He calls his computer a workstation

>he calls his computer a workstation
>it doesn't even have a ray tracing coprocessor

Other urls found in this thread:

pcworld.com/article/3099993/components-graphics/amds-radeon-pro-wx-gpus-can-create-vr-content-for-under-1000.html
youtube.com/watch?v=BpT6MkCeP7Y
youtube.com/watch?v=rgbnv1UpAcE
artstation.com/artwork/kGVPK
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I don't do raytracing.

ebay?

ebay.

How many TFLOPS of FP64, how much does it cost, and what is the power consumption of it?

The radeon pro wx 7100 has over 4 TFLOPS of FP64 performance, costs under $1,000, and has a 130W TDP

pcworld.com/article/3099993/components-graphics/amds-radeon-pro-wx-gpus-can-create-vr-content-for-under-1000.html

user. GPGPU exists.
youtube.com/watch?v=BpT6MkCeP7Y

Jesus fuck that looks uncomfortably real.

We just need a couple more gpu generations. And there already are optimized methods that trace more rays where it's actually needed and further reduce the noise - this demo used a relatively straightforward method.

>uncomfortably real.
you fucking numales should really just kill yourselves

Doesn't that shit scare you at all? I mean one day people are gonna forget they're in a VR game and starve or something.

>he still uses electronic silicon chip technology from 70 years ago
>lmoa gramps, modern computers use optics
youtube.com/watch?v=rgbnv1UpAcE

stop embarrassing yourself.

>t. CG artist

stupid question: how is this different to what there already exists? I mean, GTAV looks pretty good, not near real, but doesn't look noisy neither

>Being this new

Ray tracing is the most accurate form of lighting possible right now. However it's so computationally intensive that it can't be practically used even with $1,000+ graphics cards and thus we stick to rasterazation and a few other tricks.

Try rendering this with a rasterizer

Or this

Accurate global illumination requires ray tracing

No more faux “screen-space ambient occlusion” effects or having to pre-render your global illumination using static geometry. In the future, you will be able to have dynamic scenes that look like this

so, if I understood well, raytracing isn't for creating the geometry, but lightning. It's something like real photons works on photographic paper I guess?

Depends on what you mean by “creating the geometry” and “creating the lighting”

Ray tracing is a method of creating a rendered image, just like rasterization is.

Ray tracing clearly sucks for 2D

>shitty rasterized vs raytraced
This isnt the 90s anymore, we do more advanced things with rasterization

Looks like a Cycles render

ray tracing is superior rendering
artstation.com/artwork/kGVPK

>Implying a single game dev will bother to code that into his game instead of reusing decade old code from previous games to save time and maximize revenue

>implying game devs don't use engines like the unreal engine, unity engine, cryengine etc. which do all of this shit and more under the hood

No, he'll just go to lighting panel in Unity/UE4 and click Build button

Ray tracing is actually not that complex
It just takes shotloads of computational power

It's not a stupid question.
You are right, there are games like GTAV and archviz demos for Unreal Engine and Unity that already look really good. The difference is that much of the lighting effects in those games/demos are baked in and static. A real-time path tracer like Brigade can account for changing lighting and do physically accurate reflection/refraction/depth of field/etc. That and you can toss out all the baggage that baked lighting brings with it from a production standpoint. It will simplify the lighting workflow for games tremendously (eventually, when the hardware is fast enough).

>prime factorization is not complex, it just takes shitloads of computational power
no shit, the difficulty is in finding increasingly complex ways to optimize it and do as little work as possible

There's another theoretical distinction

Rasterization complexity depends on the complexity of your scene (number of polygons you need to rasterize)

Ray tracing complexity only depends on the number of rays (i.e. resolution you're rendering at)

So in principle, a ray tracing engine could render arbitrarily complex scenes. Although of course, in practice the problem is that actually computing the ray intersections still depends to some extent on the complexity of your scene.

Also, the way lighting and shadows etc. are done is completely different. Adding dynamic lights to a rasterization engine is a huge drain on resources

Not so much for raytracing