Twilight of the GPU — an Interview With Tim Sweeney 286
cecom writes to share that Tim Sweeney, co-founder of Epic Games and the main brain behind the Unreal engine, recently sat down at NVIDIA's NVISION con to share his thoughts on the rise and (what he says is) the impending fall of the GPU: "...a fall that he maintains will also sound the death knell for graphics APIs like Microsoft's DirectX and the venerable, SGI-authored OpenGL. Game engine writers will, Sweeney explains, be faced with a C compiler, a blank text editor, and a stifling array of possibilities for bending a new generation of general-purpose, data-parallel hardware toward the task of putting pixels on a screen."
For once ... (Score:5, Informative)
For once I'm reading an 'xzy is going to die' article that doesn't sound like utter rubbish. Could it be that, for once, the one stating this actually knows what he's talking about?
My last custom realtime GPU was a Geforce Ti4200. I'm now using a Mac Mini with GT950. Mind you, Blender *is* quite a bit slower on the 950, even though it runs with twice the sysclock, but I'm not really missing the old Geforce. I too think it highly plausible that the GPU and the CPU merge within the next few years.
Re:For once ... (Score:5, Funny)
On a day when Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch, the backbone of our economy, "died", to make these kinds of heartless statements is just pandering to the prejudices of the liberal elite. Instead of buying a Mac you should buy a Dell (which is far more "American" in the truest sense of the word) and instead of irresponsible talk of combining CPU and GPU you should keep them well separated for the good of our nation.
Our country is built on a strong consumer market; it is "progressives" like you who are causing this crisis, which might even result in a president with an Afro. Shame on you.
Re: (Score:2)
For once I'm reading an 'xzy is going to die' article that doesn't sound like utter rubbish.
Look, over there! An iPod killer!
*giggles*
-Taylor
Re: (Score:2)
Not that weird considering that's how it all was done before ... Even on the Amiga you don't have that much to help you get things done once you don't draw windows in Workbench.
The obvious benefit is of course that you do only what you want/need to do and not a bunch of other stuff.
I doubt we'll see specialized chips (in the same physical chip or not remains to be seen I guess) removed totally though. It's not like someone is saying "oh well let's remove this special purpose stuff which can run a few other
Re:For once Ivan Sutherland Wheel of Re-invention (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:For once ... (Score:5, Interesting)
So wait, your integrated graphics is *slower* than a low end discrete graphics card that's now 6 generations (or ~6 years) behind... and you find that acceptable?
At the current pace, it'll take them a decade to match a high end card from today with an integrated card, and video cards aren't standing still in the mean time.
You can point at the current integrated market for video cards, but that's not terribly interesting due to the fact that a) current integrated video cards barely do more than send signals to monitor(s), and (as a corollary to a) b) current integrated video cards aren't very fast.
Wake me up when integrated video cards are faster than discrete video cards.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're exaggerating. Modern Intel integrated graphics fully support DirectX 10, and full onboard video decoding. They're comparable to discrete GPUs from about three years ago.
Do these things scream when it comes to games? No, but they don't need to. For the vast majority of people, serious gaming isn't in the cards. These GPUs need to display a 3D accelerated UI with decent performance, and help out with media decoding. Casual gaming is a plus, although businesses aren't interested in that.
By these account
Re:For once ... (Score:4, Interesting)
He does make a good point and its a throwback to the old days before GPU's existed. Look back to the days of Doom or Duke3D, You had to hand code and entire rendering engine for the game. No API's or 3D hardware was available, only a single CPU and a frame buffer and compiler. With current and upcoming technology like multi-core and stream processors, there will be plenty of new options for developers to take advantage of. IBM Cell, Intel's Terrascale and Larabee are three of those technologies but I still highly doubt the GPU is done for yet.
3D rendering isn't the only thing going on in games or other programs. You have physics which is used in both games and simulators. We also have AI, which in games is still severely lacking. 3D sound is still simply how far is player from object and attenuate the sound as necessary. So those areas could definatly use those multi core CPU's or Stream processors.
We cant forget about really exciting stuff like real time ray tracing that is well suited for multi core and stream processing but its ways off. I don't think the GPU will disappear in the next five years but I do see it evolving to adapt to new rendering technologies. Instead of a very discreet GPU we will have a very fast accelerator chip that can do more general work. It not only will handle the 3D rendering pipe but also lend itself to tasks like video processing, DSP, audio processing and other compute intense tasks like physics. It is already happening with Nvidia's CUDA and ATI's Stream SDK. We still need a general purpose CPU to manage the OS and I/O but like the IBM cell it could very well move on die. Multi-core X86 CPU's are not the future. Instead we need one or two cores to manage resources and run legacy code.Then you let the stream processors (for lack of a better term) do all the compute intense dirty work. Hell we could even get rid of X86 and go with a more efficient and compact CPU like ARM or something else entirely.
Funny as I am typing this I realize I am pretty much describing the IBM cell processor and Intel Larabee. But still I doubt developers will be the ones holding the ball for interfacing with this new hardware. Hardware vendors and developers will (or rater should) come together and standardize a new set of API's and tools to deal with the new tech. If developers have a breakthrough that is better than ray tracing, they will definitely have the hardware to do it. Welcome to the future.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm sorry to be blunt, this post is almost entirely inaccurate! Informative, jeesh.
1) There is no GT950 - Mac Minis use the Intel GMA 950.
2) the GMA 950 has NOTHING to do with merging the CPU and GPU - it merges the motherboard chipset with the GPU.
3) the GMA 950 is the same old special-purpose GPU concept as anything from NVidia or ATI (er, AMD) - just slower and using system memory instead of dedicated RAM.
The article is talking about rendering graphics on a high-performance, parallelized general purpose
Imagine That (Score:4, Interesting)
In other news...
A man whose company makes its money writing game engines says, "APIs are going to go away. It's going to be very, very hard to build a game engine in the future when you can't rely on the APIs anymore. So everyone'll have to switch to the few companies that build game engines instead. Like mine. I recommend you start now and save yourself the headache."
Hmm, I detect no bias whatsoever.
Well, almost as little as when nVidia tells the world that they have seen the future and it's in GPGPUs replacing CPUs. Amazing how everyone has seen the future, it supports their business model and the rest of us can save ourselves a lot of pain if we jump on what pays them well.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, that can't be it. Know why? Because...why would you put more processing and thus more heat in one place that already has problems with that?
Cost. It's cheaper to build and install, on the MB, one chip with one die than it is to build two chips/dies on two boards (not to mention bypass caps, fans, RAM, etc.). With combined functions it may be that the one chip produces less heat than the total of the two, although it is all in one spot.
And why install an overkill graphics processing unit inside the processor if most people won't use it anyway?
Maybe two CPU grades? One with full graphics capabilities and the other with basic graphics (could be the same die one passes all graphics tests at full speed the other doesn't).
And where would the VGA/DVI output go if there's no graphics card? If you put it somewhere else then why move the graphics processor further away from the outputs?
You are already going to put a (rel
Re:For once ... (Score:5, Funny)
what's a few more inches?
The difference between "Is it in yet?" and "Dear god you're ripping me in two!"
Re:For once ... (Score:4, Funny)
Your mom's basement sounds WAY more fun than mine.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's very slightly (pennies) cheaper to put one chip on the motherboard rather than two. It's MUCH more expensive to merge two big CPU/GPU type chips into one. Manufacturing flaws become more common fast with bigger chips.
If we could break CPUs into pieces now we'd do it, both for that and heat reasons. We can't because all the parts currently located in a CPU need to talk to each other very fast. The GPU is something that usually doesn't need to talk to the CPU much. So it's separate.
Re:For once ... (Score:5, Informative)
It's very slightly (pennies) cheaper to put one chip on the motherboard rather than two. It's MUCH more expensive to merge two big CPU/GPU type chips into one. Manufacturing flaws become more common fast with bigger chips.
I don't think your estimate is correct for packaging and placing a single chip vs. two chips but in high volume manufacturing even pennies make all the difference. What about the cost of the second fan and other infrastructure for the GPU? There is also the issue of real estate - two chips take up more room than one so your etch routing becomes more of a challenge requiring smaller etch geometries resulting in a more expensive PCB.
If we could break CPUs into pieces now we'd do it, both for that and heat reasons. We can't because all the parts currently located in a CPU need to talk to each other very fast. The GPU is something that usually doesn't need to talk to the CPU much. So it's separate.
No, it will always be cheaper to integrate at the chip level. Look at system prices, dual core is cheaper than dual CPU (if you can even find one these days) of similar performance. The trend in embedded systems (even more cost sensitive than PCs) is to integrate everything into a single package (SOC) [wikipedia.org]. As others have pointed out cache and the FPU were once separate chips from the CPU they are now all integrated into one package.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In embedded system-on-a-chip stuff you're talking about putting a few components on a chip. The feature count is WAY smaller than a CPU (or a GPU). That can be done fairly cost effectively because the CPU makers have already led the way. Even then, many system-on-a-chip products are really system-in-a-package, where different bits of silicon are put together inside a single package. Here's a conference paper that talks about it: http://www.acreo.se/upload/Publications/Proceedings/OE00/00-COLLANDER.pdf [acreo.se]
Me
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why wasn't the FPU integrated with the CPU right away? Because it didn't make sense. Then, as clock rates went up, the FPU had to be integrated to keep up.
The GPU and the CPU don't talk to each other that way. The GPU needs MEMORY bandwidth. It doesn't really care what's in the CPU registers.
I don't think this guy ever says that the GPU and CPU are going to merge. What he does think is that the GPU is going to go away, to be replaced by a general purpose vector/stream/dsp type processor. When or if th
Re:For once ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Except that you like everyone else reads "CPU" in the article to mean the Intel/AMD CPU and not think of it as current gen GPUs that are almost capable of massive parallel execution of general purpose code. With the advent of Shaders, more processing was able to be offloaded to GPUs and over the next couple of GPU generations. So his idea is that we'll see less of the OpenGL/DirectX specific API calls and everything being done in CUDA/Shaders. That way the folks who write graphics engines aren't limited to the current SGI implementation (here's a set of vectors describing my object -- draw it) and we'll see different rendering engines based on Ray Tracing for example (or whatever other methods the engine writers want to do it).
This isn't anything new here -- he's basically saying what Intel has already said... You'll see less OpenGL/DirectX and more CUDA/Shader based implementations for rendering engines.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:For once ... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that can't be it. Know why? Because...why would you put more processing and thus more heat in one place that already has problems with that?
You mean how floating point units used to in a separate coprocessor?
Or how L2 cache used to be on external chips? (And in some cases was even upgradable.)
Or how modems used to have their own signal processors? But now most use the CPU.
Or how we're moving the memory controller into the CPU right now.
Hell, we've even stuck the majority of complete additional CPUs into the the CPU with our modern dual and quad core chips.
Apparently the author doesn't know much about computers.
Apparently you don't know much about computers either.
The entire history of the personal computer is been one long slide of functionality moving towards the CPU. Sure every now and then something new comes along being done by an add-on processor - like the numeric coprocessor for example.
Sure before the coprocessor you could accomplish the functionality of what a coprocessor does with an 'integer cpu', but a hardware optimized numerica coprocessor was a new feature, one that added tremendous floating point performance in dediated hardware. Within a couple CPU generations the coprocessor had been completely absorbed into the CPU.
The author is speculating that the GPU will see the same fate eventually. And he's probably right.
And why install an overkill graphics processing unit inside the processor if most people won't use it anyway?
Once upon a time people said that about numeric coprocessors. "Only a research scientist would need that!"
You are quite wrong (Score:3, Informative)
You are very, very wrong. The history of computer hardware has been one where extra functionality is moved from the cpu for speed, folded back in a few years later for efficiency, and farmed out to an add-on card for speed some time later...
See http://catb.org/jargon/html/W/wheel-of-reincarnation.html for details.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It will be good riddance to video cards if that functionality moves to the CPU as far as I'm concerned. Especially if Intel and AMD continue with their recent trend of developing open drivers for their chips. Unlike other companies in
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
and what would be an example for this?
How about, say, specialized graphics hardware being implemented in separate chips for home computers, and then later being discarded in favor of using faster CPUs to do the rendering instead?
Like what happened in the 80s and 90s.
Re: (Score:2)
"Only a research scientist would need that!"
Only a research scientist does need that. Meanwhile, uninformed consumers are being suckered into buying way more than they need to check email and type their documents.
Nevertheless, your point is taken. Personally, I'm not adverse to this type of change, as long as it is a real improvement. I just hope that there will still be options (Celeron) for those who don't need the extras, but I'm confident the market will make sure this is the case.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Only a research scientist would need that!"
Only a research scientist does need that. Meanwhile, uninformed consumers are being suckered into buying way more than they need to check email and type their documents.
Or, say, play Quake.
The nice thing about functionality moving into the CPU standard is that it opens up that functionality for a lot more applications than originally intended. FPUs may have mainly been for scientific work early on, but because it's essentially ubiquitous, now a vast array of programs do floating point computation... probably including your word processor.
The main reason I might have my doubts about this is that graphics performance has been advancing faster than CPU performance for a whil
Re:For once ... (Score:5, Informative)
> Or how modems used to have their own signal processors? But now most use the CPU.
Welllll... I'd say the move to HSP modems took place more because the ascent of DSL and cable internet relegated modems to the status of, "nice to have if I happen to need it once in a blue moon to send a fax or dialup in the middle of nowhere at some point over the next 2-4 years." Remember all those articles 3-5 years ago about how host signal processing absolutely DESTROYS CPU performance because it demands constant attention from the CPU, and the software overhead of having to keep stopping to service the modem caused the computer to run at least 20-30% slower? Well, not much has changed, except now with a multi-core CPU it can kill the performance of just ONE core instead of bringing the whole computer to its knees. But even with multicore CPUs, I can guarantee that if modems were still the primary way people got online, there would definitely be a thriving market for "performance" modems that offloaded at LEAST the signal-processing functions to a real DSP (like the Lucent "semi-Winmodems", that actually gave users the best of both worlds... offloading the stuff that really dragged the CPU down to its own DSP, but doing things like compression and error-correction that could be handled in discrete batches faster than even dedicated hardware could achieve).
There's another thing to remember about discrete chips... in the early 3dfx days, the mainstream CPU makers (Intel, AMD, and Cyrix) had ZERO interest in giving even the slightest attention to 3D graphics. Unless you're IBM (who wasn't interested in 3D, either), building CPUs is probably way beyond your company's capabilities. HOWEVER, designing a 3D graphics chip with the complexity of the first ones used by 3dfx IS within the capabilities of a well-funded design company with the connections to get it manufactured. It doesn't even need a fab with the capabilities of one owned by Intel, AMD, etc. So discrete 3d cards were an elegant way to sidestep the deadweight lack of interest on the CPU side by shifting it to a chip that smaller companies could design and build. Now that "the big guys" have turned their attention to it, the smaller players don't have a prayer (ergo, the merger mania among CPU/mobo chipset makers and graphics chip makers).
The same observation can be made regarding cache and memory controllers. In the First Pentium Era, volume manufacturers like Compaq (and their comrades at arms, Intel & AMD) regarded cache as a luxury the unwashed masses could live without, even if it only saved $5 and cut the effective performance in half. Hey, consumers only look at that "Mhz" number, anyway... Fortunately, performance-oriented mobo makers were able to take matters into their own hands, and once again do an end run around the CPU vendors' sloth and put cache directly on the mobo. Once CPU makers decided cache mattered, and put lots of it on-die, the marginal benefit of putting more, relatively expensive tertiary cache on the motherboard diminished. As for memory controllers, they got moved into the CPU because it was the only way to reliably achieve increased memory bandwidth (designing a 32-bit parallel interface for ANYTHING that has to run at 400+ MHz and communicate across traces on a circuit board is a hardcore engineering challenge; Serial is cheaper to implement and can be faster overall than a simpler parallel solution, but there's a point where you can't shove the bits any faster, and the only way to increase bandwidth is to go parallel. It's not a coincidence that PCI Express video cards communicate 16 bits at a time, but even the fastest fibre-channel disk or network interface is happy with a single bit.
The sad irony, though, is that 5 years from now, games will probably have graphics about as good as you can get from the best and most expensive SLI solutions money can buy today... but overall performance will probably be less consistent (ie, if Windows decides that it might be a good time to reorganize its temp directory while y
Re:For once ... (Score:4, Insightful)
If the performance degradation 5 years ago was 20-30% because the things were pumping out a ton of interrupts, one would expect the resurgence of multithreaded CPUs to further reduce the impact. They should help with context switches. When you've got eight logical cores, that 30% is suddenly 4%, and much less important.
US-Robotics still sells "hardware" modems, although they're not all that cheap. But back in the day, they did cut 50-100ms of latency off a dialup connection when compared to a winmodem (or controllerless).
Re:For once ... (Score:5, Insightful)
GPUs generally just take data from the CPU and get rendering, so unless they start sending data back to the CPU much more there's no real reason for them to merge.
Another difference; graphics cards benefit from being updated every now and then. Another; GPUs use a lot of transistors, and because of their parallel nature the more transistors the better, it's not something that will get so small that it can be tacked onto the CPU as a nice extra. There are probably more.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Doesn't matter. There are basically 2 big point here:
1) The special-puropose GPU will morph into a more generalized co-processor for handling all sorts of massively parallel stuff.
This is just bleeding obvious, and I can prove that, because it is already happening. As more and more of it becomes programmable, it only makes sense that the built-in rendering microcode is replaced with libraries that ou may or may not chose to hack yourself.
2) Once the generalization is done, it will make sense to merge the t
Re:For once ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Not if AMD can help it. Obviously this is not their path or they would not have purchased ATI. They sell two products, one of them is enormously expensive, the other is reasonable. I cant see why any graphics card manufacturer would give up all that profit!?
Also consider that GPU upgrades are much more frequent that CPU upgrades. I don't think the dollars favor integration of the two. I don't think there is enough competition for force it either.
The only company that may achieve this is VIA. For completely different reasons.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
GPUs are also very expensive to make due to their large die size.
In fact die size may be the single biggest thing that SHOULD prevent the combination of the GPU and CPU. As the mm^2 of the die grows, the cost grows even faster.
In fact the biggest differences (other than a few tweaks to correct errors) between the disaster Radeon HD2k series and the vastly superior Radeon HD3k series was a die shrink - they're all R600 series units. It went from a total bomb (HD2k series) to a very competative card - the d
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How long has audio been around? Have you ever seen an audio chip integrated into the CPU? Most of them are done by onboard chips, not on the CPU.
They've moved from being standalone cards to being predominantly integrated into the mainboard and using the cpu for processing... rather like HSP modems, really.
Re:For once ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Man, you've got some awful, awful arguments here.
For the same reason that your CPU isn't spread up among thirty chips distributed throughout your laptop: efficiency and cost. Making one chip is generally cheaper than making two, and the amount of bandwidth inside a single chip is massively higher than what you can do with a northbridge.
Every latest-generation operating system provides a 3d accelerated desktop. Every latest-generation computer provides the hardware to use it. Programs are going to be taking more and more advantage of that feature.
See question 1.
Not at all. For one thing, there wouldn't *be* graphics hardware - it'd be more of a vectorized coprocessor. For another thing, why *would* it be any harder? It's not like people are having horrible trouble updating their USB drivers, even if the USB controller is part of another, larger chip.
Obviously, if they took existing laptop designs, and slapped a bigger heatsource in the CPU, yes. I'm assuming that computer manufacturers aren't functionally retarded, and they wouldn't do that. (Well, maybe some would, but their computers aren't going to be stable anyway.)
The same place it already goes on motherboards that have integrated graphics? It's not like "computers without dedicated graphics cards" is a new concept, unless you've been living in a cave for the last decade.
See question 1. Also, "why not?" - it's not like that extra four inches is going to be a serious problem.
As near as I can tell, your argument comes down to the common logical fallacy:
"They *could* do X. But if they do it the *stupidest way possible*, X is a bad idea. Therefore, X is a bad idea."
When determining whether something is a good idea or not, you have to assume it's going to be done well. If the person in charge of integrating CPUs and GPUs is anything less than a complete unalloyed moron, they'll have come up with solutions to all of those issues of yours.
Re: (Score:2)
The same place it already goes on motherboards that have integrated graphics? It's not like "computers without dedicated graphics cards" is a new concept, unless you've been living in a cave for the last decade.
I don't think integrating the graphics into another chip is even a new concept; isn't that what a lot of low-end Intel chipsets do? Integrate an Intel GPU into the chipset (northbridge, etc.)? It's not that big a step to go from there to integrating it into the CPU itself, just as they're already m
Re:For once ... (Score:4, Interesting)
A modern GPU, such as the current flagship GeForce GTX 280 [wikipedia.org], is a relatively specialised piece of hardware. It has optimised support for things such as matrix operations which are used a lot in graphics and yet has no real support for integers which aren't. It has a very fast and entirely dedicated memory bus capable of pushing 140GB/s at maximum for processing geometry and textures. It's highly parallel having two hundred and forty stream processors to process the millions of seperate shader runs which make up a single frame of a high-resolution 3d scene as quickly as possible. It is also a very complex piece of technology having 1400 million transistors compared to a Core 2 Extreme QX9650 [wikipedia.org]'s 820 million processors.
There's no way that a current CPU could replace that in anything other than a very slow emulation mode even if fully dedicated to the task. If you do want to see the difference download either nVidia's FX Composer or ATI's RenderMonkey which are both shader authoring tools. These will allow you to load a shader and preview it using your 3d card and then drop down to software rendering. Watch as a smoothly-animated complex shader suddenly grinds to a halt, often taking literally seconds to render a single frame. It's not a pretty sight.
In the future with CPUs getting more and more cores and graphics programming getting more generic to support different algorithms without needing to work against the silicon's basic design it's likely we'll see them being more suitable to the rendering task as the article covers but for now trying to substitute the CPU for the GPU would be like entering a bulldozer into a Formula 1 race on the basis that it has a large engine.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since this is the developer who wrote the Unreal 3d engine, which is one of the best in the world at the moment, you'll have to excuse me if I think he knows a little bit about graphics APIs.
Both DirectX and OpenGL are entirely dedicated to the "Here is a triangle-based polygon mesh, some textures, and a few shaders- go draw me a pretty picture won't you?". This is a good approach to a lot of general 3d work but it is not the alpha and omega of 3d rendering.
As a couple of examples it doesn't have good supp
Wrong summary (Score:5, Informative)
He talks about the impending fall of the fixed function GPU.
I hope not! (Score:5, Interesting)
I just browsed the article and it looks like what he's saying is that as GPU's become more like highly parallel cpu's we will begin to see API's go away in favor of writing compiled code for the GPU itself. For example, if I want to generate an explosion, I could write some native GPU code for the explosion, and let the GPU execute this program directly... rather than being limited to the API's capabilities.
So essentially, we will go back to game developers needing to make hardware specific hacks for their games... some games having better support for some cards, etc.
API's are there for a reason... lets keep em and just make them better.
Re:I hope not! (Score:5, Interesting)
I read it differently than you did. He's projecting a world where everything is standardized and faster (less 'bus plumbing' GPUs). In such a world you won't need APIs because you'll have libraries that you can include in the compile process.
APIs reduce code bulk at the cost of reduced code speed, don't they?
Re:I hope not! (Score:5, Informative)
A library you include in the compile process is an implementation of an API.
APIs reduce code bulk at the cost of reduced code speed, don't they?
No.
Re:I hope not! (Score:5, Insightful)
I read it differently than you did. He's projecting a world where everything is standardized and faster (less 'bus plumbing' GPUs). In such a world you won't need APIs because you'll have libraries that you can include in the compile process.
No, you won't need APIs because you'll have a standard instruction set. Current graphics APIs are oriented around things like pushing triangles and running shaders on them. Why bother with the complexity of the graphics APIs, if you can create a standardized instruction set for GPUs?
We essentially already have that, but it's wrapped in the paradigm of shader programming. Stop treating the GPU as a graphics processor, and as just this really parallel coprocessor, and you get what Sweeney is talking about.
The basic point is that GPUs aren't really for graphics anymore, and as we move away from a graphics fixation, we'll come to realize that they're just specialized computers. Using graphics APIs to program them would be as stupid as using OpenGL to write a word processor. Sure, with modern capabilities, it's actually possible, but it's a bad conceptual fit.
Tim Sweeney has vested interest for this (Score:4, Insightful)
It's also interesting to note that the guy being interviewed is in the business of making 3D engines.
Now ask the question: would 3D engine makers perhaps have something to gain if OpenGL and DirectX would be scrapped, as the interview suggests?
Most game dev labs wouldn't have the resources to build their own engines from the scratch using a C++ compiler, making them to - wait for it - licence a 3D engine like the one this guy is selling.
So in summary, the article paints a picture from the future which would be very beneficial to interviewee, so I'd take it with a grain of salt. Either we'd get some de facto 3D engines replacing OpenGL and DirectX, or the game developers will waste time recreating each new graphics technology advancement into their own engines.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
TS: I expect that in the next generation we'll write 100 percent of our rendering code in a real programming language-not DirectX, not OpenGL, but a language like C++ or CUDA. A real programming language unconstrained by weird API restrictions. Whether that runs on NVIDIA hardware, Intel hardware or ATI hardware is really an independent question. You could potentially run it on any hardware that's capable of running general-purpose code efficiently.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no such thing as "hardware that's capable of running general-purpose code"... in fact there is no such thing as "general-purpose code". Code is nothing but a language that is either interpreted by a processor, or can be compiled such that can be interpreted by a processor (or virtual machine). Either way, all code is highly dependant upon the capabilities of the hardware.
It's easy to throw Intel and AMD out there as though they provide an example of how it might work... however that analogy only
Re: (Score:2)
No what he was saying is that currently you have to with a different set set of explosion code depending on your app running on a DirectX system an OpenGL system or a console. If they they all just had CPUs with lots of cores you could write a general explosion with a few minor tweaks needed for consoles with specific CPUs.
More cores means more general CPU instead of some GPU that has does a few limited things fast.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah the the binary "program" that generates the explosion, must then be compiled for each different processor... or processors must standardize on one instruction set... the first way makes it difficult for game developers... the second slows hardware innovation because it limit's hardware designers (make a processor that doesn't conform and it fails because no older software can use it).
API's solve both weaknesses with very little trade off. As long as the API is upgraded frequently to support new featur
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more reading it that if you have a heterogeneous set of ultra high-performance specialized CPUs, you don't need to separate them out into CPU, GPU, or whatever. You have a cluster, where sub-tasks are migrated to the CPUs best designed for those sub-tasks, with no artificial designation of what goes where. There is no central control or central data store, and no transfer of thread control. Messages containing data would be passed, but you wouldn't be looking at a traditional API in which flow control p
Re: (Score:2)
This all assumes that all of the different players' PU's are binary compatible... at which point there can be very little innovation in hardware except to make things smaller or add more of them. Think x86.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
At the deep RISC level, they probably wouldn't be. In fact, they'd certainly not be, or you'd simply have an SMP cluster with some emulation on top. If you're going for the migrating code, you'd need binary compatibility at the emulated mode (think Transmeta or IBM's DAISY project) but the underlying specialization would give you the improvement over a homogeneous cluster. If you're going for the totally heterogeneous design - basically the Cell approach but on a far, far larger scale - you need endian comp
Re: (Score:2)
Translation: in the future, OpenGL will be supplanted by OpenCL [wikipedia.org] or similar. Okay, maybe I might buy that in theory, but... not soon. I would think that the abstraction in things like OpenGL provides some benefits over writing raw C code in terms of making it easier to do graphical tasks.
Re: (Score:2)
I suggested my cousin to buy a "Macbook" (non Pro) trusting to its dual core Intel CPU and Intel X3100 integrated Graphics.
You should see how it doesn't perform on OS X and performs a little on Windows XP installed via bootcamp. The idea of installing XP via bootcamp to a Apple computer just to get game support and a bit performance shows the danger of GPU vendors death.
I don't think anyone can optimise better than Intel for Intel CPU, that should be even worse on other integrated graphics chip vendors.
"run
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny, I know somebody who plays WoW on a Macbook. Giant raids can get slideshowy, but most of the time it works okay.
I think you're expecting a lot from a $1000 notebook.
Re: (Score:2)
There are very talented developers at Blizzard who can actually code for OpenGL. They are also a legend for supporting any hardware. They are the ones who implemented "multi threaded" OpenGL right after OS X supported it.
WoW is really a rarity just like any other Blizzard game. I don't expect too much from a $1000 notebook, I just wanted to tell the experience of integrated graphics even if it was developed and supported by CPU vendor (Intel) itself.
Software rendering on the GPU (Score:5, Insightful)
Somehow I don't think there's going to be lack of a standardized API much like OpenGL or DirectX even if it's possible to write code for the GPU as easily as the CPU.
The APIs at the most basic level allow Joe and Bob to build their own system, throw whatever graphics card they can find in it and have the same game run on both systems.
As soon as you start coding for a specific GPU you're going to be treating PCs like consoles. I don't care to have to buy multiple graphics cards to play various games.
APIs are for compatibility and general purpose use. The option of flexibility is great for industry use where you're running rendering farms all running identical hardware and custom software.
Re: (Score:2)
Failure to make PU specific files available (Score:2)
Could you get around this by "compiling" the game for individual PUs?
And having it failing to run on newly released architectures? GPU instruction sets change much more often than even the Mac platform's m68k to PowerPC to x86 to x86-64.
But it could be as simple as buying a game, and on install getting a PU specific file either from disc, or for newer iterations from a download server.
Until the publisher goes out of business or just decides to discontinue porting an older game's PU specific files to newer video cards in order to encourage users to buy^W license the sequel. And then you get into microISVs that don't have the money to buy one of each make and model of video card against which to compile and test a game's PU
Re:Software rendering on the GPU (Score:4, Interesting)
As soon as you start coding for a specific GPU you're going to be treating PCs like consoles. I don't care to have to buy multiple graphics cards to play various games.
I got the impression that they're expecting C++ compilers for all the GPUs, eventually, so then they'd simply have rendering libraries for each GPU. I also got the impression that they'd be waiting until most gamers had one of the compatible GPUs. Let's face it, most gamers usually don't buy the cheapest graphics card and now the two major players, ATI and nVidia have GPUs that are easily accessible. It won't be too long until you can't buy a video card from them that doesn't support CUDA and whatever the ATI equivalent is.
I think it's a pretty safe gamble for video game developers, certainly the 1st Person 3D game developers.
Re:Software rendering on the GPU (Score:5, Insightful)
You're missing the point entirely. GPUs in the near future will essentially be general-purpose massively-multicore processors. (Not entirely so, but close enough for "GPU" to become a misnomer.)
You don't need separate binaries for Intel versus AMD processors, and you don't have to write to an API to achieve portability between such different CPUs. Given sufficiently general hardware, there's no inherent reason why GPUs should be any different. There will still be a place for libraries, but their role will be more like C libraries than like GL/DX.
Re: (Score:2)
In case you didn't know, this high-level code has to be compiled *at runtime* for the particular GPU.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet somehow, there's a tremendous amount of GPU-specific optimization code present in every game out there. It may not be a complete codebase rewrite, but it's not as simple as $quality = ($gpu == 'fast') ? 'high' : 'low'; regardless of brand, generation, speed, etc.
New market opportunity for render engines? (Score:3, Interesting)
For the last decade or so, it seems like the rendering side was abstracted away into either DirectX or OpenGL, but if the author is correct, those abstractions are no longer going to be a requirement.
While I don't know a lot more about the various other rendering techniques that the article mentions, it seems like there might be an opportunity emerging to develop those engines and license them to the game companies.
I suspect that game companies won't want to get into the graphics rendering engine design field themselves, but there's real possibility for a whole new set of companies to emerge to compete in providing new frameworks for 3D graphics.
--
Hey code monkey... learn electronics! Powerful microcontroller kits for the digital generation. [nerdkits.com]
Re:New market opportunity for render engines? (Score:4, Insightful)
Before the advent of 3D accelerators, game companies wrote their own low-level renderers. These did the vertex transformation, lighting, clipping and texture-mapped triangle and line rasterization (some companies even explored the use of ellipsoids). Wolfenstein 3D, Quake and Descent as examples.
The low-level graphics rendering part is a very small part of the game engine - rasterizing a textured primitive with some clipping, Z-buffering and alpha blending. But getting this as fast as possible requires a good deal of profiling and analysis to get it as optimized as possible (Brian Hook did a software version of OpenGL for SGI).
3D chip makers gradually took over this area by designing hardware that could do this task far faster than the CPU. First they took over the rasterizing part (3Dfx piggyback boards), then took over the vertex transformation, lighting and clipping through the use of high performance parallel processing hardware (Nvidia TNT). There are other optimisations such as deferred rendering which optimise the order of rendering primitives to save on framebuffer writing.
Initially, all stages of the pipeline were fixed functionality, but this was replaced by programmable vertex transformation (vertex programs in assembler, then vertex shaders in a shading language) needed for matrix-blending in character animation. Fixed functionality for pixel processing was replaced by register combiners (for baked shadows), then by fragment programs and fragment shaders. Geometry shaders were also introduced to handle deformation effects.
There are also feedback features where the output of the rendering can be made to a texture, and thus used as an input texture for the next frame.
All the latest DirectX and OpenGL extensions relate to setting up the geometry/vertex/fragment shaders for this functionality.
That is what Intel and software renderers have to compete against. They would be to implement a set of 3D CPU instructions that allow textured triangles, line and points to be rendered with fully programmable shaders from one block of memory to another (specified by pixel format, width, height, etc...). They could use the memory cache for this purpose, but would have to replace the FPU with hundreds of DSPs to achieve this. Otherwise they would have to provide free access to the framebuffer with hundreds of threads or cores.
you wish (Score:4, Insightful)
GPUs are going to be driven by the same things that drive game consoles & set top boxes. You can copy pure software, but you can't copy dedicated chips. You can copy video rendered by a CPU but not video rendered on a dedicated chip. Dedicated chips are going to stay cheaper than CPUs for many years. Just because you can decode HDTV in software doesn't mean there still isn't huge momentum behind set top boxes and DTCP enabled GPU's.
abolish standards based programming? Never (Score:4, Insightful)
Standards based programming isn't going anywhere. That's crazy. We need Direct X, OpenGL, JMF, & MHP if only to outsource large chunks of the programming to cheaper divisions. How great it would be if everyone could base their career on hand optimizing ray tracing algorithms for SSE V, but the economy would never support it. These things have to be outsourced to select groups, firewalled behind a standard & higher paid programming done to the standard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So developers would pay a licensing fee for the engine which sort of defined an api for the developers to use.
Right now, computer graphics programming students use OpenGL. What would these students be able to afford should OpenGL become irrelevant?
Re: (Score:2)
If it weren't, linux gaming wouldn't be in the situation that it is.
DirectX is better established, better run, and better performing.(Some of this is because Microsoft didn't upgrade versions of OpenGL for a long time, but a lot of it is the fact that the OpenGL folks, like most standards bodies, spend so much time deciding on anything whatsoever that they get left in the dust).
If what this guy is suggesting becomes the case, ra
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed the words "graphics programming students" in the parent post.
They use OpenGL, whether or not it is better or worse than DirectX.
Um, says who? I don't see it at all (Score:4, Insightful)
I just don't get how they can be saying this at all.
Ok... so from the article we have:
Which they say is remarkably true.
HUH?
So, all these new GPUs really don't speed up your machine? So I can take my nvidia 8800 OUT of my box, leave it to an onboard graphics chipset and I'll be getting the same performance will I?
Yeah.
Right.
I don't see AT ALL how they're getting this right?
Please someone enlighten me, as I'm not seeing it from where I'm sitting.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It says it right there in the article.
Current generation GPUs are to the point where you can basically run arbitrary code on the GPU (as shaders) in high vectorizable code. So instead of the monolithic APIs such as OpenGL/DirectX, we'll see custom rendering engines that take advantage of the parallel cores running in GPUs and future CPUs (if Intel has their way).
So in a sense, he was correct. If you take CPUs in his 1999 interview to mean current GPU processors. Which is becoming somewhat of a misnomer nowa
Re:Um, says who? I don't see it at all (Score:5, Insightful)
And, I would argue that even that part of his statement is absurd. Most game developers don't even want to have to write their own game engines much less do it from scratch. Even the ones that do write engines (id, Epic, etc.) will, for the most part, never give up their graphics APIs. APIs don't just give programmers access to specialized hardware, they also provide the developer with a raft of low level tools that he/she has no, reasonable, justification or wanting to spend the time re-developing. What will happen, is that APIs like Direct3D and OpenGL will change (as they have been all along) and simplify, as they won't have to handle all the quirky hardware anymore. The idea that engine writers will completely throw out APIs and will go back to writing everything from scratch in C/C++ is almost as absurd as suggesting that they'll go back to writing everything in Assembly language.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I think he says in the article that you'd see APIs like Direct3D and OpenGL staying around and leveraging the CUDA/FireStream APIs instead of relying on hardware specific features (at least, that is what is already happening at the driver level).
I think he envisions that new engines/APIs will come about (such as those that could be Voxel based or based on Ray Shaders, etc.) once the CUDA/FireStream APIs become more mature and the hardware gets faster.
Also, by breaking out of the hardware specific
Re: (Score:2)
"The idea that engine writers will completely throw out APIs and will go back to writing everything from scratch in C/C++ is almost as absurd as suggesting that they'll go back to writing everything in Assembly language."
I agree that it's unlikely that APIs will be thrown out, but if they were, using assembly might actually be a better idea than C/C++. Were there really state-of-the-art games written in C in the pre-API era?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Part of Sweeney's point that you're missing is that programmers are already writing raw shader code for DX10, and making more general use of CUDA. But more than that, DX and OpenGL are APIs to a particular model of 3D rendering that was, ten years ago, a good match to the benefits of the 3D hardware presented. Now that the GPU is a general purpose processor, the triangles pipeline model for renderers need no longer limit programmers, and they can implement different engine models (like Voxels) because it'
Re: (Score:2)
No, don't you dare to do such a thing buying Intel's claims.
Forget 8800, my Quad G5's NV6600 which is a scandal at Apple's part outperforms any 2008 integrated graphics.
I know you are being a bit sarcastic, just in case if anyone tries to do such thing :)
Looking at game boards really explains a lot about how integrated graphics (doesn't) perform. Even "integrated sound" itself is a huge joke taking down entire system performance.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But integrated graphics aren't about gaming. They're about driving a desktop display with minimal power, heat, and cost. Believe it or not, those three things are actually pluses for non-gamers.
So no shit, a Geforce 6600 (which is what, three years old?) outperforms Intel GMA. No one at Intel cares.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess which vendor uses OpenGL functionality extensively, offloading whatever possible to GPU when possible? Even including text drawing. Apple OS X, since early 10.2
I have a serious question of the real power benefit of running a complete CPU powered junk rather than a low power Nvidia/ATI optimised for portable devices. If your machine draws a window causing 40% percent of CPU peak, you aren't saving power, you are wasting it since a GPU could do it almost requiring fraction of power.
If we are going back to the "old" days... (Score:5, Interesting)
If we are going back to the "old" days...
Why can't we skip all this OS nonsense, and just boot the game directly?
After all that will make sure that you get the MOST out of your computer.
Er, no (Score:3, Interesting)
I disagree.
Direct hardware programming has always been the best in terms of performance. However, it is the worst in terms of compatibility. If you're programming consoles, this is just fine. If you're programming for PCs, not so much.
It will never go back to programming for specific pieces of graphical hardware. I'd say that each vendor MIGHT make a major chipset, and that those chipsets would be coded for, and everything else gets API'd, but even this is unlikely. If a company had to have two or three sets of programmers for their graphics, each team for a different major chipset, we'd see more expensive games or prettier games with crappier gameplay.
Even the OpenGL/DirectX split takes a heavy toll on programming resources for game developers.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Then why aren't commercial games already distributed as C++ source code so that they can be recompiled for AMD or Intel CPUs?
This doesn't make any sense. I didn't say they would release the source code. Only that they would write directly to the CPU/GPU, without using API's like OpenGL, just like they currently do for everything that is not graphics rendering.
Then what will computer graphics programming students use to write a demo of rotating Platonic polyhedra textured with "Hello World"?
The same things they used before OpenGL/DirectX became prevalent. The same things they used during the DOS era.
Developer time is still valuable (Score:2)
I didn't say they would release the source code. Only that they would write directly to the CPU/GPU
Then how can publishers assure users that a title still on store shelves is compatible even with a PC manufactured after the game went gold?
The same things they used before OpenGL/DirectX became prevalent. The same things they used during the DOS era.
Which took an order of magnitude longer to get going from scratch than a typical GLUT or AllegroGL app. Because developer time is still valuable, software rendering won't make the OpenGL API go away, even if only because of OpenGL in software [mesa3d.org].
What architecture? (Score:3, Interesting)
Developers will use [future coprocessor cards] just like they use CPU's at the moment.
Which means they'll have to both be x86, or both be ARM, or both be some other architecture that NV and ATI can agree on. goodluckwiththat.
Re: (Score:2)
It will never go back to programming for specific pieces of graphical hardware.
I agree with you. Contrast with the article, which seems to be trying to make approximately the same point by overstatement: "Graphics APIs only make sense in the case where you have some very limited, fixed-function hardware underneath the covers."
But of course graphics APIs continue to make sense - in the same way as operating systems continue to make sense - regardless of how rich or lean, slow or fast, or standardized o
Anyone bought a hardware modem recently? (Score:2)
Anyone bought a hardware encryption processor?
Anyone bought a Dialogic voice board?
No probably not. You see eventually all hardware collapses into the CPU(s).
But the problem is that Games and Graphics are the Lamborghinis of computing. Performance uber alles. So I'm not convinced that anything short of the biggest quad core machines has the general purpose in software performance sufficient to away with these big honking graphics cards. Maybe not and smaller machines can do it but it's just as likely you bu
And the question is "when?" (Score:2)
Assuming this does in fact happen in the future... when will it happen?
First let's be clear that by "it" I mean the complete disappearance of the GPU market.
To answer, first ask: who will be among the last ones to be willing to part with their GPU?
I think the answer to this question is: gamers.
Which leads me to the condition of the 'when' (not the date of course).
And that condition is: when the integrated GPU/CPU is capable of performing under the JND (just noticeable difference) threshold of what the se
Fall of DirectX (Score:2)
What I got from the article wasn't so much the 'fall of the GPU' as a move away from the fixed APIs e.g. DirectX and OpenGL.
In which case, would this be a huge bonus for Linux ?
A lot of people say they use Linux for work but have Windows installed on the same machine so they can run games. If the games programmers are going to be writing C/C++ code that runs on the CPU or GPU, then in theory this cuts out the proprietary graphics APIs and makes the games much more portable. Could this mean that more of
As Good as it Gets (Score:5, Funny)
Assuming he means Emacs, then this is the way God intended it to be.
Mr. Carmack are you still around? (Score:2, Interesting)
Does he agree/disagree and why?
I always like seeing two giants in the industry debate on high level topics. It gives some insight into trends... and I just plain dig gaming anyway...
Special vector unit? (Score:3, Interesting)
Call me stupid, but from what I saw from Larrabee it centers around a new specialized very wide vector unit to do most of the work. So far for a any plain old C compiler
Re:Obvious (Score:4, Informative)
gpu's aren't really parallel in that sense, they are parallel in the SIMD sense.
Re:Obvious (Score:5, Informative)
gpu's aren't really parallel in that [traditional multithreaded] sense, they are parallel in the SIMD sense.
Actually, they're somewhere in between. Some current hardware can reallocate individual processors between fragment and vertex processing depending on the current workload profile. Even at the level of an individual processor lots of "threads" may be running simultaneously; this is to hide latency when a shader program blocks on memory (texture or framebuffer) access.
If you look at NV's descriptions of their 8xx-series drivers, they talk about *hundreds* of threads in flight at any given time. These aren't threads in the classical sense - there's no preemption, for a start - but they're much, much more advanced than SIMD-style "apply this instruction to all these values" parallelism.
Re: (Score:2)
C may not be the "best" language for parallel processing, but it's not like it's impossible, or difficult, or not recommended. You ARE dependent on your operating system for multitasking, but it's not like POSIX processes are that horrible, and Windows threads are actually pretty stupidly easy.
Developing an algorithm that can be parallelized (did I invent a word?) is harder. But, if you can describe something in terms of a Nondeterministic Finite Automaton [wikipedia.org], you already have something that can be made mass
Re: (Score:2)
C is designed for an iterative, single-process system.
But new languages based on C++ introduce primitives that compilers can more easily invert into SIMD, such as C++/CLI's for each() and C++0x's new range iterator syntax.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the point of the article is that computing paradigms are merging. You won't have a CPU and a GPU. You'll have one thing that looks like both. In other words, you'll have a multicore, parallel, vector machine.
And that, absolutely, positively, will happen. Larrabee, or something like it, is the future. If you hold AMD stock, sell now, because Fusion doesn't sound anything like Larrabee and is going to seem positively draconian by the time it comes out.
In some ways, these new processors will look
Poor Intel (Score:2, Funny)
"It seems to me that Tim puts a bit too much faith in compilers."
Itanium
Re:Tim sweeny said the same thing 10 years or so.. (Score:4, Interesting)
"Not sure why Tim Sweeney gets so much flack, he is the lead developer for a pretty popular 3d rendering engine..."
Just because he's a good programmer doesn't mean his statements about other things will be true, each statement must be taken individually.
Tim sweeney said 10 years or so ago the GPU would be integrated into the CPU, it hasn't happened.
Not only that the bandwidth requirements are off the charts for modern GPU computing. Sometimes I wonder if these programmers are even aware of wtf it is they are saying. I know lots of programmers who know dick all about the relationships in hardware. Tim sweeney borders on being one of those types of programmers. It's like he's so focused on development he's not seeing the forest from the tree's.
Also game engine's are many man projects, tim sweeny would be just one single dude on a team, nothing notable IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok so you state that memory bandwidth requirements for GPUs are off the charts. Where do you propose to get more memory bandwidth than on the CPU itself? Seems to me if you want memory bandwidth there is no better place to be than on the cpu die...
Re:Tim sweeny said the same thing 10 years or so.. (Score:5, Interesting)
"Ok so you state that memory bandwidth requirements for GPUs are off the charts. Where do you propose to get more memory bandwidth than on the CPU itself? Seems to me if you want memory bandwidth there is no better place to be than on the cpu die..."
Again you're missing the point, "the jack of all trades, master of none" problem, not to mention the space requirements. GPU's complexity is nothing like the old style co-processor units that were integrated into the core. They require ridiculous amounts of cutting edge ram to get that kind of performance, and they need a lot of ram to output the results of those calculations.
I don't see CPU's integrating 512MB to 2GB of ram in the near term future given heat and die size considerations, and we haven't even touched the extremely low bandwidth between modern cpu's and main memory in PC's (which is much much less then a modern GPU).
The GPU will play it's part for as long as is necessary. I don't rule out that perhaps one day it will be technically feasable but it is nowhere near that day, it's at least a decade or more away.
We've seen this time and time again, processors go through evolutions of integrating and seperating. We went from mainframes to PC's and with the net 'back to mainframes' but notice how each device play's their role, each one didn't totally obsolete the other, they just have become more specialized at their tasks.
Re:Tim sweeny said the same thing 10 years or so.. (Score:5, Interesting)
"Take a 1999 interview with Gamespy, for instance, in which he lays out the future timeline for the development of 3D game rendering that has turned out to be remarkably prescient in hindsight:
2006-7: CPU's become so fast and powerful that 3D hardware will be only marginally beneficial for rendering, relative to the limits of the human visual system, therefore 3D chips will likely be deemed a waste of silicon (and more expensive bus plumbing), so the world will transition back to software-driven rendering."
Nuff said.