Modern and Future Geometry Rasterizer layout? *spawn*

When you can achive such quality and the tradeoff is realy low for normale computer shader. Why didn't AMD and Nvidia integrated a raszier for triangles smaller than a pixel?

 

Maybe sombody can spawn this to a new topic: Modern and Future Geometry- Rasterizer layout ?

 

If we looked the nvidia lunch and we now know that the leaks were right and we have a die shot (if this is true i dont know). Nvidia will have this year 7 GPCs and 7 Rasterizers to feed 10.000 Cuda cores. What do you think bbout that?

 

I did some testing. Did Nvidia changed from tiled base back to normal or immediate rasterizer?

Her you can see how it looks on Pascal and Maxwell.
https://www.realworldtech.com/tile-b...n-nvidia-gpus/

This picture is from turing.

 

When i see nanite enigne i think the real bottelnack are micro polyogons. I wathched these analysis of nanite egninge an also looked clother. Even whene there is no good lightning in the scene the polygon structure make it unike. I don't understand why whe invest so much in shader when micro polygons gif you so much picture quality:

 

I think like in the video they said now theyfollow polygons, because film industry need it If you want to make a realistic face and realistic structures you realy need more geometry than light effects.

Also ghost of thushima is a example that geometry rueles over lighning, all the high poly vegetation make it so realistic and the game don't use raytracing.

 

@Putas I find it also tragic. If you look Fortnite with Raytracing, how does it looks better than the old fortnite?

 

@CarstenS
Exactly. But for a good shadow you need a good contour of the geometry. The geometry is feeding the formular with information.

My argument: If you use a complex mesh with a simple lightning formulare you will get besser results than with a complex formular for lightning with a simple mesh. because Main information for the lightning comes from the mesh. The mesh is a big part of the variables insight a lightning formular. If the mesh is not detailed enough you can have the best ray traycing, it will look ugly.

Thats why i think we will get a better grafic advantage when we invest more time and resources in polygon creation with simple light shader formula than if we use a simple polygon mesh with a complex lightning formula.

That is what nanite is exatly doing. They don't do any raytracing. They use complex geometry and us a simplified lightning system with only one lighning bounce and the result is impressive.

Her it is good video which explains it:


If you look here. The small geometry hights make the wall so realistic. Withought the hights you don't get the information for the micro shadows.

 

Sorry my english is realy bad! I should copy your sentence in your signiture