7 ms·
Given the slowing of Moore's law and transistor density, it seems unlikely to me that ray tracing will catch up with raster graphics in the next decade, at leas
by CoolGuySteve 8y ago
Given the slowing of Moore's law and transistor density, it seems unlikely to me that ray tracing will catch up with raster graphics in the next decade, at least not for consumer-level prices.
For the 10-series to 20-series upgrade, the highest end NVidia die size increased from 471mm^2 to 754mm^2 and the second highest went from 314mm^2 to 545mm^2. And that's with a move from 16nm to 12nm.
The 7nm NVidia card might have better economies of scale but unlike Navi, there's nothing rumored to be in the pipeline over the next year.
- _bxg1 8y agoRTX isn't driven by increases in sheer transistor density. It uses dedicated, specialized hardware, along with machine learning denoising algorithms. These are very new areas of development, not yet bound by the factors slowing down Moore's law.
- CoolGuySteve 8y agoAre those units not made with transistors? This sounds like bullshit, frankly.
- dTal 8y agoAmazingly, it's possible to make a chip that is faster at a specific task than another chip, while not using more transistors than that other chip.
- CoolGuySteve 8y agoExcept that’s not the case here. The RTX units are attached to the CUDA cores and are physically larger than the 10-series CUDA cores. Graphics is trivially parallelizable for the most part and the number of transistors available mostly linearly impacts rendering performance. This is a physical reality, the new chip is bigger and it ray traces an ancient game at less than 60fps 1080p with significant noise and aliasing artifacts despite having specialized hardware. I’m not sure why I’m expected to engage in a Gish Gallop of NVidia marketing buzzwords when the facts are clear. It’s bullshit, plain and simple. Neither you nor the grandparent are giving actual facts.