Monday, August 18th 2008

NVIDIA Demonstrates Real-time Interactive Ray-tracing

Ray-tracing is the buzzword with consumer and professional graphics these days. It's a technique with which accurate representation of light with its behaviour in adherence with the laws of physics can be done when generating 3D computer graphics.

NVIDIA took ray-tracing to an interactive level with its work on an interactive real-time ray-tracing application. Currently NVIDIA has a larger stash of intellectual property in the field of ray-tracing than other players such as AMD or Intel, with the acquisition of MentalRay, a company that is pretty-much a standard in Hollywood.
At the Siggraph 2008 event, NVIDIA demonstrated a fully interactive GPU-based ray-tracer, which featured real-time ray-tracing in 30 frames/second (fps) and a resolution of 1920 x 1080 pixels. The demo saw NVIDIA flex its muscle with using almost every element in ray-tracing for which technology has been developed so far, namely a two-million polygon demo, an image-based paint shader, ray traced shadows, reflections and refractions.

To maintain those 30 fps at a high display resolution, NVIDIA used four Quadro FX 5800 graphics cards working in tandem. These next-gen Quadro boards are based on GT200(b) GPUs, come with 240 shader processors and 4 GB of GDDR3 memory (for a total of 960 shaders and 16 GB of GDDR3 memory).

Source: TG Daily
Add your own comment

93 Comments on NVIDIA Demonstrates Real-time Interactive Ray-tracing

#1
GSG-9
PrudentPrincess said:
Don't you guys get it? This is one of the first Nvidia demos of raytracing, and what you see is excatly what they wanted you to see. If they wanted to add nice shaders, shadows, HDR lighting they would,
I would give up, if people are to stupid to check above to see where the conversation is before they post they deserve to be ignored.

PrudentPrincess said:
they're not stupid. This was a live demo. Their goal was obviously to make a playable example of raytracing, and because of the extreme amount of hardware it took they probably couldn't afford to add nice effects.
I would not say that. I would say they did not even try to add nice textures. It was not the goal. I doubt they even tried to implement it. I think they could afford it, I just think they did not, texturing the car may have brought the frames down to 25 or something, that may not have been acceptable for them for a live demo, but to be honest I think they just did not implement it because they wanted it to be clear what ray tracing was on its own without any confusion on which lines were on the textures and which ones were being ray traced (for example the seam of the trunk on the car).

yesss. I used the the phrase I think 3 times above and I dont think anyone cares what I think.
Posted on Reply
#2
Megasty
DarkMatter said:
Very well put Energy.



OMG do people read others' posts. Look at the few ones above yours, they have said it all. Ruby one looks better because they made it to look better. This one is an I-N-TE-R-A-C-T-I-V-E T-E-C-H-N-O-L-O-G-Y D-E-M-O. It's meant to show that 1920x1200 @ 30 fps can be done. Especially in ray-tracing textures don't matter as much as in rasterizers performance wise and same happens with many effects. This demo is lacking them because they were out of their scope, but they could add them with any significant performance penalty.

About the hardware, we don't know the one used by Ati, but those Quadros are nothing else than GTX cards. So in reality they just used 4 GTX280. Sure, they are more expensive than RV770 derivatives but not by that much and they are really doing a lot more work than on the Ruby demo.

And again, as many many many others have said it doesn't matter how it looks. What looks better real games or 3Dmark?


Hint: 3Dmark is not interactive.

And about tesselation. Yeah they used tesselation and that is good, as it increases the detail level with minimal performnce penalty (compared to actual polyfons), but tesselation on the other hand very hardly adds details (and also very hardly can be animated), it just makes things smoother. And that's a very different thing. Nvidia demo demostrates that they can use 2 million of actual polygons that can be transformed and animated. The Ruby demo even if it had 10 million polys after the tesselation was applied doesn't mean anything special, as the 2 ones of the Nvidia demo are far more interesting from a real performance point of view.
Spelling it out for them won't help. They just think it looks like shit. They think 10K of cards should put out better. They also don't know anything about ray-tracing :rolleyes: This is definitely the future of gaming as well as movies. In 10 yrs, this shit will be blowing us all away :toast:
Posted on Reply
#3
Darkrealms
Megasty said:
Spelling it out for them won't help. They just think it looks like shit. They think 10K of cards should put out better. They also don't know anything about ray-tracing :rolleyes: This is definitely the future of gaming as well as movies. In 10 yrs, this shit will be blowing us all away :toast:
LoL, don't say 10 years. Ray-tracing will probably be old hat in 10 years. After all when a video card comes with 10gb RAM Ray-tracing will be childs play.
Posted on Reply
#4
DarkMatter
Megasty said:
Spelling it out for them won't help. They just think it looks like shit. They think 10K of cards should put out better. They also don't know anything about ray-tracing :rolleyes: This is definitely the future of gaming as well as movies. In 10 yrs, this shit will be blowing us all away :toast:
LOL You are so right. I should have learnt from what people said about Intel's ray-traced Quake.

Also in the hardware department, I should have learnt from what some people said about UT3 Engine when one of the developers was asked about the graphics card he used to test it on and how it ran. He said a Quadro and decent fps. I can't remember which one, but I do remember the price of it at the time: $2000+, it was a 7900 with more RAM. Guess what people said. ;)
Posted on Reply
#5
Mussels
Moderprator
overall theres a few things that i feel should be reapeated in this thread.

#1: it took 4 video cards to do this, instead of TONS OF COMPUTERS IN A SERVER FARM. Its a LOT faster now and possible on ONE machine, as opposed to lots.

#2: The reference to HDR. everyone disliked it at first too, and it was a performance killer. now its almost free and its tuned in the way people like it. Shadows in games are the same - now we're getting reflections. Imagine 100% perfect shadows added to your favourite game now.. remember its going to be ADDED into existing things, its not taking anything else away!

#3: it was INTERACTIVE. Thats a huge step from a simple non-interactive movie.

#4: darkmatters post right above this one. the UT3 engine was developed on a $2,000 card... that was a 7900. Give it 2 years and this amount of power will be nothing! look at a GTX280 now compared to a 7900 back then
Posted on Reply
#6
DarkMatter
#5 Why the lack of nitty gritty textures and effects doesn't matter at all.

Although you need a bit of knowledge of what ray-tracing is to understand this point. I found this link "Ray-tracing for the masses" that explains how it works, for those who don't know and want to learn.

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~rademach/xroads-RT/RTarticle.html

After reading it what you have to understand of the demo is this:

1- All the ray-tracing work (which involves reflection/refraction testing) is already done in this Nvidia demo. It's by far the most demanding task a ray-tracer must do.

2- At every surface found by the rays, a COLOR has already been picked through a texture load. Whether that texture is of good quality or not (or if it is modified by a shader) won't matter so much, the performance is almost the same as the task of fetching the textures already happened in the demo.

3- Many of the effects you can add are not as costly as the geometry surfaces. i.e. If you add fog, fog does not have reflection or it is usually small enough that would be a waste of resources to test it. That means that ray splitting has not to be done, it's just applying a transparency (with refraction, of course, this is ray-tracing after all :)).

Or blurring if you prefer, blurring in ray-tracing just means changing the direction of the rays, which is what actually happens in reality.


And that's it. That's why it doesn't matter if the demo looks pretty or not. It's quite an achievement and should be understood as it is. Hope this helps. :toast:
Posted on Reply
#7
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
All the people bitching about how much hardware this demo required need to learn to read. As I already said, HDR started out the same way. It required huge amounts of hardware to pull of in real time, now a $50 card can do it.
Posted on Reply
#8
KainXS
sounds like your all bitching back and forth to me, lol

and over some pictures, , how do you "actually" know how much workload is actually on these cards:laugh::laugh:

they can say its how many polygons they want but we should all know how these PR games usually play out
Posted on Reply
#9
Hayder_Master
maybe if we see some video can explain more than that picture's
Posted on Reply
#10
tkpenalty
This is a desperate attempt to counter AMD's refined example of ray tracing. Nvidia's example screams of being rushed.
Posted on Reply
#11
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Valdez said:
Thats true, but nv used 4 quadro fx 5800 4gb for this ray tracing demo @30fps. How much does it cost?
Now the question is, how many rv770 needed for this ruby demo. 2, 3 or 4? Anyway it will cost much less.
Which one looks better? Definitely Ruby.
Link me to a site which says they used desktop Radeons for AMD's demo and not a farm.
Posted on Reply
#12
kaneda
btarunr said:
Link me to a site which says they used desktop Radeons for AMD's demo and not a farm.
i was pretty sure i read something on the AMD website about it being rendered on two workstation cards in crossfire.



also http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/38145/135/


edit: direct from AMD( http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/AboutAMD/0,,51_52_15438_15106,00.html?redir=cin01 )

Rendered in real-time and interactive, this is a brief video from the first Cinema 2.0 demo, premiered by AMD in San Francisco on June 16, 2008. The interactive demo was rendered by a single PC equipped with two "RV770" codenamed graphics cards powered by an AMD Phenom™ X4 9850 Processor and AMD 790FX Chipset. The full demo shows cinema-quality digital images rendered in real-time with interactivity. Check back later this summer for a video of the full Ruby Cinema 2.0 demo
Posted on Reply
#13
GSG-9
tkpenalty said:
This is a desperate attempt to counter AMD's refined example of ray tracing. Nvidia's example screams of being rushed.
Refined example of ray tracing? you made me laugh out loud in real life. Its a fine example of computer graphics. They put so much eye candy in it people cant tell what the ray tracing is (its a full tech demo for Cinema 2.0 NOT. I repeat NOT for ray tracing alone.) Nvidia released a demo of RAY TRACING you think its a public response to AMDs demo? Thats funny...because it was not public. None of us have seen it, it was not for us. It was a tech demo for people in the industry. And I can see why, half the people not in the industry are to stupid to see the point of the demo and did not deserve to know it exists as this thread demonstrates.



kaneda said:

The interactive demo was rendered by a single PC equipped with two "RV770" codenamed graphics cards
2 4870x2's. 4 Cores. The same equivalent as 4 280's, a little less efficient but equivocal in my opinion.
Posted on Reply
#14
rflair
GSG-9 said:
Refined example of ray tracing? you made me laugh out loud in real life. Its a fine example of computer graphics. They put so much eye candy in it people cant tell what the ray tracing is (its a full tech demo for Cinema 2.0 NOT. I repeat NOT for ray tracing alone.) Nvidia released a demo of RAY TRACING you think its a public response to AMDs demo? Thats funny...because it was not public. None of us have seen it, it was not for us. It was a tech demo for people in the industry. And I can see why, half the people not in the industry are to stupid to see the point of the demo and did not deserve to know it exists as this thread demonstrates.





2 4870x2's. 4 Cores. The same equivalent as 4 280's, a little less efficient but equivocal in my opinion.
From what I've seen of both the ATI demo is much better, the fact that it doing ray tracing and more just make it a better tech demo.

Are you propping up Nvidia's demo just because your a fanboy or something? Because thats what your coming off as.

The reflections in the Nvidia demo are limited to the few colors used in its environment, there is a reason all the buildings are grey and few color on anything else.

The ATI demo is just more robust, even you can see that.

Still its good to see both companies moving forward with some very nice technology.
Posted on Reply
#15
GSG-9
rflair said:
From what I've seen of both the ATI demo is much better, the fact that it doing ray tracing and more just make it a better tech demo.

Are you propping up Nvidia's demo just because your a fanboy or something? Because thats what your coming off as.
Are you an idiot? I have a 4870 in my rig.

rflair said:

The reflections in the Nvidia demo are limited to the few colors used in its environment, there is a reason all the buildings are grey and few color on anything else.
There are no other colors because its pure ray tracing! its taking everything from the environment! I have had to ray trace BY HAND with a calculator in AP physics. There are no other colors unless the ray passes through another medium (Glass, Water, Fog, etc.) which bends it (the ray) towards or away from the normal (90 degrees) (changing the frequency/wavelength of the ray) which in turn changes the color that is seen. Your bitching about them not picking colors you liked for the tech demo that was not intended for customers, but members of the industry to see? you sound very ignorant. Are you under the impression that if they had used more colors it would have been harder for the scene to be processed? If thats the case I will ease your mind. It would render just as fast.


rflair said:

The ATI demo is just more robust, even you can see that.

Still its good to see both companies moving forward with some very nice technology.
YES. Its a full tech demo for Cinema 2.0. And it was a public demo. For us they have the video online, its public. Nvidia is not showcasing a new technology suite, there just f****** showing raytracing in real time. They could do more, but that was not the goal. and you were not supposed to even see this much. Period.

You might want to read some before you jump in to a thread like this.
Posted on Reply
#16
rflair
[quote="GSG-9, post: 935675"]Are you an idiot? I have a 4870 in my rig.



Opps
Posted on Reply
#17
rflair
GSG-9 said:
Are you an idiot? I have a 4870 in my rig.



There are no other colors because its pure ray tracing! its taking everything from the environment! I have had to ray trace BY HAND with a calculator in AP physics. There are no other colors unless the ray passes through another medium (Glass, Water, Fog, etc.) which bends it (the ray) towards or away from the normal (90 degrees) (changing the frequency/wavelength of the ray) which in turn changes the color that is seen. Your bitching about them not picking colors you liked for the tech demo that was not intended for customers, but members of the industry to see? you sound very ignorant. Are you under the impression that if they had used more colors it would have been harder for the scene to be processed? If thats the case I will ease your mind. It would render just as fast.



YES. Its a full tech demo for Cinema 2.0. And it was a public demo. For us they have the video online, its public. Nvidia is not showcasing a new technology suite, there just f****** showing raytracing in real time. They could do more, but that was not the goal. and you were not supposed to even see this much. Period.

You might want to read some before you jump in to a thread like this.
The only person sounding ignorant and directly calling other people stupid and an idiot is you. Must be nice from behind your keyboard, believe me it wouldn't be so nice face to face.

People are allowed their opinions and should not have to deal with ass hat responses from a dweeb hiding behind his PC.

Answer things with respect to others, knowledge is a good thing to share but you aren't coming off as knowledgeable just everything you've accused others of being.

And I could debate the entire light and the way it reflects and is handle in true environments and that Nvidia did a very, very simple demo but you have proved that your not up to that.
Posted on Reply
#18
Valdez
GSG-9 said:

2 4870x2's. 4 Cores. The same equivalent as 4 280's, a little less efficient but equivocal in my opinion.
Two rv770 means two 4850 or two 4870 or one 4870x2.
The 4870x2's codename is r700 not rv770.
Posted on Reply
#19
Mussels
Moderprator
GSG9's point is simple: Nvidias demo was PURE ray tracing, while ATI's is ray tracing with extras added on top.

Of course ATI's will look better - its DESIGNED to. Nvidias was PURELY ray tracing.

Its like saying HDR is crap simply because in the earliest of tests, they didnt include any other shader effects to go along with it - it was plain and boring. Duh, its early stages - they can leave out whatever they want for tech demos as its about the TECH, NOT about 'looking good'
Posted on Reply
#20
Valdez
Mussels said:
GSG9's point is simple: Nvidias demo was PURE ray tracing, while ATI's is ray tracing with extras added on top.

Of course ATI's will look better - its DESIGNED to. Nvidias was PURELY ray tracing.
Summary:

Nvidia: 30fps in raytracing without extras with four uberexpensive 4gb cards.
Ati: 25+fps in raytracing + extras with two cheap cards.

Am i correct?
Posted on Reply
#21
GSG-9
rflair said:
The only person sounding ignorant and directly calling other people stupid and an idiot is you. Must be nice from behind your keyboard, believe me it wouldn't be so nice face to face.

People are allowed their opinions and should not have to deal with ass hat responses from a dweeb hiding behind his PC.

Answer things with respect to others, knowledge is a good thing to share but you aren't coming of as knowledgeable just everything you've accused others of being.
Don't insult me in the first post directed at me and you might earn my respect, if you had not noticed I did not insult Tk or anyone else just the guy who stepped in, used some loaded words and acted with a god complex. Did you see me make any comments about the ATi demo besides that it was run on 4 cores? No. Thats not what this thread is about its about NVIDIA Demonstrating Real-time Interactive Ray-tracing
Hmm, so possibly, when I speak about the topic at hand...in a thread about the topic, its no more bios than that I am on topic hmm?
I do like ray tracing, it is how our eyes create the environment we see. It IS the future of rendering. That is something people need to understand. I would like them to understand that Nvidia was trying to show Ray Tracing and that was the only thing, hence the scene was not painted with effects. But if people dont get it to bad.


People can have all the opinions they want and they can post them as much as they want. Including saying anything they want about the aesthetics of this demo.

Im sure as hell not getting into a pissing match with you. If you want to delve into what you think of me by all means continue, you will piss off a moderator pretty quick pulling the thread off topic. Which sounds like a good idea before you get to your 20th post. This would be a good time to shut up or interject something useful into the thread.

Valdez said:
Two rv770 means two 4850 or two 4870 or one 4870x2.
The 4870x2's codename is r700 not rv770.
That is more impressive I must say, I was under the impression the rv770 was the x2 card. I do wonder if havok has anything to do with ATi's ray tracing...

Mussels said:
GSG9's point is simple: Nvidias demo was PURE ray tracing, while ATI's is ray tracing with extras added on top.

Of course ATI's will look better - its DESIGNED to. Nvidias was PURELY ray tracing.

Its like saying HDR is crap simply because in the earliest of tests, they didnt include any other shader effects to go along with it - it was plain and boring. Duh, its early stages - they can leave out whatever they want for tech demos as its about the TECH, NOT about 'looking good'
You just made me feel allot better, I have felt like im talking to a brick wall today and yesterday with different people posting the same things redundantly that have already been covered in various threads and then the same responses follow...I'm glad someone knew what I meant.
Posted on Reply
#22
DrPepper
The Doctor is in the house
Valdez said:
Summary:

Nvidia: 30fps in raytracing without extras with four uberexpensive 4gb cards.
Ati: 25+fps in raytracing + extras with two cheap cards.

Am i correct?
Who said they were cheap :eek: Could have been RV770 workstation cards. If you look back at the earliest physics models they were rather bare and blocky and now compared to physics models that are being touted.
Posted on Reply
#23
PCpraiser100
DrPepper said:
Who said they were cheap :eek: Could have been RV770 workstation cards. If you look back at the earliest physics models they were rather bare and blocky and now compared to physics models that are being touted.
My friend's dad who works for AMD told me on the phone last night that the basic components used to play/develop the Cinema 2.0 demo was the V5700 on a 9950 BE Phenom with 4GB of DDR2 RAM, no OC was in the process. I see a more compatible approach compared to enough computer workstation power to diagnose a space station...
Posted on Reply
#24
DarkMatter
Give up guys. If they can't understand my last post, they will not understand why it doesn't matter that the Ati one looks better.

rflair said:
The reflections in the Nvidia demo are limited to the few colors used in its environment, there is a reason all the buildings are grey and few color on anything else.
Don't want to insult you, but this just shows your limited knowlegde. For the 2 billio0nth time, this is a tech demo. Ray-tracing in a glance does this: find a surface (polygon), calculate the amount of light reflected/refracted, extract* the color of that position in the poly, move on to the next surface.

*It doesn't matter if that texture is a beatiful high detailed one or a completely grey one. In both cases the operation "LOAD_TEX (x,y)" or whatever the name it has, DOES occur. The "performance hit" is the same in both cases. Understand this for once before continuing with the nonsense and the acusations FFS.

Another thing to consider BEFORE talking about the hardware used is that this demo was at 1920x1200 while the other one was on 720p. And forget about resolution scalability of raster renderers, ray-tracing is 100% dependant on resolution. You can't compare both demos because they are very different, and both are as impressive. In a manner, this one is even more impressive, as I remember reading that Ati couldn't achieve such high resolutions no matter how much hardware they used.

And finally, YES, Ati hardware NOW is a lot better suited for ray-tracing becuse it has tons of shaders and a tesselator. Yet it can't do ray-tracing on a level it would be useful for games. This is a ray-tracing demo, not a demo to see which hardware can run it. Whenever the renderer software is prepared, hardware capable of running it will be released. Or do you honestly believe Nvidia is stupid or that they can't put as many shaders as Ati on one chip? When ray-tracing is mature enough Ati, Intel and Nvidia will all have their capable hardware, don't worry.
Posted on Reply
#25
GSG-9
PCpraiser100 said:
My friend's dad who works for AMD told me on the phone last night that the basic components used to play the Cinema 2.0 demo was the V5700 on a 9950 BE Phenom with 4GB of DDR2 RAM, no OC was in the process. I see a more compatible approach compared to enough computer workstation power to overclock a space station...
lol I had to look up the V5700 :o
I guess that makes since, it was a tech demo so it would make since that they used 2 workstation cards vs. a Hd series card.


DarkMatter said:

Another thing to consider BEFORE talking about the hardware used is that this demo was at 1920x1200 while the other one was on 720p. And forget about resolution scalability of raster renderers, ray-tracing is 100% dependant on resolution. You can't compare both demos because they are very different, and both are as impressive. In a manner, this one is even more impressive, as I remember reading that Ati couldn't achieve such high resolutions no matter how much hardware they used.
Very Very true, my monitor looks better at 1680x1050 than 1920x1200 anyway. +1 for me :) (and 10%+ Performance increase)
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment