![toy story 1 vs 4 graphics toy story 1 vs 4 graphics](https://gamingcentral.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/kingdom-hearts-toy-story.jpg)
- #TOY STORY 1 VS 4 GRAPHICS MOVIE#
- #TOY STORY 1 VS 4 GRAPHICS FULL#
- #TOY STORY 1 VS 4 GRAPHICS SOFTWARE#
#TOY STORY 1 VS 4 GRAPHICS FULL#
This was a gross marketing lie back then, the PS2 wasn't even remotely powerful enough and the low-res, flickering output the console produced was a far cry from the clean, anti-aliased, almost full HD picture of Toy Story, but it shows how the film was used as a benchmark for the advance of real time graphics even almost two decades ago.Īccording to wikipedia rendering toystory1 took 800,000 machine hours in 1995. Interesting side note: Back in '99/2000, Sony used to claim that the upcoming PS2 would be able to render Toy Story level graphics in real time. If you look at any current 3D videogame, it should be pretty obvious that a modern GPU, even a cheap mobile chipset, possibly even the one in your phone, wouldn't have the least bit of trouble rendering Toy Story in real time. Each of those hundreds of machines Pixar used back then only had a couple hundred megabytes of RAM, so they had to keep scene complexity down in order for everything to fit. Modern videogames are much more visually complex than Toy Story, which much higher poly counts, higher res textures and advanced shaders and effects that Pixar was still busy inventing at the time.
#TOY STORY 1 VS 4 GRAPHICS MOVIE#
GPUs are many times more efficient than CPUs at raster graphics, so since I'm feeling lazy after writing all this nonsense, let's just say it would easily render this movie at hundreds of FPS, at resolutions far exceeding the original 1,536 by 922 (each pixel was intended to cover 0.5 by 0.5 inches on a typical cinema screen). It would be that slow if we were to use the GPU like a general purpose CPU, which nobody does for raster graphics. Suffice to say, it would chew through this movie at about three times the original frame rate of 25, far above real time and that's not even taking into consideration the fact that it's far better at raster graphics than a general purpose CPU.
![toy story 1 vs 4 graphics toy story 1 vs 4 graphics](https://necaonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Jason6.jpg)
Your 2080ti is in the 13,448GFLOPs (FP32) range. That's still a month of rendering though, but it's a start.
![toy story 1 vs 4 graphics toy story 1 vs 4 graphics](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/b7fL6jYNNQK4qoZckyyRhR-480-80.jpg)
#TOY STORY 1 VS 4 GRAPHICS SOFTWARE#
Insert Moore's Law comment here.Īlright, so if we were to rewrite the software used for distributed rendering in 1995 to run on a modern CPU and operating system, it would probably run as well (if not better due to not having to spend time scheduling tasks on hundreds of CPUs) on a budget CPU from a couple of years ago. The cheap Intel Pentium G3258 (for a while a popular budget choice among gamers, probably the last dual core gaming CPU and just about obsolete now) is around the same ballpark, if not a bit more powerful than those hundreds machines combined. That's of course not very impressive by today's standards. No hardware-accelerated 3D (which existed, but was not used by Pixar at the time, at least not for rendering), so the movie was rendered entirely in software.Įach of these CPUs has 27.5066 MFLOPS and combined they achieve the theoretical value of 8086.9404 MFLOPS. The combined amount of RAM is in the couple dozen GB range (perfectly possible with a single ordinary desktop machine today) and the machines had two or four 100MHz Sun HyperSPARC CPUs. Pixar used 294 CPUs to render Toy Story (they increased the size of their cluster from initially 50 and later 117 machines - both numbers that are still thrown around, see some of the other comments - as they began to realize that 50 machines alone wouldn't cut it). Pixar only switched over to it in the early 2000s and it took other firms even longer. Sure, ray tracing already existed, but it wasn't feasible for a feature-length animated movie yet. It's conventional raster graphics, as was common at the time.