While all’s hot around nv new series, i stumbled across last year’s SIGGRAPH’s nv representatives speech on GPU raytracing. haven’t seen it mentioned here in forum. At some point they just smile in your face and sweetly comment that concerning Nvidia’s products all that relates to Rendering does start with letters Q and T, not R or any other. Also, when i open Nvidias home page and look for Rendering, Workstation, that kind of words, i’m immediately taken to Q and T product pages.
So i take that there wont be Rendering for masses on Nvidia’s next generation cards we all so eagerly wait here. I clearly understand that there are many, who can afford some two or more 600-700$ priced freshly painted PCB’s swap in for pure gaming (do you need that for office? i doubt)[oh, and is gaming done on PC’s nowadays at all?], but does it’ll help Nvidia get on top of the today’s market? I tend to agree to some saying, that could be this Q and T segment they are interested in. Also mentioned OptiX somehow plays well here. Not so well if Cycles and Rendering for Masses are concerned.
For me - i’ll take back rows for a while and see if Cycles designers will force me to cash out for certain Compute capability number.
Looking at what’s written in Cycles compatibility, i’m way outdated, but, hey, it still works.
So what do you have to say on OptiX, Kepler and Cycles on one hand and Nvidia Quadro,Tesla and again, OptiX GPU Raytracing?
And what will happen IF Kepler on hard level or drivers will crrrippple even more Cycles (CUDA), OpenGL? Or CUDA will be buried behind OptiX wall?
As Nvidias speech man say - No,nono, GeForce and yeah, Kepler, that’s not meant for a rendering! How could you even think of!