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

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."

Comments

Development costs?

[oakgrove]

My question is this: how much more will games have to cost to support the development to this level of detail?

Re:Development costs?

[Korin43]

If games were $50 in 2000, and $60 now, then the price has dropped. Going all the way back to 1980, the price has dropped a lot.

Re:Development costs?

[Sir_Sri]

Well that's why there's consoles. If you can't afford PC hardware, or don't want the hassle of PC hardware, you buy a console. Since they're fixed development targets you in some ways get a better experience, because the developers knew exactly how your hardware would behave with their software and tuned accordingly.

If you have absolutely no money, well, sucks to be you? Sorry, but in a world where people spend 1000 bucks on a TV, 25000 on cars etc. etc. etc. 500 dollars in disposable income on a console, which lasts for 5 years is targeting anyone who makes 35K/year or more. It's not perfect, but what else do you expect? We're not going to resell PS2's for 30 bucks here. There are about 100 million consoles sold at the price point of 700-300 dollars (launch price to current price), which is a pretty wide distribution given that not everyone even likes games, and lots of consoles serve a lot more than 1 person.

Sure, if you don't live in a first world country consoles are insanely expensive, no doubt, but then you'd have a stratification of consoles for the 2nd and third world and consoles for the first world, since people who *can* spend 500 bucks on a console will want a better experience than you're griping about at 50.

The idea that graphics doesn't matter is a misleading one. Graphics matter in their absence. Go play mass effect 3 (at a friends house, since obviously you don't have it, and can't afford it), and then compare to final fantasy 7. That's about a factor of 2000 different in performance. Sure, Final Fantasy 7 is still fun, but you're overlooking the shitty graphics because it's nostalgia, if you tried to release that today you'd be laughed out of publisher and retailer offices. Minecraft gets away with it by being uniquely quirky, but minecraft is one game in a world of AAA titles launching about 1 a week on average. When the other guy has dragons that look like dragons, and boobs that look like boobs, and you have dragons that look like a collection of 25 triangles (compare: http://zam.zamimg.com/images/i/d/id3283.png - original version of Lord Nagafen, EQ1 to http://images.wikia.com/elderscrolls/images/3/31/Ancient.jpg, Ancient dragon in Skyrim) or boobs that are just spheres, I'm sorry but it detracts from the immersion of the experience. Especially for younger people who are used to better quality graphics.

Re:Development costs?

[oakgrove]

Your ignorance and delusions have been exposed many many times. But who doesn't love a good sequel? For your reading pleasure, I will make AHairyPFeetK look like the ignorant retard he is once again.

Now let us see what he is AFRAID TO SHOW YOU because it is the TRUTH. The CORRECT quote is "As far as the user is concerned there is NO CLI in windows"

As far as the user is concerned, there's not a lot of things in a lot of things. Newsflash: advanced functionality is for advanced users. Duh. All you are illustrating is the typical Windows user is clueless about the features embedded in their OS of choice. They probably don't know much about "Administrative Tools" either. But for advanced uses, like, oh, I don't know, Goup Policy editing, it is a must. So, to follow your logic, there is no such thing as "Group Policy Editor" in Windows. You are a myopic trollish fool.

Linux? Puts the terminal on the desktop

You are a fucking liar. Ubuntu which is the distro in use by half of Linux desktop users does not put anything on the desktop. To access the terminal, you have make multiple clicks through the menu. It is well hidden. So not only are you a troll but you are an ignorant liar.

walk up to 100 people in the street and ask them "How do you call up command line in Windows" and you know what you are gonna get? "Whats a command line"

Why don't you do that? Because you are talking completely out of your ass? Thought so. Think about it, if you can. Out of the total population of Windows users, a certain percentage is going to know what the command prompt is. What percentage that is, I don't know but I guarantee you it is above zero. And you know it. So not only are you ignorant and a liar but you are also intellectually dishonest.

I don't want to blow your teeny tiny little pea brain but let's put the situation another way since you are so fond of "statistics". By definition, more technically literate people are going to be using Ubuntu because it takes a willful choice to install it on your hardware in the first place. So, we are already talking about people with above average aptitude with computers. What percentage of the pop uses Linux? About 1-2 percent depending on who you ask. What percentage of people can probably tell you what the command prompt is on windows? Probably the same 1-2 percent. Think about it, simpleton.

if your driver model isn't shit then why does Dell have to run their own repos

The same reason they have their own support area where you can download their drivers for hardware running Windows. And that driver model that you call "shit" --as if a pathetic piece of shit like you could even begin to recognize driver code if it slapped you in the face-- is the reason the Linux kernel runs on everything from embedded gumstick sized arm boards all the way up to supercomputers and everything in between. It's called portability, stupid. It's the reason Google chose to keep Dalvik for Android. So that I can install Android on my netbook and actually use the apps. One of the main reasons the Linux kernel is so portable and fills so many niches is because many of the drivers are in the kernel and can be compiled right along with it. So my USB 3G dongle that works on my x86 laptop also works on my Asus Transformer. Thank you, Linus Torvalds. Fuck you bassbeast.

How about how a decade old Windows beat the shit out of Linux on netbooks or how ASUS has given up on your bullshit or how about Walmart running away from linux as fast as it can?

Simple Simon always looking for the simple answer. Obviously for an operating system to succeed, it needs a complete package. And for an OS to succeed against Windows that is completely entrenched in the consciousness of billions of people and the entire computing landscape will require a monumental effort. There are two main reasons consumers reject Linux on the desktop:

Re:Development costs?

[justforgetme]

No, actually they are not. I had dabbled a lot with 3D in 2007/2008 and I can tell you no engine whatsoever delivers accurate foliage.

What state of the art engines do is return a good approximation by filtering obstructed objects out of computation. Transforms are not
live and lighting is a very rough estimate, ignoring subsurface scattering and calculating shadows out of a reduced mesh.

Want to go even further? Fur and then cloth. Fur atm is non existent in real time engines (to create real tangible fur in a Max scene can introduce thousandfold increases in computation) and don't even get me started about cloth.

So yes, graphics hardware isn't anywhere near a plateau. The 5000fold estimate is a reasonable one if not optimistic. IMO hardware will continue to leap forward untill state of the art processing will be able to simulate realtime physics of high density meshes by just knowing the material properties of each mesh (which has never been as much as suggested).

As for displays, those will keep growing both in physical dimensions and resolution because there just are uses for that (and before anybody argues think how many people thought `17" 1024x768 is all you need`)

Yes, and 16k is enough for anyone too

[Twinbee]

I think 2000x GPU power is very much underestimating the potential for a number of reasons:

1: Raytracing / global illumination. In comparison to games with true global illumination, current technology 3D worlds with only direct illumination (or scanline rendering) look crude and unconvincing. Objects appear 'cookie-cutter' like and colours tend not to gel with the overall 3D landscape.

Toy Story 3 took around 7 hours to render each frame. To render in real-time for a video game (say 60 FPS), you would need a processor that was around 1 million times faster than what we have today. And AFAIK, that's mostly using Reyes rendering (which incorporates mostly rasterization techniques with only minimal ray tracing.

2: Worlds made of atoms, voxels or points. This makes a world of difference for both the user and the designer. Walls can be broken through realistically, water can flow properly, and explosions will eat away at the scenery.

2000x? Pah, try 2 TRILLION as a starting point.

Eh..

[Quiet_Desperation]

To me the real problem is focusing on the wrong details. Take Skyrim for example. Is it really a big thing if they, say, tripled the detail on the existing characters? Do the NPCs need pores or drops of sweat?

Or would it be more interesting to walk into Whiterun, and there's a 100 NPCs walking around, or you assault a fort with the Stormcloaks and there's 100 other soldiers at your side attacking the 100 Imperials in the fort, and clouds of arrows raining down [nice knowing ya, shieldless dual wielders :-) ]? It's a "more detailed objects" versus "more objects in the world" sort of argument, I guess. I'd rather see the power applied to "more objects" at this point, IMHO.

Re:Rasterization

[Guspaz]

We passed a million polygons on screen over a decade ago. Your telephone can just about do that today (the iPhone 4S does 30 million per second), modern game consoles that came out 7 years ago will do about ten times that (500 million per second on a 360), and a modern high-end PC probably does ten times that again.

In other words, we're at the point where we're using rasterization to push 100 million polygons, and raytracing is still so much slower that it's not even remotely practical to duplicate the same quality. Intel's latest attempts to do so have produced low-resolution low-quality results that still require a massive array of hardware. They're basically throwing eight PCs worth of hardware at the problem. About all the demos do is demonstrate that it's easier to calculate accurate reflection and refraction with raytracing.

In other words, you either mis-remembered Intel's estimate, or their estimate was laughably inaccurate.