| ||||||||||
| Minus the unfortunate possibility of dropping a cuda card in to a newer MacBook pro. On Jun 5, 2012, at 9:47 PM, Steve Oakley <steveo@practicali.com> wrote: > lets put it another way, the cost of a CUDA compatible GPU is a couple hundred bucks. thats way cheaper than replacing an entire system sporting xeon CPU's that could easily run $3k-5K. a CUDA GPU is literally 1/10th the price of a CPU upgrade.. assuming you even need to do one. > > S > > > > On Jun 5, 2012, at 4:20 PM, Todd Kopriva wrote: > >>> I'm trying to get my head around Adobe's decision to go with the ray >>> traced renderer they did in AE6. >> >> I just asked a couple of the software engineers involved about this decision, and they say that a ray-traced renderer is more efficient for getting good-looking results for reflections, refractions, and shadows than would be a scanline renderer. Our GPU-based ray-traced 3D renderer is actually quite fast compared with anything that gives comparable visual results for these light-related characteristics. That said, the CPU-based renderer is slow, and we acknowledge that. >> >> As far hardware dependencies: We officially support a couple dozen GPUs, and many of the high-performing ones (like the GTX 580) are not expensive. >> >> +---End of message---+ >> To unsubscribe send any message to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv> > > > +---End of message---+ > To unsubscribe send any message to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv> |
