The present invention relates to a method and system for 3-D (three-dimensional) multiple graphic processing. More particularly, the invention relates to a method and system for improving the parallelization of image processing by Graphic Processing Units (GPUs), based on unified framework of three parallelization methods, which are time division, image division and object division methods.
Throughout this patent Specification, the following definitions are employed:
GPU: GPU (Graphic Processing Unit) like the CPU (Central Processing Unit), a GPU is a single-chip processor which is used primarily for computing 3-D functions. This includes tasks such as, lighting effects, object transformations, and 3-D motion. These are mathematically-intensive tasks, which otherwise, would put quite a strain on the CPU, but since the specialized GPU can handle most of the 3-D calculations, it helps the computer to perform these tasks more efficiently, and, of course, faster.
Polygon: Polygons in 3-D graphics are two-dimensional primitives, allowing generating and displaying of 3-D complex graphical objects. The polygons are the faces of the object and are composed from N vertices. Actually, a polygon is a closed plane figure, bounded by three or more line segments.
Frame Buffer: a Frame Buffer (FB) is a buffer that stores the contents of an image, pixel by pixel. Generally, the portion of memory is reserved for holding the complete bit-mapped image that is sent to the monitor, for display.
Typically the frame buffer is stored in the memory chips on the video adapter. In some instances, however, the video chipset is integrated into the motherboard design, and the frame buffer is stored in the general main memory.
Object compositing unit: performs re-composition of multiple three-dimensional rasters into final image. The merged data is resolved for the closest pixel to the viewer in 3-D space, based on the depth value of pixels. The new method, based on autonomous associative decision, allows the use of multiple GPUs for any frame complexity.
Display list: a Display List is a description of the 3-D scene through a list of graphic primitives, such as polygons and attributes. The display list provides intermediate image storage for quick image retrieval.
Vertex array: a Vertex Array is an array of vertices describing the 3-D scene.
A Vertex Array provides intermediate image storage for quick image retrieval.
Alpha blending: Alpha blending controls the way in which the graphic information is displayed, such as levels of transparency, or opacity.
The three-dimensional graphic pipeline architecture breaks-down into segmented stages of CPU, Bus, GPU vertex processing and GPU fragment (pixel) processing. A given pipeline is only as strong as the weakest link of one of the above stages, thus the main bottleneck determines the overall throughput. Enhancing performance is all that required for reducing or eliminating bottlenecks. The major bottleneck strongly depends on the application. Extreme cases are CAD-like (Computer Aided Design) applications, characterized by an abundance of polygons (vertices), vs. video-game applications having a small polygon count but intensive fragment activity (e.g., texturing). The first class suffers from vertex processing bottlenecks, while the second class suffers from fragment bottlenecks. Both are frequently jammed over the PC bus. Many applications have mixed characteristics, where bottlenecks may randomly alternate between extremes, on a single frame basis.
The only way to improve the performance of the GPU is by means of parallelizing multiple GPUs according to one of the bottleneck solving methods. There are two predominant methods for rendering graphic data with multiple GPUs. These methods include time division (time domain composition), in which each GPU renders the next successive frame, and image division (screen space composition), in which each GPU renders a subset of the pixels of each frame. The third one, much less popular, is the object division (polygon decomposition) method.
In the time division method each GPU renders the next successive frame. It has the disadvantage of having each GPU render an entire frame. Thus, the speed at which each frame is rendered is limited to the rendering rate of a single GPU. While multiple GPUs enable a higher frame rate, a delay can be imparted in the response time (latency) of the system to a user's input. This occurs because, while at any given time, only one GPU is engaged in displaying a rendered frame, each of the GPUs is in the process of rendering one of a series of frames in a sequence. To maintain the high frame rate, the system delays the user's input until the specific GPU, which first received the signal cycles through the sequence, is again engaged in displaying its rendered frame. In practical applications, this condition serves to limit the number of GPUs that are used in a system. With large data sets, there is another bottleneck, due to the fact that each GPU must be able to access all the data. This requires either maintaining multiple copy operations of large data sets or possible conflicts in accessing the single copy operation.
Image division method splits the screen between N GPUs, such that each one displays 1/N of the image. The entire polygon set is transferred to each GPU for processing, however, the pixel processing is significantly reduced to the window size. Image division has no latency issues, but it has a similar bottleneck with large data sets, since each GPU must examine the entire database to determine which graphic elements fall within the portion of the screen allocated to said GPU. Image division method suits applications with intensive pixel processing.
Object division method is based on distribution of data subsets between multiple GPUs. The data subsets are rendered in the GPU pipeline, and converted to Frame Buffer (FB) of fragments (sub-image pixels). The multiple FB's sub-images have to be merged (composited) to generate the final image to be displayed. Object division delivers parallel rendering on the level of a single frame of very complex data consisting of large amount of polygons. The input data is decomposed in the polygon level and re-composed in the pixel level. A proprietary driver intelligently distributes data streams, which are generated by the application, between all GPUs. The rasters, generated by the GPUs, are composited into final raster, and moved to the display. The object division method well suits applications that need to render a vast amount of geometrical data. Typically, these are CAD, Digital Content Creation, and comparable visual simulation applications, considered as “viewers,” meaning that the data has been pre-designed such that their three-dimensional positions in space are not under the interactive control of the user. However, the user does have interactive control over the viewer's position, the direction of view, and the scale of the graphic data. The user also may have control over the selection of a subset of the data and the method by which it is rendered. This includes manipulating the effects of image lighting, coloration, transparency and other visual characteristics of the underlying data.
In above applications, the data tends to be very complex, as it usually consists of massive amount of geometrical entities at the display list or vertex array.
Thus, the construction time of a single frame tends to be very long (e.g., typically 0.5 sec for 20 million polygons), which in turn slows down the overall system performance.
Therefore, there is a need to provide a system which can guarantee the best system performance, being exposed to high traffic over the PC (Personal Computer) Bus.
Accordingly, it is an object of the present invention to amplify the strength of the GPU by means of parallelizing multiple GPUs.
It is another object of the present invention to provide a system, wherein the construction time of a single frame does not slow down the overall system response.
It is still another object of the present invention to provide a system and method, wherein the graphic pipeline bottlenecks of vertex processing and fragment processing are transparently and intelligently resolved.
It is still a further object of the present invention to provide a system and method that has high scalability and unlimited scene complexity.
It is still a further object of the present invention to provide a process overcoming difficulties that are imposed by the data decomposition, which is partition of data and graphic commands between GPUs.
It is still a further object of the present invention to provide a method and system for an intelligent decomposition of data and graphic commands, preserving the basic features of graphic libraries as state machines and complying with graphic standards.
Other objects and advantages of the invention will become apparent as the description proceeds.
There is provided, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, a hub mechanism which may be used in a multiple graphics processing unit (GPU) system. The hub mechanism may include a hub routing unit positioned on a bus between a controller unit and multiple GPUs. The hub router may be used for routing data and commands over a graphic pipeline between a user interface and one or more display units. The hub mechanism may additionally include a hub driver for issuing commands for controlling the hub routing unit.
According to an embodiment of the present invention, the hub routing unit may include at least one GPU.
According to an embodiment of the present invention, the multiple GPUs may be directly connected to the hub routing unit.
According to an embodiment of the present invention, the hub routing unit may include a hub router for routing flow of the data and commands.
According to an embodiment of the present invention, the hub routing unit may include a control unit for issuing control signals responsive to the commands from the hub driver.
According to an embodiment of the present invention, the hub routing unit may include an auxiliary memory for storing data.
According to an embodiment of the present invention, the stored data may include any one of intermediate processing results from one or more GPUs, composition data, and processed data for display.
According to an embodiment of the present invention, the hub routing unit may include a compositing unit for executing compositing schemes.
According to an embodiment of the present invention, the hub routing unit may route the data and commands according to a parallelization mode.
According to an embodiment of the present invention, the parallelization mode may include any one of an object division mode, an image division mode, and a time division mode.
According to an embodiment of the present invention, the hub driver may include an analysis and graphic resources analysis module for estimating graphic load resources of multiple GPUs using time measurements.
According to an embodiment of the present invention, the analysis and graphic resources analysis module may determine load balancing based on the estimating.
There is provided, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, a method of routing data and commands over a graphic pipeline between a user interface and one or more display units. The method may include positioning a hub routing unit between a controller unit and multiple GPUs. The method may additionally include issuing commands by a hub driver, and controlling the hub routing unit responsive to the issued commands.
According to an embodiment of the present invention, the method may include positioning at least one GPU inside the hub routing unit.
According to an embodiment of the present invention, the method may include directly connecting the GPUs to the hub routing unit.
According to an embodiment of the present invention, the method may include storing data in the hub routing unit.
According to an embodiment of the present invention, the stored data may include any one of intermediate processing results from one or more GPUs, composition data, and processed data for display.
According to an embodiment of the present invention, the method may include executing compositing schemes.
According to an embodiment of the present invention, the method may include real-time sensing of any one of a polygon count, a texture volume, and a human interaction.
According to an embodiment of the present invention, the method may include controlling the graphic pipeline for any one of a time division parallelization mode, an object image division parallelization mode, and an image division parallelization mode.
According to an embodiment of the present invention, the method may include estimating graphic load resources of the GPUs using time measurements.
According to an embodiment of the present invention, the method may include determining load balancing based on the estimating.
For a more complete understanding of the present invention, the following Detailed Description of the Illustrative Embodiment should be read in conjunction with the accompanying Drawings, wherein:
It will be appreciated that for simplicity and clarity of illustration, elements shown in the figures have not necessarily been drawn to scale. For example, the dimensions of some of the elements may be exaggerated relative to other elements for clarity. Further, where considered appropriate, reference numerals may be repeated between the figures to indicate corresponding or analogous elements.
The Multiple 3-D Graphic Pipeline
The current invention calls for the introduction of an extended PC graphic architecture including novel operational component, the 3-D pipeline Hub.
The Hub mechanism consists of a Hardware Hub component 110, located on the PC bus between I/O (Input/Output) chipset 160, being a I/O module, and a cluster of GPUs 130, and a Software module comprising Software Hub Driver 123, executed by the PC.
The Hardware Hub 110 carries on at least the following action: distributes decomposed polygon stream and graphic commands between GPUs; composites graphics output for display according to different parallel modes; makes cache of data; and alternates modes of parallelism.
The Software Hub Driver 123, besides controlling the Hardware Hub 110, also carries on at least the following actions: interacts with the OS (Operation System) and graphic library, such as OpenGL, DirectX; performs real-time analysis of the data stream; determines the parallelization mode; and—decomposes the data and command stream.
One advantage of this method is that the unique location of the Hardware Hub 110 allows it to control the graphic pipeline, while being transparent to the application 121. The application 121, along with Graphic Library 122, such as OpenGL, keeps working as it was a single GPU.
Another advantage of this method is that the unique location of the Hardware Hub 110 allows it to control a graphic pipeline between the User Interface 150 and Display 140, while being transparent to the GPU. Each GPU of the cluster keeps working as if it is the only graphic processor hooked on the I/O chipset 160.
Still another advantage of this method is that the unique location of the Hardware Hub 110 allows it to control the graphic pipeline for different parallelization modes: image division mode, time division mode or object division mode.
A further advantage of this method is that the unique location of the Hardware Hub 110 allows it to sense in real-time the varying parameters of application's load, such as polygon count, texture volume, human interaction, and to intelligently decide and carry on the current optimal parallelization method.
It should be noted that according to all embodiments of the present invention, the display(s) 140 may be connected directly or indirectly to the Hardware Hub 110.
Reference is now made to
The Hardware Hub 110 utilizes its units according to parallelization modes: an Object division mode, an Image division mode, a Time division mode. These modes are adaptively handled by the Hardware Hub 110 according to application needs.
The Hardware Hub competence is its scaling technology: Architecture and cluster of proprietary processes devoted to scale existing GPUs performance in PC based systems, by enabling the use of multiple GPUs in parallel on the level of chip, card or chip IP (Intellectual Property) core, and handling multiple bus paths between the CPU and GPU. The technology achieves linear increase in performance. It is invariant to a graphics vendor and also it is transparent to an application. In the present invention, the graphic pipeline bottlenecks of vertex processing, fragment processing and bus transfer are completely and intelligently resolved. As bottlenecks may shift between frames, the Hardware Hub is designed with a smart real-time feedback system between the Control Unit 210, disclosed in
The Software Hub Driver
The Software Hub Driver is a software package residing in the PC and coexisting with computer's operating system, standard graphic library, application and Vendor's GPU Driver.
Object Division Decomposition Process
Object division is a well-known concept, but data decomposition (partition of data and graphic commands between GPUs), while being also a known concept, has not been applied yet effectively, as it imposes various great difficulties. These difficulties are handled successfully by a proposed process and its implementation, according to the present invention.
The decomposition, and more importantly, the composition, must be accurate and efficient. Certain operations must be performed in the order they are submitted by the application. For example, in case of semi-transparency, the commands and polygon stream must keep a certain order for creating a correct graphic result.
Intelligent decomposition of data and graphic commands is needed, preserving the basic features of graphic libraries as state machines, and complying with the graphic standards. The proposed decomposition process, according to the present invention, is performed by the Software Hub Driver. CPU runs the 3-D graphic application, generating flow of graphic commands and data. They are typically organized in blocks, such as Display Lists or Vertex Arrays, stored in the system memory.
According to the present invention, the Software Hub Driver, running in the CPU, decomposes the set of scene polygons (or vertices). Their physical distribution is performed by the Hardware Hub.
The polygons are rendered in the GPU, while maintaining the resulting Frame Buffer in local memory. All FBs are transferred, via Hub Router, to compositing unit in Hardware Hub, to be merged into single FB. Finally, the composited FB is forwarded for display.
The Software Hub Driver carries out the following process of distribution of the polygons between the multiple GPUs. It is assumed, that the regular way the graphic application works, remains unchanged. Per frame, a typical application generates a stream of graphic calls that includes blocks of graphic data; each block consists of a list of geometric operations, such as single vertex operations or buffer based operations (vertex array). Typically, the decomposition process splits the data between GPUs preserving the blocks as basic data units. Geometric operations are attached to the block(s) of data, instructing the way the data is handled. A block is directed to designated GPUs. However, there are operations belonging to the group of Blocking Operations, such as Flush, Swap, Alpha blending, which affect the entire graphic system, setting the system to blocking mode. Blocking operations are exceptional in that they require a composed valid FB data, thus in the parallel setting of the present invention, they have an effect on all GPUs. Therefore, whenever one of the Blocking operations is issued, all the GPUs must be synchronized. Each frame has at least 2 blocking operations: Flush and Swap, which terminate the frame.
When the blocking operation is detected, all GPUs must be synchronized at step 840 by at least the following sequence:—performing a flush operation in order to terminate rendering and clean up the internal pipeline (flushing) in GPU;—performing a composition in order to merge the contents of FBs into a single FB; and—transmitting the contents of said single FB back to all GPUs, in order to create a common ground for continuation.
The Swap operation activates the double buffering mechanism, swapping the back and front color buffers. If Swap is detected at step 850, it means that a composited complete frame must be terminated at all GPU, except GPU0. All GPUs have the final composed contents of a FB designated to store said contents, but only the one connected to the screen (GPUO) displays the image at step 860.
Another case is operations that are applied globally to the scene and need to be broadcasted to all the GPUs. If one of the other blocking operations is identified, such as Alpha blending for transparency, then all GPUs are flushed as before at step 840, and merged into a common FB. This time the Swap operation is not detected (step 850), and therefore all GPUs have the same data, and as long as the blocking mode is on (step 870), all of them keep processing the same data (step 880). If the end of the block mode is detected at step 870, GPUs return working on designated data (step 830).
Adaptive Handling of Graphic Load by Combining Three Division Methods
In addition, the present invention introduces a dynamic load-balancing technique that combines the object division method with the image division and time division methods in image and time domains, based on the load exhibits by previous processing stages. Combining all the three parallel methods into a unified framework dramatically increases the effectiveness of our invention.
Parallel processing is implemented by a pipeline, such as any common GPU allows the data to be processed in parallel, in time, image and object domains. The processing performed on the graphical processing system, either in parallel on multi-GPU or sequential, results in a sequence of complete raster images stored in a frame buffer, and sent to the display unit. These images are referred as frames in short. A frame consists of fragments. A fragment is an extended pixel stored in memory, which consists of attributes such as color, alpha, depth, stencil, etc. When processing is performed in parallel in the time domain, typically each GPU is responsible for the production of a complete frame. In the other two domains, which are the image and object domains, all GPU operate in parallel to produce a single frame. Screen-space parallel-processing implies that each GPU renders a subset of the fragments of each frame, and object parallel-processing implies that the input data for each frame, in particular the geometric data (e.g., the polygon set representing the scene) is distributed between the multiple GPUs.
Each one of three domains (time, image and object domains) has advantages and disadvantages. The effectiveness of each discipline is a dynamic function based on input data. Moreover, in many cases no single discipline is superior. In these cases a combination of two or even all the three disciplines may yield the most optimum results.
The present invention provides a parallel-processing system for three-dimensional data. It provides a novel process for object parallel-processing that consists of efficient decomposition of the data between the different GPU, and then the composition of the frames produced on the various GPUs into a final frame ready to be rendered.
The present invention provides a method to integrate all the three parallel modes dynamically into a unified framework to achieve maximum load balancing. At each frame, the set of available GPUs can be reconfigured based on the time it took to render the previous frames, and the bottlenecks exhibited during the processing of these frames.
If at some point the system detects that the bottlenecks exhibited in previous frames occur at the raster stage of the pipeline, it means that fragment processing dominates the time it takes to render the frames and that the configuration is imbalanced. At that point the GPUs are reconfigured, so that each GPU will render a quarter of the screen within the respective frame. The original partition for time division, between GPUs 1, 2, 3, 4 and between 5, 6, 7, 8 still holds, but GPU 2 and GPU 5 are configured to render the first quarter of screen in even and odd frames respectively. GPUs 1 and GPU 6—the second quarter, GPU 4 and GPU 7—the third quarter, and GPU 3 and GPU 8—the forth quarter. No object division is implied.
In addition, if at some point the system detects that the bottleneck exhibited in previous frames occurs at the geometry stage of the pipe, the GPUs are reconfigured, so that each GPU will process a quarter of the geometrical data within the respective frame. That is, GPU 3 and GPU 5 are configured to process the first quarter of the polygons in even and odd frames respectively. GPU 1 and GPU 7—the second quarter, GPU 4 and GPU 6—the third quarter and GPU 2 and GPU 8—the forth quarter. No image division is implied.
It should be noted, that taking 8 GPUs is sufficient in order to combine all three parallel modes, which are time, image and object division modes, per frame. Taking the number of GPUs larger than 8, also enables combining all 3 modes, but in a non-symmetric fashion. The flexibility also exists in frame count in a time division cycle. In the above example, the cluster of 8 GPUs was broken down into the two groups, each group handling a frame. However, it is possible to extend the number of frames in a time division mode to a sequence, which is longer than 2 frames, for example 3 or 4 frames.
Taking a smaller number of GPUs still allows the combination of the parallel modes, however the combination of two modes only. For example, taking only 4 GPUs enables to combine image and object division modes, without time division mode. It is clearly understood from
It should be noted, that similarly to the above embodiments, any combination between the parallel modes can be scheduled to evenly balance the graphic load.
It also should be noted, that according to the present invention, the parallelization process between all GPUs may be based on an object division mode or image division mode or time division mode or any combination thereof in order to optimize the processing performance of each frame.
While some embodiments of the invention have been described by way of illustration, it will be apparent that the invention can be put into practice with many modifications, variations and adaptations, and with the use of numerous equivalents or alternative solutions that are within the scope of persons skilled in the art, without departing from the spirit of the invention or exceeding the scope of the claims.
This application is a continuation application claiming benefit from U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/977,155 filed 23 Oct. 2007, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 10/579,682 filed on 23 Mar. 2007, filed as application no. PCT/IL04/01069 filed on 19 Nov. 2004 claiming priority from provisional application 60/523,084 filed on 19 Nov. 2003 and provisional application 60/523,102 filed on 19 Nov. 2003, all of which are hereby incorporated in their entirety by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5485559 | Sakaibara et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
5687357 | Priem | Nov 1997 | A |
5740464 | Priem et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5754866 | Priem | May 1998 | A |
5758182 | Rosenthal et al. | May 1998 | A |
5909595 | Rosenthal et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
6169553 | Fuller et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6181352 | Kirk et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6182196 | DeRoo | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6184908 | Chan et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6188412 | Morein | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6201545 | Wong et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6288418 | Reed et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6333744 | Kirk et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6337686 | Wong et al. | Jan 2002 | B2 |
6352479 | Sparks, II | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6362825 | Johnson | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6415345 | Wu et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6442656 | Alasti et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6462737 | Lindholm et al. | Oct 2002 | B2 |
6469703 | Aleksic et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6473086 | Morein et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6473089 | Wei et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6477687 | Thomas | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6492987 | Morein | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6496404 | Fiedler et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6502173 | Aleksic et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6529198 | Miyauchi | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6532013 | Papakipos et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6532525 | Aleksic et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6535209 | Abdalla et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6542971 | Reed | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6577309 | Lindholm et al. | Jun 2003 | B2 |
6577320 | Kirk | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6593923 | Donovan et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6633296 | Laksono et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6636212 | Zhu | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6636215 | Greene | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6646639 | Greene et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6650331 | Lindholm et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6657635 | Hutchins et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6662257 | Caruk et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6664960 | Goel et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6664963 | Zatz | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6670958 | Aleksic et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6677953 | Twardowski et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6690372 | Donovan et al. | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6691180 | Priem et al. | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6700583 | Fowler et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6704025 | Bastos et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6724394 | Zatz et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6725457 | Priem et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6728820 | Brian et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6731282 | Stoll et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
6731298 | Morston et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6734861 | Van Dyke et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6734874 | Lindholm et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
6744433 | Bastos et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6747654 | Laksono et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6753878 | Heirich et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6774895 | Papakipos et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6778176 | Lindholm et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6778181 | Kilgariff et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6778189 | Kilgard | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6779069 | Treichler et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6789154 | Lee et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6797998 | Dewey et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6812927 | Cutler et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6825843 | Allen et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6828980 | Moreton et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6828987 | Swan | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6831652 | Orr | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6856320 | Rubinstein et al. | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6864893 | Zatz | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6870540 | Lindholm et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6876362 | Newhall, Jr. et al. | Apr 2005 | B1 |
6894687 | Kilgard et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
6894689 | Greene et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
6900810 | Moreton et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
6919896 | Sasaki et al. | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6938176 | Alben et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6940515 | Moreton et al. | Sep 2005 | B1 |
6947047 | Moy et al. | Sep 2005 | B1 |
6947865 | Mimberg et al. | Sep 2005 | B1 |
6952206 | Craighead | Oct 2005 | B1 |
6956579 | Diard et al. | Oct 2005 | B1 |
6959110 | Danskin et al. | Oct 2005 | B1 |
6961057 | Van Dyke et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6975319 | Donovan et al. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
6980209 | Donham et al. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
6982718 | Kilgard et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6985152 | Rubinstein et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6989840 | Everitt et al. | Jan 2006 | B1 |
6992667 | Lindholm et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6995767 | Donovan et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
6999076 | Morein | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7002588 | Lindholm et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7015915 | Diard | Mar 2006 | B1 |
7023437 | Voorhies et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
7027972 | Lee | Apr 2006 | B1 |
7038678 | Bunnell | May 2006 | B2 |
7038685 | Lindholm | May 2006 | B1 |
7038692 | Priem et al. | May 2006 | B1 |
7053901 | Huang et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7064763 | Lindholm et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7068272 | Voorhies et al. | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7068278 | Williams et al. | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7075541 | Diard | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7080194 | Van Dyke | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7081895 | Papalopos et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7091971 | Morein | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7095414 | Lindholm et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7098922 | Bastos et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7112884 | Bruno | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7119808 | Gonzalez et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7120816 | Williams et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7123266 | Wei et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7129909 | Dong et al. | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7130316 | Kovacevic | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7142215 | Papakipos et al. | Nov 2006 | B1 |
7145565 | Everitt et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7170513 | Voorhies et al. | Jan 2007 | B1 |
7170515 | Zhu | Jan 2007 | B1 |
7224359 | Papakipos et al. | May 2007 | B1 |
7248261 | Hakura | Jul 2007 | B1 |
7253818 | Wang et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7269125 | Smallcomb | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7388581 | Diard et al. | Jun 2008 | B1 |
7525547 | Diard | Apr 2009 | B1 |
7543101 | Aleksic et al. | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7545380 | Diard et al. | Jun 2009 | B1 |
7598958 | Kelleher | Oct 2009 | B1 |
7613346 | Hunkins et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7616207 | Diard et al. | Nov 2009 | B1 |
7663632 | Callway | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7721118 | Tamasi et al. | May 2010 | B1 |
7777748 | Bakalash et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7782325 | Gonzalez et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7796129 | Bakalash et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7796130 | Bakalash et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7800610 | Bakalash et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7800611 | Bakalash et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7800619 | Bakalash et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7808499 | Bakalash et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7808504 | Bakalash et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7812844 | Bakalash et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7812845 | Bakalash et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7812846 | Bakalash et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7834880 | Bakalash et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7843457 | Bakalash et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7940274 | Bakalash et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
7944450 | Bakalash et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
7961194 | Bakalash et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
8085273 | Bakalash et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
20010029556 | Priem et al. | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20020015055 | Foran | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020085007 | Nelson et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020118308 | Dujmenovic | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020180740 | Lindholm et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020196259 | Lindholm et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030020720 | Lindholm et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030034975 | Lindholm et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030038808 | Lindholm et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030080959 | Morein | May 2003 | A1 |
20030103054 | Montrym et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030112245 | Lindholm et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030112246 | Lindholm et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030128197 | Turner et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030128216 | Walls et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030151606 | Morein | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030164832 | Alcorn | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030179220 | Dietrich, Jr. et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030189565 | Lindholm et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030212735 | Hicok et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20040012600 | Deering et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040036159 | Bruno | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040153778 | Cheng | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040169651 | Everitt et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040179019 | Sabella et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040207618 | William et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040210788 | Williams et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20050041031 | Diard | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050081115 | Cheng et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050162437 | Morein et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050190190 | Diard et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050195186 | Mitchell et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050195187 | Seller et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050206646 | Alcom | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050223124 | Reed | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050225558 | Morein et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050237327 | Rubinstein et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050237329 | Rubinstein et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050243096 | Possley et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050243215 | Doswald et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050259103 | Kilgard et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050265064 | Ku et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20050275760 | Gritz et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060005178 | Kilgard et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060028478 | Rubinstein et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060055695 | Abdalla et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060059494 | Wexler et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060101218 | Reed | May 2006 | A1 |
20060114260 | Diard | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060119607 | Lindholm et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060120376 | Duncan et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060123142 | Duncan et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060202941 | Morein et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060208960 | Glen | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060221086 | Diard | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060221087 | Diard | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060225061 | Ludwig et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060248241 | Daniak | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060267987 | Litchmanov | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060268005 | Hutchins et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060271713 | Xie et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060282604 | Temkine et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070159488 | Danskin et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070195099 | Diard et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20080266300 | Deering et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2-176980 | Jul 1993 | JP |
2004070652 | Aug 2004 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Powerpoint presentation entitled, “Go Multiple” by Dennis Yang, Conference Platform, 2007, 11 pages. |
Scientific Publication entitled, “Chromium; A Stream-Processing Framework for Interactive Rendering on Clusters” from Stanford University, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, 2007, 10 pages. |
Scientific Publication entitled “Hybrid Sort-First and Sort-Last Parallel Rendering With a Cluster of PCs” by Rudrajit Samanta et al., Princeton University, 12 pages, c. 2000. |
Antonio Garcia and Han-Wei Shen, “An Interleaved Parallel Volume Render with PC-Clusters”, Proceedings of the Fourth Eurographics Workship on Parallel Graphics and Visualization, 19 pages, 2002. |
Erik Reinhard and Chuck Hansen, “A Comparison of Parallel Compositing Techniques on Shared Memory Architectures”, Accepted for the Eurographics Workshop on Parallel Graphics and Visualization, Girona, Spain, 9 pages, Sep. 2000. |
Steven Molnar, “Combining Z-buffer Engines for Higher-Speed Rendering”, Proceedings of the 1988 Eurographics Workshop on Graphics Hardware, 11 pages, 1988. |
John Eyles et al., “PixelFlow: The Realization”, SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Conference on Graphics Hardware, 13 pages, 1997. |
EP 04 79 9376, Oct. 14, 2008. |
PCT/IB07/03464, Sep. 22, 2008. |
PCT/US07/26466, Jul. 16, 2008. |
PCT/IB06/01529, Dec. 31, 2007. |
PCT/IL04/001069, Jun. 30, 2005. |
Publication by TW Crockett entitled, “An Introduction to Parallel Rendering”, in Parallel Computing, 1997, Elsevier Science, 29 pages. |
Silicon graphics, Inc. pdf. document entitled “OpenGL MultipipeTM SDK White Paper”, 2002, 2003, pp. 1-32. |
Silicon Graphics, Inc. online documen entitled “Additional Information for: OpenGL MultipipeTM SDK White Paper (IRIX 6.5)”, published Feb. 1, 2003, 2 pages. |
Technical publication by Li et al. entitled “ParVox—A Parallel Splatting Volume Rendering System for Distributed Visualization”, Oct. 1997, 7 pages. |
Department of Computer Science, University of North Carolina publication by Molnar et al. entitled “PixelFlow: High-Speed Rendering Using Image Composition”, 1992, 10 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140125682 A1 | May 2014 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60523084 | Nov 2003 | US | |
60523102 | Nov 2003 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11977155 | Oct 2007 | US |
Child | 14153105 | US | |
Parent | 10579682 | US | |
Child | 11977155 | US |