Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NVIDIA Doubts Ray Tracing Is the Future of Games

Posted by kdawson on from the pick-your-horse dept.

SizeWise writes "After Intel's prominent work in ray tracing in the both the desktop and mobile spaces, many gamers might be thinking that the move to ray-tracing engines is inevitable. NVIDIA's Chief Scientist, Dr. David Kirk, thinks otherwise as revealed in this interview on rasterization and ray tracing. Kirk counters many of Intel's claims of ray tracing's superiority, such as the inherent benefit to polygon complexity, while pointing out areas where ray-tracing engines would falter, such as basic antialiasing. The interview concludes with discussions on mixing the two rendering technologies and whether NVIDIA hardware can efficiently handle ray tracing calculations as well."

13 of 198 comments (clear)

  1. Steve Jobs also uses this trick by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Saying something sucks if he's already developing a product for it.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  2. Like we were expecting something else by Btarlinian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously though, does anyone expect Nvidia to say, "Yes, we really do think that our products will all be obsolete and outdated in a few years. Thank you for asking." I personally have no idea as to whether or not ray tracing is the future of games, but I really don't think that Nvidia is the right person to ask either, (just as Intel isn't).

    1. Re:Like we were expecting something else by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seriously though, does anyone expect Nvidia to say, "Yes, we really do think that our products will all be obsolete and outdated in a few years. Thank you for asking." I personally have no idea as to whether or not ray tracing is the future of games, but I really don't think that Nvidia is the right person to ask either, (just as Intel isn't).

      One could argue that the Nvidia folks have been well aware of ray-tracing for a long time, and if they thought it was reaching the point where it was going to be useful that they would have begun incorporating it in a future generation of chip. So it's not like they're permenantly committed against it - they may honestly believe it's time is not here.

      As for Intel, I do think it's fairly obvious that the inherent parallelization of ray tracing is a big part of what makes it attractive to them right now. That and they have enough cash to just screw around with it without having to market it. But there's no reason Nvidia wouldn't go to multi-core chips if they thought the demand was there.

    2. Re:Like we were expecting something else by Kjella · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From what I can tell, Ray-Tracing is closer to 'reality', and so you'd expect the technology eventually to tend in that direction. Not necessarily, humans aren't that picky that the virtual reality be a perfect reality. For example, I don't ever expect to pick up a laser, find a thin enough slit and see the quantum effects on the wall, not the real simulated deal anyway. More natural than modelling it as a pefect beam? Sure, but like what's the point. Graphic cards and Copperfield are in the same business, making the grandest possible illusion with a minimum of resources and maximum immersion. If you get the macroscopic effects close enough, there's no added value to actually doing what you just made appear right with smoke and mirrors.
      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Like we were expecting something else by podperson · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think his response was pretty reasonable and balanced, actually.

      1) Ray-tracing isn't going to solve all problems (it doesn't for movie rendering, why would it for real-time?)

      2) Existing software still needs to run.

      3) A hybrid approach will end up making the most sense (since it has for everything else).

      He's not just talking "party line" ... he's talking common sense. Ray-tracing everything is just an inefficient way to get the job done. It produces great mirror-finished objects but ugly shadows and mediocre lighting. (Guess which demos are full of mirror-finish objects?)

    4. Re:Like we were expecting something else by jcrash · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If I try to offload to my HTPC something tells me that network latency is sure gonna send my FPS to crap. But, in the current world where raytracing takes a LONG time, sure you can offload all you want.

      --
      I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them. Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992)
  3. Obey your thirst... by Itninja · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Personally, I prefer spites to either ray-trace or polygons. I still thing Starcraft (the game, not the conversion van) had some of the best graphics. But then I am kind of a fuddy-duddy. I also think River Raid was an awesome game.

    --
    I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    1. Re:Obey your thirst... by waffledoodle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It goes both ways. Sprites are perfect at a small scale or when you don't need too many frames of animation, or when you want to blend and layer animations. However, a super smooth screen-size sprite (a boss, for example) can easily suck up more resources than a model if you're dishing out lots of animation.

  4. This just in... by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 2, Insightful

    IBM doubts the future of the "personal computer"
    Buggy manufacturers poo-poo the new horseless carriage
    etc, etc.

    --
    Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
  5. Re:Counterpoint by Naughty+Bob · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As a counter-counterpoint, the article has quite misleading pictures-

    The Ray-Tracing images are super slick, but are non real-time, highly processed work.

    Whereas the comparison Rasterized images are real-time, game-generated examples. If you were to allow the pro-rasterization side the same time to produce a single picture, it would be super fancy.

    --
    "Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
  6. Translation by snarfies · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We can't do it as well as Intel yet, therefore it sucks. BUY NVIDIA.

  7. Probably right on this one... by Bones3D_mac · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For the most part, I really don't see ray-tracing adding much to the world of gaming that isn't being handled well enough by current methods. Unless someone was specifically creating games that somehow directly incorporated either the benefits or the added calculations involved with ray-tracing itself, it would only be a costly, and highly inefficient gimmick of an alternative to current techniques.

    Sure, ray-tracing has its place in a lot of areas, but real-time gaming would be a terrible misuse of processing horsepower... especially when you could be applying it to other areas of gaming that actually affect gameplay itself. For example, how about more robust AIs for in game elements, or high-end physics processing that can combine things like fabric/hair/ fluid/fire physics processing with the ability to decimate objects completely as vector-calculated chunks based on the surrounding environments, rather than all this predetermined destruction we currently see in games. (Example, a surface could be eroded incrimentally by having a fluid running acrossed it until a hole forms in the shape of the fluid path...)

    --


    8==8 Bones 8==8
  8. A matter of speed by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "C is much too slow, to get good performance you must use assembly."

    "Scripted languages are much too slow, to get good performance you must use compiled languages."

    As computers get faster, there is always a move from technologies that are easier for the computer to technologies that are easier for the developer. Since ray tracing involves less hacks and is a more direct model of the effects developers want to create, it seems inevitable.