• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

looks like RTX "on" just got a nice boost in BF5

Gregster said:
Wait wot? You do realise that there is a patch that gives fantastic gains now? I did a vid that I linked and the lowest I see it go was 44 fps for a split second and this is with everything set to ultra, including RayTracing :D I think you need to keep up my luv :D :D
Click to expand...

Now you're going to tell me that post was pre patch:p
 
easyrider said:
And 45 fps is unplayable :p
Click to expand...

I don't know why people like you found 45 fps unplayable and think it okay to turn down graphics settings to get lower graphics quality which looked worse than Ultra.

It would be real shame if you found 45.5 fps unplayable on Just Cause 4 at 4K on your expensive 1080 Ti which is now EOL but 45.5 fps is more than playable to me.

wq8kTWT.png


https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Performance_Analysis/Just_Cause_4/4.html

Since the last 20 years in games I played, 30 fps minimum fps is found to be playable, 45 fps is far more playable. One game on Athlon 64 X2 4400+ GTA IV was shocked unplayable at 10 fps in first mission and impossible unplayable 3.5 fps like slideshow in busy place with lots of cars and people moved in streets. Crysis was unplayable at 1600X900 at around 15 fps with maxed graphics settings on Geforce 8800 GTX, turned down to 1280X1024 managed to get it playable over 30 fps.

A Word About "FPS"

What are we looking for in gaming, performance wise? First off, obviously Guru3D tends to think that all games should be played at the best image quality (IQ) possible. There's a dilemma though, IQ often interferes with the performance of a graphics card. We measure this in FPS, the number of frames a graphics card can render per second, the higher it is the more fluently your game will display itself.

A game's frames per second (FPS) is a measured average of a series of tests. That test is often a time demo, a recorded part of the game which is a 1:1 representation of the actual game and its gameplay experience. After forcing the same image quality settings; this time-demo is then used for all graphics cards so that the actual measuring is as objective as can be.

Frames per second Gameplay
<30 FPS Very limited gameplay
30-40 FPS Average yet very playable
40-60 FPS Good gameplay
>60 FPS Best possible gameplay
  • So if a graphics card barely manages less than 30 FPS, then the game is not very playable, we want to avoid that at all cost.
  • With 30 FPS up-to roughly 40 FPS you'll be very able to play the game with perhaps a tiny stutter at certain graphically intensive parts. Overall a very enjoyable experience. Match the best possible resolution to this result and you'll have the best possible rendering quality versus resolution, hey you want both of them to be as high as possible.
  • When a graphics card is doing 60 FPS on average or higher then you can rest assured that the game will likely play extremely smoothly at every point in the game, turn on every possible in-game IQ setting.
  • Over 100 FPS? You either have a MONSTER graphics card or a very old game.
Click to expand...
https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_rtx_2080_gaming_x_trio_review,12.html

Found a good video on youtube to compare 30/60/120fps you can see 30 fps at minimum is good enough to be playable.

 
AthlonXP1800 said:
I don't know why people like you found 45 fps unplayable and think it okay to turn down graphics settings to get lower graphics quality which looked worse than Ultra.

It would be real shame if you found 45.5 fps unplayable on Just Cause 4 at 4K on your expensive 1080 Ti which is now EOL but 45.5 fps is more than playable to me.

wq8kTWT.png


https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Performance_Analysis/Just_Cause_4/4.html

Since the last 20 years in games I played, 30 fps minimum fps is found to be playable, 45 fps is far more playable. One game on Athlon 64 X2 4400+ GTA IV was shocked unplayable at 10 fps in first mission and impossible unplayable 3.5 fps like slideshow in busy place with lots of cars and people moved in streets. Crysis was unplayable at 1600X900 at around 15 fps with maxed graphics settings on Geforce 8800 GTX, turned down to 1280X1024 managed to get it playable over 30 fps.


https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_rtx_2080_gaming_x_trio_review,12.html

Found a good video on youtube to compare 30/60/120fps you can see 30 fps at minimum is good enough to be playable.

Click to expand...

30fps feels horrible. On consoles they insert duplicate frames to make it seem smoother.

Plus you can't really compare it using a pre-recorded clip like that. Especially when the clip is running at a set number of frames.
 
V F said:
I'm going to assume you're on the latest GeForce Experience and no issues loading it up to configure?
Click to expand...
Yes bud. No issues at all and I use the record facility quite a bit. Not much of a performance hit either but quality is a bit meh if I am honest.
 
Wrinkly said:
They reduced the amount of raytracing (optimized?) to gain a higher frame rate. The whole point of raytracing was 'it just works', no additional need of developer time.
Click to expand...

Did you even watch the video? There's been no reduction to the number of rays per pixel. Hell, if one understands the current implementation of RTX, intrinsically it's easy to understand why that's not possible.
 
Silent_Scone said:
Did you even watch the video? There's been no reduction to the number of rays per pixel. Hell, if one understands the current implementation of RTX, intrinsically it's easy to understand why that's not possible.
Click to expand...
Where did I say they reduced rays per pixel? Indeed it would be hard to reduce from ONE. What I did say was they have reduced the numbers of rays cast while prioritising what they think you will be looking at. Remember BFV only uses a subset of DXR in the first place, reflections. This was no where near full screen raytracing to being with and now it's being downgraded again.

You can optimise code to be more efficient or you can reduce the workload if the hardware is not up to it. What do you think is happening with BFV?
 
jigger said:
Strange isnt it :( Seems an attempt to imply you're a bum
Click to expand...

Most people on these forums are running EOL hardware...CPUS , DDR3 etc...

The EOL arguement of the 1080ti is used by people to justify their purchases....even the patch can’t save the 2080 series...in my eyes it’s already EOL :p

It’s not fit for the job of its USP :p
 
Wrinkly said:
Where did I say they reduced rays per pixel? Indeed it would be hard to reduce from ONE. What I did say was they have reduced the numbers of rays cast while prioritising what they think you will be looking at. Remember BFV only uses a subset of DXR in the first place, reflections. This was no where near full screen raytracing to being with and now it's being downgraded again.

You can optimise code to be more efficient or you can reduce the workload if the hardware is not up to it. What do you think is happening with BFV?
Click to expand...

It's both these things. That's what optimisation is. Just like how Microsoft's VRS is an optimisation. RTX was never meant to be stitch on rendering as your last post alludes it to be. It's ray tracing in realtime. Anyone who was expecting full scene rendering in anything outside of a canned demo needs to reevaluate their expectations of Turing. Possibly life, too lol :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom