real time ray tracing, huh...

there's been a lot of graphics technology goodies piling up. too good for me to pass up on some more of my thoughts.

Intel takes another jab at Nvidia during its research day
june 12, 2008

"[ray tracing] doesn't waste time drawing things that are hidden and, according to Intel, it is best done on the CPU."

i think the über managers doesn't realize the complexity of raytracing. there is no such thing as "things that are hidden" object in ray tracing. in fact, it's quite the opposite. you need all of the objects in the scene to calculate for reflection and refraction, scattering, and chromatic aberration (wiki). to make a high quality rendered scene depends on the number of times the ray is bounced (reflection) or passed through (refraction) an object. hidden (off screen) or not, the object needs to be in the scene no matter what.

16-core, four-chip monster CPU, running last fall’s game, “Quake Wars: Enemy Territory.” It ran at 16 frames per second, not the usual 60 frames per second that is possible on a good graphics chip.

wow, that's a lot of hardware for 16 frames. granted this is ray tracing but still. i would throw my computer out the window if i can't get my frag on smooth silky frame rates.
Nvidia video: No quad-core chip needed for extreme PC
june 20, 2008

from intel, again:

"...programmers will like ray tracing better because they can do many complex tasks with simple one-line programs."

huh? did i just read that right? what hell are function and macros again?

this guy has a much better thought on these issues.
Ray tracing for PCs-- a bad idea whose time has come
june 12, 2008
and now, back to more graphic goodies. to achieve some pretty good results, there's been a lot of work going into the multi-core chip solutions.

AMD, Nvidia graphics chip designs diverge
june 16, 2008

Intel aims x86 at GPU market
aug 04, 2008

and, it seems to be kicking ass so far:
AMD ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2 Preview
july 14, 2008


finally, john dvorak said this on his podcast:
Save Your Phone Books
06/18/2008 06:35 PM @3:55 mins:secs

"... it would be difficult for a CPU company to make a GPU as it is for a GPU company to make a CPU... mindset and marketing style are different..."

i think that's only true for CPU to GPU. going the other way should be much easier for the GPU maker. a CPU works much more simplier in a linear fashion with a lot of instruction sets that are more in tuned with logic processing. the GPU on the other hand has a lot of pipelining effiency designs that needs to be taken into consideration with data that are normally processed/passed over multiple times.

plus, it's funny how all the major CPU makers are into the low power processor:
AMD may be planning its own CPU to compete with [VIA] Nano [and Intel] Atom
june 19, 2008

and the lone GPU maker:
NVIDIA pays Transmeta $25 million for LongRun technology
aug 8 2008


but i hope there's more work like this being done from all graphics makers:
AMD Cinema 2.0 tech demo: real-time photo-realistic human models
aug 12 2008

there's nothing more outstanding than showing what you are working on and what your graphics chip can do. nvidia used to always showcase their cards by constantly displaying all of these cool demos, samples and apps. it seems that they are kind of slipping as of late.