Slashdot Mirror


NVIDIA RTX Technology To Usher In Real-Time Ray Tracing Holy Grail of Gaming Graphics (hothardware.com)

HotHardware writes: NVIDIA has been dabbling in real-time ray tracing for over a decade. However, the company just introduced NVIDIA RTX, which is its latest effort to deliver real-time ray tracing to game developers and content creators for implementation in actual game engines. Historically, the computational horsepower to perform real-time ray tracing has been too great to be practical in actual games, but NVIDIA hopes to change that with its new Volta GPU architecture and the help of Microsoft's new DirectX Raytracing (DXR) API enhancements. Ray tracing is a method by which images are enhanced by tracing rays or paths of light as they bounce in and around an object (or objects) in a scene. Under optimum conditions, ray tracing delivers photorealistic imagery with shadows that are correctly cast; water effects that show proper reflections and coloring; and scenes that are cast with realistic lighting effects. NVIDIA RTX is a combination of software (the company's Gameworks SDK, now with ray tracing support), and next generation GPU hardware. NVIDIA notes its Volta architecture has specific hardware support for real-time ray tracing, including offload via its Tensor core engines. To show what's possible with the technology, developers including Epic, 4A Games and Remedy Entertainment will be showcasing their own game engine demonstrations this week at the Game Developers Conference. NVIDIA expects the ramp to be slow at first, but believes eventually most game developers will adopt real-time ray tracing in the future.

159 comments

  1. Microsoft, really? by Zobeid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    quote: "and the help of Microsoft's new DirectX Raytracing (DXR) API enhancements."

    There's a red flag. Is this going to be yet another graphics "standard" for Windows only?

    1. Re: Microsoft, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft also makes the Xbox line...

    2. Re: Microsoft, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just the line. The rest of it was outsourced.

    3. Re:Microsoft, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There's a red flag. Is this going to be yet another graphics "standard" for Windows only?

      Probably. But, honestly, that's where the gaming market is anyway.

      NVIDIA wants to put out cool products, but I doubt they start off giving a crap about Linux and other platforms.

    4. Re: Microsoft, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The xbone runs a custom version of winblows.

    5. Re:Microsoft, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true.

      Some are just inevitable aspects of being POSIX compliant, keeping with an OS standard that is only 7 years younger than MS-DOS 1.0.

    6. Re:Microsoft, really? by Holi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You mean the only OS for gaming is going to support a tech that makes games look better? The horrors!

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    7. Re:Microsoft, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      quote: "and the help of Microsoft's new DirectX Raytracing (DXR) API enhancements."

      There's a red flag. Is this going to be yet another graphics "standard" for Windows only?

      Windows 10 specifically.

    8. Re:Microsoft, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the only OS for gaming is going to support a tech that makes games look better? The horrors!

      Its not the only OS for gaming.

    9. Re:Microsoft, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vulkan getting the same feature in 3...2...

    10. Re:Microsoft, really? by rgbatduke · · Score: 1, Troll

      ROTFL. So, Mr. Troll, that means that you were bopping around on multiple desktops, using remote logins and graphical applications on one machine displayed on another, way back there in the late 80's and early 90's (when these were all developed features in Unix-based operating systems and Windows was a thin shell, stupid shell on top of DOS trying to compete with Apple's GUI)? Features that were in Linux almost from day one? I'd go down the list of things that were in the early Linux distros, such as SLS or Slackware, but the list is so long, and almost none of the things on it were available in WINDOWS, and those that were were software packages that you had to buy and pay for from third parties.

      The only "advantages" WinXX has ever had are a) an arm-twisted, extortional lock on putting their OS on over the counter hardware -- basically locking down a monopoly via their ability to put any hardware seller out of business if they offered any other operating system on x86 based systems -- forcing all hardware manufacturers to ensure that their hardware worked with Sindoze if they wanted to sell it at all; b) the ability to steal every single valuable piece of software written for DOS or Windooze systems by cloning it with their large stable of programmers and then shifting the operating system beneath the feet of all of their competitors so that their "inferior" software would break while Microsoft's version of the same thing, tested in-house WITH the shifted OS base, did not. Then their team of talented FUD-spreading salesmen would hit up all the big companies that used (say) Word Perfect and point out how only Office was robust.

      Microsoft itself hasn't had much in the way of original ideas for decades. They drove off all of the major developers so there isn't even that much software being written for their platform any more -- why write the next killer application for a MS box, in the certain knowledge that if you succeed you'll be forced to either sell out to MS at a fraction of what you might have made, or watch while they perfectly legally clone your idea and play the MS shuffle underfoot until the FUD you to death? About the only thing they have left is games, which have too short a shelf life and too specific a storyline to be worth stealing.

      I very much doubt that they will remain "ahead" with this idea very long. Yes, it IS a tool for the only software market they have left alive, game development, but NVIDIA is no longer particularly opposed to open source tool development and will likely work with the various open alternatives to provide similar support that eventually reaches into e.g. Steam, unless MS has tied them up with some sort of nasty contract ensuring exclusivity. Even then, the toolset itself will be reverse engineered and cloned, it will just take longer.

      Sadly, even though the US has antitrust laws on the books, they have simply never been enforced where MS is concerned. Oh, well, OK, one time, with a slap on the wrist and a fine that cost them less than what they were spending on legal fees defending their monopoly predator behavior in court. And they aren't going to be enforced now, not with the Oligarch-in-Chief in the WH and pension funds all over America heavily vested in MS stock. But Europe has indicated a lot less tolerance for this sort of thing, and of course China just steals whatever they want and laughs at "IP" protections as the absurdity that they are. Technology doesn't sit still, and this may be the last generation of PC desktops per se produced for the world, with laptops finally completing their takeover of this space. With every such revolution, MS's grip on their former monopoly seems to loosen. Interesting times.

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    11. Re:Microsoft, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are confusing Linux with Unix. Most of my experience from early 90's with regards to Linux involved kernel panics, crashes, and lack of software combined with lack of drivers and poor documentation. But hey, it was free so fuck it.

    12. Re:Microsoft, really? by ProzacPatient · · Score: 1

      My first thought was that Nvidia is going to have a monopoly on the technology and I feel even less comfortable with that than if it were just Windows only. Hopefully though if this catches on, or maybe even if it doesn't, AMD will come to the rescue.

    13. Re: Microsoft, really? by mSparks43 · · Score: 0

      Windows 10 still doesnâ(TM)t support network drives or real userspace. At this point in time i doubt anyone is using windows for much more than writing word / powerpoint documents and a bit of light hearted internet browsing.

      microsoft web browsers hitting our web servers is down to sub 1% of users.

      raytracing and ar is too little too late imho. Not because they wont be ok, but simply because competant developers wont touch the platform with a bargepole.

    14. Re:Microsoft, really? by Holi · · Score: 1

      It is when you're talking about computer gaming (not consoles).

      Sure there are some games for Mac and Linux but be honest, PC Gaming is a Windows world and will be for the foreseeable future.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    15. Re:Microsoft, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux has always been a follower to Microsoft's lead. Every single feature of Linux is a clone of something Microsoft did years ago, it's perpetual catch-up.

      Except, you know, things like a real multi-tasking kernel, proper support for networks, user security, and all of the things from UNIX they were doing in '92/'93 when MS still had yet to properly implement anything like that.

      Sorry dude, but in terms of being a real operating system, with real multi-tasking and in-built security between the kernel and user space ... Microsoft was very late to that game.

      Microsoft has been doing a bad job of ripping off UNIX and Macintosh for several decades now.

      The extent of Microsoft's "innovation" has been clippy, useless wizards, execution malware in email without regard for security, and hiding extensions on files.

      Everything else was stuff other operating systems had been doing for years.

      You're clearly not old enough to know just how stupid and wrong you are on this topic.

    16. Re:Microsoft, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was my first thought too. Vulcan or GTFO!

    17. Re: Microsoft, really? by Type44Q · · Score: 0

      No one was 'into Linux in the early 90's who wasn't passionate about it. You were quite clear about not being passionate about it; logical conclusion: your post smells like shit because you just pushed it out of your ass with a loud, wet "plop."

    18. Re:Microsoft, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think you are confusing Linux with Unix.

      You missed the point. Those "cloned features" existed long before Windows was even an OS. GNU's Not Unix was designed using Unix as a model, not by looking at anything Microsoft was doing in its graphical DOS shell.

      kernel panics, crashes, and lack of software combined with lack of drivers and poor documentation

      Well, it's better than Windows.

    19. Re:Microsoft, really? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Seriously, I don't really give a crap about which OS my gaming console runs. The only difference is that my gaming console happens to be a "PC".

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    20. Re:Microsoft, really? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      quote: "and the help of Microsoft's new DirectX Raytracing (DXR) API enhancements."

      There's a red flag. Is this going to be yet another graphics "standard" for Windows only?

      Of course not. It will cover XBox too and with it the majority of the gaming market.

    21. Re:Microsoft, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a red flag indicating that faggots like you that still sucks the cocks of Linus and Stillman need to lay off the dick and start developing an OS that's a real alternative, you stupid crybaby bitch!

    22. Re: Microsoft, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What about Microsoft Bob?!

    23. Re:Microsoft, really? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      If it works? no, it's too big of an achievement. Some else will create their own API.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    24. Re:Microsoft, really? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Nvidia writes the directX standards. MS rubber stamps it while Nvidia already has it in the hardware to screw over AMD/ATI. It has been like this for awhile

    25. Re: Microsoft, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. DirectX, while used for other things besides games, is primarily an API for game rendering. Any serious 3D work that requires accuracy over raw frame vomit uses OpenGL.

      2. There are a shitload of video games on Windows, where Windows is by far the dominant platform for video gaming (PC and Xbox). And, Nvidia has already announced hardware companion support for this in their next generation product (e.g. RTFA)

      3. This is an article about 3D rendering techniques and APIs, presented at GDC - the Game Developers Conference.

      4. Web browser market share is a horrible metric for figuring out OS usage, because Chrome and Firefox exist for multiple platforms, and take two clicks to install.

      5. What the hell do "support for network drives" (whatever that means) or "real userspace" have to do with 3D rendering techniques?

      All of these things strongly imply that Windows is used for far more than "writing word / powerpoint documents and a bit of light hearted internet browsing." Example: the video edit space that Apple basically abandoned with some horrible choices on Final Cut X for non-linear video edit that Adobe was all to happy to snap back up by supporting CUDA processing in Premiere Pro and not making new versions completely incompatible with your old projects. Yes, sure there are video editing suites on Linux, but Adobe Premiere Pro CS5, which was published in 2010 still has more market share than anything not named Final Cut Pro (OS X), Sony Vegas Pro (Windows), or newer versions of Premiere - CS6 and the stupid creative cloud subscription crap (OS X, Windows). And that is with the encumbrance of having to pay for both Windows and Adobe licensing.

      TL;DR: not sure if you are trolling or willfully ignorant. Probably trolling, in which case congratulations I guess?

    26. Re: Microsoft, really? by mSparks43 · · Score: 1

      pc gaming market is not a significant computer market anymore, it used to make up some 90% of computing equipment and software sales, now i doubt it makes up more than 1%. consoles (xbox, ps4, nintentdo) and mobile devices are where all the developers are.
      Most games developers are then using a compatability layer which targets all platforms and which are unlikely to devote any reasonable dev resources to anything windows specific. even hololens is struggling to find developers and that is an order of magnitude more usefull than raytracing.

      That said, it is a requirement for good vr (since bumpmaps dont work).
      However, euclideon are the current leaders of that pack.

    27. Re:Microsoft, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DirectX has been leading graphics technology for years. OpenGL will almost certainly get access to similar API enhancements, but it will take longer since OpenGL requires a community ratification process.

    28. Re: Microsoft, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pc gaming market is not a significant computer market anymore, it used to make up some 90% of computing equipment and software sales, now i doubt it makes up more than 1%. consoles (xbox, ps4, nintentdo) and mobile devices are where all the developers are.

      A situation that has also been blamed for the decrease in the relevance of the PC platform as a whole. Not much point in buying a new PC if all you do with it is web surf, watch videos, and do your taxes on it once a year. That in turn has led to a decline in R&D for PC hardware. Which has caught up to the manufactuers, and is starting to bite into the dedicated video game hardware market.

      Most games developers are then using a compatability layer which targets all platforms and which are unlikely to devote any reasonable dev resources to anything windows specific. even hololens is struggling to find developers and that is an order of magnitude more usefull than raytracing.

      I agree, see comment above. When the publishers decide to settle for "good enough", we start seeing drops in inovation and increases in cookie cutter titles with a slightly different paint job. There's practically no support for optimizing or taking advantage of new hardware in gaming anymore. All of the publishers want maximum market penetration, and that means the games have to be avaiable on every possible platform and play the exact same way. Hell, even in house developers have issues, remember the release of the Nintendo 2DS and how it triggered the removal of puzzle mechinaics from Zelda A Link Between Worlds? Crap like Windows only APIs will do nothing but ensure the feature is never even considered for use in the current market. If they really wanted to get use, NVIDIA would have been better off trying to integrate with either the OpenGL or Vulkan APIs, at least then they may have had a chance with real time raytracing.

      That said, it is a requirement for good vr (since bumpmaps dont work).
      However, euclideon are the current leaders of that pack.

      I don't think so. Considering most VR software has the graphical impact of chibi design, I don't think raytracing is going to give you enough of a better image to justify it's implementation. Nevermind that VR requires the absolute latest and greatest in video card hardware just to display period, and the initial buy in cost alone will prohibit new sales for a while. Now, if we could get raytraced big heads from something like Unreal Tournament in VR, that might get sales moving again, but that still seems to be a ways off.

    29. Re:Microsoft, really? by Methadras · · Score: 1

      Wow, that is one of the longest non-sequitur rants I've read in a long time that achieved absolutely nothing. You must be a riot in meetings to discuss progress and status.

    30. Re: Microsoft, really? by mSparks43 · · Score: 1

      disagree on the VR.
      VR is not compute intensive, despite the oculus hype. the headsets require less gpu than split screen or dual monitors. nasa have had decent vr headsets since the 1980s.

      The current sticking point with vr is all the tricks they use like bump mapping, various lighting techniques and a load of volumetric fill do not work in true 3d.

      Knocking the visual look back to the late 1990s. (because those lovely 3d bumps look like flat sprites)

      Raytrace is the only way that can move forward.

      And it will.

      I just do not believe it will be microsoft leading the way.

    31. Re:Microsoft, really? by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

      /. is about achieving something? When did that memo come out? Damn, and here I thought it was all about rants, flames, trolling... and curiously, mooing MOO cow MOO. And a rare (fortunately, my eyeballs are still burning) goatse. And for the record, I try very hard not to participate in meetings to discuss progress and status...:-)

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    32. Re: Microsoft, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      microsoft web browsers hitting our web servers is down to sub 1% of users.

      I think that speaks more to your irrelevance or niche for your sites. general user use of MS based browsers is still hovers around 10%, if you are seeing exponentially less than that then likely the problem is you.

    33. Re: Microsoft, really? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      the headsets require less gpu than split screen or dual monitors.

      Huh? 1080p x 2 @ 90fps is required for good VR... It requires a pretty beefy card. The split screen/dual monitors statement makes no sense at all. Fill rate requirement is doubled, along with geometry requirements... It absolutely is more GPU intensive than any non-VR application, period.
      Next, do you even own a headset? I do.
      Frankly, it looks fucking amazing. Like "you can't even imagine it until you've tried it" amazing.
      I haven't shown it off to a single friend who didn't take that headset off grinning, saying "holy shit"
      Ray-tracing may one day be the only way forward... but for now, rasterization is far from out of tricks to keep cranking up the realism.

    34. Re:Microsoft, really? by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Some?
      Currently, 199 of my 442 games on Steam run on Linux. Many of them AAA titles.
      Sure, less than half of my entire library runs on it... but that's a far cry from "some" like it used to be.

  2. Been there, done it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My eyes can Ray trace really well. The shadows and reflections are amazing lifelike.

    1. Re: Been there, done it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your eyes only collect already traced rays. The sun raytraces everything in the solar system.
      Computer raytracing actually works backwards - rays are cast from the perspective of the camera, and those that end up at a light source contribute to the image.

  3. No thanks, involves Windows 10 by sinij · · Score: 4, Insightful

    On one hand this technology is very exciting for any PC gamer. On other hand, MS locked new DirectX to Windows 10. As such, if you want this or that new feature enabled you could only do that on Win10. No thanks. I wills tick to gaming on Windows 7, that doesn't spy on me.

    1. Re: No thanks, involves Windows 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yeah definitely we should halt all technological innovation and progress because you're a whiny cunt and Windows 10 exists.

    2. Re:No thanks, involves Windows 10 by raxtich · · Score: 2

      Those furry fetish sites you love to visit probably spy on you a lot more than MS does.

    3. Re:No thanks, involves Windows 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not just put Windows 10 in a Vmachine and run network through VPN. Setup costs the subscription of a VPN and around $200 for a beefy mini computer you'll be running open wrt on for your VPN. Sure Microsoft will know what games you play but they won't know who you are or anything else you do.

    4. Re:No thanks, involves Windows 10 by barc0001 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > that doesn't spy on me.

      It's a good thing you're posting this via snail mail from a compound in the desert then.

      I'm betting that if we ever get a full look at the scope of all the online spying that goes on with people's every day internet use, Windows 10's telemetry won't even be in the top 100 of data harvesting schemes to worry about.

    5. Re:No thanks, involves Windows 10 by Holi · · Score: 1

      Because trying to do pcie passthrough with a single GPU is a major headache and gaming in a VM is dumb.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    6. Re:No thanks, involves Windows 10 by sinij · · Score: 1

      > that doesn't spy on me.

      It's a good thing you're posting this via snail mail from a compound in the desert then.

      No, but I tightly control what is disclosed in my /. posts. No such luck with Win10.

      I'm betting that if we ever get a full look at the scope of all the online spying that goes on with people's every day internet use, Windows 10's telemetry won't even be in the top 100 of data harvesting schemes to worry about.

      There are 100s of murders a day nationwide. So we shouldn't worry about someone burglarizing your place until all of these other crimes are solved, right?

    7. Re:No thanks, involves Windows 10 by sinij · · Score: 1

      Those furry fetish sites you love to visit probably spy on you a lot more than MS does.

      They do, but I am not forced to run them 24/7 at Ring 0 privilege.

    8. Re: No thanks, involves Windows 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you need a VPN? Just do a connection whitelist and auto-drop and log every unique IP so you can unblock any in case you, say, come up against a new game server, website, etc.
      Linux makes it even easier to manage IP permissions on top, so it's pretty great. Unlike APKs favourite Windows-only tool.

    9. Re:No thanks, involves Windows 10 by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I keep a windoze box just for stuff I can't do on Linux. I don't connect it to the internet, I never do any business on it, it's just for a handful of programs such as the programmer for my car's computer. You could build a PeeCee just for gaming and it wouldn't matter that they were spying, there'd be nothing for them to see.

    10. Re:No thanks, involves Windows 10 by Seven+Spirals · · Score: 1

      I agree. I'm done upgrading Windows. I'll use Win7 and all my GOG games till the end of time. I already have more games than I'll every be able to play. However, the level of spying-asshole-acceptance I've got to reach in order to "upgrade" to Windows 10 is just too high. I'll check out realtime raytracing when it hits the PS5 or whatever... or not. Gameplay always trumps graphics anyway. If I need a real OS, I've got BSD. No EULA required.

    11. Re:No thanks, involves Windows 10 by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      No thanks. I wills tick to gaming on Windows 7, that doesn't spy on me.

      By the time this gets to market you will be using Windows 7 with so many unpatched holes and bugs, EVERYONE will be spying on you.

    12. Re:No thanks, involves Windows 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want to slip my ray trace into a furry's Ring 0

    13. Re:No thanks, involves Windows 10 by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      Running 8 year old versions of windows is like hopping out of an airplane and saying aloud "well so far so good".

    14. Re:No thanks, involves Windows 10 by darkain · · Score: 1

      You do realize that 1) Microsoft listened to consumers and made the telemetry data very easy to disable in Windows 10, and 2) that very same telemetry data collection and reporting was already back-ported and pushed as an "update" to Windows 7? Also 3) it is similar telemetry data that is collected by other OSes like Android and iOS, plus applications like Firefox and Chrome (where do you think they get the stats for X% of users do Y with our product in their reports?)

    15. Re:No thanks, involves Windows 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Running 8 year old versions of windows is like hopping out of an airplane and saying aloud "well so far so good".

      Running an 8 year old version of windows can easily be fine if, to continue your analogy, the plane stays on the ground locked in a hanger that is guarded and only allows in authorized personnel.

      I have a dedicated gaming PC running Windows 7 still, as well as my primary workstation with Windows 10.
      (Which BTW as of this past christmas now has a higher end GPU than the dedicated computer)

      The Win7 PC has very limited and filtered Internet access, basically only allowed to reach Steam and its CDN servers.
      It has limited access to the rest of my LAN - basically just my file server.

      Any non-steam game, such as a GoG download or what have you, is downloaded on a fully up-to-date browser on my main workstation, gets scanned by one AV program, then is copied to my storage server and is scanned by a different AV program, before finally being possible to copy it to my Win7 PC.

      This is about as safe as it will get, but is also generally enough layers to even keep an XP or older machine safe.

      You can cut out 99% of the potential problems by simply not web browsing from the machine and only loading software from trusted sources.
      You can't catch an STD if you don't have sex after all.

    16. Re:No thanks, involves Windows 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want to slip my ray trace into a furry's Ring 0

      Only if you first pull hard on long, floppy and fuzzy ears.

    17. Re:No thanks, involves Windows 10 by sinij · · Score: 1

      You are acting as if Windows 7 is somehow is insecure. Microsoft still maintains it and will do so until 2020. You can still control patching process.

    18. Re:No thanks, involves Windows 10 by sinij · · Score: 2

      You do realize that 1) Microsoft listened to consumers and made the telemetry data very easy to disable in Windows 10

      Only in Enterprise version. Consumer versions resist disabling this feature to the point that OS disregards registry settings and bypasses its own internal firewall.

      2) that very same telemetry data collection and reporting was already back-ported and pushed as an "update" to Windows 7?

      Yes, but you can block specific patches and there exist a known list of them.

      Also 3) it is similar telemetry data that is collected by other OSes like Android and iOS, plus applications like Firefox and Chrome (where do you think they get the stats for X% of users do Y with our product in their reports?)

      Yes, every commercial OS went to shit insofar as privacy. Even some Linux distros spy on you. This doesn't mean you have to accept this.

    19. Re:No thanks, involves Windows 10 by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      They backported all the spyware to Windows 7 a year ago. Where have you been?

      No windows OS is safe at this point if you don't want Microsoft monitoring you.

    20. Re:No thanks, involves Windows 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, I've about come to the conclusion that if the only reason I want windows on my next PC is for gaming, that I'll either buy a console or just build a PC and treat it like a console - and if they want to spy on my gaming console, I guess more power to them?

    21. Re:No thanks, involves Windows 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On one hand this technology is very exciting for any PC gamer. On other hand, MS locked new DirectX to Windows 10. As such, if you want this or that new feature enabled you could only do that on Win10. No thanks. I wills tick to gaming on Windows 7, that doesn't spy on me.

      It's so cute how you believe Windows 7 doesn't spy on you.

    22. Re:No thanks, involves Windows 10 by barc0001 · · Score: 1

      > No, but I tightly control what is disclosed in my /. posts. No such luck with Win10.

      I'm sure you do *in the post*, but do you really know what's leaking from your browser when you simply visit ./ ? Ever run Wireshark to look? You might be a bit surprised...

      > There are 100s of murders a day nationwide. So we shouldn't worry about someone burglarizing your place until all of these other crimes are solved, right?

      No, what I am suggesting is that even if there are local burglaries you shouldn't sit at home behind a piece of sheet metal with a shotgun, hopped up on stimulants waiting for the burglar.

    23. Re:No thanks, involves Windows 10 by sinij · · Score: 2

      > No, but I tightly control what is disclosed in my /. posts. No such luck with Win10.

      I'm sure you do *in the post*, but do you really know what's leaking from your browser when you simply visit ./ ?

      I do. I run Pale Moon + No Script and don't allow any kind of third-party plugins. So all /. knows about me is IP address and contents of my posts.

    24. Re:No thanks, involves Windows 10 by geekoid · · Score: 1

      How do you know windows 7 doesn't spy on you? Not that it has to because your internet foot print is huge, like everyone else's.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    25. Re:No thanks, involves Windows 10 by Anonymice · · Score: 1

      Unless whatever analytics they use simply tracks you by your browser's "fingerprint"...

      https://panopticlick.eff.org/

      https://amiunique.org/

    26. Re:No thanks, involves Windows 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're staying on 7 because you're privacy-conscious user, you haven't installed any of the "backported spyware".

      Reminder for 10-fanboys. 7 lets you choose what it is that you want to install and what to disregard.

    27. Re:No thanks, involves Windows 10 by HelpTheNewOverlord · · Score: 1
      Exactly this.

      Or, as said by XKCD, this: Licence Plate

    28. Re:No thanks, involves Windows 10 by swilver · · Score: 1

      Which is why internet here is only available through proxy, which only certain apps know about, and that does not include Windows.

      It means Windows Update can't find anything, Telemetry can't send anything, Cortana doesn't work, Tiles donot update, etc.

      It just amazes me people can live with a computer that doesn't do exactly what you tell it to.

    29. Re: No thanks, involves Windows 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to haranguing microsoft apologists? Dunno, touch sell!

    30. Re:No thanks, involves Windows 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is probably where I will end up as well after Win7 expires. Windows will just be a console OS and there won't be any data to siphon other than my KD ratio, which I am OK with them tracking. LOL.

  4. Raytracing does not produce photorealistic images by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ray tracing is great for specular (not spectacular...) reflections, i.e. light interacting with mirror-like, non-diffusing surfaces. It produces highlights, (perfect) refraction, (perfect) reflections and hard shadows. Anything else is not the domain of ray tracing. You can have fuzzy effects with ray tracing, but they come at an extreme processing power cost. Some effects are practically impossible to calculate with ray tracing. Ray tracing can contribute a small part of the rendering equation (the specular part) to photorealistic images, but it does not by itself create photorealism.

  5. Using Graphics cards for actual games? Wow!!! by ickleberry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The run of the mill for the past few years is that graphics cards are for mining the cryptocurrency flavour of the month and creating magical AI bots. This is the first time in years I have seen an article that refers to the use of graphics cards for actual graphics.

    1. Re:Using Graphics cards for actual games? Wow!!! by BESTouff · · Score: 2

      That's because governments and GAFA have started a global crackdown on cryptocurrencies. NVIDIA strategists - as the smart bunch they are - feel the wind and repurpose their "tensor engine" for raytracing. That doesn't seem unnatural. At all.

    2. Re:Using Graphics cards for actual games? Wow!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tensor engine has nothing to do with cryptocurrencies. Cryptos are all about hash functions.

    3. Re:Using Graphics cards for actual games? Wow!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GPUs by their nature are VERY good at doing massively parallel data processing.

      Graphics are massively parallel by nature. I can see how ray tracing would be the same.

      Ray tracing is going to be awesome. They'll probably have to cap rays at like 3 reflections to start but eventually it will get better as they can scale up to 4,5,6 reflections. Just throwing numbers out there. This is going to be exciting times.

    4. Re:Using Graphics cards for actual games? Wow!!! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Yeah! I can't wait to see how much crypto-currencies I can mine at once with these new ray-tracing GPUs!

      Just kidding. All I got is my gaming PC with a single GPU that mines when I'm not playing games.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    5. Re:Using Graphics cards for actual games? Wow!!! by dj245 · · Score: 1

      The run of the mill for the past few years is that graphics cards are for mining the cryptocurrency flavour of the month and creating magical AI bots. This is the first time in years I have seen an article that refers to the use of graphics cards for actual graphics.

      My guess is that the graphics companies are seeing that cryptocurrencies may be peaking or on the decline. Between various countries banning them, municipalities banning them or charging more for electricity, and people starting to wise up that many cryptocurrencies are scams, the writing may be on the wall. AMD and Nvidia may be seeing a dropoff in sales, they would be the first to know if cryptocurrencies have peaked.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    6. Re:Using Graphics cards for actual games? Wow!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who recently had to replace a failing video card and went through weeks of multiple daily lockups, GPU-based mining cannot end soon enough.
      Preferably in a crash that takes 90% of the coin's value with it.

    7. Re:Using Graphics cards for actual games? Wow!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ray tracing for real-world objects is NOT massively (trivially) parallel the way conventional 3D graphics are.
      That is one of the many reasons it's not very popular.
      Capping rays at 3 reflections also kneecaps it at the ONE thing where it has a real advantage: many shiny multi-reflections. You'd rather want to cap it at the point where a cast ray will no longer significantly contribute to the result + a bailout to avoid endless loops.

  6. Re:Raytracing does not produce photorealistic imag by Kid+CUDA · · Score: 0

    By the way, am I the only one to think the demo video looks worse than some modern games that use approximation techniques?

  7. Reminds me of a paper form Intel some years ago by ausekilis · · Score: 2

    Tracing Rays Through the Cloud is a pretty good example of what was "next-gen" 6 years ago. None of the imagery there was generated real-time (just read the paper), but was still a good read about what goes into ray tracing. Intuitively we know what it is, but what it means for computation with reflective/refractive surfaces is a ton of work.

    Of course, I won't believe it's real-time until it can render a house of mirrors at 60fps+.

    1. Re:Reminds me of a paper form Intel some years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can do that now. Just not at any resolution useful in games.

    2. Re:Reminds me of a paper form Intel some years ago by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      In the old days, all we had was 320x200 in 16 colours and we were happy with that.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:Reminds me of a paper form Intel some years ago by mrthoughtful · · Score: 1

      Ah but we used to break those boundaries as well! I was on a demo crew who played with overscan - cf. http://aldabase.com/atari-st-f...

      --
      This comment was written with the intention to opt out of advertising.
    4. Re:Reminds me of a paper form Intel some years ago by mrthoughtful · · Score: 1

      We also developed the SPX viewer which allowed for 'lots' of colours! I seem to recall that much of the imagery was pr0n. But we were teenagers.

      --
      This comment was written with the intention to opt out of advertising.
    5. Re:Reminds me of a paper form Intel some years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No some of us had Amiga's.

  8. yep, ssh,bash,remote desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Oh yeah, so many Linux features we had 10 years before windoze.
    In 1/5th the memory space.
    Who did 24bit color first, not VGA Windows shit in the 80s.

  9. Re:Raytracing does not produce photorealistic imag by AHuxley · · Score: 2

    Ray tracing's got what games crave.
    It's got rays.
    More GPU and CPU and that will be perfect for every type of surface in a computer game.
    The need for more extreme processing is what will grow GPU and CPU sales.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  10. Bad demos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And as always they showcase the technology with a scene that would have rendered just as well with current rasterizer+lightmap techniques that people have gotten used to over the last 20 years. Show a scene with some light source moving around in a dark room, someone opening a door into a bright place, a day/light cycle .. anything that would have made the benefits more tangible to people viewing the video.

    1. Re:Bad demos by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "And as always they showcase the technology with a scene that would have rendered just as well with current rasterizer+lightmap techniques that people have gotten used to over the last 20 years."

      Yes, and 20 years ago it would probably have taken a couple of hours to render a single frame on a top spec PC, not 60fps real time you clueless gimp.

    2. Re:Bad demos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      90% of the people watching the video won't know about how long something took to render 20 years ago, so why not showcase the technology in a way that would impress 100% of the people watching the video rather than just 10%?

  11. Link to an actual video... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...can be found here:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkhBlmKtEAk

    Looks quite impressive even without the post filter in my opinion.

    1. Re:Link to an actual video... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note that almost every surface in that video is glossy. Even the floor is wet. Algorithms in computer graphics are tuned to particular types of scenes and objects. Radiosity loves "dull" surfaces and creates beautiful diffuse shadows. Ray tracing loves glossy surfaces and creates beautiful reflections and highlights. There are much more advanced rendering methods, but so far they are impossible in real-time.

    2. Re:Link to an actual video... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It really depends on how you're using ray tracing! If the rays you're tracing arise as you're sampling together a solution to the rendering equation (so that the rays are recursive, or chained together), glossy surfaces are your arch-nemesis and will create bright "fireflies" all over the screen that you have to resort to very advanced path tracing methods to try to minimize. For example, if you're tracing a ray towards a diffuse wall that then bounces towards an extremely specular object in such a way that it perfectly falls in line with its BRDF as it bounces towards a light source, that pixel will show up as pure white and will take an enormous number of samples to average out together with a bunch of neighboring pixels to show a caustic on the wall. This is mitigated by techniques such as bidirectional path tracing and MLT (and more recent techniques) but, glossy surfaces are a problem. Now, if you're using ray tracing just to figure out what a specular object reflects (so the first object you hit is specular rather than diffuse, and you terminate once you hit a diffuse object) then what you're saying is correct, although in my opinion that's not the most interesting use of ray tracing since it does very little to improve the atmosphere of a scene the way dynamic global illumination does. Admittedly though, approximate methods such as voxel based GI like the one used in Kingdom Come: Deliverance is probably much more apt at creating that effect.

    3. Re:Link to an actual video... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at the illumination on reflected objects. It is very obvious that they don't sample much after the first reflection/refraction.

      Traces almost never hit light sources directly. It is so rare that it isn't even calculated. In ray tracing, the contributions of light sources are collected with "shadow rays" that connect every intersection of a ray and a surface with the light sources. The illumination contribution is then attenuated through the BRDF of the surface. This basically gives you Phong shading plus (hard) shadows. Without this trick, you would see a black picture with just a few highlights. The chance of a ray randomly reflecting from a lambertian surface and ending up at a light source before its contribution to the illumination becomes negligible is practically zero. That's why ray tracing does not produce caustics. There are no shadow rays connecting the diffuse surface to the light sources via the reflective/refractive surface.

  12. why directX? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What's wrong (to NVIDIA's eyes) with OpenGL?

    1. Re:why directX? by Holi · · Score: 1

      Because when you want to sell video cards for games, you focus on the technology and platform where the games are.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    2. Re:why directX? by Kid+CUDA · · Score: 0

      I think DirectX has a lot more things to make developper's lives easier, though I could be wrong. So I think it's a game of follow-the-market

    3. Re:why directX? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mobile and consoles?

    4. Re:why directX? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But video cards are not just for games. GPGPU stuff aside, I'm thinking of 3D modelling/animation, where the software uses openGL.

      There are some options that offer "render" preview (only in some of them) where essentially the program renders a scene with crappy settings so you get a hit how's going to look like. Doing the same stuff (better, actually) in real-time feels to me like a huge time saver (== money saver).

    5. Re:why directX? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OpenGL is dying. Vulkan is its successor.

    6. Re:why directX? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      No, you imbecile. You focus on Intellivision, Colecovision and Atari 7800.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    7. Re:why directX? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Didn't Vulkan get destroyed on stardate 2258.42?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    8. Re:why directX? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      It only does triangle rendering and texturing. This is pretty useful, but not for getting realistic refractive effects. Reflections in OpenGL tend to be a bit of a cheat as well. The reflection looks fine for the most part, but unless you have a perfectly flat, or perfectly spherical mirror, they're typically an approximation.

      Personally, I don't think this sort of thing really justifies the cost of raytracing when current techniques work fairly well, but nVidia clearly disagree.

    9. Re:why directX? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Easy AMD can use that. The dirty secret is Nvidia wrote DirectX11 and already had a GPU with the code in hardware already to beat AMD or I should say ATI at the time.

      Nvidia owns directX as much as MS and need a closed standard to monopolize the market.

  13. Raytracers are pretty fun... by RyanFenton · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When I was in college, I took two semesters of graphics - but this was in the late DOS era. Early OpenGL existed, but because this was a real theoretical college class on graphics - we built a real raytracer from pure math from c-code and assembler rather than trying to stick to some arbitrary industry standard.

    Cubes, spheres, torus, lighting, reflections, we did it all, piece by piece in glorious 640x350. It was ugly, and eerie, but really fascinating in terms of seeing pure mathematical expressions becoming 3d objects, pixel by pixel.

    Since then, I've worked in several jobs frequently involving 'proper' graphics, even worked on a bunch of professional shipped games (mostly gameplay and systems, occasionally worked everywhere though) - and I can appreciate the need to use all the tricks that we do to make origami worlds, everything angled to the camera, but I really did enjoy creating worlds of actual objects, and having the camera pull its own shell of perspective out of the scene instead.

    Which is how most assets are sort of created, actually, in the asset creation tools. You model the object, rip the polygons out how you can, create meshes and surfaces, and then try and cheat on everything to make it seem like the 'real' object again as cheaply as you can get away with. It's not quite raytracing outside a few tools, but it's an interesting hybrid.

    Raytracers are a cool educational tool - but I can also see why they're only really trotted out when CPU manufacturers want to push for a race to buy more CPUs. They don't scale as well as modern techniques - and although there's some neat tricks you can do when you have your assets really 'present' mathematically (Demoscene stuff does this occasionally), it's usually not a better tradeoff than using the abstraction tools available to make it all work faster.

    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:Raytracers are pretty fun... by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Wait a minute... 640x350? You did raytracing in 16 colours?! Yikes.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:Raytracers are pretty fun... by ledow · · Score: 2

      The tricks played to make things look real have been very convincing and took up less power.

      But go look at a teardown of a single scene in GTA V

      http://www.adriancourreges.com...

      "All in all there were 4155 draw calls, 1113 textures involved and 88 render targets."

      And a lot of clever trickery that engine etc. programmers have to apply, texture artists have to take account of, etc. etc etc.

      The "shortcuts" give convincing near-realism on low hardware for a hefty development price.

      Ray-tracing gives convincing realism on high hardware for much less development all over.

      As such, I can see a move towards ray-tracing.... eventually. Especially if you can put in a hardware features that helps it, wrap that in an API and force people to buy not just a GPU or a GPGPU but something that's capable of accelerating raytracing specifically. Then you could convince gamers that they need a new card. Especially if you consider, say, VR on top - VR and ray-tracing seems to go together naturally.

      Now you have the same incentive as people who had to go out and by an FPU, a Voodoo card, etc. etc. to play the latest-greatest game that consoles can't get near for another few years. It's what sold Quake, which in turn sold OpenGL cards.

      If things go right, VR/RT will be the reason that people upgrade their machines to play the next mega-game. And developers will push for that not just for showmanship but because their lives suddenly become cheaper and easier. Why bother to sit and texture a glass and come up with so-many-different bump maps, texture maps, reflection maps, etc. etc. when you can just specify that it's glass and have done with it and let the API convert it.

      I remember playing about with POV-Ray back in the day. My old Pentium could barely render a frame in a day. But the descriptive language used to generate the scenes was much easier than the things I see being shoved into graphics memory nowadays.

      If you pull the description of material properties out of the artists hands and into an API or engine, and then let the hardware do the description and heavy-lifting, ray-tracing is suddenly much easier than trying to craft it all yourself.

      The same way that early 3D games all had to write their own 2.5D / 3D engines (e.g. Doom) that did everything themselves and were overtaken by a handful of OpenGL statements and compatible hardware that didn't need the clever tricks, massive optimisation and limitations.

      And if you can get real-time ray-tracing, the creation tools basically mirror the production hardware. You have no need to pre-render, Z-order, edge-cull or almost anything else. You just describe the scene as you like, and that's your finished scene - the ray-tracing handles the rest.

      I can quite see an era where ray-tracing takes control of the industry because it's just not worth faffing about optimising when you can just throw the whole scene at the hardware and let it do the work.

      Maybe at that point, games will return to gameplay and atmosphere rather than just eye-candy, because they'll all be photo-realistic with almost no extraneous effort over downloading a library object and putting it into a scene.

    3. Re:Raytracers are pretty fun... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      First of all, anyone who signs their post is a douche. That goes double for anyone using a signature that's a carbon copy of their user ID. Second, this is real-time, motherfucker. All that bullshit you did when you hit puberty is irrelevant.

    4. Re:Raytracers are pretty fun... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wait a minute... 640x350? You did raytracing in 16 colours?! Yikes.

      Ever seen a life-sized ASCII-art nude printed on wide-carriage, green-bar paper and hung up on a wall?

      We made do with what we had. :-P

      We used to dream of 640x350, because they hadn't even invented that yet. The first porn I saw on the internet was a 320x200 interlaced animated GIF ... and it was monochrome. Most monitors didn't even have actual colours.

      Why, we used to have to debug our code on paper printouts by hand walking through the code and proofreading everything and taking notes, and we had memory counted in kilobytes and eventually megabytes. We had to pedal the disk drives up to speed ourselves, and our lifetime worth of data would fit on a handful of floppies. Hell, we did most of our work over a 9600 baud serial line, and that was fast!! We didn't even get into the same room as the actual computer.

      You kids today with your whiz-bang machines and screens with colour and touch screens. Literally every aspect is millions of times bigger ... RAM, CPU, disk ... all of it. You've never had to cram something into 4K of RAM because there was no more RAM.

      Why, we had to walk to the data centre to get our printouts ... up hill, both ways no less. In an actual fucking snow storm. You try carrying an inch thick of greenbar paper in the snow.

      One modern GPU represents more compute power than ... well, than 1982 actually. I don't mean one or two things in 1982, I mean the entirety of 1982. An iPhone will take care of 1978 in that regards.

      Of course, I had an onion on my belt, because that was the style ... ... now get off my goddamned lawn, punk. ;-)

    5. Re:Raytracers are pretty fun... by fibonacci8 · · Score: 1

      animated GIF - 1989 (part of the GIF89a extension to the GIF87a format)
      640x350 16 color EGA graphics as an option - 1984
      Just because you didn't see stuff until 5 years after it was commercially available doesn't mean the rest of us didn't.

      --
      Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
    6. Re:Raytracers are pretty fun... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are some very impressive demos of real-time raytracing on ShaderToy, using tricks from the demoscene (raymarching with distance functions).

    7. Re:Raytracers are pretty fun... by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      My first computer was a Colour Computer 2 with 64KB and tape drive. Floppy drives were incredibly expensive.
      My first modem was 300bps. After that I went to 2400bps, then 14.4kbps and finally 28.8kbps.
      My first PC was a 8086 running at 8MHz with 256KB.

      From some parts of your comment, you started before me (wide-carriage green-bar paper printers).
      From other parts of your comment, you started after me (AFAIK 320x200 in monochrome did not exist, you either had monochrome Hercules graphics or four-colours CGA, then later came EGA followed by MCGA on PS/2 and VGA on others).

      And no, I never had to cram anything into 4KB because my first computer was 64KB and the price difference between an ATtiny25 and ATtiny85 is so small that it doesn't matter for personal projects.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    8. Re:Raytracers are pretty fun... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doug Wolfgram's GRASP dates from 1984 also.

  14. Awesome! by PeterGM · · Score: 1

    More features to turn off in the settings so I can improve frame rates and actually see what I'm supposed to be looking at.

    --
    There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
  15. OpenGL by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    As opposed to OpenGL where you had the ATI version, the Nvidia version, and going further back the Solaris and IRIX versions.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  16. What good is this if no one can buy one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NT

  17. Platform by ledow · · Score: 2

    Yeah, you have to love the graphic towards the bottom:

    "Board Industry Support"

    API: Microsoft.

    That's it. The only option. Not very "broad".

    1. Re:Platform by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      It is, on the other hand, very board.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  18. Intel already tried this by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

    Intel was trying to push this when it was clear they weren't making headway in the GPU space and also to push a heavier reliance on CPUs over GPUs (or at least in conjunction with) but it never seemed to gain any traction and was just relegated to tech demos.

    https://www.geek.com/games/int...

    https://www.hpcwire.com/2010/0...

    I guess we'll see how Nvidia does.

    1. Re:Intel already tried this by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      I guess that's why the article says the Intel already tried this, and mentions reasons why this is different. Including the decade of technology improvements since then. I wasn't sure why they would mention that.

    2. Re:Intel already tried this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably, but since the summary didn't bring it up, it's worth mentioning here for the discussion, and the extra info and sources are interesting. Especially since the article does not mention at all how this effort is any different, and the author even states nvidia is in fact picking up and carrying the same torch.

    3. Re:Intel already tried this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intel has never made a GPU that was total fucking garbage. Why even bring that up?

    4. Re:Intel already tried this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were pushing a rendering method dependent on multi core CPUs. Now ms and nvidia want to move that method to the GPU.

    5. Re:Intel already tried this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw The Sims running on i810 with a Celeron on 66MHz bus, I think. That was impressive enough. The bandwith is garbage on this.
      In 1999, it was still a bit special to have any GPU at all. ATI Rage Pro was common, which I think had worse features and is only really good on early and non demanding DirectX games (e.g. Tony Hawk 2, ported from the Playstation 1)
      Intel graphics on Pentium 4 socket 478 with DDR is good for what it is.
      i5-5675C and i7-5775C were about the best integrated graphics (consoles expected) until AMD's latest APUs (Ryzen 2200G and up)

      I don't need a good GPU, though. Spyware in games and ancillary software disgusts me.

  19. Consoles by DrYak · · Score: 0

    the only OS for gaming

    beside PC compatible running Windows, there is this other small thing in a corner also used to play games.
    It's called "consoles"
    (Surprise: It's actually a sizeable market. You might want to gloat that consoles are dead and PC/Windows killed them. But in practice its still a market that bring a lot of cash in).

    Except for a few studio that only produce exclusives, a technology that is only available on a single platform (e.g.: PC/Windows) is shutting away a lot of potential profits from other platforms.

    You can expect that ray-tracing won't gain much traction until there are also similar technology on other platforms.
    (i.e.: Microsoft port DXR to whatever clone of Windows/Direct X runs on XBox, Sony puts some local similar stuff for their playstation line, etc.
    and Khronos announces some new "OpenTrace" API to be used cross platform, implemented atop of the former or atop of Vulkan low-level APIs)

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Consoles by Holi · · Score: 3, Informative

      Pretty sure I haven't heard of a Volta based console.

      Consoles will be relevant in the discussion when they launch a console that will support this tech. Until then it's a PC ray-traced world.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  20. Likely far in the Future by foxalopex · · Score: 1

    Between both major graphics card manufacturers (AMD) and (NVIDIA) it's usually not uncommon for either to work directly with Microsoft to introduce new DirectX features. The new Vulcan type rendering engines for example are major contributions by AMD. Unfortunately when it comes to raytracing, the main issue is that the amount of processing required for anything better than a simple scene is too much to run in realtime for just about any modern system. If there's glassy / refractive objects, the amount of processing shoots through the roof even more. So neat but probably not immediately usable for gaming. This might however be good for production.

  21. ...really, Really?? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    I'm an MCSE who detests Windows and uses Linux exclusively... and even I think your post is do you think MS should be releasing extensions to graphics API's for competing platforms??

  22. oh boy, Microsoft + NVidia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like that's going to go over well... Two years later: We're sorry, but this game is only supported on Microsoft FU.3 and NVidia FU.2 drivers, please upgrade your hardware accordingly.

    *feverishly checks what hardware feature differences there are*... none, wtf?

    ah, forget it... goes to play older game:

    We're sorry, OpenGL, Vulkan, and OpenCL are no longer supported on your current platform... *rage*

  23. Re:Raytracing does not produce photorealistic imag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shhh...don't contradict Nvidia's Marketing department on Slashdot!

  24. Texture quality? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Why is it that every demonstration of ray tracing results in every surface looking like velvet? The secular reflections from small bumps in the textures are just insane. Is it because they were dialed up on purpose or is it some effect of raytracing that needs to be fixed with something like anti-aliasing?

    1. Re:Texture quality? by fibonacci8 · · Score: 1

      I suspect you're looking at some of the staples of raytracing texturing like simulated wood, metal, or stone. Heterogeneous materials approximated by too low of a resolution will end up "looking like velvet" because there's more color change going on per sampled unit of distance than can be made to look both smooth and accurate. Anti-aliasing is a crutch. Better alternatives: increase your color depth, increase the resolution of the image, or adjust the formulae being used to simulate the material.

      --
      Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
    2. Re:Texture quality? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Thanks, you suspected correctly. It was the metallic surfaces in the video. When the camera gets close you can see they are textured and cease to sparkle uncontrollably. It's a shame because while the video looked good in principle showing off the wonderful light reflections, I think I have seen some far more realistic looking footage in traditional game engines.

  25. Re: Raytracing does not produce photorealistic ima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, but this kind of contradicts the historical data. Recent games are shit because of shitty and slow game engines flooding the market, but that didn't affect GPU development much.

  26. 12 years later ... by Laxator2 · · Score: 1

    I remember around 2006 (when AMD has just acquired ATI ?) Intel was making a lot of noise of running the graphics directly on the CPU, hence the GPU-less machines was their big prediction.

    They were mentioning real-time ray-tracing as the next big thing in graphics and their CPUs were obviously the natural thing to do it. Here is an example from 2007:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    AMD and Nvidia immediately pointed out that their GPUs were much better for this job, and then nothing happened. Now I see they bring it up again, let's see if it is more than just vaporware.

  27. Re:Raytracing does not produce photorealistic imag by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

    Ray-tracing doesn't seem necessary, games have impressive looking lighting already, they've gotten good at faking it. I'm skeptical about real time ray-tracing being able to handle high polygon counts and be able to output at 4k.

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  28. No Progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Zobeid says, "there must be no progress except on my terms! No Progress I say!!"

    Here's a clue. This is an Nvidia technology. OMG, they left AMD out!

    In a world where companies bring value-added and proprietary technologies to the table, this is what happens. Making technologies universal and commodities happens through competition.

    If you wait for standards committees, cooperative ventures, FOSS, Vulkan, and everyone to get their shit together, progress takes years longer and sometimes stops entirely. Is that what you want? Because you shouldn't want that.

    Proprietary standards are imperfect but at least DirectX works well across all of Windows. And Microsoft has made a profitable space where games can be sold and played, and money comes in to fund additional development. The forcing mechanism is competition which makes AMD, Linux, Vulkan, OSX want to catch up.

    But yes, let's wait another 50 years for real-time ray tracing, for some mythical Open Source graphics hardware to appear. Also, we need open source CPUs, and all those missing graphics drivers. Can't have the current motherboards and chipsets, that's clearly untrustworthy, no one knows how they are built! Also, Linux is too much of a compromise for me, I insist upon having the original GNU operating system, currently at version 0.35 after 20 years of development!

    1. Re:No Progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      1). Feel free to walk down the hall and create that open standard. In the meantime Nvidia and Microsoft have already done it. Maybe this is the kick in the creative ass you need;
      2). The benefit is to the customers. You are acting like this is a proxy battle over which board member gets elected. Whoever does this, the customers benefit;
      3). You literally added nothing to the GP comment.

      FOSS fanatics don't get it. Since there is no practical way to create binary compatibility between Linux, OSX, Windows, etc., different graphics APIs have little impact on game porting overall. Let's not pretend that portable Java games exist, please.

      No, this is really just a thinly veiled attack on Microsoft by people who... hate Microsoft! Surprise. These people want someone else to succeed and usually, they want Linux.

      Linux is great. It's some of the people who advocate for Linux who aren't great. This is a great example of their myopia.

      1). Pretend that Microsoft is the villain here when this is clearly an Nvidia initiative;
      2). Pretend that DirectX is a Giant Problem, when in reality DirectX has been a huge success and brought a lot of sanity to game design;
      3). Suggest that RT ray tracing is good, but "just not this way", and that being first to market (a coup under almost any circumstances) is "taking advantage of consumers".

    2. Re:No Progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good for them that they developing the technology, AMD is doing the same technology but with Vulkan an open standard that works in almost everything, opening the door of porting games to other OS and devices not just Windows 10 and Nvidia GPUs, listen to me open standards are good and necessary for consumers, allow the formation of technology ecosystems that at the end of the day benefits consumers..

      The reason that there is not binary comparability between Windows, OSX and FOSS, is because is not in the shareholders of Microsoft and Apple interest that exists a vibrant ecosystem in the PC market, they just want a monopoly and less competition, If it was not for Google we will be stuck with expensive Apple smartphones .

      I am not saying that Linux is great but is really good that Linux and other FOSS OS exist, is good to have alternatives, but that is not my focus, i am talking about Open Standards and its benefits to consumers.

      I have to admit that Microsoft and Direct X has been great for gaming in general but you have to admit that consumers deserve more options two just having two options in a unnecessary way, is time to move forward in that regard.

    3. Re:No Progress by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      ....and games will continue to get less fun. This is great for real-time rendering of My Little Pony on your desktop but graphics enhancements have not been helping the gaming world create fun games. Destiny died off in what....a month? Amazing mechanics.....not fun. The list goes on and on. Meanwhile all people really talk about are 20 year old 2D games that are coming to retro consoles.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  29. Really? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    I actually found that demo video pretty unimpressive.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... to link directly.

    Oh sure, it's PRETTY but there are some odd artifacts:
    - the table edges at 0:08+ flicker oddly
    - 0:47 the light effect from the source looks hemispherical, but the device itself wouldn't be?
    - the coffe cup with saucer at 1:08 has a weird glowy base

    These may be explicable, but they seemed odd in a tech demo.

    --
    -Styopa
  30. Not the Holy Grail by mentil · · Score: 2

    Turns out raytracing isn't the holy grail of gaming graphics, although it's been hyped for so long that it seems like it. I always thought Pixar films were raytraced, but they were actually rasterized. Cars was their first film that used raytracing at all, and even then it was only during the big race (due to all the reflections, presumably). I do know that shows like Babylon 5 and I believe ST:TNG did use raytracing, though. Nvidia shows off 'realtime raytracing' every few years but it never takes off, presumably better overall results are still achieved via rasterization; sure, you can get sexy shadows and reflections, but your poly count will be at early PS3-era levels. Also, there are problems with raytracing and meshes that animate, like, say, humans, that make it much slower. This is why you almost always see it done with static meshes like cars or buildings. Turns out raytracing isn't even the ultimate rendering technology; Path Tracing is closer, if not theoretically perfect.

    It's also worth noting that a form of raytracing has been in use in realtime graphics for a while, called relief mapping, which has made it into games.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Not the Holy Grail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks that was interesting.

    2. Re:Not the Holy Grail by mrthoughtful · · Score: 1

      Realtime dynamic radiosity rendering is nice - it's used a lot in gaming for developing static patches.

      --
      This comment was written with the intention to opt out of advertising.
    3. Re:Not the Holy Grail by mrthoughtful · · Score: 1
      --
      This comment was written with the intention to opt out of advertising.
  31. Meanwhile, from AMD....2 years ago.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congratulations, Nvidia! You're almost caught up to Radeon Rays.

  32. Whistling In The Dark. by westlake · · Score: 1

    No thanks. I wills tick to gaming on Windows 7, that doesn't spy on me.

    Developers target platforms with significant market share and mainstream graphical support. Mainstream support for Win 7 as an OS ended in 2015. OEM Win 7 system installs for the consumer market in 2014. Four years is a long time in this business.

  33. Bullshit headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a game Dev, bullshit headline is fake news. Real-time this isn't, the performance is really bad. It's also based on an API done by Microsoft, so open to all IHVs and not just Nvidia. Which also means it's locked to Windows and Xbox, meaning no Dev was ever going to use it as a base anyway. Which brings up a third point, which is that an entire raytracing API is entirely silly as it is. Engines like UE4 will use their own code and structure thank you very much.
     
    it's bullshit like this that was helping Nvidia get a monopoly on gpus until the crypt mining boom. Stop posting and believing press releases from Nvidia are real. This doesn't happen for any other company, Intel didn't get it's bullshit over hyped PR treated as actual news everywhere. So why the hell does Nvidia? They're no different, it's a good dammed press release, that's not news!

  34. Re:Raytracing does not produce photorealistic imag by scdeimos · · Score: 1

    No. While at first glance the video demo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70W2aFr5-Xk) is very pretty it's clear they've gone overboard to make everything they possibly can reflective. That in itself defeats the attempt to be photorealistic.

    Aside from the ultra-reflectivity of everything in the scene the most annoying glitch on display was the bursty behaviour of the blooms on the metal edges of the tables, evident because they've used a (relatively) low-poly mesh for something that should be smooth curves.

  35. Re:Raytracing does not produce photorealistic imag by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    The need to drive up GPU and CPU sales is necessary.
    Microsoft will help along with the high polygon counts and 4K game marketing.
    The must have games and GPU thats ray-tracing 1.0 ready.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  36. Re:Raytracing does not produce photorealistic imag by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

    No, I'm saying the tech probably isn't there yet, I doubt they can do real time hi-res ray-tracing on consumer level hardware.

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  37. Re:Raytracing does not produce photorealistic imag by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    But the need to buy a new GPU just in case a new game needs that support will drive up sales.
    Just one more must have new selling point to hype for consumer level hardware.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  38. Re:Raytracing does not produce photorealistic imag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So it's triangle-based raytracing? That's hardly going to be impressive. Triangles break the one thing that raytracing is actually good at, perfectly reflective surfaces.

  39. Re:Raytracing does not produce photorealistic imag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've read that poly count computational costs scale linearly for ray tracing and rasterizing is some other much worse non-linear scaling. I forget the poly count where the two intersect. Ray tracing has a high fixed cost.

    I'm not sure how important rasterizing with high poly counts are as long as the lighting is calculated using higher poly counts. Human perception gets a lot of visual queues from lighting, not just edges. There are some really nice screenshots with low poly counts, but the lighting is so well done, it looks really good.