Ray-tracing in games requires 100X more powerful GPUs, photorealistic virtual reality requires 40X

DSOGaming writes: "As we’ve said numerous times, we believe that ray-tracing is the future of lighting in video-games. While there have been some attempts in various tech demos to implement a fully ray-tracing rendering system, we haven’t seen any triple-A game featuring it. And from the looks of it, we won’t see such a thing anytime soon."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
trumpwonstopcrying56d ago

Yea we literally just got HDR in games. I feel like that will be the standard for a few years at least.

55d ago
UltraNova55d ago

HDR is a colour gammut standard, not a rendering technigue like ray tracing is for rendering/simulating light in CGI. That said, HDR wont be the standard on TVs for years to come. Even 4K is long ways from becoming thr standard.

Ashunderfire8655d ago (Edited 55d ago )


You probably have a bad HDR TV. You need to get KS8000, Sony 930D -940D and the super expensive Sony 9ZD, or any OLEDs TVs to see get great HDR. Sony 9ZD is the flagship one as brightest ever! It has a 1800 nits of brightness! If you have the money there is your true HDR experience!

its $4000 bucks right now

55d ago
ILostMyMind55d ago

Recently, Sony has released a FullHD TV with HDR. It is affordable.

ziggurcat55d ago

“I find all HDR does is make colors look more natural, which is the opposite of what I want. I'd rather have over saturated bright eye popping colors, not something looks mundane. ”

Why would you want the image on your screen to look like garbage over something that looks natural?

55d ago
rainslacker55d ago (Edited 55d ago )

HDR has the ability to give a baseline for the user to see the image exactly how the content creator wants it to look. Usually that is undermined by TV's adding in post-processing effects, but content recorded or sampled into a standard HDR format is going to be a lot closer to what it's meant to be than one that isn't.

I never saw anyone that say they have a problem with colors being more vibrant. Those vibrant colors give more definition to everything, which is generally the goal of any all image displays. When you have more pixels in 4K, you want this, otherwise they become even more washed out, but most 4K TV's have enough processing effects to manage non-HDR content to compensate. But without having more defintion, you get into color bleed and over-saturated images which simply aren't as clear. Generally, not a desireable thing to most.

So, because of this, it's not over-rated, it's just what's important to you is different than what the very vast majority actually want. For the most part, in games which are rendered, more clarity and vibrancy is much better. It may be more that your brightness is set too high if such things are distracting, so I'd recommend downloading a calibration disc like AVCHD, because I've never seen an HDR source which I felt "too vibrant", but I have seen almost all such sources show a ton more detail.

As to your last comment about photoshop, it's more that you just see more in the picture. It's not masking things, it's bringing out more from the picture itself. Little details, which I assume is what you mean by vibrancy.

FinalFantasyFanatic54d ago (Edited 54d ago )

How can anyone say something bad about HDR? Movies look amazing at 4k HDR (Guardians of the Galaxy 2 is a good example or Reverent). Just look at the dark scenes in Guardians of the Galaxy and you can see characters distinctly because of how detailed the dark/black scenes are.

Did people try calibrating their TVs before using it? I suspect they haven't if they're not impressed by the picture, especially if it just looks mundane or bland (HDR makes images pop anyway, better effect then 3d ever was). I do find that DVDs tend to look like dog s**t though, thankfully I buy mostly Blu-rays.

ziggurcat54d ago


doing things like enhancing the vibrancy of a photograph does not make it a better photograph. If someone does that, that's a sign that that person hasn't any idea how to properly colour calibrate anything. Take it from someone with over 20 years of fine arts education, and experience. A natural, properly colour-calibrated screen will always look better than a screen with its contrast/colour/tint settings boosted way too high.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 54d ago
Eonjay55d ago

Look on the bright side, this gives us something to work towards. I mean, once we reach this level even... there will be new technologies for us to target. There is a really great TED doc on how the chase for better graphics has helped move technology and science forward. Thats something to feel good about.

RememberThe35755d ago

You might have to drop a link for us, I'd like to see that.

Lennoxb6356d ago

I thought that a scaled down version of ray tracing and god rays would be available by next gen. These two assets are the next level of graphics in games.

varowore55d ago

I cannot believe that anyone can earn $9819 in 4 weeks on the computer .
see this here>>>>>>&g t;>>>>

KTF2655d ago

more likely Voxel based GI
not ray tracing but the results are impressive

rainslacker55d ago

Problem with Ray tracing is that it's a pretty heavy physics calculation to determine how light reflects off another surface. While this in and of itself isn't that much, and it's generally the same calculation done for any lighting system, ray tracing takes multiple "rays" of light and blends them together to constantly change the make up of the reflected light for the final render.

it's an extremely complex and multi-layered process which to be done effectively eats up a lot of processing power. There are multiple levels of ray tracing, and gaming nowadays basically uses one "ray", which only mimics multiple reflections from a single ray, and more often than not actually ignores spurious the light of reflecting off a car that hits another object then back onto the car, which is what causes the kind of reflections you see when two cars are driving next to each other and another headlight bounces between them.

JonnS55d ago

So we are looking at maybe PS7 & Xbox one Z before we see this in consoles . Shame it's still ways off.

Xenophon_York55d ago

JonnS, six to eight years, max, for early adoption. Ten for start of mainstream. Considering Skyrim is already six almost seven years old, that's not long.

JonnS55d ago

Was being optimistic plus adding in delays , so not to get my hopes to high .

FinalFantasyFanatic54d ago

A decade seems realistic unless someone comes up with a more efficient method of ray-tracing that uses less processing power, or even a stop gap method to get a similar effect.

Xenophon_York55d ago

The race is getting more crowded and heated every day. With companies like Facebook, Microsoft, Google, Sony—just to name a few—you can bet it's going to happen faster than most expect.

There's so much more riding on it than just games. Once VR finally finds mass widespread adoption with a tent-pole application it's going to be like when the Internet finally took off. Yeah, there was around a ten year hold-over for that to happen, but when it did it changed the world—immensely.

rainslacker55d ago

Based on Moore's law of power doubling every 18 months, you'd be looking at 9 years based off the X1X's 6TF. That's probably PS6 territory, although I don't know if they'll hit that target whenever they release that, but that's likely to be 10-12 years from now.

More likely scenario is better techniques for rendering ray tracing will be developed which won't require as much raw power. That's what's happened with some of the more important aspects of improving rendering techniques.

FinalFantasyFanatic54d ago

To add to your point, look at the more efficient methods of AA or ambient occlusion and so on, less processing power for the same effect or close to it.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 54d ago
Show all comments (62)
The story is too old to be commented.