Raytracing on Cell, Xflop360 destroyed!
Mr. Impressive
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/Brainshrimp/CBIMG002-1.png
1 SPE is as fast at raytracing as 1 x86 processor.
When using a multicore approach you only get a 30%+- increase per core,
maybe 60% at a theoretical limit, but when using a multi SPE approach
you actually get a full 100% increase per SPE.
Based on this info it should be safe to assume that the PS3's CPU
should be about 5x faster at ray tracing than the Xbox360's CPU.
--
Swam Mollen
THat's RAYCASTING
That's not the same as RAYTRACING
Fuckwit
Oh, and besides, we all know the Cell is superior at Floating Point,
but that's it.
And it's crippled by the inadequate Geforce chip being used in the PS3,
so you lose again,
Swam Mollen
No reflections, no shadows. So it's a simple method to calculate where
light falls on a scene.
Not that impressive considering DOOM was doing it many years ago on a
386 CPU.
Dub
> Can you not read?
This wouldn't be the first time he's confused his 3D terms. There was
the time he touted PS2's "procedural shading" and then pointed to a
.pdf in which the term "procedural shading" never actually appeared.
It's funny to watch him make a doof out of himself, I must admit.
Jordan
You need to read up (as usual):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raycasting
vs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_tracing
- Jordan
The Last One In
A. Mr. Confused
B. Mr. Troll
C. Mr. TooDumbToCarryBliggysJockstrap
"Mr. Impressive" <10in...@Home.com> wrote in message
news:ef607$44b8bdd4$421392c1$15...@DIALUPUSA.NET...
Blig Merk
between raycasting and raytracing in his post. Read again for
comprehension.
There is not that much difference between raycasting and raytracing.
You xflop fanbitches are splitting hairs as usual, trying to draw away
attention from the main fact, that the SPE excels at raycasting and
raytracing calculations, far beyond the conventional RISC architecture
of just the PowerPC core.
http://www.permadi.com/tutorial/raycast/rayc2.html#RAY-CASTING%20AND%20RAY-TRACING
RAY-CASTING AND RAY-TRACING
"Like ray-casting, ray-tracing "determines the visibility of surfaces
by tracing imaginary rays of light from viewer's eye to the object in
the scene" (Foley 701).
>From both definitions, it seems that ray-casting and ray-tracing is the
same. Indeed, some books use both terms interchangeably. From game
programmers perspective, however, ray-casting is regarded as a special
implementation (subclass) of ray-tracing.
This distinctions because is made because in general, ray-casting is
faster than ray-tracing. This is possible because ray-casting utilizes
some geometric constraint to speed up the rendering process. For
instance: walls are always perpendicular with floors (you can see this
in games such as Doom or Wolfenstein 3D). If it were not for such
constraints, ray-casting will not be feasible. We would not want to
ray-cast arbitrary splines for instance, because it is difficult to
find a geometrical constraints on such shapes."
Air Raid
IDIOT! CELL does not do true Raytracing. it does RayCASTING, a huge
difference.
CELL does not have much capability to RENDER graphics. the rendering
part of even the midrage RSX GPU is 100x faster than CELL at rendering.
since all rendering done on CELL is done in SOFTWARE which is orders
of magnitude slower than hardware in GPUs.
you would need 100 times the performance of CELL to be able to do even
a small amount of true raytracing.
true raytracing will have to be done by a CPU-GPU / CGPU hybrid of some
kind, that has built-in hirdwired hardware that does raytracing or
simulates it. technology that will not exist for consumer devices
until the next decade, MAYBE.
Raytracing on PS3 (or Xbox 360) is pure FANTASY. wake up.
Swam Mollen
can read, Miss Unimpressive made NO MENTION of raycasting.
As allways, you don't even read your own source material.
Read the last paragraph about how Raycasting uses constraints to allow
it to be possible.
Furthermore, having a chip designed specifically to crunch large
amounts of streaming data, like rendering a scene in realtime using
raytracing technology, is nothing new.
http://www.artvps.com/page/14/technology.htm
DSPs and co-processors have been around for donkeys years, all the Cell
is, is a cut down, cost effective way of mass producing them.
Sadly, raytracing is completely irelivent in the dynamic, realtime
worlds generated for games, even on the 'mighty Cell'.
That's why they have a GPU in there too, dimwit.
Zackman
> Based on this info it should be safe to assume that the PS3's CPU
> should be about 5x faster at ray tracing than the Xbox360's CPU.
Your hilarious confusion between raytracing and raycasting aside, if the PS3
is so powerful, why do all the launch games look so average?
You're the same sad asshat who has always argued that the PS2 was "more teh
powerfuller!!!11" than the Xbox, completely ignoring the fact that every
crossplatform game looked better on the Xbox. (Cue your "Burnout had better
SPARKZORZ!!!11" response.)
Argue specs until you're blue in the face, it's how the games look and (more
importantly) play that will determine whether they succeed.
-Z-
Brenden D. Chase
"Zackman" <zac...@SPAMISEVILearthling.net> wrote in message
news:a--dnSDCIO4LxSTZ...@giganews.com...
You could argue that the Number of games as well.
Its really sad when new trolls come in. They just don't match up to the
quality that is Bligmerk. HAHA.
Jordan
Brenden D. Chase wrote:
> Its really sad when new trolls come in. They just don't match up to the
> quality that is Bligmerk. HAHA.
Thing is, he's not a new troll. He's the same dorky kid that changes
his name every two weeks. Dick Jones, Dreamcasted, Wii Wii,
KillzoneBigNutz, HIV Steve, Steve Perkoff and literally about 30 more
I've thankfully forgotten.
- Jordan
Mr. Impressive
>
> Not that impressive considering DOOM was doing it many years ago on a
> 386 CPU.
That would be Normal Mapping, not Ray Tracing, Ray Casting, or even Ray
Charles. And I meant to state Ray Casting. It was very late and I was
very sleepy.
On most forums people would understand that I meant to say Ray Casting,
not that it matters since both tracing and casting require floating
point math, but this is usenet "Home of the Xbotfanqueers" and I should
always be more cautious when posting something. You guys are such a
black hole of stupidity and ignorance that you base credibility on who
cross posts, flames the most, or spells correctly.
--
Mr. Impressive
>
> Brenden D. Chase wrote:
>
> > Its really sad when new trolls come in. They just don't match up to
> > the quality that is Bligmerk. HAHA.
>
> Thing is, he's not a new troll. He's the same dorky kid that changes
> his name every two weeks.
Dick Jones, = Nope
HIV Steve, = Nope
Steve Perkoff = Nope
Jordan's Daddy = Yes
--
Swam Mollen
Miss. Unimpressive wrote:
> Swam Mollen hasath spokeneth theseth wordeths ofeth wisethdometh:
>
> >
> > Not that impressive considering DOOM was doing it many years ago on a
> > 386 CPU.
>
> That would be Normal Mapping, not Ray Tracing, Ray Casting, or even Ray
> Charles. And I meant to state Ray Casting. It was very late and I was
> very sleepy.
Oh now you're just making stuff up as you go along.
Read the fucking Wikipedia article. Doom most certainly IS raycasting.
>
> On most forums people would understand that I meant to say Ray Casting,
> not that it matters since both tracing and casting require floating
> point math, but this is usenet "Home of the Xbotfanqueers" and I should
> always be more cautious when posting something. You guys are such a
> black hole of stupidity and ignorance that you base credibility on who
> cross posts, flames the most, or spells correctly.
"XBOX 360 destroyed" - what did you expect? It's a blatant trolling
attempt. you fucked up, and now you are somehow expecting some sort of
credibility to be salvaged from it.
How about changing your name again, that might make you look clever.
Not.
>
>
> --
Andrew Ryan Chang
>Swam Mollen hasath spokeneth theseth wordeths ofeth wisethdometh:
>> Not that impressive considering DOOM was doing it many years ago on a
>> 386 CPU.
>
>That would be Normal Mapping, not Ray Tracing, Ray Casting, or even Ray
>Charles. And I meant to state Ray Casting. It was very late and I was
>very sleepy.
Man, you're aggressively thick today, Cygnus.
The visibility algorithms that made the semi-3D of the _original_
Wolfenstein possible was raycasting. Doom used BSPs.
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/archive/1643
"Normal mapping", which isn't about visibility calcs at all, was
first seen in iD's games in Doom _3_, which was by no means running on
386s.
>On most forums people would understand that I meant to say Ray Casting,
>not that it matters since both tracing and casting require floating
>point math, but this is usenet "Home of the Xbotfanqueers" and I should
If you, a non-technical lamer who often spews technical terms
without understanding what they mean, use the wrong term, people are right
to assume you probably misused it rather than mistyped it.
--
Smile! You're at Mr. Smiley's.
Dub
> Swam Mollen hasath spokeneth theseth wordeths ofeth wisethdometh:
> > Not that impressive considering DOOM was doing it many years ago on a
> > 386 CPU.
>
> That would be Normal Mapping, not Ray Tracing, Ray Casting, or even Ray
> Charles. And I meant to state Ray Casting. It was very late and I was
> very sleepy.
Ummm... yeah. The original DOOM did normal mapping. And used
holographic interlaced Dolby Pro Logic .gif files, all on a 386. Plus
it was in Sensurround, or something.
> On most forums people would understand that I meant to say Ray Casting,
On any forum anywhere in the world, you'd get slammed for mixing up the
terminology. Go ahead and try it on one of the bigger gaming site
forums (IGN, Gamespy, Gamespot, or AVS). See what happens. I dare
you.
> You guys are such a black hole of stupidity and ignorance that you base
> credibility on who cross posts, flames the most, or spells correctly.
Credibility means not talking out yer ass on any given opportunity,
which is why yours has sunk below zero 'round these parts.
Dub
> You illiterate retards failed to notice he did make a distinction
> between raycasting and raytracing in his post. Read again for
> comprehension.
> There is not that much difference between raycasting and raytracing.
That either of you dipshits feel qualified to discuss concepts you
clearly don't grasp... this amuses me the most.
Brenden D. Chase
"Mr. Impressive" <10in...@Home.com> wrote in message
my mistake.
Brenden D. Chase
"Jordan" <lu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1153025163....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
My mistake..... hey, wait a minute....
Blig Merk
> "Normal mapping", which isn't about visibility calcs at all, was
> first seen in iD's games in Doom _3_, which was by no means running on
> 386s.
Actually, Crytek was showing normal mapping with Far Cry a couple years
before Doom 3, except they called it Polybump.
http://www.crytek.com/news/index.php?n=dev
Before that, normal mapping code and techniques were first presented in
a SIGGRAPH paper in 1999. The fact is game developers rarely invent
something new on their own, they are usually taking research papers
from SIGGRAPH and applying those features, techniques and code into
video games.
Jordan
Sorry man, I just can't believe there's 4 people on this group as
stupid as you are.
- Jordan
Mr. Impressive
>
> Miss. Unimpressive wrote:
> > Swam Mollen hasath spokeneth theseth wordeths ofeth wisethdometh:
> >
> > >
> > > Not that impressive considering DOOM was doing it many years ago
> > > on a 386 CPU.
> >
> > That would be Normal Mapping, not Ray Tracing, Ray Casting, or even
> > Ray Charles. And I meant to state Ray Casting. It was very late and
> > I was very sleepy.
>
> Oh now you're just making stuff up as you go along.
>
> Read the fucking Wikipedia article. Doom most certainly IS raycasting.
I meant Doom 3 was Normal Mapping, the original Doom was such a
pixelated mess I can't see how you can compare it to anything on the
PS3.
--
Mr. Impressive
> Mr. Impressive <Black...@Home.com> wrote:
> > Swam Mollen hasath spokeneth theseth wordeths ofeth wisethdometh:
> >> Not that impressive considering DOOM was doing it many years ago
> on a >> 386 CPU.
> >
> > That would be Normal Mapping, not Ray Tracing, Ray Casting, or even
> > Ray Charles. And I meant to state Ray Casting. It was very late and
> > I was very sleepy.
>
> Man, you're aggressively thick today, Cygnus.
I'm not Cygnus you fuckhead.
>
> The visibility algorithms that made the semi-3D of the original
> Wolfenstein possible was raycasting. Doom used BSPs.
>
> http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/archive/1643
>
> "Normal mapping", which isn't about visibility calcs at all, was
> first seen in iD's games in Doom 3, which was by no means running on
> 386s.
I meant Doom 3 you fucking retard.
>
>
> > On most forums people would understand that I meant to say Ray
> > Casting, not that it matters since both tracing and casting require
> > floating point math, but this is usenet "Home of the Xbotfanqueers"
> > and I should
I'm far more technical that you will ever be.
Atleast I have enough sense to know that the PS2 IS more powerful than
the XBox in a few key areas. You, like the other Xtards simply will not
accept that fact when it is blatantly obvious written right into the
spec sheets.
--
Swam Mollen
Mr. Impressive wrote:
>
> I meant Doom 3 was Normal Mapping,
What relevence does it have to the thread that you were arguing in/ I
mentioned Doom, and you directly refuted my statement, claiming it was
Normal Mapping.
Backpeddling too, what other tactics are you going to use? Changing
your name to Miss Unimpressive?
> the original Doom was such a
> pixelated mess I can't see how you can compare it to anything on the
> PS3.
I was not comparing the graphics, I was comparing the technology. I was
pointing out that a PC from 15 years ago could quite easily raycast in
realtime, and that the PS3 was able to do it wasn't that impressive.
But then considering you got your terminology mixed up, and clearly was
too young to remember Doom when it originally came out, then I suppose
it is understandable that you are trying to backpeddle.
>
>
> --
Andrew Ryan Chang
Yes, well, by "first seen", I meant "first seen in games". But
I was wrong about Doom 3 pioneering it in games.
--
Bart: Actually, we were just planning the father-son river rafting
trip.
Homer: Heh heh, you don't have a son.
-- People unclear on the concept, "Boy Scoutz 'N the Hood"
Andrew Ryan Chang
>Andrew Ryan Chang hasath spokeneth theseth wordeths ofeth wisethdometh:
>> Wolfenstein possible was raycasting. Doom used BSPs.
>>
>> http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/archive/1643
>>
>> "Normal mapping", which isn't about visibility calcs at all, was
>> first seen in iD's games in Doom 3, which was by no means running on
>> 386s.
>
>I meant Doom 3 you fucking retard.
Well, then you lose for not following the discussion. We were
talking about raycasting, the technique you mistermed, and how it was
first applied in games in Wolfenstein 3D (not Doom) back in the days of
386s.
Doom 3 came out long after the time of the 386, so you are wrong
no matter how you slice it.
>I'm far more technical that you will ever be.
*laugh* Saying won't make it so, Cyg.
stefa...@yahoo.com
Mr. Impressive wrote:
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/Brainshrimp/CBIMG002-1.png
>
> 1 SPE is as fast at raytracing as 1 x86 processor.
> When using a multicore approach you only get a 30%+- increase per core,
> maybe 60% at a theoretical limit, but when using a multi SPE approach
> you actually get a full 100% increase per SPE.
>
> should be about 5x faster at ray tracing than the Xbox360's CPU.
It would be interesting to see the performance on volumetric data; let
say 512x512x4000 12-bit full body CT scan.
Parallel projection 2048x2048 (4-Mrays)
Phong's lighting per each sample
Three tissues:
skin - semitransparent film
muscles - transparent enough to see bones behind
bones - high opacity setting (4-8 sampling before ray stops)
The super-sampling: at least 8 samples per cell (can be adaptive is
error does not cause artifacts)
> 1 SPE is as fast at raytracing as 1 x86 processor.
> When using a multicore approach you only get a 30%+- increase per core,
> maybe 60% at a theoretical limit, but when using a multi SPE approach
> you actually get a full 100% increase per SPE.
I observed almost ~1.94 speed from the doubling of the number of cores.
The scalability on Opteron depends on memory access pattern and it
apparently may be done efficiently.
It takes ~16 second to render on Dual Opteron 280.
It takes ~31 second to render on Dual Opteron 250
It takes ~61 second to render on Dual Opteron 150