• TotallyHuman@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      10 months ago

      Perfect! We’d have pretty low utilization on those 80 CPUs, though – if we made them smaller, the power draw would be lower and it would be cheaper. We could then get away with adding more CPUs. It would then make sense to put the array of simple CPUs on its own card, dedicated to graphics processing… wait a minute.

      • Poutinetown@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        Maybe we could use a single huge heatsink to cool it off! we could even use 3 fans instead of 1!

    • phx@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Not good for real-time rendering, but it still has potential for rendering 3D still scenes or frames of a video, or a small studio might have those 80 CPU’s in a render-farm and not need to worry about supply-issues for GPU’S

      • Zip2@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Or, and hear me out here: maybe join TWO gpus together for more performance!

        • GlitterInfection@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          More is always better. Why not a large rack of servers working individually on portions of the scene and individual frames of content?

          • Zip2@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            Sounds awesome. And maybe you could make use of a gpu or two in each of those servers when you’re not using them to mine crypto?

    • Psythik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      Before The Sims, I used to play with this program that was meant for architects designing homes, but 9-year-old me treated it like a game. It had a ray tracing button that when pressed, would render a ray-traced view of the room you were in.

      It took at least a couple of minutes on my dad’s Windows 95 PC to render a single frame, and if you moved the camera at all, the view would switch back to raster and you had to re-render the scene all over again. But it was real ray tracing, performed on the CPU, in the 90s.

  • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    10 months ago

    how is this news. They’re called “general purpose processors”. You can literally run anything on them. It is even mathematically proven that they can do the job. This has been known for about a century now.

    Heck, most raytracers run on the cpu…