Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Benchmarks Of AMD's Newest Gallium3D Driver

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #71
    Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
    Why, so we could all play a ray-traced game at 1 fps? I'll stick with something that will actually be playable, thanks.

    OpenCL still sucks in the binary drivers enough that no one is committing to it yet, let's wait for someone to at least start using the API before the OSS devs move their attention away from OpenGL.
    you don't unterstand what raytracing is thats because there are no FPS anymore you get unlimied fps on any kind of hardware with raytracing.

    on raytracing you have rays per seconds RPS

    less RPS means just more black or white pixels left per frame.

    Comment


    • #72
      Originally posted by 89c51 View Post
      since it was mentioned using opencl for graphics related stuff (even thought i suspect airlied's post was a bit sarcastic )


      does this thing makes sense???

      i thought opencl was a framework for tasks that are computation intensive ie decoders, math heavy stuff etc ???
      it makes sence thats because openCL is the only API who can beat directX9/10/11

      you can do better graphics in openCL than directX11 can do it.

      thats because you can do raytracing in openCL and directX11 can not handle raytracing.

      Comment


      • #73
        Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
        it makes sence thats because openCL is the only API who can beat directX9/10/11

        you can do better graphics in openCL than directX11 can do it.

        thats because you can do raytracing in openCL and directX11 can not handle raytracing.
        OpenCL is not a graphics API. It can be used for graphics-related tasks, but it is slower than GL/D3D because it lacks certain fixed-function features (e.g. blending).

        Of course you can do raytracing in GL/D3D, what do you think people where using all those years before OpenCL was released?

        Comment


        • #74
          Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
          OpenCL is not a graphics API. It can be used for graphics-related tasks, but it is slower than GL/D3D because it lacks certain fixed-function features (e.g. blending).

          Of course you can do raytracing in GL/D3D, what do you think people where using all those years before OpenCL was released?
          in my point of view all fixed function pipelines are just bad in visual Quality.

          this fake shader lights and shader effects are just bad in quality if you compare this to an real raytracing lighting.

          show me your D3D code man.

          they do raytracing in software on the cpu in the past-

          Comment


          • #75
            Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
            you don't unterstand what raytracing is thats because there are no FPS anymore you get unlimied fps on any kind of hardware with raytracing.
            I think you have no idea what you're talking about. Actually, I KNOW you have no idea what you're talking about. Par for the course.

            The scenes in a ray tracer are still rendered into a single frame which is displayed once fully assembled. There is a very definite FPS involved in the process.

            The FPS will be dependent on a similar combination of factors that concerns triangle-mesh rendering, including the destination framebuffer size, number of objects, and complexity of the lighting equations used.

            The "RPS" you mention is more or less the same idea as the "triangles per second" or "fragment fill rate" that you have on contemporary 3D rasterization hardware. All it indicates is how complex of a scene the hardware can manage while maintaining a usable FPS.

            Carmack mentioned that he hoped that we'd have MIXED MODE renderers in within 3-5 years. These are not actual ray tracing engines, but rather traditional triangle rasterizers that used some extremely simplified and inaccurate ray tracing techniques to compute shadows and lighting on the GPU during rendering rather than on the CPU before rendering. That's it, nothing more.

            Also, just to be clear, even if you're right about ray-tracing magically becoming feasible, DirectX is in no way being threatened by OpenCL, because DirectX has DirectCompute -- same damn thing, just a different API and syntax. More games make use of DirectCompute than OpenCL by a huge margin right now, today. (Not for rendering; for physics and such.)

            Comment


            • #76
              Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
              you don't unterstand what raytracing is thats because there are no FPS anymore you get unlimied fps on any kind of hardware with raytracing.

              on raytracing you have rays per seconds RPS

              less RPS means just more black or white pixels left per frame.
              The notion of "frame" is independent of the rendering method (rasterization or ray-tracing). Even ray-traced games use frames, as you yourself mention, which means "frames per second" is well defined.

              There are very good reasons for using frames instead of displaying each drawing operation on the fly. Seeing each pixel update as it is traced (or rasterized) would be extremely annoying to the user - try it! Modify glxgears to turn off double-buffering (it's a 2 line change). You won't have "frames" anymore but the result won't be pretty.

              Comment


              • #77
                Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                in my point of view all fixed function pipelines are just bad in visual Quality.

                this fake shader lights and shader effects are just bad in quality if you compare this to an real raytracing lighting.

                show me your D3D code man.

                they do raytracing in software on the cpu in the past-
                First result on google: http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/i3dkdtree/

                Our system also takes advantage of GPUs' strengths at rasterization and shading to offer a mode where rasterization replaces eye ray scene intersection, and primary hits and local shading are produced with standard Direct3D code. For 1024x1024 renderings of our scenes with shadows and Phong shading, we achieve 12-18 frames per second.

                Comment


                • #78
                  Originally posted by elanthis View Post
                  I think you have no idea what you're talking about. Actually, I KNOW you have no idea what you're talking about. Par for the course.

                  The scenes in a ray tracer are still rendered into a single frame which is displayed once fully assembled. There is a very definite FPS involved in the process.

                  The FPS will be dependent on a similar combination of factors that concerns triangle-mesh rendering, including the destination framebuffer size, number of objects, and complexity of the lighting equations used.

                  The "RPS" you mention is more or less the same idea as the "triangles per second" or "fragment fill rate" that you have on contemporary 3D rasterization hardware. All it indicates is how complex of a scene the hardware can manage while maintaining a usable FPS.
                  you are just wrong raytracing does not care about your frame to display.

                  on any kind of raytracing hardware you can have allways the max FPS the monitor can handle.

                  the only difference between a low RPS hardware and a high RPS hardware is the black or white ant Noise over the screen.

                  more RPS means less ant Noise


                  and your talking about FPS with raytracing is just complete nonsence !

                  watch some exampel videos on youtube on slow hardware and on fast hardware the only difference is the Ant Noise


                  Originally posted by elanthis View Post
                  Carmack mentioned that he hoped that we'd have MIXED MODE renderers in within 3-5 years. These are not actual ray tracing engines, but rather traditional triangle rasterizers that used some extremely simplified and inaccurate ray tracing techniques to compute shadows and lighting on the GPU during rendering rather than on the CPU before rendering. That's it, nothing more.

                  Also, just to be clear, even if you're right about ray-tracing magically becoming feasible, DirectX is in no way being threatened by OpenCL, because DirectX has DirectCompute -- same damn thing, just a different API and syntax. More games make use of DirectCompute than OpenCL by a huge margin right now, today. (Not for rendering; for physics and such.)
                  yes DirectCompute but i compare it to directX yes DCompute can beat openCL..

                  Comment


                  • #79
                    Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
                    you are sure they use any fixed funktions of dx ?

                    i think they only use HLSL and your source do not do the raytracing fully on the GPU they do it on the CPU and only a tiny part goes to the shader cores on the GPU..-

                    Comment


                    • #80
                      Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                      you are sure they use any fixed funktions of dx ?
                      Fixed-function DX died with DX7. This solution uses DX9, which means HLSL.

                      There are hundreds of HLSL-/GLSL-based raytracing implementations. You don't need OpenCL to make this happen.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X