Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

2000x GPU Performance Needed To Reach Anatomical Graphics Limits For Gaming?

Posted by Soulskill on from the perfectly-photorealistic-rocket-jumps dept.

Vigile writes "In a talk earlier this year at DICE, Epic Games' Tim Sweeney discussed the state of computing hardware as it relates to gaming. While there is a rising sentiment in the gaming world that the current generation consoles are 'good enough' and that the next generation of consoles might be the last, Sweeney thinks that is way off base. He debates the claim with some interesting numbers, including the amount of processing and triangle power required to match human anatomical peaks. While we are only a factor of 50x from the necessary level of triangle processing, there is 2000x increase required to meet the 5000 TFLOPS Sweeney thinks will be needed for the 8000x4000 resolution screens of the future. It would seem that the 'good enough' sentiment is still a long way off for developers."

11 of 331 comments (clear)

  1. I'm all for by Bodhammer · · Score: 4, Funny

    better looking "anatomical peaks"!

    --
    "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
    1. Re:I'm all for by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Funny

      better looking "anatomical peaks"!

      Yeah, me too. To date, I have yet to see a video game character with a realistic-looking male crotch. Those poor, poor bastards. And yet, so many guys look at those video game characters as heroes in spite of their status as eunichs. I hope that with this latest advancement in technology, men will finally get some anatomical upgrades so they can be, you know... men.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  2. I want this card... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...this would be awesome for bitcoin mining.

  3. Re:Rasterization by binarylarry · · Score: 3, Funny

    Think of how glorious the reflective spheres and checkerboards will be bro!

    --
    Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
  4. Re:640K by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I came here to read this. I leave satisfied.

  5. Re:Development costs? by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 5, Funny

    Same as any other new technology.

    In 2028, James Cameron will spend 3.2 trillion dollars on Avatar: Reloaded. You'll spend $50 to see it once in theatres.

    The technology will be ported to games about 5 years after that, costing $60/game (top-tier game prices haven't changed since 1980).

    5 years after that, $2 flash games will all include photo-realistic graphics at 200 fps.

    --
    Last post!
  6. Re:Your generation is not special, more will follo by rgbrenner · · Score: 4, Funny

    68% + 42% = 100% eh? Maybe quitting video games would be a good thing for you. It would give you more time to study math.

  7. Re:Development costs? by r1348 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The possibility that flash might be still around in 2038 frightens me to the bone.

  8. Re:Development costs? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

    What else will enable rich multimedia experiences on IE6 Legacy Essentials for Positronic Brainstem Implants Enterprise Edition?

  9. Re:Development costs? by Hamsterdan · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't worry, there's no way computers will ever have enough power to run flash at those framerates

    --
    I've got better things to do tonight than die.
  10. Turing Test by DarthVain · · Score: 4, Funny

    Best test for gaming AI...

    Some day Xbox or PS will sell a multiplayer game, but simulate all the other players. When no one notices, I will say we have achieved the pinnacle of gaming AI. Of course we may have to train an AI to chronically swear and make racist slurs, but if that is what progress takes so be it!