 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen Lavedas wrote:
>
> hehehe I hope... but Quantum computers are such a GIANT leap forward,
> that I don't think we can conceive of a rendering application that would
> take long enough to bother one...Current computers would take 1000's of
> years to crack RSA encryption...With quantum computers cracking it in
> under and hour (I remember 20 minutes vaguely, and someone else posted
> 11 seconds) the jump is incredible... Have you ever started a 1000 year
> render? I don't think so... (except maybe that one Spider sent... it
> never did finish the bounding boxes on my computer)
>
> Steve
The 1000 year render is the one that renders every cell in the
human body - one by one. You can watch as a real person grows
from initial conception (tee hee) to birth of the finish form.
--
Ken Tyler
tyl### [at] pacbell net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Margus Ramst wrote:
>
> Well, do a simple test. Render a scene with all the effects you want,
> representing a typical frame of the game you have in mind.
> Now do some math to figure out, how many times faster your system would have
> to be to render it, say, 30fps.
> Believe me, the multiplier will be quite staggering.
> I figure a relatively simple scene with 640x480 AA, radiosity, atmosphere,
> reflections etc. would take _at least_ 10 minutes, that's 600 seconds. To
> render it 30 fps, your system would need to be... computing... 18,000 times
> faster. That's a LOT.
Considering Moores law
(computing power doubles every 18 months), then a simple
calculation tells us that computers will be that fast in
14.15 Moore-periods (log2(18000)), that being 254.5 months,
which are only 21 years.
Hold your breath.... ;-)
Of course this only applies if Moores law will last that long.
It is considered as coming to an end around 2015.....
Markus
--
Ich nicht eine Sekunde!!!" H. Heinol in Val Thorens
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think quantum computers won't be very efficient in raytracing.
Since the thing they thrive on is calculating several possibilities
at once... Oh, well, a thought strikes me: They will be able to
compute all imaginable raytraced scenes _at_once_
This would be the end of raytracing. :-(
STOP QUANTUM COMPUTING AT ONCE!!!!
Markus
--
Ich nicht eine Sekunde!!!" H. Heinol in Val Thorens
Stephen Lavedas wrote:
>
> hehehe I hope... but Quantum computers are such a GIANT leap forward,
> that I don't think we can conceive of a rendering application that would
> take long enough to bother one...Current computers would take 1000's of
> years to crack RSA encryption...With quantum computers cracking it in
> under and hour (I remember 20 minutes vaguely, and someone else posted
> 11 seconds) the jump is incredible... Have you ever started a 1000 year
> render? I don't think so... (except maybe that one Spider sent... it
> never did finish the bounding boxes on my computer)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hasn't Moore's Law already been broken?
Markus Becker wrote:
>
> Margus Ramst wrote:
> >
> > Well, do a simple test. Render a scene with all the effects you want,
> > representing a typical frame of the game you have in mind.
> > Now do some math to figure out, how many times faster your system would have
> > to be to render it, say, 30fps.
> > Believe me, the multiplier will be quite staggering.
> > I figure a relatively simple scene with 640x480 AA, radiosity, atmosphere,
> > reflections etc. would take _at least_ 10 minutes, that's 600 seconds. To
> > render it 30 fps, your system would need to be... computing... 18,000 times
> > faster. That's a LOT.
>
> Considering Moores law
> (computing power doubles every 18 months), then a simple
> calculation tells us that computers will be that fast in
> 14.15 Moore-periods (log2(18000)), that being 254.5 months,
> which are only 21 years.
>
> Hold your breath.... ;-)
>
> Of course this only applies if Moores law will last that long.
> It is considered as coming to an end around 2015.....
>
> Markus
> --
> Ich nicht eine Sekunde!!!" H. Heinol in Val Thorens
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Except the experts say quantum computers would only be good for certain
things. Like searching mega databases or cracking keys. Some
applications would not run well on a computer will more than two bits.
I don't know how rendering would work here. I read that a quantum
computer would search a database by looking at all of the entries at one
time. So maybe one could render every pixel at once?!
Stephen Lavedas wrote:
>
> hehehe I hope... but Quantum computers are such a GIANT leap forward,
> that I don't think we can conceive of a rendering application that would
> take long enough to bother one...Current computers would take 1000's of
> years to crack RSA encryption...With quantum computers cracking it in
> under and hour (I remember 20 minutes vaguely, and someone else posted
> 11 seconds) the jump is incredible... Have you ever started a 1000 year
> render? I don't think so... (except maybe that one Spider sent... it
> never did finish the bounding boxes on my computer)
>
> Steve
>
> Peter Popov wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 02 Feb 1999 21:01:35 -0500, Stephen Lavedas
> > <swl### [at] virginiaedu> wrote:
> >
> > >Actually, you're right... the leap to quantum computers in the distant
> > >but forseeable future should actually make Raytracing a nearly realtime
> > >even. (They should be able to easily break current encryption
> > >standards) I am personally extrememly excited about this avenue of
> > >advancement.
> > >
> > >Steve
> >
> > Don't you all guys think that by the time quantum computers and so are
> > available POV-Ray 9.3j will also be available (free!) with things like
> > true (integral) volumetrics, variable iors, backwards photon tracing,
> > true causics, trun diffuse interreflection, wave behaviour,
> > wavelength-dependent scattering, diffraction, interference, true
> > dispersion, troposhperic refraction, hydrometeoric scattering, Doppler
> > effect, Einstein red deviation, photoelectric effect, luminance, heat
> > colors etc. The list goes on. Even if such machines are available in
> > three months, I can imagine Chris Young rubbing his hands with a big
> > smile on his face, and a post in povray.general like "With CPU
> > preformance so greatly increased since 3.1a we can at last include
> > some year-old ideas that have already been developed and coded but
> > proved inadequately slow for the public 3.1 release. Expect a quick
> > 3.14159265 release featuring..." and the list I just mentioned.
> >
> > Just daydreaming...
> >
> > Peter
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
portelli wrote:
>
> Except the experts say quantum computers would only be good for certain
> things. Like searching mega databases or cracking keys. Some
> applications would not run well on a computer will more than two bits.
> I don't know how rendering would work here. I read that a quantum
> computer would search a database by looking at all of the entries at one
> time. So maybe one could render every pixel at once?!
>
Ok, stop it here, we shouldn't yet develop software for a nonexistant
platform. Let's wait until we have a hardware defining list before we
speculate, ok ?
This thread is rather off-topic right now... :-)
do some fireworks or something.*smile*
//Spider
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://members.xoom.com/darrelltroy/jesusinside.gif
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
portelli wrote:
>
> Hasn't Moore's Law already been broken?
No, it still holds. Perhaps you meant what I mistakenly
wrote ;-). Not the processor _speed_ but the number of
transistors doubles every 18 months. Together with the
MHz increase this more than doubles the speed of the
processors. And, as far as what I have read, it will
go on until approx. 2015, then it will reach some
principal problem concerning quantum physics.
But the cute technicians at <insert_favourate_manufacturer
here> will have invented some new technique to keep
Moore's law going...
Markus
--
Ich nicht eine Sekunde!!!" H. Heinol in Val Thorens
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yeah, that problem with wavelengths reaching magnitudes less than the
size of the electrons being moved (or at least too close to be usable)
it should actually be getting quite difficult very soon.
Steve
Markus Becker wrote:
>
> portelli wrote:
> >
> > Hasn't Moore's Law already been broken?
>
> No, it still holds. Perhaps you meant what I mistakenly
> wrote ;-). Not the processor _speed_ but the number of
> transistors doubles every 18 months. Together with the
> MHz increase this more than doubles the speed of the
> processors. And, as far as what I have read, it will
> go on until approx. 2015, then it will reach some
> principal problem concerning quantum physics.
> But the cute technicians at <insert_favourate_manufacturer
> here> will have invented some new technique to keep
> Moore's law going...
>
> Markus
>
> --
> Ich nicht eine Sekunde!!!" H. Heinol in Val Thorens
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen Lavedas wrote:
> Yeah, that problem with wavelengths reaching magnitudes less than the
> size of the electrons being moved (or at least too close to be usable)
> it should actually be getting quite difficult very soon.
>
> Steve
>
> Markus Becker wrote:
> >
> > portelli wrote:
> > >
> > > Hasn't Moore's Law already been broken?
> >
> > No, it still holds. Perhaps you meant what I mistakenly
> > wrote ;-). Not the processor _speed_ but the number of
> > transistors doubles every 18 months. Together with the
> > MHz increase this more than doubles the speed of the
> > processors. And, as far as what I have read, it will
> > go on until approx. 2015, then it will reach some
> > principal problem concerning quantum physics.
> > But the cute technicians at <insert_favourate_manufacturer
> > here> will have invented some new technique to keep
> > Moore's law going...
> >
> > Markus
> >
> > --
> > Ich nicht eine Sekunde!!!" H. Heinol in Val Thorens
this is just until Quantum computer processors come out ( at least 20 years
hence). they have ONE prototype working (only can pick an answer to a
preprogrammed question 400x the fastest super computer) but the problem is
right now the quantum computer weighs 3 tons (like the original mainframes
which PCs are based on), maybe soon we will have megafast computers based on
quantum physics like the one stated above....
psychomek
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
