Actually, I may be wrong about them building BVH on CPU. I remember them speaking about research into dedicated BVH h/w during GDC'19 but that doesn't mean that they aren't building them on CUDA cores now. Here's the presentation on this:
It maybe is game dependent, Metro Exodus seems to be using the GPU to build the BVH, Battlefield V seems to be using the CPU.Actually, I may be wrong about them building BVH on CPU. I remember them speaking about research into dedicated BVH h/w during GDC'19 but that doesn't mean that they aren't building them on CUDA cores now. Here's the presentation on this:
BVH creation and updates are handled on CPU by the driver on NV RT capable h/w (Pascal and Turing).
No, world of tankis is classical RT. HFTS is binning triangles to a regular grid (dimensions like shadow map, with each texel storing a list of triangles). For HFTS you would not need a BVH at all, but it is restricted to all rays having the same origin.I have to mention, what World Of Tanks is doing reminds me a lot of NVIDIA's Hybrid Frustrum Traced Shadows (HFTS) released in games like Watch Dogs 2, Battlefront 2 and Division.
Is this a general statement or are there already benchmarks out?The 5700XT doesn't do that bad in RT for having, well, no RT hardware?
The implementation doesn't use any specific RT hardware. It runs on the shaders for all the cards.The 5700XT doesn't do that bad in RT for having, well, no RT hardware?
Is this a general statement or are there already benchmarks out?
I'm curious what the additional load is like on the GPUs. CPU's sounds like it's not too bad.
Is this a general statement or are there already benchmarks out?
I'm curious what the additional load is like on the GPUs. CPU's sounds like it's not too bad.
Thanks this is what I was curious aboutComplete RT Pascal, Turing, Polaris, Vega and Navi benchmarks for World of Tanks, things to note:
That's expected because GCN is bad with random access. Navi fixed this with the new cache hierarchy, but seems NV still has the edge here, assuming it's the very dominant factor for this interesting benchmark.Vega is so far behind, a Vega 64 is slower than a GTX 1660/1070! Even at 4K! Radeon VII is barely any faster than a 1070 too.
-Navi is miles faster than Vega, like 50% faster comparing Vega 64 vs 5700 XT. Or 20% faster comparing Radeon VII vs 5700 XT.
Why should it be dominant here?assuming it's the very dominant factor for this interesting benchmark.
Wow, Intel's Embree library really drags hard on the Bulldozer architecture.
I believe It really shines the light on why we need hardware RT right now, simple RT shadows that are accelerated by both the CPU and GPU, and are limited to certain models, still cut fps by more than half on the latest GPUs. When you compare that to what's possible with hardware RTX: whole scene RT GI and AO, whole scene RT shadows, whole scene RT reflections .. the benefit of specialized RT hardware can not be understated.Thanks this is what I was curious about
Even if threads may fetch similar nodes often, the nodes are still scattered randomly (or likely morton order).Why should it be dominant here?
No. BVH trees are created on the CPU on RTX too (PowerVR does this on their RT unit though, IIRC). Turing RT cores accelerate ray intersecetion / hit testing on those BVHs the CPU built.The BVH was being done on the CPU, isn't that what is accelerated on RTX?
If so, what part of the pipeline is being so heavily affected on the GPUs?