"When the moon turns to ash and the stars grow cold."
DegustatoR
Legend
So in about 2-4 years then?
Sounds about right.
it's not my intention to stretch this topic here, but i remember reading some article of a cost efficient method to make carbon nanotubes from regular coal by being blown inside a pressurized chamber with high consistency but unfortunately can't find that article.
But anyway my point was/is seeing as how the cost of silicon wafers are reaching stupid high levels as well, can we really confidently say it wouldn't be cheap? As for ubiquitous, it can be made from coal, how is that not cheap or ubiquitous?
Don't think we will see a mid gen console refresh until rdna 4 imo. Well sony might push forward with an RDNA 3 . Going by last generation sony launched a refresh 3 years in which would be 2023 and ms pushed for a refresh in year 4 which would be 2024. MS would likely have access to RDNA 4 is we assume every other year for amd refreshes ( RDNA 2 was 2020 and now RDNA 3 is 2023)
I don't think we will see a midgen console refresh before 2024. This generation will be longer they have time.
you could be right. We will have to see what both companies due. I just used last gen as an example of what we could expect. Both of them may wait for 2026 and we could get rdna 5 or whatever amd moves onto in the refreshes. who really knows. But the longer they wait the less likely hood they will use RDNA 3 which is second gen amd rt.
Bondrewd
Veteran
Try getting this into mass productions at volumes necessary for semiconductor markets.
We're bending physics over and fucking it with EUV just to keep CMOS scaling because that's way cheaper than anything else.
Also CNTs are like the ideal fab contaminant and is PITA to handle overall.
Their not following anything indeed, i was implying they will, not that they are at the moment.
The consoles are in a even worse shape regarding RT and ML, their performances for said technologies are too slow no matter how flexible it is. But thats not the topic for this.
Right, this belongs in the console speculation topic. How fast and great AMD's implementation is can be tested with RDNA3/4 products perhaps, instead of speculating on next gen consoles (mid gen wont even see the light of day).
It is interesting to see on consoles not on PC with DXR 1.0.
Its not intresting to see on consoles at all, since theres no RDNA3 in any console, if there will be is speculation and doesnt really belong in this discussion.
Like I said wait and see.
Yeah, il wait for the RDNA3 results and reviews which are out very soon. Maybe il get my hands on one this year.
Yes, it is needed. But your comparison of Lumen SDF for GI is not suited, as for GI geometric or material precision is neither needed nor good.
Shadows is the best example. Say we want area light shadows of a tree. This means soft shadows on the ground and sharp self shadows on the tree. Shadow maps can't do this well, but RT can.
Though, if we use proxy geometry for the tree different from the visual mesh, we get self shadows and peter panning, so exactly the problems RT promises to finally solve.
Thus, shadow maps will remain the only robust solution for Nanite models. RT can be used only for GI or reflections (to some degree), where error is acceptable.
(That's my personal conclusions and assumptions, maybe somebody can confirm or correct me.)
Now you may ask if shadows are that important, and if accelerating GI and reflections isn't much more benefit.
But for me HW RT can not accelerate my GI, nor can it make it more accurate.
Thus, all i get from HW RT would be imperfect reflections, which isn't worth the extra cost of maintaining proxy geometry and runtime BVH building just for that.
Much more likely i'm better off with compute tracing my surfel hierarchy to get imperfect reflections. A bit blurrier, but probably faster on average, and much less memory for sure.
No, LOD is the independent problem here. Triangle meshes work for both raster and RT.
But current RT does not work for resolution adaptive triangle meshes, which are the only option to achieve fine grained LOD using triangles.
Thus, current RT APIs do prevent any progress to achieve such fine grained LOD for RT. Period, and no further discussion required. That's the true situation.
The only option for LOD for RT is discrete LOD. But that's no solution to the problem. It does not work for large models. You need to split them into multiple pieces, which causes overlapping BVH like kitbashing, increased workload on generating TLAS, visual glitches, and increased content production costs.
Which one? Just don't say Avatar again, which won't require RT. So which game will be the first with RT on minimal specs? (just out of interest)
Not sure. Less precision can actually halp for GI, as a prefiltered sample gives a good average otherwise requiring many point samples for the same result.
But i won't argue. If you say Lumen sucks, that's two of us. Portal RTX looks way better. ; )
Misunderstanding? The first UE5 demo (Land of Nanite?) used heavy kitbashing. They mentioned up to 20 layers of models, like onion skin. This can't be optimized away for a shipping game, because all those 20 models are somewhere visible.
If they are not visible but deep below the visible surface (will happen few times), raster will cull them, and RT will find the closer intersection before traversing them, for the most cases. It should not degrade perf. too much.
But lets close this for now and see if shipping games indeed use such insane detail levels at all.
Ahrg. You can't deal with your shiny god having some fails too, no?
You can generate proxy meshes using Nanite, but that's not it's distinctive feature.
Nanites function is (visually) continuous detail, which only is possible if you edit a static mesh locally. The entire mesh becomes 'dynamic', even if it's meant to look static.
To support this for HW RT, the only current option would be to rebuild the BVH from scratch every frame, for each instance of every model in the whole scene. This is not possible in real time.
You surely understand this, so stop pretending you wouldn't, please.
No further corrections from my side about this.
No. Because PC holds back consoles just as much as consoles hold back PC. It isn't worth to make specific solutions just for one platform.
And there are no VK extensions to expose BVH data structures.
Let's see if the platform lives long enough to require this.
Last edited:
Bondrewd
Veteran
Why would you think so?
Why would you think not?
Bondrewd
Veteran
They very much no likey rigid blackboxed FF bullshit in anything client GPU.
And they also very much love counting ROI on every xtor spent (aka the reason MFMA is neverever-tier stuff in RDNA GPUs).
Sums it up, your clearly not ready for any serious discussion.
Bondrewd
Veteran
No need to get upset.
I've already ruined your dreams about AMD bolting GEMM brrr hardware in anything client GPU and I'll happily do it again!
Meh.
I want room sized, British cold fusion reactors first.
Bullshit? Likely not. They sold ARM because they no longer need it.
Meh.
Give me a rdna4 PSP instead.
Similar threads
