You want to check out realtime raytracer demos, that's not really challenging nawi, here:
http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=1914
http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=467
http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=1924
http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=9461
http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=5
There are many others, but the point is, how does it compare in speed and image quality to what is achievable on 3D graphics card?
Edit, also on this article ( http://feedslice.com/feeds/programming/archive/2008/03/10/real-time-raytracing.aspx ) you can read:
http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=1914
http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=467
http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=1924
http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=9461
http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=5
There are many others, but the point is, how does it compare in speed and image quality to what is achievable on 3D graphics card?
Edit, also on this article ( http://feedslice.com/feeds/programming/archive/2008/03/10/real-time-raytracing.aspx ) you can read:
Therefore the scaling of performance with the number of cores in Quake 4: Ray traced with OpenRT on Intel's quad-core CPU is great. The following benchmarks were taken at a resolution of 256x256 pixels on the Quake 4 map "Over the Edge (Q4DM7)".
4 cores 16.9 fps 3.84x scaling
2 cores 8.6 fps 1.96x scaling
1 core 4.4 fps 1x scaling
4 cores 16.9 fps 3.84x scaling
2 cores 8.6 fps 1.96x scaling
1 core 4.4 fps 1x scaling