Nvidia doesn't do real time ray tracing. They do "sorta kinda semi-fake ray tracing" for cheap, that has little to nothing to do with with actual full on ray tracing.
Success rate of which will unfortunately likely be the same as their fur tech they pushed so hard with 10xx generation. Remember that one? Yeah, no one else does either, because it's all but dead.
Why did it die when it did look so damn awesome in games like witcher 3? Because AMD won the console wars, and few companies will invest into proprietary hack that only works on certain hardware, and only does a very limited amount of things.
AMD won the console wars. Both Sony and Microsoft consoles are AMD both on CPU and GPU. As a result, their development was heavily focused on those chips, which is why they're very competitive in mid end chips. But their PC high end performance has been awful.
The fucked up part in all of this is, you could have had 1060 for only 249 at launch. GPU companies and their board partners are extremely unwilling to drop prices from crypto boom days, so they barely came down to starting prices back three years ago. Even with 1060 6gb, that they now have warehouses full of and that nvidia apparently had to buy back chips for from board partners because they just weren't selling after crypto boom ended.
Two and a half years later, you're paying about the same price as on launch for 1060 6gb cards. That's absurd. And their "affordable higher mid end xx60 card " is up almost 75% from basic 1060 that was launched in the same segment for 200 USD back in 2016 and priced almost as high as their 1070 high end card in 2016.
It's no wonder that 20xx series adoption has been awful and nvidia's stock has crashed to half its price. They're desperately trying to sell mid end hardware at high end prices as if crypto boom is still ongoing and their high end hardware is at "way more than high end used to sell for". All while home consoles are still where the limiter on desktop gaming is, and those are on AMD chips for foreseeable future, meaning their ray tracing tech is going the same way that their "fur" tech went with 10xx series.
It's not just that. To meet the housing demand in the cities, rapid and shoddy construction has become the norm. Those are not houses that will remain reasonably habitable for more than a couple of decades, making investing in them downright dangerous. Fractures in concrete for example are a norm in such building after 5-10 years.
You know that being an extremist makes you conclude the strangest things, such as that government is just another corporation, or that dying for allah is the primary purpose of life?
The alternative, as human history shows us clearly, is corporations with guns. Which means that you get nothing and lose everything, as corporation is not accountable to anyone but owners. Current democratically elected government is in fact accountable to voters in many ways.
Free market if allowed to function in unmanaged capacity leads to death of free market through consolidation of power and eventual full monopolization of each field. Again, look at history for examples. This is a tried system that simply doesn't work. Free market is a system that by design has an end point, which is death of free market. But it can be managed to stay in the "healthy competition" phase, without ever progressing toward the end, making free market concept actually useful.
Hence the need for government intervention into free market to keep free market alive, rather than get killed by monopolization. Meaning if you're pro free market and anti-cartel, you're pro government/men with guns, as long as they limit free market in the ways that specifically manage free market to prevent it from killing itself through monopolization.
Something that both extreme libertarians and extreme authoritarians tend to miss.
They're actually vastly inferior to this date. Brains remain far more efficient, largely because unlike transistors, there are many potential outcomes of electric signal entering a nerve cell.
Add to this the logic systems developed by billions of years of selectionary pressure, and you get biological computers that are far more advanced than anything we have in silicon today. That's why deep level AI similar to that of human brain proved utterly impossible to this date. Even if you were to manage to match the processing power and logic structures, which will eventually happen, you still need the time for system to learn to be what it can be. Even with generational advancements being more akin to flies in terms of speed than large mammals like humans, that's still going to be hundreds to thousands years even if we're optimistic.
>"Technology wasn't there yet, so I'll pretend your point was limited to that".
Any resource management on societal level. A good Roman example would be water management with those magnificent and highly costly aqueduct systems. Literally any societal management mechanisms that go against your argument. It is in no way limited to a single technological breakthrough.
Then you should take off the "I don't understand this argument because you're an idiot" glasses and put the "I don't understand this argument because I'm an idiot" ones.
Because you need not look beyond human gestation process to see exactly what I was talking about here. There's a clear cut evolutionary reason why the process of development effectively starts humans as fish with gills, that get apoptized as we slowly progress to something that resembles a mammal. Evolution does not build new systems as a matter of rule, and exceptions to this are extremely rare. It instead adds to existing ones, which is why humans still contain the genetic code to begin gestating as a fish.
The system being talked about here is a completely new system that would entirely replace the old one. Evolution is very bad at generating such systems.
You're desperately arguing against a system that has been proven to work on societal level for many millenia, providing zero citations for your incredible claims. Because on the systemic level, no one cares about a handful of exceptions. It's the principle that rules.
And in "everyone in their small tribal enclave" system, everyone is at constant tribal conflict with their neighbours. Citation: human history.
Still not calling you back after fucking you in the ass for your science denial in that thread several months ago. No matter how desperately you stalk me on slashdot.
1. Mutation can miss many optimal routes due it it being overwhelmingly a minor step-by-step process rather than a massive leap. Evolution works as relative competition against others. If no one has this change, you don't have to compete against it. And if they have to literally replace the entire system with another, chance of evolution developing it is not all that high. This is because developing such a system as a random sequence of mutations would be a very costly thing, while having to maintain the old system until the new one is fully evolved.
2. The mutation might actually have significant long term weakening of the plant itself against some competition, where it would need cultivation by another much more powerful species to make it an evolutionary winner. I.e. agriculture.
Slashdot Mirror
Linear time.
High end started in 350-375 range last generation. That was the launch price of 1070.
Nvidia doesn't do real time ray tracing. They do "sorta kinda semi-fake ray tracing" for cheap, that has little to nothing to do with with actual full on ray tracing.
Success rate of which will unfortunately likely be the same as their fur tech they pushed so hard with 10xx generation. Remember that one? Yeah, no one else does either, because it's all but dead.
Why did it die when it did look so damn awesome in games like witcher 3? Because AMD won the console wars, and few companies will invest into proprietary hack that only works on certain hardware, and only does a very limited amount of things.
AMD won the console wars. Both Sony and Microsoft consoles are AMD both on CPU and GPU. As a result, their development was heavily focused on those chips, which is why they're very competitive in mid end chips. But their PC high end performance has been awful.
High end CONSUMER cards last generation started at around 375 USD MSRP. That's what 1070 entered retail for.
The cost is almost the same as 1070 at launch. They're selling mid end at high end prices.
The fucked up part in all of this is, you could have had 1060 for only 249 at launch. GPU companies and their board partners are extremely unwilling to drop prices from crypto boom days, so they barely came down to starting prices back three years ago. Even with 1060 6gb, that they now have warehouses full of and that nvidia apparently had to buy back chips for from board partners because they just weren't selling after crypto boom ended.
Two and a half years later, you're paying about the same price as on launch for 1060 6gb cards. That's absurd. And their "affordable higher mid end xx60 card " is up almost 75% from basic 1060 that was launched in the same segment for 200 USD back in 2016 and priced almost as high as their 1070 high end card in 2016.
It's no wonder that 20xx series adoption has been awful and nvidia's stock has crashed to half its price. They're desperately trying to sell mid end hardware at high end prices as if crypto boom is still ongoing and their high end hardware is at "way more than high end used to sell for". All while home consoles are still where the limiter on desktop gaming is, and those are on AMD chips for foreseeable future, meaning their ray tracing tech is going the same way that their "fur" tech went with 10xx series.
It's not just that. To meet the housing demand in the cities, rapid and shoddy construction has become the norm. Those are not houses that will remain reasonably habitable for more than a couple of decades, making investing in them downright dangerous. Fractures in concrete for example are a norm in such building after 5-10 years.
I see that your faith is utterly impenetrable to logic. Unfortunate, but expected for an extremist.
You know that being an extremist makes you conclude the strangest things, such as that government is just another corporation, or that dying for allah is the primary purpose of life?
The alternative, as human history shows us clearly, is corporations with guns. Which means that you get nothing and lose everything, as corporation is not accountable to anyone but owners. Current democratically elected government is in fact accountable to voters in many ways.
Free market if allowed to function in unmanaged capacity leads to death of free market through consolidation of power and eventual full monopolization of each field. Again, look at history for examples. This is a tried system that simply doesn't work. Free market is a system that by design has an end point, which is death of free market. But it can be managed to stay in the "healthy competition" phase, without ever progressing toward the end, making free market concept actually useful.
Hence the need for government intervention into free market to keep free market alive, rather than get killed by monopolization. Meaning if you're pro free market and anti-cartel, you're pro government/men with guns, as long as they limit free market in the ways that specifically manage free market to prevent it from killing itself through monopolization.
Something that both extreme libertarians and extreme authoritarians tend to miss.
"One arbitrarily selected crowd is the exactly same crowd as the other arbitrarily selected crowd. Because [no reason ever given]".
They're actually vastly inferior to this date. Brains remain far more efficient, largely because unlike transistors, there are many potential outcomes of electric signal entering a nerve cell.
Add to this the logic systems developed by billions of years of selectionary pressure, and you get biological computers that are far more advanced than anything we have in silicon today. That's why deep level AI similar to that of human brain proved utterly impossible to this date. Even if you were to manage to match the processing power and logic structures, which will eventually happen, you still need the time for system to learn to be what it can be. Even with generational advancements being more akin to flies in terms of speed than large mammals like humans, that's still going to be hundreds to thousands years even if we're optimistic.
Which is irrelevant for this story, as GPUs being talked about didn't exist that far in the past.
Homeopaths treat infectious disease too.
Story isn't talking about BTC mining.
Inventory problem is with 1060s, and AMD is competitive in that segment today.
Anyone making physical objects? Google "entropy".
You don't even know that nvidia's GPUs were garbage for bitcoin, and no one sane mined bitcoin with them.
Crypto boom's GPU market was in ethereum.
>"Technology wasn't there yet, so I'll pretend your point was limited to that".
Any resource management on societal level. A good Roman example would be water management with those magnificent and highly costly aqueduct systems. Literally any societal management mechanisms that go against your argument. It is in no way limited to a single technological breakthrough.
Yes, I'm sure that's it.
Then you should take off the "I don't understand this argument because you're an idiot" glasses and put the "I don't understand this argument because I'm an idiot" ones.
Because you need not look beyond human gestation process to see exactly what I was talking about here. There's a clear cut evolutionary reason why the process of development effectively starts humans as fish with gills, that get apoptized as we slowly progress to something that resembles a mammal. Evolution does not build new systems as a matter of rule, and exceptions to this are extremely rare. It instead adds to existing ones, which is why humans still contain the genetic code to begin gestating as a fish.
The system being talked about here is a completely new system that would entirely replace the old one. Evolution is very bad at generating such systems.
You're desperately arguing against a system that has been proven to work on societal level for many millenia, providing zero citations for your incredible claims. Because on the systemic level, no one cares about a handful of exceptions. It's the principle that rules.
And in "everyone in their small tribal enclave" system, everyone is at constant tribal conflict with their neighbours. Citation: human history.
Still not calling you back after fucking you in the ass for your science denial in that thread several months ago. No matter how desperately you stalk me on slashdot.
There are two reasons why you're wrong:
1. Mutation can miss many optimal routes due it it being overwhelmingly a minor step-by-step process rather than a massive leap. Evolution works as relative competition against others. If no one has this change, you don't have to compete against it. And if they have to literally replace the entire system with another, chance of evolution developing it is not all that high. This is because developing such a system as a random sequence of mutations would be a very costly thing, while having to maintain the old system until the new one is fully evolved.
2. The mutation might actually have significant long term weakening of the plant itself against some competition, where it would need cultivation by another much more powerful species to make it an evolutionary winner. I.e. agriculture.