Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

NVIDIA's Lead Scientist Interviewed

Posted by Zonk on Thu Jul 14, 2005 08:28 AM
from the he-makes-shiny-things dept.
Graphics Software Hardware Entertainment Games
rtt writes "bit-tech.net has up an interview with NVIDIA's chief scientist, David Kirk, about the PlayStation 3, next-generation architectures and what to expect in PC gaming. From the article: 'We're going to see the next generation of shader-based games. At the first generation, we saw people using a shader to emulate the hardware pipeline, and finding "Hey - this really is programmable". After that, they tried to do a few things with more lights, using perhaps eight instead of ten. Then they started to write material shaders, and they made great cloth and metal effects that we saw. People are now starting to change the lighting model, and are exploring the things that they can do with that.'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

NVIDIA's Lead Scientist Interviewed 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Ha ha, lights. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by robyannetta (820243) * on Thursday July 14 2005, @08:32AM (#13062313) Homepage
    Who cares how many lights the chipsets can emulate when the games themselves still suck?
    • A mod point, a mod point, my root password for a mod point. I'm back playing smaller games that are addictive: www.happypenguin.org [happypenguin.org]

    • Re:Ha ha, lights. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by paulsgre (890463) on Thursday July 14 2005, @08:55AM (#13062493)
      The worst part is that rendering 10 lights instead of two means five programmers instead of one. Rising costs of development and demand for more glorified tech demos is demeaning the art form, and preventing widespread recognition as such. The potential creative geniuses of our time will be turned off games as a medium, or the next Stravinsky may end up coding 5 more shaders for the reflection in a visor instead of writing the algorithm that rocks the interactive world like the next "Rite of Spring"
    • Gee, how did I know someone would say that?

      A kinda unfair blanket statement, don't you think? Sure a lot of game makers are going to focus more on graphical tricks and less on gameplay, but that's almost always been the case, regardless of the level of technology. It's unfair to those who can balance good gameplay and graphics without compromising either. And yes, they do still exist, and there are plenty of them.

    • Re:Ha ha, lights. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mccalli (323026) on Thursday July 14 2005, @09:05AM (#13062572) Homepage
      He's at nVidea - he's describing his job, and gameplay isn't it. Lack of gampleay is an accusation to be thrown at the software houses, not at nVidea.

      Cheers,
      Ian

    • There are only... FOUR... lights...
      • I don't think he's saying that graphics don't matter... just that they might not be the biggest part of what makes a game fun to play.

        In other words, Need For Speed: Dumb Ricer Edition is going to be lame no matter how pretty they make it.

      • Re:Ha ha, lights. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by grumbel (592662) <grumbel@gmx.de> on Thursday July 14 2005, @10:40AM (#13063441) Homepage
        ### I once thought VGA graphics and 386 speeds rocked too. But if I ever go back there, it sucks.

        A few month ago I played XCom:UFO for the first time ever, so no nostalgica involved and suprise, suprise it didn't suck, it was simple one of the best games I have played in the last few years, even by todays standards. An interesting side node it that XCom has completly destroyable terrain, sure its all just 2d tile graphics, but destroyable terrain is something that almost no 3d game these days has gotten right.

        I don't mind if graphics are good, but quite often the better graphics actually limit the gameplay in harmfull ways (no destroyable terrain, no huge outdoor szenarios, etc.).

  • holy-bad-at-math-batman (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14 2005, @08:33AM (#13062318)
    "After that, they tried to do a few things with more lights, using perhaps eight instead of ten. "

    I wish I had more money. Like 50 bucks instead of 100 bucks.

    • Re:holy-bad-at-math-batman (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I wish I had more money. Like 50 bucks instead of 100 bucks.

      Greetings! May I interest you in the myriad of financial services I offer?
    • I have to assume that was an honest mixup, either on the part of the interviewer or just absent-mindedness on the part of the engineer.

      In my experience, OpenGL ( and presumably DirectX since the two are just APIs for the same hardware, but I could be wrong ) default to a max of eight lights. So, using shaders to emulate 10 or more lights would make sense.
  • If the XBOX 360 gets a 6 month jump on Sony, the results by the time the PS3 launches will be obvious. Sony's hardware may be more powerful in some respects, but the amount of work that needs to be done by the programmers is daunting.

    While actual code is being written on the 360 side, my guess is the coders on the PS3 side are doing what this article suggests - feeling out the hardware. It means that a lot of the development environment is unfinished or at least unkempt. You've got a lot of power there, but learning to wield it is going to take quite some time - ESPECIALLY with the Cell processor.

    • The real life picture is, however, exactly oposite. On XBox you will have to re-design your game to use 3 threads(!) (not 2, not 4) to get predictable fluid parallel performance. This is *very* difficult to do (debugging nightmare). Game (and other) developers are very much used to single thread. Sony came up with better idea: Cell chip has parallel vector units that will be used by low-level libs (well tested and stable). Libs will be both provided by Sony and later by engine companies themself. Game progr
      • Let's not get in a tiff over pre-rendering, ok? Plenty of THAT to go around!

        Quite frankly (and don't take this the wrong way), I don't give a shit WHO comes out on top - although keep in mind that history has shown that the best designs usually lose.

        All I'm saying is while I think it's just great that programmers have this wonderful, liberating machine, it IS significantly more complex and even alien to code for - don't try and BS people into believing otherwise.

        The article suggests to me that the progra
          • Uhmmm.. Would you not agree that the Cell processor is a different processor than most? Figuring out how to keep 8 separate processors full (but not TOO full), is going to be bitch. Stop lying.

            As to the DirectX rant, yeah.. Didn't work for the PC or Xbox, right? So... What MS should've done is completely start from scratch (like Sony again)? Are you really that stupid? Why not give the programmers stuff they understand?

            Again, no reason to be upset. I'm sure the PS3 will do fine... Once the machine is actu
          • Actually, there was a review out on Anandtech (which I'm too lazy to look up) who quoted various developers as saying the Cell architecture is going to be a pain in the ass for them.

            Why is this being fanboy-esque? Oh. Because it contradictory to your own fanboy position, and thus, has to be falsely labeled, just so you feel like you have a bigger dick.

            (I decided to look it up afterall - it apparently was pulled from Anandtech, but it still resides on Google Groups [google.com]. Interesting that it was pulled. Th

  • opinion? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by kc0re (739168)
    I am still of the opinion that Doom 3 was the finest lit and rendered game to date. I believe that Doom 3 will change the face of games.

    The other game that did alot with lighting was Spliter Cell.. I'd like to hear other's opinions...

    • Re:opinion? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14 2005, @08:42AM (#13062380)
      Doom3 is not a game. It's a slightly interactive lighting simulator.
    • My opinion, you're trolling... but I can't resist...

      Doom 3 had some decent static lights in it. But they screwed up soooo much with the light that mattered - the flashlight. I don't mean not being able to hold the flashlight and gun at the same time. I mean that the flashlight was technically poorly implemented. For starters, the realism was killed for me immediately by the fact that I could look through the SIDE of the light beam, and the wall I was looking at was illuminated even though the flashli
    • It will indeed change the face of games , ala sticking a Porsche body kit on a Lada

    • Re:opinion? (Score:4, Funny)

      by Psiren (6145) on Thursday July 14 2005, @08:56AM (#13062508)
      I am still of the opinion that Doom 3 was the finest lit and rendered game to date.

      Which bit? The dark bit at the start, the very dark bit in the middle, or the super dark bit at the end? While there were a few glimpses of very nicely rendered scenes, for the most part it was just too dark to see anything. Plus the game was crap, but that's another matter.
    • Doom 3 had excellent lighting tech, but did virtually nothing with it coz the levels were all dark.

      Deus Ex 2, on the other hand, was rubbish but had a use for good lighting - seeing bad guys round corners because of the shadows they cast, etc. Similar tech, less good looking, rubbish game, but I reckon that's where this kind of thing is taking us :)

  • The issue of power consumption (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Wills (242929) on Thursday July 14 2005, @08:45AM (#13062415)
    What I would like is for nVidia (and ATI) to start making lower power consumption a big goal for their new products. Can't we leave the era of 100-110Watts being the norm for new graphics card such as the GeForce 7800 GTX?
    • IMHO, low power consumption might never make sense for nVidia or ATI. Unlike CPUs, cutting-edge GPUs are primarily targetted towards the avid gamer, who's playing his/her game on a desktop. Given this usage model, do you think that ATI or nVidia would refactor their entire design strategy to put power consumption ahead of performance? I don't think so, unless we're talking about mobile GPUs.

      For both these companies, their technology leadership is currently defined by the performance of their top-end graphi
    • You need to look at cards for what they are, not what video was.

      Today's video cards have much higher transistor counts than the processors of the systems they go into.

      A standard P4 is around 60million, the Extreme Edition with all its built in cache is 180million

      A 6800 series is 220+ million. The X800 is 160+ million.

      A 7800 is over 300 million.

      What you really have in a video card is a computer within your computer complete with its requsite power and cooling requirements.

    • Re:The issue of power consumption (Score:5, Informative)

      by Chirs (87576) on Thursday July 14 2005, @09:37AM (#13062885)
      Actually, they already are considering it. The 7800GTX has 50% more transistors than the 6800 Ultra, but runs cooler.

      Basically they're shutting off portions of the chip when not in use to cut down on power consumption.

      This is mentioned briefly at http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2005/07/07/g70_clock_ speed/ [bit-tech.net]
      and also at http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=Nzg0LDI= [hardocp.com]

  • Something is missing. . . (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zobeid (314469) on Thursday July 14 2005, @08:45AM (#13062417)
    Here's the most important word that didn't appear anywhere in that article: OpenGL

  • ATI interview (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AngryScot (795131) on Thursday July 14 2005, @08:47AM (#13062433)
    They also had an interview with Richard Huddy from ATI [bit-tech.net] a little back
  • Isn't that overstating the job title a little bit? Engineer sure, but scientist? It's not like increasing the number of bump maps is going to lead to cold fusion or the cure for cancer.
    • Sure, it's plausible, engineers do production work, and scientists do research.

      It's fathomable that this fellow does research for Nvidia, i.e. researching new ways to increase performance, etc...
    • Have you ever read any of the proceedings from SIGGRAPH? Yes, people do get their Ph.D's in that stuff.

    • Re:Scientist? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by i7dude (473077) on Thursday July 14 2005, @09:18AM (#13062697)
      among other things, designing next generation graphics cards is a serious exercise in computer architecture, vlsi design, and algorithm development; these people arent just system integrators or product engineers...next generation stuff has to come from somewhere other than a reference design...these people are absolutely scientists.

      you dont need a beaker and a lab coat to be considered a scientist.

      dude.
        • I know several mathematicians that would disagree with your assessment that coming up with new algorithms is engineering. Algorithm development is typically in the domain of scientists working on better computational tools.

          If astrophysicists, computational fluid dynamicists, and/or computational plasma physicists (all of them are scientists, by definition), all got together with game developers and swapped algorithm ideas, I guarantee that there would be improvements seen in games. Those scientists are
  • It seems all development efforts goes into 3D gaming and no brains into vanilla PC requirements. Why is it impossible to find a reasonably priced, fanless graphics card with two DVI connectors? Why can't I have dual head graphics with hardware video acceleration/overlay on either monitor? Why don't Nvidia and ATI at least take care that the non-3D features of their cards are fully supported under Linux and X11? Yes, Matrox's cards come close, but even their vintage G550 require buggy binary X11 drivers.

  • Once again we are missing the points (Score:3, Insightful)

    by suitepotato (863945) on Thursday July 14 2005, @09:01AM (#13062542)
    First, as others have noted, games still tend to suck overall so who cares how beautiful the graphics are? Beautiful crap is still crap.

    Second, now that GPUs are competitive with CPUs for heat generation and electrical energy waste, are we giving up altogether on efficiency and just consigning ourselves to needing ever better coolers, paying more electrical costs, etc., just to play some beautiful crap?

    Not me. Gone are the days of being able to stick all these game machines, DVD players, media PCs, etc. in a small enclosed space of an entertainment center. Now I'll have to place my TV near to a window and buy a standalone air conditioner so I can pipe the hot air flow out and cool all my stuff to keep it from immolating my living room.

    I don't think so. If we're going to use up so much horsepower for this, we might as well at least get someone to use it as the power source for a lava lamp. That might be more fun to watch than Doom 3.
  • With the PS3 + disk drive being a Linux machine, are we STILL going to be stuck with closed-source binary-only kernel modules, or will NVIDIA actually start to make good drivers.

    (of course, I already know the answer.)
  • Anybody else notice the large number of times the word "whilst" was used? I thought my Firefox translation plugin was accidentally set to English->MiddleEnglish. It's like author just got done cramming for an exam on Shakespeare and feels compelled to write the same way, but then gives up halfway through sentences and goes back to regular english:

    Whilst their relationship with Microsoft has become publicly tenuous, what about NVIDIA's relationship with their new console partner?

    • That would be more like:

      Whan Noble NVIDIA hath newer cards to showe Thanne Prices risen higher thann the lowe And smale cryes comme from Slashdot kin That Linnux driveres wolde be no sin
  • And, uh... just curious... is this any different at all from how things work with ATI chips right now? It doesn't really sound like it...
    • Bullshit. OpenGL 2.0 is not really any different than the previous versions of OpenGL except that some of the extensions are promoted to features.

      You think GLSL is more risky to use than HLSL? Bullshit. It's not really that fundamentally different. Neither is Cg. It's like comparing C and Pascal. In fact, NVIDA's shader compiler is the same for all three languages. It's abstracted into a backend and a set of frontends for each language: Cg, GLSL, and HLSL. So, for NVIDIA hardware all three basical

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.