View Single Post
Old
01-21-2013, 10:23 PM
  #37
Osprey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 14,707
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawkeyeCB View Post
The OP article is clearly Microsoft bias. No negatives about Microsoft, only Playstation. There are articles out there doing the complete opposite as well.
There are only a couple of negatives given for the PS4. Perhaps these are important to the insider and, maybe, he even prefers the 720 to the PS4. That's his right, IMO, since he's seemingly worked closely with both. It doesn't imply bias, which is coming into something already favoring one over another.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sined View Post
The writer has NO idea what he is talking about.
Built for Ray Tracing? Does he even know what they **** ray tracing is?
Read a ****ing book on computer graphics and you'll quickly realize HOW STUPID it sounds to say something is built for ray tracing.

That's like saying I have a CPU MADE for doing arithmetic additions!
Or I have a GPU MADE for Anti-Aliasing!

Guess what? Current hardware does it! It's can be done on the current iteration of OpenGL and Direct X.

HELL I'd even bet it can be done on the previous version.
I'm sorry, Sined, but I have to correct you. Our CPUs and GPUs are designed for arithmetic and anti-aliasing, respectively. They're optimized for things such as that because that's what our apps and games use. Yes, they can technically process just about anything that you throw at them, but if the processor wasn't designed or optimized for something, it won't do it very quickly at all. I actually played around with ray tracing way back in the early/mid-90s on my old 33Mhz 486 CPU, before GPUs as we know them existed. Rendering just one frame could take the better part of an hour. That's an extreme example, but if a processor isn't designed to accelerate something, it'll tend to be pitifully slow at it.

The fact is that processors are specialized. That's why we have CPUs and GPUs. They're basically the same thing, except that CPUs are specialized for number-crunching operations and GPUs are specialized for 3D operations. GPUs, themselves, are specialized differently for different purposes. Most GPUs that we're familiar with are optimized for the kinds of operations that games use. Professional GPUs tend to be optimized for rendering, like making Pixar films. You wouldn't want to try to render a movie on a gaming GPU and you wouldn't want to try to play a game on a professional GPU.

When gaming GPUs were relatively new and anti-aliasing was first available, the GPUs didn't handle it very well, and turning it on always incurred a massive performance penalty. Now, you can turn it on and often not even notice a drop in framerate. That's because the GPUs have been progressively optimized to handle anti-aliasing. There are lots of other examples. GPUs used to not be able to process physics well at all; now, they do a passable job. GPUs also used to not be able to tessellate (render triangles) efficiently; now, they do.

When Microsoft or nVidia says that their product was "built for ray tracing," what they mean is that they made optimizations so that ray tracing could be done as efficiently as possible and in real-time. That could mean re-arranging the parts of the GPU so that those that are stressed in ray tracing have the shortest pathways to each other. It could also mean, say, choosing to incorporate the fastest on-chip caches, rather than going for sheer capacity, or designing a co-processor that is specialized for the types of physics operations that ray tracing requires. Whatever it is, exactly, it means that they made a conscious effort to speed up ray tracing operations, so saying that it's built or optimized for ray tracing is perfectly valid, IMO.


Last edited by Osprey: 01-22-2013 at 01:03 AM.
Osprey is offline