>The misconception is that data isn’t slow and graphics aren’t fast, at least relative to one another.
depends on the data/graphics. modern commercial GPUs are beefy (even when talking about integrated ones) and I suspect the Matlib kinds of tools aren't even tapping into a fraction of a percent of its power.
But at the same time 5 billion draw calls raw will bring even a decent gaming GPU to its knees, at least for responsive, real time applications. The trick is to first understand your data (e.g. that 5 billion triangles are useless on a monitor that has 1-4 billion pixels). As you said, even Nanite isn't truly trying to process a trillion triangles raw.
The steps from that understanding to a good enough approximation are indeed some dark magic.
depends on the data/graphics. modern commercial GPUs are beefy (even when talking about integrated ones) and I suspect the Matlib kinds of tools aren't even tapping into a fraction of a percent of its power.
But at the same time 5 billion draw calls raw will bring even a decent gaming GPU to its knees, at least for responsive, real time applications. The trick is to first understand your data (e.g. that 5 billion triangles are useless on a monitor that has 1-4 billion pixels). As you said, even Nanite isn't truly trying to process a trillion triangles raw.
The steps from that understanding to a good enough approximation are indeed some dark magic.