News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:How close are we to truly photorealistic, real-time games? by astrodust on Friday February 10, 2012 @06:56PM (#3578048)
There's only 24 frames in a second for production-caliber film. They also throw an obscene number of cores at the problem. On a 12 core system you can render that out in a day. If you have 24 of those systems in a rack you can pump out one second of film time per day.

That means in a month you can deliver 30 seconds of footage. If you have a five minute sequence, get ten racks like that and you can turn it around inside a month.

Also, since when is 288 hours even close to a year?

Re:How close are we to truly photorealistic, real-time games? by Jimmie on Sunday February 12, 2012 @12:25PM (#3582325)
288 hours per frame, 24 frames per second, 24 hours per day = 288 days per second of film time.

Pretty close but the assumption that you'd be using a single CPU is wrong.