5870 demo rapes the shit out of everthing, and Nvidia's next gen GPU is still late to the show.
tipoomaster 2 years ago
Do we REALLY need the graphics cards??!!!! :D
johnykgr 2 years ago 12
@johnykgr Yes, we do, what you see isn't running on a CPU, it's just being calculated by it, the Processor may be powerful enough to decode Raytracing in real time, but the video processing/output and all the other nifty visuals are still running through the GPU, in this video the only thing that's being done by the processor itself is the physics calculation for the light.
Shitsocash 1 year ago 2
@johnykgr CPU calculates the rays, you still need a GPU to convert it to an image on your screen :) Games will probably rely more on your CPU in the future though..
EndFlux 1 year ago 9
@EndFlux not true i think u'll see it the other way around with nvidia now focusing on the ARM chip. It will most likely be GPU for gaming CPU for more mundane tasks.
puppetmurder 11 months ago
@puppetmurder
LOL...Mundane...lol
As in most everything else that makes a computer work, apart from the highly glamorous task of tesselating polys and rendering" the glamorous pixels"....
Fniss, where do You get this stuff...xD
GglSux 11 months ago
@EndFlux Basically no computer until the late 90s had a dedicated graphics card, they all rendered and displayed the screen with CPU only :) It'd still work - most motherboards don't have a VGA out anymore, though :D
msqrt 10 months ago 2
@msqrt right...most motherboards don't have vga out anymore? rethink that man, its been 4 months since your comment and vga out with onboard graphics are still very common for motherboards
DJMC5ive 5 months ago
@EndFlux Yeah. I am reading that Intel and Apple are working on make a powerful processor that combines the CPU and GPU for faster speed that having it separated.
Oblivion2550 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EndFlux "CPU calculates the rays, you still need a GPU to convert it to an image on your screen" Not necessarily. You could theoretically hook up a couple of simple DACs to the PCI bridge and write some analog values directly from the CPU at timed intervals. (And I do think johnykgr meant 3D acceleration...)
Gameboygenius 8 months ago
@EndFlux
not so sure about that. i think its the opposite...
DasAntiNaziBroetchen 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EndFlux said "[...] you still need a GPU to convert it to an image on your screen :)"
You don't need a GPU to 'convert' it. There is noting to convert. It is already been rendered.
What GPU will be use for are desktop composing. And we don't need complex GPU for this.
I, for one, welcome the no-driver-require 3d rendering overlord.
newtubetubetube 5 months ago
@EndFlux i dont think that. i programs like 3ds max that is true. but in games there will be elements such as textures which probably will allways be loaded by gpu. also in the future there will be a cpu&gpu in 1 pc part
ulkord 3 weeks ago
@johnykgr In the future? No. Right now? Yes.
Rosumny00 11 months ago
Sensación de manejo en Túneles con múltiples escapatorias hacia un sub-mundo fura de su eje ( Papitopacha )
papitopacha 2 years ago
It's about time we get real reflections in games. So far it's only been cheating and illusions. :P
InSaneTK 2 years ago
can't wait for ray tracing in games.
1981z28camaro 2 years ago 2
Ray tracing is already used in games.
jas16899 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
not Real Time Ray Tracing.
1981z28camaro 2 years ago
no its not
Lidve1337 2 years ago
which graphics card did they use?
multimolti 2 years ago
they didnt use one. its all done by the CPU
eykey1991 2 years ago
wtf? you cant be serious...
multimolti 2 years ago
i am serious. why do you think you got bad marks for your comment? ;)
eykey1991 2 years ago
ns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
lokasdekartas 2 years ago
doesnt matter... the graphic card didnt do anything here exept presenting a buffer to the screen
ecreif 2 years ago
may I see some glossy reflections and indirect illumination please, and yes, diffuse surfaces as well
UL439 2 years ago
too...many...reflections...my puny 21st century computer can't handle it...
biggy887766 2 years ago
some of you n00bs have no clue what you are looking at, and the others have no clue how much power is required to do this.
Knightimex 2 years ago
Gee golly gee whiz Khnightimex, you are so smart aren't you? You even know how to write n00bs! Oh so clever aren't you? You must know just about everything there is to know. And I bet you are not even 20 years old yet :-)
kcarter1999 2 years ago 2
Do you?
donnelpg 2 years ago
Where did you download that, Im gonna try it on 3,3 ghz quad core?
rsa008 2 years ago
eh, good luck with that mate...
0ngus 2 years ago
If the geometry was considerably higher, the technology would definitely drop everyones jaws, but I think id and ravensoft really didn't push for anything that much better than what doom 3 had offered.
Majorhavoc20 2 years ago
ON 8 core system? dude.. ur playing just a demo on ur laptop!! xD
that doesnt have a 8 core system..xD
Why are u putting on this crap??
SynodCenturion 2 years ago
it's called a dual socket server with two quads...
V3NOMDAWG 2 years ago 2
mepicaeste 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
lol. nerds.
gotta love 'em.
Omniverse77 2 years ago
Bitch, you ain't even be on da intranets without us. (I'm kidding, not flame worthy.)
luishi5000 2 years ago 5
Take some steps back. Where would you be without us?
masterpiraka 2 years ago
HOLY SHIT ITS THE BEST!!!
i just wayting for the Larrabee Graphics Card!!
(intel's super graphics card)
keshaz12 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Meh, Killzone 2 looks better.
wandereragro 2 years ago
I think you dont get the information in this video :D
Panic992 2 years ago 4
You really don't get it.
It would take around 50 PS3's joined at the hip to process this.
therevengeofsaladboy 2 years ago
this is done on a 8 core system, ps3 also has 8 coresm just saying..
outlawkelb 2 years ago
It's completely different. The Cell is basically one PPE and 7 SPE's, those SPE's are worthless on their own, they just have large amounts of floating point power.
This was done on an Intel based 8 core system; they are fully fledged cores, with branch predictors and can handle general processing many times faster than a Cell (SPE).
A cell processor, despite being able to do floating point well, would not be able to do this as accurately as an Intel based CPU.
therevengeofsaladboy 2 years ago 3
To prevent yourself sounding stupid in the future you should do a little research into what you are seeing.
anavrintobin 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
PS3 ownz joo.
wandereragro 2 years ago
1 gajillion bits of information.
Question is will it run better than Crysis? and will the average PC be able to handle it without breaking down?
wandereragro 2 years ago
do any games actuall use ray tracing?
or is it all fake at the moment?
fpsd0minat0r 2 years ago
Raytracing requires too much processing power to be used in games yet.
ystu2010 2 years ago 4
how comes it looks weird??
is it the "fish eye" the dude is talking about below my comment?
fpsd0minat0r 3 years ago
In short: yes
aterimperator 2 years ago
Now they just need to fix that annoying "fish-eye" perspective...
jimbo2150 3 years ago 5
So, what kind of power consumption or we looking at?
xslr 3 years ago
8 Cores, a fair few graphics cards... I'm going to be really unhelpful and say a lot of power.
Simnol 3 years ago
Google "Intel Ray Tracing" for the article this is based on. This is run on two Kentsfield processors: published specs put each Kentsfield peak power consumption at 100 to 130 Watts, meaning it took 200-260W. This does NOT use appreciable graphics card power.
This is completely software rendered in the CPU (99FPS playable quake 4). "A fair few graphics cards" would be completely useless because they use rasterization for 3d: this is ray tracing.
starsiegeplayer 3 years ago 7
A fuckload.
masterpiraka 3 years ago
That right there is tight :)
jhtrico1850 3 years ago
is that game quake?
cyberwaffles 3 years ago
It is Quake 4.
starsiegeplayer 3 years ago
In the 2010s, raytracing will replace rasterization for video games, and that will reduce game development costs.
TediusZanarukando 3 years ago
i heard raytracing takes a heap load of processing power which could bottleneck itself from inefficiency. in order to have more processing power, you would need more processing cores and wouldn't those extra cores add the cost to development pricing? and not only that, are we still going to be using optical media for games or are we going to be solely dependent on harddrives? it doesn't make sense to have optical media that carries so much data that the laser can't read it quickly.
cyberwaffles 3 years ago
Read the articles this is based on. You don't have to write special code for more processors. That's handled on the API level (the API used for this is OpenRT). I'm not sure what you are talking about when you discuss the drives... rendering like this doesn't require lots more information stored on the drive... this is rendered in real time in the CPU, not stored on the hard disk or optical drive.
starsiegeplayer 3 years ago
well i was referring to reading memory stored in a harddisk and optical drive. it seems that games are going to require more data and it seems that optical media will be sort of outdated considering how much potential hardware failure would result from the laser speeding up just to read the disc at good speeds. i already know that CPU's will be used more primarily when coding for than using a GPU alongside with it. it seems like the unified memory between the GPU+CPU would slow things down.
cyberwaffles 3 years ago
no offence, but it looks like you've not got a clue what you're on about :/
D4rkDrago0n 2 years ago
eh, whatever. i'm still learning the stuff.
cyberwaffles 2 years ago
I don't think raytracing will replace rasterization, although it probably will become not unusual to see in some games. Pixel shaders give us the ability to "fake" a lot of the things that raytracing does. Today, the biggest things that raytracing can do that rasterization can't (or has trouble with) are reflection, refraction, and caustics. These are unarguably awesome, but ultimately minor effects, that people rarely notice are faked in games.
reclaimerxaoc 2 years ago 5
@reclaimerxaoc faking it wont work forever and the fact that u want it that way shows how much of a lazy piece of shit u are. the goal is to make it look more realistic which is impossible with rasterization. u lazy fuck.
BlackDrakma 1 year ago
@BlackDrakma Easy there guy, what I'm saying is that if we could simulate materials in games at the atomic level - would we do it? No. It's a waste, because we can approximate it for much less. Same goes for raytracing, sure, we could raytrace everything, but why, when we can come really close and use much less processing power with rasterization? What's better, a game where you fight 1 raytraced guy, or a game where you fight 100 rasterized guys?
reclaimerxaoc 1 year ago
@reclaimerxaoc
You dont need to simulate them on an atomic level, fact is that is that a material's properties arent set at the atomic level, but at the molecular level, which is much bigger then an atom and much less difficult to do. Is it needed to get that detailed? No, not for everyday 3D stuff, but for scientific usage it could be verry usable.
Capeau 1 year ago
@Capeau Okay, I wasn't very clear here - the whole 'atomic level' thing was just an analogy. I'm saying that at some point, the graphical minutiae are cost prohibitive compared to their benefits. In my analogy, the point was that the processing power being spent on the 'atomic level simulation' was wasted because it requires a lot of power, for little benefit. Raytracing is similar in this regard. As to scientific applications - maybe raytracing could be useful, but I doubt it.
reclaimerxaoc 1 year ago
@reclaimerxaoc
The fact they have to use measured BRDF's now is proof of how important it is to get accurate shading models. 1% difference can seem like its not that important on paper, but for the human eye and the perception in our brains it can give a huge difference.
Capeau 1 year ago
@Capeau BDRFs are a perfect example of what I'm talking about, as is parallax mapping. Rather than actually physically modelling the surface turbulence (BDRFs) or the detail geometry (parallax mapping), we chose to approximate it with something cheaper - because it is a more efficient use of the resources we have at hand. I'm not saying that raytracing will never be used in games, I just don't think it will replace rasterization, because raytracing is much more wasteful.
reclaimerxaoc 1 year ago
@reclaimerxaoc
Raytracers also can use normal mapping, parallax mapping and BRDF's so no difference there. Raytracing is more wastefull if you want to do limited stuff, but for some things you HAVE to use raytracing and cant be done by using raterisation.
I completely agree on that we will first see hybrid solutions; rasterisation for simple shading and raytracing for things like reflection and refraction. But over time it will turn to 100% raytracing, it is less complicated to use.
Capeau 1 year ago
Well if ps4 games will still be rasterized, so will pc games and then it wont really matter.
Why? because you spend lots of tim & work (and thus money) on writing a graphics engine and that engine is a raytracer OR a rasterizer.
And if you want to be able to reuse it for other games and maybe even license it to other developpers it needs to be able to run on all gaming platforms.
So if the pc gaming market wants to go raytracing then that will only happen if all platforms will.
Capeau 3 years ago
Uau! Spheres! With reflections! Impressive! Hey Crysis, learn that! PERFECT REFLECTIONS. Not cheap approximations. P-E-R-F-E-C-T. I can't imagine the impact this can have on the gaming industry. No, really, WTF?
PesceA 3 years ago
Software Rendering?
meanmrmustad 3 years ago
whooooooa @ @
Didopan 3 years ago
Holy shiiiit
Kaspall 3 years ago
Three words for these graphics...Holy fucking Hell.
ObliviuxProductions 3 years ago
i'm afraid that pc games are going to become unplayable with all this new stuff comming out and it will cost like 5k to get a decent pc capable of doing this stuff.
Jay12341235 3 years ago
Think Moore's Law: as time goes by, electronics become faster and are cheaper to manufacture.
ses110 3 years ago
But software goes faster than the Moores law, as for developers as users. As software developer I have to say, that in the current time the software is forcing the hardware designer to create better stuff faster. If that weren't true, they could be just doing the same designs in smaller size, and we could be poking around with super-fast 16 bits computers. Moores law doesnt go for hardware innovation, it's just about price and size.
Theraot 3 years ago
if you take a look back, you'll see that computers always just got cheaper (im talking about your average gaming PC), twenty years ago a few megs of ram would cost you a huge price etc.
Muvlonion 3 years ago
That's a fact, I've never said that that were wrong. I don't talk about the price, I talk about the technology, CPUs gets an speed up because of their small size, but to be up to software that's not enought that's why we see new tech like multi core, and 64bits coming to the average PC. Again we were in a world of CPU of 16bits at 5GHz if speed and price were the unique that matters.
Theraot 3 years ago
Necessity is the mother of invention/innovation. Software is that necessity.
iansragingbileduct 3 years ago
What was it again? Technological power doubles every 3 years or something like that?
SystelCyrus 2 years ago
Transistors double every 18 months... Moore's Law...
phopojijo 2 years ago
Nice but no where near the best software render I seen since it's a very simple environment.
Seen better done on the GPU and on Cell
Membrane556 3 years ago
The Cell processor would ever be able to ray trace anything like that; as for a GPU; it would have to be a new Nvidia one with CUDA and even that would be slow.
therevengeofsaladboy 3 years ago
Why the heck is everybody 'thumbs-downing' this dude... hes right.....
And yes... i understand ill be 'going down with him'.
zedmantheman 3 years ago 2
Welcome to Youtube, where intelligence is frowned upon ;/
Dorifto007 3 years ago 3
There is no real chance that a PS3 would ever be able to do that demo.
Simple? It's ray tracing dear, it's the most complex form of render method.
therevengeofsaladboy 3 years ago
Didnt they need like 3 or 4 PS3's to get even semi-decent frame rates? And that was just one car being rendered (another demo).
zedmantheman 3 years ago
Yeah I believe so, we won't be seeing this sort of thing though for many many years.
But things like CUDA and all those fast chips Intel are pumping out, the future looks good.
therevengeofsaladboy 3 years ago
Yeah it was 3 PS3s, but I'm sure the next generation [Ps4?] will have the power to do such a thing by itself, though it will probably still be mostly rasterized for actual gaming.
cyborgtroy 3 years ago
Yes the cell is kind of 'outdated' (still a remarkable powerfull cpu today) but as you said ibm is already working on the next one (of course)and they are preparing a mighty beast. ;)
Capeau 3 years ago
Believe it or not PS3's CELL processor is MUCH MUCH more suited for raytracing then an intel CPU ;)
But because its more being used for a going console nobody really cares.
Capeau 3 years ago
What?
Intel chips are capable of millions of double precision calculations per second. They currently have a 16 core processor and a 128 core one on the way. They have a device capable of ray casting that can fit in your pocket.
The advancement of ray tracing will be lead by Intel, there is no doubt about it.
therevengeofsaladboy 3 years ago
no they havent.
Current fastest available intel chips are 8 cores. Cell has 9.
But you cant really compare the amount of cores. Its meaningless when comparing different platforms.
It could perfectly be that a single core cpu runs faster then a 100 core one, even if the apllication is multithread.
Also, ibm is also working on a newer CELL.
Im sure i cant fit a few cells to in my pocket. :)
raycasting aint that impressive...
Wolfenstein used ray casting, i ran that on a 386 :s
Capeau 3 years ago
Intel are planning a 16 core CPU and have unveiled a 128 core server CPU.
Your right about different platforms and application performance but the statistics tend to go for Intel.
And just for future reference the Cell is a single core CPU with 8 co-processing units, not that it matters;
IBM are past there day, Intel lead the way.
Haha, rhyming.
therevengeofsaladboy 3 years ago
you should stick with rhyming.
cell does have 9 cores, you could call the 8 extra ones co processors, but that wont make much difference in how it performs.
You know its not about what they are planning to make or what they are testing and will be available in a few month.
Thats not really a valid argument at all.
You should compare at which one was the best at time of release, thats a more intelligent and fair way but of courses that makes your opinion wrong and you wont accept that.
Capeau 3 years ago
I wouldn't say that its about which one is best at the time of release, because we are talking about the future of ray-tracing and which will be a successful and usable way of ray tracing effectively.
I personally think that Intel has a better chance because of it's new technologies like Quickpath and new MMX instructions designed for media processing.
therevengeofsaladboy 3 years ago
ok thats a reasonable answer.
We can only guess how it will unfold and of course i hope intel brings us real time raytracing at a reasonable price in everyday computers :)
My point was just that the CELL's design is better fitted for it, but sadly enough its not as simple as just putting a cell in my pc, because our precious intel compiled sofware wont work on it of course, so at the end of the day we wil be using intel or maybe amd (who knows they have a big surprise cooking ;) ).
Capeau 3 years ago
Hahaha...AMD...ha...That would be a big surprise.
But yeah thats the thing, there is a huge amount more software available to Intel chips, as well as DirectX API's as well as OpenGL. DirectX 11 has been heard to be helping break into ray-tracing.
But let's face it, who ever brings it here faster and cheaper the better.
therevengeofsaladboy 3 years ago