Intel's Yorkfield CPU is a Ray-Trace monster

[AirRaid]

Yorkfield is a Ray-Trace monster

By Theo Valich in Leipzig: Wednesday 22 August 2007, 13:56
CHIPZILLA SHOWED A DEMONSTRATION of Ray-Tracer on its latest
processors, and we have to say that the demo was quite a surprise to
us.

Who knows, maybe in a year CPUs might be good for graphics again.

The reason for this is because of the advances made by the RT group
inside Intel. Daniel Pohl, author of Quake III and IV Ray-Trace
demonstrations held a presentation that showed that Ray-Trace came
from 4FPS in 640x480 resolution on a 50 Xeon CPUs machine to over 90
FPS (frames per second) in 768x768 on a single machine with Yorkfield
processor running at sub-3GHz clockspeed.

http://www.theinquirer.net/images/articles/Yorkfield.jpg


We all know that old Xeon was a Netbust, but this difference is just
insane.

The demo machine was based on a Gigabyte's X38 motherboard, two AMD
Radeon HD 2900XT cards in CrossFire mode, Corsair memory, and Intel
45nm quad-core processor, known to most people as Yorkfield. However,
graphics part was not used at all, so you could have GeForce 8400 or
Radeon HD 2400, this render would work as fast.

This does not stop here, since the upcoming "Skulltrail" system will
feature two Yorkfield processors with regular memory, making V8 rev2 a
very powerful and more affordable system. Judging from what we saw in
the morning, 8-core dual-Yorkfield system should be able to run the
fascinating demonstrations in 1280x720. This would be a first for HD
resolution with no major issues (or actually 1280x1280), but we will
have to wait until Q4 to see that one.

Bear in mind that this demonstration did not include some of the
special effects used in world of RT, because support for SSE4 is still
not implemented. Scaling is at nearly 100%, so with every extra core
you will get around 99% scaling boost, or a near-perfect code.

The lads in RT development plan to enable Intel's Ray Tracer available
for gaming developers, so that Ray-Trace can become a reality.
Timeframe for delivery is early 2009, and if you are great in logical
games, we will leave you to calculate with what Intel product is
planned to come in the same timeframe. µ

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=41858

 

[Skybuck Flying]

Screenshots look different.

Maybe second demo was simpler than the first ?

Bye,
Skybuck.

 

[Miles Bader]

Screenshots look different.

Maybe second demo was simpler than the first ?

Not to mention it's kind of absurd to think all that improvement was
from the change in processors. Intel seems to put a lot of work into
optimized ray-tracing algorithms (judging from all the papers I've seen
from them), and I'd expect this is just as much or more the result of
better algorithms than a better processor.

-Miles

 

[the dog from that film you saw]

Not to mention it's kind of absurd to think all that improvement was
from the change in processors. Intel seems to put a lot of work into
optimized ray-tracing algorithms (judging from all the papers I've seen
from them), and I'd expect this is just as much or more the result of
better algorithms than a better processor.

years ago in the days of the amiga, my computer magazine of choice would
print nice raytraced pictures and then detail how many DAYS it had taken to
render that single frame.
real time 60fps raytracing would be rather nice - it could be the next step
in video game technology.

 

[Miles Bader]

years ago in the days of the amiga, my computer magazine of choice would
print nice raytraced pictures and then detail how many DAYS it had taken to
render that single frame.

Of course, as hardware/algorithms improve, so do people's
expectations...

[I saw in an article somewhere that the average rendering time for the
recent "Transformers" movie was something like 38 hours per frame.
Those are really, really, high-quality frames though... :-]

-Miles

 

[Skybuck Flying]

years ago in the days of the amiga, my computer magazine of choice would
print nice raytraced pictures and then detail how many DAYS it had taken
to
render that single frame.

Of course, as hardware/algorithms improve, so do people's
expectations...

[I saw in an article somewhere that the average rendering time for the
recent "Transformers" movie was something like 38 hours per frame.
Those are really, really, high-quality frames though... :-]

Gje and I still thought the movie looked like shit.

They don't even transform properly, their metal just melts and shifts into
place.

It didn't even have to typical cool transformer sound (Only optimus had
it a little bit)

Bye,
Skybuck.

 

[Miles Bader]

[I saw in an article somewhere that the average rendering time for the
recent "Transformers" movie was something like 38 hours per frame.
Those are really, really, high-quality frames though... :-]

Gje and I still thought the movie looked like shit.

They don't even transform properly, their metal just melts and shifts into
place.

IIRC, the article I read said that the modelling of the transformations
was fairly accurate (e.g., the transformer models were composed of [many
thousands of] actual parts attached to each other via normal joints, and
nothing "collides" during transformation etc), but somebody made the
"artistic" decision to speed up the transformations and avoid the
extended sequences from the old shows (I dunno, I never watched them).

Anyway, from a rendering/modelling/simulation point of view the FX in
Transformers were pretty fscking amazing. The movie itself,
well.... truly the ultimate Michael Bay movie ...

-Miles

 

[the dog from that film you saw]

IIRC, the article I read said that the modelling of the transformations
was fairly accurate (e.g., the transformer models were composed of [many
thousands of] actual parts attached to each other via normal joints, and
nothing "collides" during transformation etc), but somebody made the
"artistic" decision to speed up the transformations and avoid the
extended sequences from the old shows (I dunno, I never watched them).

Anyway, from a rendering/modelling/simulation point of view the FX in
Transformers were pretty fscking amazing. The movie itself,
well.... truly the ultimate Michael Bay movie ...

i thought the way the cgi robots were rendered was very impressive - in the
outdoor scenes they looked like genuine bits of shiny metal rather than cgi.

 

[Skybuck Flying]

IIRC, the article I read said that the modelling of the transformations
was fairly accurate (e.g., the transformer models were composed of [many
thousands of] actual parts attached to each other via normal joints, and
nothing "collides" during transformation etc), but somebody made the
"artistic" decision to speed up the transformations and avoid the
extended sequences from the old shows (I dunno, I never watched them).

Anyway, from a rendering/modelling/simulation point of view the FX in
Transformers were pretty fscking amazing. The movie itself,
well.... truly the ultimate Michael Bay movie ...

i thought the way the cgi robots were rendered was very impressive - in
the outdoor scenes they looked like genuine bits of shiny metal rather
than cgi.

I watched the movie on low resolution so I probably missed the sparkly
sparkly metal shiny thingy LOL

Bye,
Skybuck.

 

[cr88192]

IIRC, the article I read said that the modelling of the transformations
was fairly accurate (e.g., the transformer models were composed of [many
thousands of] actual parts attached to each other via normal joints, and
nothing "collides" during transformation etc), but somebody made the
"artistic" decision to speed up the transformations and avoid the
extended sequences from the old shows (I dunno, I never watched them).

Anyway, from a rendering/modelling/simulation point of view the FX in
Transformers were pretty fscking amazing. The movie itself,
well.... truly the ultimate Michael Bay movie ...

i thought the way the cgi robots were rendered was very impressive - in
the outdoor scenes they looked like genuine bits of shiny metal rather
than cgi.

I watched the movie on low resolution so I probably missed the sparkly
sparkly metal shiny thingy LOL

yeah.


ok, going into other aspects:

I saw the movie. just me noticing, these transformers don't look much like
the old cartoons...

so, in the old style, they were more or less solid-looking.
these ones have lots of elaborate parts and lacking outer casings.

is a difference...


oh yeah, and there was no 'Billy' per se.
this new one is, too old...
slightly dissapointed by the lack of slightly whiny middle-schooler.
(him existing in nearly every series, energon or minicons, or giant
planet-eating sphere/robot, ...).

so, we get a somewhat older, less whiny, replacement, aka, 'Sam'...

I also partly expected lameness and bad puns as well...

oh well...


so, decent movie?... yes.

as much similarity with the other shows/movies sharing the name?... IMO, not
really.
the 'style' is different somehow.


it is comprable the difference between 'Mazinger Z' and 'New Getter Robo'...

or, somewhat more dramatic, if 'Lazy Town' turned into 'Batman Begins'. one
may watch one for a different reason than the other...


or something...

 

[Skybuck Flying]

The film made little sense compared to the series and such.

For example:

Optimus prime destroyed a fontain and simply said "oops".

Or something like that.

The real optimus prime isn't a lump cow like that and would be very carefull
where he stopped, it might have been a human being, dog, animal or whatever,
and he wouldn't say oops, he would have said sorry, and we will build a new
one for ya.

So that just shows how little this movie has in coming with the real thing


I didn't like the skeleton style of the robots as well... looks like whimpie
skeletons

But then again making a movie out of a cartoon could be really hard so maybe
they didn't do such a bad job after all

Bye,
Skybuck.

 

[cr88192]

The film made little sense compared to the series and such.

yes, for a second I was paranoid that I was the only one that thought this,
like people would accuse me of not having seen enough of the animated
versions or similar...

For example:

Optimus prime destroyed a fontain and simply said "oops".

Or something like that.

The real optimus prime isn't a lump cow like that and would be very
carefull where he stopped, it might have been a human being, dog, animal
or whatever, and he wouldn't say oops, he would have said sorry, and we
will build a new one for ya.

So that just shows how little this movie has in coming with the real thing


yes.


I didn't like the skeleton style of the robots as well... looks like
whimpie skeletons

yes, this is a very obvious difference. they don't look much at all like the
original characters.
the original characters were these large solid boxy looking things.

But then again making a movie out of a cartoon could be really hard so
maybe they didn't do such a bad job after all

maybe...

I would have thought it would have been more a matter of direct conversion
though...

this seems more like an actual "retargetting" though. they take the original
show, originally targeted at kids (I think), and rework it into something
seemingly more targeted at the "young adult" demographic. they fail to take
into account though, that many who still liked the original series', still
like the original series, and not as much most of the other media targeted
at their theoretical age range.

ok, maybe they were trying to have a 'wider' appeal than the remaining
fanbase of the original shows, dunno...


like, someone like me going and watching something like 'lazy town'.
was this show intended for 20-somethings, I would say, very obviously not
(well, ok, I also have AS and BPD, which may well make a difference...).

now, if they made a version of this show, and retargetted it for adults,
somehow, it probably wouldn't even be anything even remotely similar...

no more puppets, bright almost psychodelic colored graphics, or a 'villian'
whos primary mode of action is in being passive-agressive and asinine.

anyone even a casual fan of the show may have a hard time with the
changes...


aka, some of us are otaku...

 

[Skybuck Flying]

I myself like the cybertron epsidos the most and the transformers the movie.

Back when I was a kid I didn't like those too much but it needs to get used
to I guess.

I think most transformers episode have a pretty adult story though, mixed
with kid stuff.

I like bad ass galvatron and the style it's drawn and animated and the
ghostly episodes and stuff, like autobot and deception graveyards and ghosts
and stuff, just an example. and the junkyard I like all that stuff, and the
4 or 5 headed creatures or whatever, and trips back into time etc.

Bye,
Skybuck.

 

[cr88192]

I myself like the cybertron epsidos the most and the transformers the
movie.

Back when I was a kid I didn't like those too much but it needs to get
used to I guess.

I think most transformers episode have a pretty adult story though, mixed
with kid stuff.

I like bad ass galvatron and the style it's drawn and animated and the
ghostly episodes and stuff, like autobot and deception graveyards and
ghosts and stuff, just an example. and the junkyard I like all that stuff,
and the 4 or 5 headed creatures or whatever, and trips back into time etc.

yes.
though I suspect you have watched a bit more of the show than I have, hmm...

mostly what I saw was 'transformers armada', though some of the older
episodes, a cartoon movie version, ...

so, yeah...

 

[Skybuck Flying]

What I saw is now called transformers generation 1 or G1.

What you saw are newer versions with different plots.

I seen those a little bit, those stories kinda shellow and the humor not
that funny but the graphics look good.

You should definetly check out transformers G1 or at least watch
Transformers the movie (cartoon movie)

Bye,
Skybuck.