Nvidia Shows GeForce GTX 480 ''Hair'' Rendering

[Guest]

Ugh, who did the editing of this video? I got blasted in the ears by the introductions so I had to lower it, then I could barely hear the audio of the woman so I had to raise it, then I got blasted in the ears again!

 

[tipoo]

[citation][nom]dgingeri[/nom]She's pretty cute (the girl giving the demo, not the demo 'girl') and she must be pretty smart to effectively give a demo like this. I like...[/citation]

She says "Fips". That killed her cuteness for me.

 

[belardo]

Where is the rest of her?!

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

The GTX 485 should be a good card if you were building a new rig.
Before the AMD fanboys start slamming my post...

Can I just slam you for saying the GTX485, which won't be here for many months if ever?

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Did she say "500 feps"? :lol:

I think it's written PHEPS = PhysX Hair Extension Plug Simulations [:grahamlv:3]


So 2 years working for nVidia and still doesn't know about Framerates? Is she the in-house stylist?

It's an interesting concept, but as mentioned, try putting this on 3 characters heads and rendering a world around it as well.

Imagine adding this workload to a market scene in Oblivion (especially with a texture mod) and I would expect to see about 4 PHEPS or less in a typical scene like that.

Glad we can get realistic hair figured out, now that that's done someone else can do the whole game interactions thing like destructible bodies killing peoples and schtuff.

Personally I would be more impressed with a realistic fireplace, at least that I could use beyond the video we just saw. Of course it would kill the whole Xmas fireplace video industry.

 

[Guest]

too much hype not enough bench's.

 

[sonofliberty08]

the flying head ghost ~

 

[Cons29]

or a box art rendered in 3d! with a flying 999fps, being a box it proly has6-100 poly and a high res texture mapped onto it

 

[Cons29]

maybe they should render a box art in 3d then show off the 4digit fps of that

 

[ALANMAN]

I stopped watching when she said 'fips'

 

[_Cubase_]

"Games games games", do you people hear yourselves? Just to let some of you guys know: "real world performance" you speak of is not just limited to "gaming". There are some serious advancements in this card's technology not just limited to your mum's basement.

 

[Guest]

that's really pretty hair. the accent has go to go though!

 

[curnel_D]

[citation][nom]_cubase_[/nom]"Games games games", do you people hear yourselves? Just to let some of you guys know: "real world performance" you speak of is not just limited to "gaming". There are some serious advancements in this card's technology not just limited to your mum's basement.[/citation]
People who don't game aren't buying this card. People who do professional graphics/rendering/number crunching work buy professional series workstation cards.

They can hype physX, Cuda, and anything else they want to make a sale, but it doesn't make a difference to real gamers. Professionals in the work place don't need fancy demos put on by inept women, they need results.

Where are the results?

 

[reichscythe]

Enzo Matrix FTW!! The best part about your links, is that, not only do they provide visual proof that nVidia is milking a 2 years ago tech-demo (running at about the same "phipz" on 2-gen-old hardware); but they also show a company rep gushing IDENTICAL hype and promises about games using these techniques back in 2008 with the 8800GTX AND said rep demoed the very "field of view" tessellation and "dynamically reductive rendering" techniques that are purported to be the wonderful unique and new specialties of the GTX 480...

 

[r4z3rh4x0r]

Boxes, I see boxes everywhere........

 

[iocedmyself]

Fips....ugh i just wrote a comment in the 470/480 spec leaked article saying how i didn't see any point in just bashing nvidia....but the combo of doing the same demo 2 years later, as well as that ditz saying fips...for shame.

500 FPS doesn't mean a thing when it's rendering a blob of color way off in the distance, 60 fps when rending JUST the hair with the modifiers applied is just plain pathetic, especially when it's using tessilation.

They are only at a paper launch for the next couple months, availability will still be almost nil for awhile after, the power req is obscene for the meger performance gains over ATI especially when ATI is already cheaper and will only get cheaper once nvidia actually has consumer products available.

the 480 is supposedly $100 more then the 5870, with a 5-10% performance gain, and without the Eyefinity features but has the same TDP as a 5970 which is only $100 more.... regardless of looking at bang for buck, or performance per watt, ATI seems to be clearly in the lead here.

 

[moonwave]

To those saying the hair looks like it's underwater, you didn't watch enough of it. Watch at 2:18 with the wind speed sped up. It looks perfectly fine! Also at 60fps+ is more than enough for fast moving hair. I'm not sure why the head shake looks slower, but obviously there is enough speed to draw the hair for turbulent, fast wind. And while it's true that you could not put a dozen of these exact models in a real game, they could put a reduced hair model (less strands) in a real game and probably make it look almost as good as this. Like GTA4 with 1 to 3 hot chicks, with hair walking by could be done. Let's put it this way, it would blow the other stuff they are doing away. Also Crysis is an example of this when they have grass and weeds all over the place. So no, there is no super dense grass, but there is enough grass that the place seems like you are outside. So in my opinion, some form of hair will eventually come to games, even if it's reduced below this quality level. And that quality level will be far above 5 years ago.

 

[moonwave]

To those saying the hair looks like it's underwater, you didn't watch enough of it. Watch at 2:18 with the wind speed sped up. It looks perfectly fine! Also at 60fps+ is more than enough for fast moving hair. I'm not sure why the head shake looks slower, but obviously there is enough speed to draw the hair for turbulent, fast wind. And while it's true that you could not put a dozen of these exact models in a real game, they could put a reduced hair model (less strands) in a real game and probably make it look almost as good as this. Like GTA4 with 1 to 3 hot chicks, with hair walking by could be done. Let's put it this way, it would blow the other stuff they are doing away. Also Crysis is an example of this when they have grass and weeds all over the place. So no, there is no super dense grass, but there is enough grass that the place seems like you are outside. So in my opinion, some form of hair will eventually come to games, even if it's reduced below this quality level. And that quality level will be far above 5 years ago.

 

[moonwave]

tes test test

 

[moonwave]

To those saying the hair looks like it's underwater, you didn't watch enough of it. Watch at 2:18 with the wind speed sped up. It looks perfectly fine! Also at 60fps+ is more than enough for fast moving hair. I'm not sure why the head shake looks slower, but obviously there is enough speed to draw the hair for turbulent, fast wind. And while it's true that you could not put a dozen of these exact models in a real game, they could put a reduced hair model (less strands) in a real game and probably make it look almost as good as this. Like GTA4 with 1 to 3 hot chicks, with hair walking by could be done. Let's put it this way, it would blow the other stuff they are doing away. Also Crysis is an example of this when they have grass and weeds all over the place. So no, there is no super dense grass, but there is enough grass that the place seems like you are outside. So in my opinion, some form of hair will eventually come to games, even if it's reduced below this quality level. And that quality level will be far above 5 years ago.

 

[moonwave]

sorry if these comments go somewhere, but this posting system sucks.

 

[moonwave]

@iocedmyself, it sounds like you almost know about graphics, but I think you are making some mistakes. She's talking about how if it's far away the complexity of the 3d model is diminished. Had it tried to keep track of all 18,000 strands at that distance it would not have gotten 500+ fps. This is not like in the olden days where simply texturing a polygon used most of the time up when it nearly fills the screen. That was back when models had few polygons. Here, it's processing thousands, so again, she's getting at the fact that it's handling the situation differently. Kind of like mipmapping, but only for 3d models. Had this been say a 100 polygon model, bringing it up to the screen would not have dropped it to 50+fps. It would have done much better. It's all those strands that are killing the fps. Also you picking on her for calling it "fips" is a matter of semantics. I don't like going around saying, "frames per second" all the time either. She does that because she WORKS at nvidia and that's probably how they all say it.