31 ms·
I suspect Wilson was saying "Since 5% of the runtime of the raytracing algorithm cannot be sped up through parallelism, even if the time needed to run the other
by randcraw 10y ago
I suspect Wilson was saying "Since 5% of the runtime of the raytracing algorithm cannot be sped up through parallelism, even if the time needed to run the other 95% were reduced to zero due to parallelism (or some other magic), the speedup of raytracing could never exceed 100/(100-95), or 20X."
In essence, Amdahl's Law trumps Moore's Law.
- marcosdumay 10y agoMoore's Law trumps Amdahl's Law when you decide to simply solve two problems at the same time. Instead of a 19X speedup on rendering, you get an 18X speedup on both rendering, physics, and AI, and gain some extra responsivity on the mean-time.
- Dylan16807 10y agoAnd that's true with some workloads, and maybe some systems that use raytracing, but not raytracing itself. The only overhead is combining the final data from each processor, and that's log(n) in the number of processors with a very small constant. A system with a million independent processors can raytrace very nearly a million times faster.