|
|
|
|
|
by CyberDildonics
3615 days ago
|
|
> It's sort of the problem it's least competitive to solve on a raw performance, performance per watt or development cost basis. This is not true for anything beyond running compute shaders on large 1D, 2D, or 3D buffers. Just because something is 'graphics' doesn't mean that a GPU is automatically faster. > Production-ready renderers like Arnold, Octane and mental ray (NVIDIA's renderer) perform best or are exclusive to the CUDA platform. Arnold is a CPU renderer, Octane is FAR from what I would consider 'production ready' and mental ray is also a software renderer. Renderman does not use any GPU acceleration. > I sound like I know what I'm talking about, right? Not even slightly |
|
> This is not true for anything beyond running compute shaders on large 1D, 2D, or 3D buffers.
Yes, but rendering is a shader on a bunch of those buffers right? That's what I wrote. I'm not 100% confident that you can efficiently render with conventional shaders what they showed in that frame. But I think you can. You could at least cull and tesselate tubes on the GPU, if you really don't want to write a shader.