• 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.

Having seen RTX run is it worth the extra cost?

Kaapstad

Kaapstad

Kaapstad

Man of Honour
Joined
21 May 2012
Posts
31,943
Location
Dalek flagship
I have seen RTX running on SLI RTX Titans in the Port Royal benchmark and it looks awesome. I have also seen it running in the BFV game where it is very much toned down to run acceptable fps on more GPU hardware and it looks ok but not a game changer.

I have to be honest RTX is nice but IMHO it is not something that is a must have in games taking into account the extra cost of hardware required.

What are your views?

Is RTX worth paying several hundred £ extra for or is it just a bit of bling that can be ignored.
 
I think we'll have a better idea next month once the new Metro game lands. Port Royal is pretty but so was Nature Demo in 3Dmark01 and it took until at least Oblivion years later to match it. BFV is probably a bit too hectic a game for RT to matter a great deal. I love fast-paced shooters but although they are synonymous with high-end graphics (ever since Doom/Quake/Unreal) I'm not sure it's the right place to debut RT. With Metro we'll have a game where people can soak in the atmosphere and the environment and where visual fidelity really counts.

Having tried the existing titles on both 2080Ti and Titan RTX, I can say that I find the RTX features to be impressive but only as a bonus. Had these cards not offered a native performance boost in normal rendering then the RTX aspect wouldn't yet be anything I'd have upgraded for.
 
RT is meh. And that's coming from someone who often bumps every visual he can and suffer 30 fps, than do the opposite. For BF V it is utterly forgettable, both due to the nature of the game & its implementation. Perhaps other games in the future (when/if) will do a better job at showcasing it. Actually not hopeful for Metro's implementation as their demos so far showed some obvious noise, and if you care about framerates in the slightest GI is usually even MORE taxing than reflections, so they either gimp RT further ala BF V for it be at least playable, or risk having it be dormant tech for the next gen of RTX cards, and in Metro's case I think there's a danger they'll make the noise even more visible.

Way more interested in >4K as it stands, even if it's super-sampling rather than native. Which is also why my reactions to Turing/Radeon 7 have been the opposite of most people. Excitement for Radeon 7 because 16gb HBM2 is very useful at higher res, but disappointment with Turing because their vram is still the same or lower (!), with the sole exception of RTX Titan, a $2500 card... yeah. And also because DLSS is a scam, and the exciting part about it - DLSS AA - is essentially not even rumoured to exist at this point, let alone have an implementation upcoming.

That's just how it looks, if we'd take into account there's essentially only 1 game for each RTX feature, then that's even more reason to be disappointed - if you had higher expectations.

Worth extra money? That's a big, fat NOPE from me.
 
Nope, Thats why I bought a 1080ti for £600 less than 2080 ti :p

That 600 saved built me a 9900k rig after selling my 6700k mobo combo. ;)
 
Yes. Having played with it on in BF5 game looks very dull without it now. RTX is a must now that I have seen it in action.
 
Kaapstad said:
I have seen RTX running on SLI RTX Titans in the Port Royal benchmark and it looks awesome. I have also seen it running in the BFV game where it is very much toned down to run acceptable fps on more GPU hardware and it looks ok but not a game changer.

I have to be honest RTX is nice but IMHO it is not something that is a must have in games taking into account the extra cost of hardware required.

What are your views?

Is RTX worth paying several hundred £ extra for or is it just a bit of bling that can be ignored.
Click to expand...
Currently due to lack of content not worth it (for me). Let’s see what it will look like in 12 months time.

My hope is at least 10 games, but not holding my breath or even that excited about it as it needs to be in games I want to play and not a single one has been announced. From my point of view right now they have a game like pong or checkers where they are ray tracing reflections. Couldn’t care less about BF5 as I have seen all I want in videos.

If Mr Lying Leather Jacker Man wants my money, he needs to get it on something like Cyberpunk 2077, Dying Light 2, Shenmue 3 and Final Fantasy 7 remake.


Shaz12 said:
Yes. Having played with it on in BF5 game looks very dull without it now. RTX is a must now that I have seen it in action.
Click to expand...
Yeah, now you are stuck only being able to play only one game on your PC, as everything must look really dull and unbearable to play. At the snail rate Nvidia are going, you might have a handful by the end of the year. I feel sorry for you sir :p;)
 
No not at the moment. But as with any new tech it has to go through trials and teething problems. I would have preferred a cheaper gpu without the tech but Nvidia needed to put clear space between themselves and AMD.
 
I remember the time when Mantle was released and it boosted AMD cards in titles like BF4. The retort at the time was precisely (from the nvidia guys) it only helps in a couple of games and theres xyz titles that it doesnt work on. Useless feature.

This time, early adopters will endure the same. Its a great thing to have but firstly gimps performance too much to be of any mainstream use yet, secondly the extra price doesnt warrant the feature overlapping with former point made.
 
Rtx is not worth hundreds, or even 100, or even 50, IMO.

Also graphics cards aren't worth 500+ either. I simply won't pay it. If that means I don't play new games then so be it.
 
billysielu said:
Rtx is not worth hundreds, or even 100, or even 50, IMO.

Also graphics cards aren't worth 500+ either. I simply won't pay it. If that means I don't play new games then so be it.
Click to expand...

You can still play games

Its if you want ultra settings and high resolutions.

The sweet spot is 3440 x 1440 imo...It just doesn't need a 2080ti to drive...I think a lot of people get whipped up into a frenzy when new hardware hits...Then they realise they should have waited or kept their old gen stuff.

I'm just happy I bagged a 1080ti when I did...Or I would have been faced with buying a 500 2070 or a 750 2080

Dodged a bullet just.
 
I'm not so sure these cards wouldn't have been expensive even without the RTX features so imo having it can only be a bonus for when the games include it.

I would be satisfied with just a small implementation in the games throughout the year provided that they work well.

BF5 is an unfinished game regardless and may will be forgotten when other games release.

I wasn't expecting full blown ray tracing showcasing in games at this time, just a few small inclusions.

I am happy with the cards as a whole package with the great coolers such as MSI and EVGA.
 
easyrider said:
You can still play games

Its if you want ultra settings and high resolutions.

The sweet spot is 3440 x 1440 imo...It just doesn't need a 2080ti to drive...I think a lot of people get whipped up into a frenzy when new hardware hits...Then they realise they should have waited or kept their old gen stuff.

I'm just happy I bagged a 1080ti when I did...Or I would have been faced with buying a 500 2070 or a 750 2080

Dodged a bullet just.
Click to expand...

EXCATLY this tbh. Virtually same story I'd tell.
 
I'm sure in time it will be better but right now for me personally, I've got no interest. I tend to upgrade every new top end ti cycle but the price v performance this time around doesn't make sense so keeping with my 1080ti for now
 
I upgraded from two 1080 Ti's to two 2080 Ti's and even if RTX never existed I'm very happy with the performance boost at 4k.

RTX is just a nice bonus. Really want to see what it will run like in metro and tomb raider if they eventually update that game.
 
If you need two 2080Ti's to run raytracing then its ridiculous. Thats two grand with lots of waiting to see games showcasing it properly. They have the 2060 at around £300 I think which is good if better than a 1070ti, but these cards should be able to run raytracing and be playable, eyes will be watching this one develop.
 
RT itself is a good technology, but it's still a generation or two away from usable implementations.. Yes NV have RT running, AMD can if they wanted to and took the FPS hit as it's just a #include for the Mircrosoft Rayracing SDK in the drivers(yes I know it's more involved).

For me good stable, within freesync range, frame rates is better than shiny windows/relections. When I'm running around in game I don't have the time to look at this stuff in detail so there isn't any point in having it on in the first place. If I got the 2080 then I would have had some serious buyers remorse. Sure I would have checked out RT, but in general game play I would have turned it off.

NVidia are taking people for mugs at the moment, really really milking the market and they should be called out for what they are doing. Sure, for some people it's worth it and by all means you can spend your money how you like, but for myself I won't be taken advantage of.. £1300 for a G/card for gamers, absolutely taking the ****, even £350 for the 2060 is taking the mickey as well.

The CEO of NVidia comes across as arogant, extremely so in fact. Saying stuff like Freesync is broken when they were just force to adopt the open standard, which everyone knows NVidia doesn't like to do as they can't extract money out of it when it's open. Trying to bring in the Geforce partnership shows the level of arrogance of the company, thankfully backlash from the community stopped it(so far) - but they are now limiting samples to reviewers that don't give glowing reviews(yes I know they don't have to offer cards to reviewers). So now you can't take for granted that reviews are genuine, quite the opposite in fact, if you don't give a good review you can't be guaranteed a card for review before embargo..

Check out this Hardware Unboxed video here:

So that's a no from me.. :)
 
RTX will be the first thing turned off in most games. It's "ok" in BFV, but definitely nothing worth losing 70% performance over. I could see RTX working better in like single player Sci-Fi games that a lower FPS isn't that big of a deal and RTX gets to be shown off more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom