Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

What kind of GPUs were used to make Avatar?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 30, 2010 1:51:39 AM

The movie was utter crap, acting, voice overs, and story, but the graphics and rendering was the best I have ever seen. This movie took the cake out of all movies, games, and animations.

Did they use industry type GPUs or Quaddros? Ati?

More about : kind gpus make avatar

a b U Graphics card
January 30, 2010 1:56:48 AM

The movie was great for me, the 3D hurts though.
As for the processing units used they used NeuroGrid.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 30, 2010 2:37:37 AM

Dude, they used the Cell from the PS3 and a handful of 5870's in quadfire, apparently all the rendering was completed in just 2 weeks.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
January 30, 2010 2:43:17 AM

I thought it was a server farm of 20x 5970s, a few Nvidia Teslas tossed in, and 10x 6cored i7 980 engineering samples they bought while on a trip to Taiwan?
O_o

m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 30, 2010 2:47:38 AM

They used a Phenom II X4 425 TWKR with liquid helium, a small hydroelectric plant, and 2,000,000V.
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 216 U Graphics card
January 30, 2010 2:51:34 AM

This is the supercomputer used for Avatar: http://www.vizworld.com/2009/12/wetas-datacrunching-pow...

Here is what most of the server farm is made of: http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF06a/3709945-3...
Share
a b U Graphics card
January 30, 2010 3:07:31 AM

sabot00 said:
They used a Phenom II X4 425


Only a PII x4 425? O_o
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 30, 2010 5:38:48 AM

You guys are all wrong. Avatar was not rendered by that super computer.

It is WELL known that Avatar was rendered through James Cameron's hand calculations capable of over 100 teraflops a petasecond at .003v on the 12v rail. Each of his brain cells is clocked at 5 ghz with hyperthreading enabled.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 30, 2010 5:42:14 AM

James Cameron couldn't calculate 1 + 1 if his life depended on it...
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 30, 2010 5:47:47 AM

Bluescreendeath said:
James Cameron couldn't calculate 1 + 1 if his life depended on it...


Hahaha :p  glad you caught the sarcasm.
m
0
l
a c 216 U Graphics card
January 30, 2010 10:06:36 PM

I started my post before the post turned to humor. What can I say :p 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
January 30, 2010 10:23:18 PM

Bluescreendeath said:
Only a PII x4 425? O_o


Phenom II X4 425 TWKR.
m
0
l
February 1, 2010 6:25:20 AM

Best answer selected by liquidsnake718.
m
0
l
February 1, 2010 6:29:22 AM

bystander said:
This is the supercomputer used for Avatar: http://www.vizworld.com/2009/12/wetas-datacrunching-pow...

Here is what most of the server farm is made of: http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF06a/3709945-3...


Great reference, wow 7-8 gigabytes per second computing 24 hours a day! Crazy stuff was well worth it. The movie was dumbe but the production is the one to marvel at. 32machines with 40,000processors! I wonder if they actually had to change any due to the immense amount of time it took to make this movie as requirments and power requirments changed throughout the movie production! 104 terabytes of memory doesnt sound THAt crazy considering we are already using 1-2tb expernal Hd's as "extra memory" so in 3-10 years that number will already sound normal to the average PC user.

m
0
l
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
February 1, 2010 6:46:34 AM

"The movie was utter crap, acting, voice overs, and story, but the graphics and rendering was the best I have ever seen. This movie took the cake out of all movies, games, and animations."

You must have typed this when you were smoking crack. You claim it was "crap"? As far as the movie's production for character voice-overs, the reference actors for the CG characters, combined with an exceptional story, you have NOT seen a better film than Avatar.

Avatar is heading towards being the biggest grossing movie in history for a good reason. Because it is a great film. Only a great movie can make the 1 Billion dollar mark.
m
0
l
February 1, 2010 7:33:17 AM

While "Avatar" was far from being a crappy movie, it didn't have brilliant acting or story either. Some the the characters were downright cheesy (ex: Colonel Quaritch), and some of the story was a little cheesy as well ((ex: the part when the guy jumps on the huge dragon-like creature (which nobody else can ride) to ride it, even though he barely just learned how to ride the smaller dragon-like creature)). But it was still a very entertaining movie because of the amazing special effects and epic-ness of it all.

However, when it comes to sci-fi movies, a much smaller budget and not nearly as popular movie was much better than Avatar, and that movie is "District 9". It is much more realistic than Avatar, has much better acting, and has a much deeper story. But unfortunately District 9 never had nearly as much hype as Avatar, and the deepness of the story makes it less enticing to the masses and more "nerdy" and harder to follow.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
February 2, 2010 2:09:30 AM

I will second the vote for District 9, absolutely the best move I have seen in years, and it should be no surprsie that Peter jackson helped make it ( LOTR )
m
0
l
March 26, 2010 1:32:53 AM

Annisman said:
I will second the vote for District 9, absolutely the best move I have seen in years, and it should be no surprsie that Peter jackson helped make it ( LOTR )

District 9 was a crap movie man...

What was so good about the movie? Really? What the analogy? The acting was sub par and the guy looked like he was trying so hard to act. I guess you can feel sorry for the guy but that alone does not garner all the hype for this movie.
m
0
l
!