http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news12.20c.html
That would mean TSMC and other fab companies will have factories producing carbon chips in late 2008 (in my experience that means mid 2009). This would mean volume in 2010 which probably means nvidia and ati by late 2010, after intel (you have to fight for slots on fab lines of new techs).
Sooo... unless I'm missing something, assuming these babies are the same size as silicon transistors... , a 10x jump in shader performance around Xmas 2010.
Start coding those raytracers...
Maybe they will be even faster by then, you know how it goes.
It's amazing, when I was in College, the pride and joy of the IT department was a 486 DX2 :)
Kewl... :carrot:
Does this mean, if were lucke we will have 40 ghz cpu's in a couple of years?
My windows has already adjusted :D 39.66 ghz
I knew i had a good overclocker but that good?!?!
Lol ! Paul grabbed the first carbon chipped pc.
It's amazing, when I was in College, the pride and joy of the IT department was an RM Nimbus.
Jim
Great, now game players can continue the current trend of gorgeous games with shallow interaction and no skill based play.
Quote from: Shockwave on January 20, 2008
Maybe they will be even faster by then, you know how it goes.
This is besides the usual 4x performance hike every few years of course, its just extra on top! Plus the main CPU going at ... 80Ghz? I hope this is true. Its seems too good to be true.
Quote from: Pixel_Outlaw on January 21, 2008
Great, now game players can continue the current trend of gorgeous games with shallow interaction and no skill based play.
Seriously, thats really all you think when you hear an announcement like this?
Quote from: taj on January 21, 2008
Quote from: Shockwave on January 20, 2008
Maybe they will be even faster by then, you know how it goes.
This is besides the usual 4x performance hike every few years of course, its just extra on top! Plus the main CPU going at ... 80Ghz? I hope this is true. Its seems too good to be true.
Yeah, having silicon carbide for a chip would be heat resistant so, come one Moore!
i have not read it, but would the memory be also faster?
I mean, cool that i can compute something in lightspeed, but i need to know what to compute beforehand :).
Sweet this is great news. These bad boys are 10x smaller AND produce less heat. Chip density is gonna get massive. Silicon is dead long life carbon
http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn11276
This article states that the new material allows electricity to pass through it at a much faster rate which also means that it requires less electricity to do the same work. That means less heat which also means even greater density. I think I will be upgrading as soon as possible :D
"i have not read it, but would the memory be also faster?"
I would hope so, memory chips are just transistors too. And with greater density there'd be the possibility of more memory onboard the cpu too increasing the cache sizes or replacing it with something else.
Quote from: Pixel_Outlaw on January 21, 2008
Great, now game players can continue the current trend of gorgeous games with shallow interaction and no skill based play.
Forget games, code demos instead :P think of all the new effects that will be possible.
I'd truely love to see real time raytracing at some huge, stupid resolution.
Imagine what the entries at Breakpoint 2010 will be like! Competition machines are usually really high spec.
Yup raytracers just got a green light to go large.
Quote from: rain_storm on January 21, 2008
Yup raytracers just got a green light to go large.
Guess that is true.
Next Gen Console in 2011 or 2012 will be using Ray tracting graphics I believe O0
Quote from: taj on January 21, 2008
Quote from: Pixel_Outlaw on January 21, 2008
Great, now game players can continue the current trend of gorgeous games with shallow interaction and no skill based play.
Seriously, thats really all you think when you hear an announcement like this?
Yes, besides some governmental simulators and high-end drafting tools , video games are driving the graphics industry at the consumer level.
computer technology is moving to fast forward... when i have read a computer magazine in beginning the 90th or still some years ago, things has been actual in the next month-issue... today things changed complete i think... modern technology from today will be old one day later... Its amazing how the technique of RAM and CPU from 0,96 Mhz (C64) or 7,14 Mhz (Amiga) has been changed to single core 3Ghz up to extreme fast QuadCore CPUS with up to 12 MB L2 cache O.O
Due fact of this, about 1 hour ago i have seen a very interested tv report where they showed a great technology how a computer just works only with light (even the CPU!)... prototypes still exist in the labors... but ready for the mass may take 10 years! One of the big problem with this "lightbased CPU/computer" is, that they will be extreme faster with less Ghz as today modern SuperComputers! So this CPUs/computers may crack a crypted thing in just a few minutes until 1 hour, where today SuperComputer need 100 years they told O.O ... This is one more reason why this technology will not be available to fast for privat use (even if they will cost less money as today PCs). This computer would change the worldwide finance market and other things.. because today a lot of companies are using so called "security crypted things" for their datas... with this Lightbased CPU all things are no longer protected. strange!
Something nobody has answered here yet is the impact it will have on the simulation of physics.
Real materials will be able to be constructed, objects could be made out of tiny components that react just like the real thing.
Proper objects with hugely complicated sets of rules will be possible.
Tomorrow's games will have much more interactive environments making new gameplay ideas possible.
Tomorrows demos will be even more creative, because unlike software houses who are not creative because there is too much money at stake, demo teams will incorporate new features into thier demos.
The possibilities will be tremendous, much much higher screen resolutions will be possible as graphics cards have more power, completely outrageous fantasy worlds will be created by the leading groups.
But with proper physics, things will burn, freeze, melt, grow, bleed, flow ever more realistically.
There are Phyisics Processing Units (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_processing_unit) currently available that will run in addition to your Graphics Card to add more realistic explosions etc. etc. all of Newtons Laws can be managed in hardware already. Why no one is raving about these PPU's is beyond me.
Noone knows what to do with them yet except maybe run Havok Physics on them.
Jim
I'd imagine it's a slightly different situation from when graphics cards were first introduced, back then you could have hardware/software options so that anyone without the new toy could still play the games just they wouldn't look as good. I can't imagine anyone releasing a game that relies on physics hardware to give the option for less advanced physics for those without the cards unless the physics it's simulating are non gameplay related perhaps like water/weather/fire/smoke visualisation.
Maybe I'm talking rubbish but I wouldn't like to think that something like a racing game could have different physics models depending on whether you had a card or not.
It is quite interesting to think what could be done on a molecular level but isn't it at that level that traditional Newtonian physics fail? Also, if I remember correctly as far as encryption goes, there was some discussion of using a sort of quantum signal transmission system that in theory would abide by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. This states that you can't measure and know the location of subatomic particles at the same time. So once the signal is received it cannot be reconstructed. I don't know much more than that about the system, just saw something on a science channel.
I do think there has to be some plateau on graphics technology. I would say that at some level a few million more polygons are not noticeable. I don't know if the same rule would apply with resolution but it seems that it might. Perhaps human perception plays a huge role in this plateau idea I'm thinking of. I could just be talking out of my ass but right now this is what I'm thinking.
On your thoughts on graphics technology Pixel_Outlaw, if you're talking about realism then it's not all about how many triangles you can throw into a scene (although I think an increase on that front can still currently make quite a difference and will do for a few years yet) but consider how something like lighting and shadowing can be improved and having the ability to add many more light sources into a scene with far less limitation and workarounds that are needed currently or the same with environmental effects like dynamic cubemapping on many more objects without having to make any compromises although that stuff does still involve more triangles.
Also, a lot of the effects used are approximations and there are probably more accurate (I'm not going into raytracing here) methods that are currently too expensive but may be viable in the future.
EDIT:
I am less inclined to think an increase in resolution from what we have now is as important unless it's displayed on a large screen.
Quote from: Stonemonkey on January 25, 2008
I am less inclined to think an increase in resolution from what we have now is as important unless it's displayed on a large screen.
I think that this will happen, it kind of happens now with several monitors being powered off one graphics adapter.
Maybe we'll see new technology in monitors that allows super-fine resolutions.
I certainly can see 1920x1080p being a target for graphics card manufacturers and games. That's where the mainstream technology maxes out.
Jim
I suppose what I mean is that higher resolution doesn't really mean a more realistic image, you can look at a program or movie at standard definition and it'll still look more real than computer graphics rendered at high definition. I know from time to time the film studios have pulled it off pretty well but that's with hardware far more powerful than is available for home use and isn't realtime rendered and until you can have a home computer capable of generating that sort of imagary in realtime I don't really think you can say that we've reached the limits of what graphics hardware can or should be doing and I think that's still a long way off.
Quote from: Stonemonkey on January 26, 2008
I suppose what I mean is that higher resolution doesn't really mean a more realistic image, you can look at a program or movie at standard definition and it'll still look more real than computer graphics rendered at high definition. I know from time to time the film studios have pulled it off pretty well but that's with hardware far more powerful than is available for home use and isn't realtime rendered and until you can have a home computer capable of generating that sort of imagary in realtime I don't really think you can say that we've reached the limits of what graphics hardware can or should be doing and I think that's still a long way off.
Indeed Stonemonkey.
In fact it's the opposite. The higher the resolution, the more likely we are to see the differences between reality and CGI.
The human eye has an very good ability to detect subtelty. Even if they get the visuals looking like reality, the animation
of everything would also have to match... lip sync, AI and linking movement in particular is still stodgy in most cases at present.
I sometimes wonder why it is so important that reality is achieved in CG... why are people craving for it so much?
It has absolutely no impact on what a good game is all about.