Did AMD just kill off RTX

[Simon Belmont]

Yeah that's why Jen was hating on the new consoles, they are a direct threat to RTX, he is ******** his pants.

This 100%^
New Xbox and PS5 will hurt GPU sales there is no doubt. They should be scared.

 

[TNA]

Thread has not disappointed. So many people showing their bias, they don't have a clue what is what with RT.

Where you been Gregster? Not seen you for a while. Been busy playing all those RTX games that keep getting released have ya?

 

[LambChop]

Yeah that's why Jen was hating on the new consoles, they are a direct threat to RTX, he is ******** his pants.

Even with console sales, AMD sell 1 out of every 4 gpus. Yeah, Jen must be ******** it lol

 

[LambChop]

This 100%^
New Xbox and PS5 will hurt GPU sales there is no doubt. They should be scared.

You have no idea even with console sales how far behind AMD are. Literally ******* miles behind lol

 

[D.P.]

@D.P. stop falling for the Leather Jackets marketing antics mate

Ray Tracing is a technology that's been around almost as long as Nvidia, Microsoft DXR is just Ray Tracing, DXR simply makes it agnostic, Microsoft have been working with Nvidia, Intel and AMD to make Ray Tracing 'Direct-X Agnostic'. It is not something that has been bestowed upon us by the great Jenz to Microsoft and with that to the rest of us Plebeians.

How the heck to you pull any of that garbage out of my post?


Can you please go ahead and highlighted anything of what you have claimed?

 

[D.P.]

Yes, Ray Tracing has been used in games since long before Nvidia Coined "RTX".

And to leave out the other two partners in "Making Ray Tracing Direct-X Agnostic" is disingenuous, DXR is coming to Consoles 'Much to Nvidia's frustrations i'm sure' and in DXR form, Nvidia are not going to be working with Microsoft to make DXR for AMD GPU's, or Intel for that matter.

This also makes zero sense. Nvidia have already worked with Microsoft to produce the DXR APi. That is done and dusted. It is now AMD that will have to produce drivers that comply with the MX DXR standard that Nvidia helped create..

The fact that consoles will be getting ray tracing support using MS DXR and equivalent APIs is only ever good news for Nvidia. There is no patent on Ray tracing as a general method and never will be. Nvidia wants future GPU battles to be over Ray tracing performance. Nvidia purposely pushed ray tracing and the DXR standard in to consumer GPUs as quickly as possible in order to give them a competitive advantage. AMD will now have to take part in a fight that they might not have been expecting or ready for. Even if AMD can develop a better ray tracing system with more performant hardware, Nvidia still wins as it opens the floodgates to new innovations, large increases in performance and graphics realism which will drive GPU sales even if they are a notch behind AMD ray tracing performance in the future. The industry has now accepted Nvidia's vision of consumer graphics for the next 10-20 years and are moving with full support.

 

[TNA]

How the heck to you pull any of that garbage out of my post?

Not hard to do, if I was him I would just highlight and quote the whole post.



j/k

 

[nashathedog]

I don't think RTX as it works today is going anywhere, It'll simply be adapted at the software level as needed, that said Nvidia may not be that eager to maximise it's adaptability as it could be weaponised as a reason to upgrade to incoming ranges, they haven't done that before have they?

 

[D.P.]

Not hard to do, if I was him I would just highlight and quote the whole post.



j/k

The thing is, I was playing with ray tracing back on the Atari with articles like this:
https://www.atarimagazines.com/startv1n4/raytrace.html

In the early 2000s I coded my own ray tracer to crate lightmaps for my quake3 engine clone. I've never once claimed Nvidia;s ray tracing is anything innovative or even that impressive. the patents are completely void of anything interesting form a hardware perspective. Nvidia aren't even the first to produce ray-tracing accelerated GPUs, PowerVR did that back around 2004 or so. What Nvidia has done is forced the industry to make ray tracing a reality and give the games industry along. And they have done this the right way by working with MS to produce an industry API. Wrt to Vulkan, the khronos group is slow to respond to IHV requests so Nvidia simply supplied custom extension based on DXR API calls. Since Vulkan tries to closely follow DX12 and uses the same HLSL shading language where most of the ray tracing code takes place, the Kronos group will be adoption Nvidia's extensions, mostly with a name change.

 

[D.P.]

I don't think RTX as it works today is going anywhere, It'll simply be adapted at the software level as needed, that said Nvidia may not be that eager to maximise it's adaptability as it could be weaponised as a reason to upgrade to incoming ranges, they haven't done that before have they?

The fact that we have confirmation the consoles will support ray tracing proves you wrong.
Software based RT on the GPU is about 6-10x slower than using dedicated ASICs. Given the biggest limitation of Nvidia's current solution is it is still not fast enough then taking a giant step backwards is the last thing the industry will do. Eventually, just like the fixed dedicted pixel and vertex shaders disappeared into a flexible unified more general purpose processing, the restrictions on current RT hardware will slowly alleviate to allow more custom approaches.

But even here I don;t see much changes coming. Much to popular belief, most of the complexity in Nvidia's RTX is computed in CUDA cores without any or more dedicated hardware, There may be some silicon used to accelerate some parts of the BVH. The actual ray tracing cores are simply ray-intersection test accelrators which are incredibly simple so by making them a fixed hardware they can add a massive performance in a small die area (about 4-5% of the Turing die is Ray tracing hardware). Doing these ray tests in CUDA cores is trivial, and is what is done by Turing GTX cards and Pascal. But then you loose the whole purpose of dedicated hardware accelerating a simple fixed function and you are back to 6x slower.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

RTX is a generic term for raytracing. Nvidia does use it as a brand but developers refer to RTX, e.g. adding RTX to a game engine when they will use MS DXR as the API.


Kronos has basically already committed to using Nvidia's extension as the default API. Other parties can debate dome changes and if concensus is agreed then changes may be made. Note that the Nvidia extensions are based on MS DXR which is what MS and Nvidia worked on together and are already hardware agnostic. It is mostly an exercise in renaming API calls from VK_NV* to VK_

You dont seem to understand what an API is? The Nvidia extensions are essentially just method names and variable signatures. How that interacts with the hardware is entirely up to the driver, as such the API is hardware agnostic as long as it supports the same underlying functionality.

Microsoft and Nvidia worked together on the DX12 ray tracing API called DXR with minimal external input as AMD had no hardware.

MS have no real control over what the Kronos group decides in terms of API. You can only patent and copyright specific implementations, not vague ideas. An API is just a naming convention with a contract to provide the specified functionality. Much of the Vulkan and DX12 API is very similar if not identical by design. E.G the HLSL shading language used by vulkan is the exact copy of Microsofts DX12.1. The raytracing API mostly exists as functions in the HLSL shader language. This allows cross-API functionality and makes it easier for devs to move from DX12 to Vulkan or support both APIs.

And thus ray tracing in Vulkan will resemble MS DX12 DXR which is largely designed by Nvidia.

If AMD require wildly different API then they will have to work with MS to develop a new API and they wont be DXR compatible. That would be quite a failure for AMD in the short term and unrealistic. What is more likely is AMD will first produce DXR compatible hardware and confirm to the API largely proposed by Nvidia. In the future AMD will have a larger say in necessary changes. Short term they can specify different feature sets

None of this is particularly bad for AMD. Ms will have only accepted Nvidia's API suggestion if they believed it was fairly hardware agnostic and a sensible API.

Yes, VKRay is Vulkan extensions for RT. So far only nvidia has had any RT to speak of, so they have defined extensions, which are likely to be brought into the Vulkan standard.

Vulkan is a competing API to DirectX, which has DXR, yes. It is cross platform and aims to be just as hardware agnostic as DirectX, but also cross-platform.

DXR is a standard defined by microsoft, there are no 'nvidia extensions' to this, the nvidia drivers provide a DXR implementation using nvidia RTX hardware at the back end.


Well, they provide their own drivers which also fulfill the DirectX DXR API. It's not proprietary nvidia extensions to the API that are suddenly going to be made obsolete when it's standardised or when AMD come along. Each just provides their own drivers to fulfill the DX API requirements.

Similarly with Vulkan, there are RT extensions to the API (called VKRay), and drivers will be made to fulfill the requirements of the API.
The RT extensions are nvidia-only right now, but they aren't that way because nvidia went ahead and just made their own proprietary thing separate to what Vulkan had defined - they are made that way because Vulkan didn't have an RT API at all, so nvidia went ahead and added them. It looks like Intel and AMD will feed into standardising this, and Khronos will eventually publish that standard, but there's no reason to think it will be *very* different from what nvidia have already defined, or that somehow nvidia have been evil and written proprietary extensions to things.

I had a look into the claims:
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NVIDIA-DXR-To-Vulkan

Big "open-source" achievements aren't too common for NVIDIA or Microsoft much less together, but thanks to their open-source work on the DXC DirectXCompiler it's possible to easily convert HLSL DXR shaders to SPIR-V for Vulkan.

NVIDIA has written a new technical blog post on bringing HLSL ray-tracing to Vulkan with the same capabilities of DirextX Ray-Tracing. This effort is made feasible by Microsoft's existing open-source DirectXCompiler (DXC) with SPIR-V back-end for consumption by Vulkan drivers. Last year NVIDIA contributed to the open-source DXC support for SPV_NV_ray_tracing. This in turn with the open-source tooling allows converting DXR HLSL shaders into SPIR-V modules for Vulkan.

For now this DirectX Ray Tracing to Vulkan depends upon NVIDIA's NV_ray_tracing extension until the cross-vendor Vulkan ray-tracing extension(s) are finalized and published.

For those wanting to learn more about this current NVIDIA-led approach with Microsoft's open-source DXC compiler, see the NVIDIA developer blog. "The NVIDIA VKRay extension, with the DXC compiler and SPIR-V backend, provides the same level of ray tracing functionality in Vulkan through HLSL as is currently available in DXR. You can now develop ray-tracing applications using DXR or NVIDIA VKRay with minimized shader re-writing to deploy to either the DirectX or Vulkan APIs. We encourage you to take advantage of this new flexibility and expand your user base by bringing ray tracing titles to Vulkan."

So Nvidia and MS ported DXR shaders over to Linux but look at what is bolded. Looks indeed like MS is being much less Windows centric now. Nvidia extensions are temporary until replaced by a proper cross vendor set of extensions....which hints the current implementation probably is meant for Nvidia which makes entire sense. Also VKRay and DXR seem to be mentioned as competing with each other.

So I can see what people meant by extensions now,but it also means what we see now is only temporary anyway.

It also means I can't see AMD doing hardware based RT for a while as the software stack isn't developed enough.

That is form the 22nd of this month - the Nvidia NV_ray extensions are being replaced by new extensions finalised by AMD,Intel and Nvidia. They are NOT being finalised under Vulkan,but used as a stop-gap.

Also,Microsoft don't mention Nvidia inventing DXR:

https://devblogs.microsoft.com/directx/directx-raytracing-and-the-windows-10-october-2018-update/

Several studios have partnered with our friends at NVIDIA, who created RTX technology to make DirectX Raytracing run as efficiently as possible on their hardware

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1254...tracing-acceleration-for-volta-gpus-and-later

Anandtech says the same:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1254...tracing-acceleration-for-volta-gpus-and-later

RTX is essentially NVIDIA's DXR backend implementation.

Microsoft even calls RTX as a "technology" to run its DXR on top off Nvidia GPUs. Its not a generic name for raytracing even by Microsoft who keep talking about DXR. RTX is for Nvidia only GPUs and AMD and Intel won't call it RTX.


I think people are getting caught up about the fact Nvidia is the only company to have dedicated hardware suppored RT,so MS,etc working with them is realistically only to support MS DXR on supported hardware.

As Phoronix has mentioned the Nvidia extensions will be replaced by new ones - again which make sense. RTX and whatever tech Nvidia uses is only going to work on Nvidia GPUs,and AMD and Intel GPUs are different uarchs,so might do things a bit differently.

Remember adaptive sync?? People believed Nvidia invented that too,but it all came out the VESA consortium had been working on a cross-platform alternative for years by then.

Nvidia went with dedicated hardware on desktop and did it differently than AMD who used the VESA methodology and introduced changes in their GPUs,which Nvidia didn't support with its earlier generation of GPUs.

Hence we had the same thing done by two different ways(one with an FPGA in the monitor,and the other done by improved scalers and changes in the GPU hardware),and now Pascal and Turing support two different ways of doing adaptive sync.

 

[Jimmy Weirdarms]

I imagine that the NV_ extensions to Vulkan look pretty similar to the eventual standard will be - instructions at that level of abstraction are usually pretty hardware independent, especially if the API extensions nvidia designed were effectively put there to cover the work already done under DXR.

Vulkan and DX are competing APIs, yes, just as OpenGL was (still is? You don't hear much about that any more). Vulkan is aimed (AFAICT) at being clean and legacy-free, and being able to utilise multi-gpu setups with relative ease. The other one you'll hear about is "Metal", but that's Apple exclusive.

 

[LoadsaMoney]

Its funny everyone ripping the **** about Nvidia having no RT games, when AMDs HW RT card will have none either when it comes out, as it'll only have the couple Nvidia have been running too, only about a year later

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I imagine that the NV_ extensions to Vulkan look pretty similar to the eventual standard will be - instructions at that level of abstraction are usually pretty hardware independent, especially if the API extensions nvidia designed were effectively put there to cover the work already done under DXR.

Vulkan and DX are competing APIs, yes, just as OpenGL was (still is? You don't hear much about that any more). Vulkan is aimed (AFAICT) at being clean and legacy-free, and being able to utilise multi-gpu setups with relative ease. The other one you'll hear about is "Metal", but that's Apple exclusive.

Again even MS says that RTX,etc is to enable DXR to work on top of Nvidia GPUs to use specific hardware functionality their GPUs have to accelerate RT. Remember RTX,or Nvidia extensions are NOT required for DXR to run under Windows as it will run in an agnostic software mode. RTX and any Nvidia extensions are there to target specific Nvidia hardware to enable a speedup in RT calculations.

People also forget AMD does its own non-realtime raytracing under Vulkan too.

I doubt the Nvidia extensions will actually work on AMD or Intel GPUs. Doesn't Quake 2 RTX use Vulkan RT?? Well,it doesn't work on AMD GPUs.

If you want to go back earlier,Imagination Technlogies showcased RT capable GPUs long before AMD or Nvidia:

https://www.imgtec.com/blog/powervr-gr6500-ray-tracing/

Unless you can show me that both AMD and Intel are essentially going to do things in the same way as Nvidia,the hardware will be different,hence as Phoronix said,the Nvidia extensions are stop-gap,as Nvidia is the only vendor with compatible hardware. If they were already going to work fine on other companies products,they would not be replaced by a new set of extensions.

Plus there is nothing stopping Nvidia from still supporting its own extensions on top of that - just like they support two different ways of adaptive sync - one via an FPGA and one via a combination of new generation scalers and improved GPU output support. I would imagine if Nvidia makes any significant changes on the hardware side,it will be quicker to push their own improved extensions,than wait for the cross vendor Vulkan extensions to be changed.

 

[opethdisciple]

This 100%^
New Xbox and PS5 will hurt GPU sales there is no doubt. They should be scared.

But we should be over joyed. It means competition all around and lower prices.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Its funny everyone ripping the **** about Nvidia having no RT games, when AMDs HW RT card will have none either when it comes out, as it'll only have the couple Nvidia have been running too, only about a year later

Well look at computer gaming revenues,PC gaming only makes about 25% to 33% of all computer gaming revenues,and consoles,mobile phones and tablets the rest.

Even if the PS5 and the new XBox are rolled out this year,most games will be still developed for legacy consoles anyway,as the install base is going to be much higher.

So realistically I can probably say that most computer gaming revenue at least until next year will be with games which don't use RT,or have a playerbase which won't actually use it.

Its the same with all the new tech which is introduced with computer graphics,the hardware has predated the software for years. Look at tessellation - the ATI 9000 series and Matrox cards supported it for years. Yet we only saw tessellation being used once MS supported it under DX11,and even then it took time for it to become a standard option.

But we should be over joyed. It means competition all around and lower prices.

Or prices will go up further as they try the PCMR angle - its happening with Apple who are trying their best to increase iPhone prices,as sales overall are decreasing,then wonder why cheaper companies are increasing sales,leading to an interesting response.

 

[Jimmy Weirdarms]

Again even MS says that RTX,etc is to enable DXR to work on top of Nvidia GPUs to use specific hardware functionality their GPUs have to accelerate RT. Remember RTX,or Nvidia extensions

RTX is not "Nvidia extensions" it's their range of cards that implement RT and DXR. I'm not sure why you would think "RTX" refers to anything other than the hardware and its driver?

I doubt the Nvidia extensions will actually work on AMD or Intel GPUs. Doesn't Quake 2 RTX use Vulkan RT?? Well,it doesn't work on AMD GPUs.

The nvidia drivers won't, certainly, as the hardware will be different. But at the RT API level it's likely to be very similar, defining high-level ray operations. The only RT API in Vulkan so far is the one nvidia have defined, it looks quite likely to form the basis for the standard API in Vulkan.

Unless you can show me that both AMD and Intel are essentially going to do things in the same way as Nvidia,the hardware will be different

That's entirely irrelevant, as the hardware is addressed by the driver, which implements the API, but the API remains the same.

You don't think that there are different Vulkan and/or DX API calls for talking to Nvidia or AMD hardware right now, in none-RT operations, do you? But the hardware in Turing, Pascal etc is entirely different to RDNA, GCN etc. The APIs at the level of Vulkan or DX are identical. That's the whole point.

Plus there is nothing stopping Nvidia from still supporting its own extensions on top of that

But it would be pointless, the only reason they have extensions right now in Vulkan is because vulkan has no RT APIs. Once it has, they'll be fine for all vendors.

Vulkan isn't a driver, it's an API, the drivers then make that work.

I would imagine if Nvidia makes any significant changes on the hardware side,it will be quicker to push their own improved extensions,than wait for the cross vendor Vulkan extensions to be changed.

And I would imagine that significant hardware changes would have no effect whatsoever at the level of Vulkan, because anything hardware specific would be handled by their driver. So long as the API is defined well enough at the beginning, there should be no need to change the vulkan specification just because of new hardware.

(Though I'll admit that's probably and overly simple view - entirely new capabilities in hardware might necessitate API extensions, it's true, but just making things faster/better or hardware changes underneath shouldn't)

 

[VincentHanna]

Off topic but @Jimmy Weirdarms sounds like a name The Boosh would come up with.

 

[ljt]

RTX is not "Nvidia extensions" it's their range of cards that implement RT and DXR. I'm not sure why you would think "RTX" refers to anything other than the hardware and its driver?

It doesn't help that in all the Nvidia marketing videos they show the comparison of games with and without Ray tracing as "RTX On" and "RTX off" So now people assume RTX On = Ray Tracing On.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Again even MS says that RTX,etc is to enable DXR to work on top of Nvidia GPUs to use specific hardware functionality their GPUs have to accelerate RT. Remember RTX,or Nvidia extensions are NOT required for DXR to run under Windows as it will run in an agnostic software mode. RTX and any Nvidia extensions are there to target specific Nvidia hardware to enable a speedup in RT calculations.

RTX is not "Nvidia extensions" it's their range of cards that implement RT and DXR. I'm not sure why you would think "RTX" refers to anything other than the hardware and its driver?

I said or. Both work on only Nvidia hardware. You are literally now agreeing with me when I literally quoted what now you are saying - RTX is just Nvidia enabling its own specific hardware features under DXR.

RTX is defined by MS as the following:

Several studios have partnered with our friends at NVIDIA, who created RTX technology to make DirectX Raytracing run as efficiently as possible on their hardware

So a Nvidia specific technology for its own GPUs to work under DXR. If you have a problem with that e-mail MS?

The nvidia drivers won't, certainly, as the hardware will be different. But at the RT API level it's likely to be very similar, defining high-level ray operations. The only RT API in Vulkan so far is the one nvidia have defined, it looks quite likely to form the basis for the standard API in Vulkan.

Nope,people started examing and it only was made to work specifically on Nvidia GPUs. It wasn't a driver problem as AMD already has RT under Vulkan working for other applications.

So vulkan only has raytracing as the nvidia raytracing extension. AFAIK AMD cards don't support that. Radeon Rays, on the other hand is an OpenCL raytracing library (or something). Q2VKPT was done AFAIK with VK_NV_RAY_TRACING so it's nvidia only AFAIK, though possibly you could run it with MESA, I don't know, but I don't know if the nvidia Q2 uses anything more RTX specific than VK_NV_RAY_TRACING.

Downloaded the source just for quick fun during a study break.

• Commented out the "No ray tracing capable GPU found" check you are mentioned. This throws an unhandled exception since no device is picked.
  
  
• Hardcoded it to pick "Device 0" even though it's an "Unknown AMD GPU". This throws a handled "Couldn't initialize Vulkan error." No sense commenting this error check out since if an actual Vulkan device is not created, nothing afterwards will run properly.
  
  
• Log says that a Vulkan device was not created since it "Failed to validate extensions in list", namely "Device extension VK_NV_ray_tracing not supported by selected physical device or enabled layers.". Commented out VK_NV_ray_tracing from the list of requested extensions.
  
  
• A Vulkan device still can't be created. Log says: "terminator_CreateDevice: Failed in ICD C:\WINDOWS\System32\DriverStore\FileRepository\u0342715.inf_amd64_680c98a4f78c6e03\B342717\.\amdvlk64.dll vkCreateDevicecall" Not sure what the code requests during device creation that causes this failure, don't have time to delve into this, as I don't know anything about Vulkan. Probably the absence of VK_NV_ray_tracing makes everything invalid during device creation.

Gotta go back to studying. In short, it's not just a question of a hardcoded NVIDIA GPU check in the code (there seems to be a Nvidia driver version check though, which is easy to remove). If you don't have a (physical) device that supports VK_NV_ray_tracing Vulkan extension, nothing will run. Probably it is so reliant on this extension that you'd have to rework the raytracing part of the code completely, but then you would arguably have a completely different game on your hands. Unless AMD starts magically supporting VK_NV_ray_tracing, this application is a no-go.

The extension only works on Nvidia GPUs and is the basis of Quake 2 RTX which is using Vulkan. Perhaps complain to Nvidia?

That's entirely irrelevant, as the hardware is addressed by the driver, which implements the API, but the API remains the same.

You don't think that there are different Vulkan and/or DX API calls for talking to Nvidia or AMD hardware right now, in none-RT operations, do you? But the hardware in Turing, Pascal etc is entirely different to RDNA, GCN etc. The APIs at the level of Vulkan or DX are identical. That's the whole point.
But it would be pointless, the only reason they have extensions right now in Vulkan is because vulkan has no RT APIs. Once it has, they'll be fine for all vendors.

Vulkan isn't a driver, it's an API, the drivers then make that work.
And I would imagine that significant hardware changes would have no effect whatsoever at the level of Vulkan, because anything hardware specific would be handled by their driver. So long as the API is defined well enough at the beginning, there should be no need to change the vulkan specification just because of new hardware.

You are confusing the API at a higher level to extensions which support specific hardware. Now you are calling them drivers. Guess what?? Read through various Vulkan releases - you see mentions of vendor specific extensions. One is VK_AMD_display_native_hdr which only works...on you guess it...AMD GPUs. The extensions are designed specifically to work with specific hardware - they are not cross vendor. Nvidia will have to write its own extensions.

The Nvidia extensions are not the API,they are extensions to support specific hardware features on Nvidia GPUs:

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NVIDIA-DXR-To-Vulkan

For now this DirectX Ray Tracing to Vulkan depends upon NVIDIA's NV_ray_tracing extension until the cross-vendor Vulkan ray-tracing extension(s) are finalized and published."

Nvidia extensions only work on Nvidia hardware. You can use as much flowery language as you and your mates want,but the Khronos Group unfortunately don't agree with you - the Nvidia specific extensions will be replaced by extensions which support a wider range of hardware,so at best they will roll what Nvidia is doing for its own GPUs into it,but AMD will need to make its own extensions to support its own GPUs.

It is so blatantly obvious Nvidia would be making sure it made its extensions work for only its own GPUs,its not going to AMD's or Intel's work for them,hence why Khronos Group is working together to enable support.

Anyway,as I literally have to point this out to you the third time,and you still think a lower level set of extensions will magically work on different vendors hardware we will leave it at that - agree to disagree.

It doesn't help that in all the Nvidia marketing videos they show the comparison of games with and without Ray tracing as "RTX On" and "RTX off" So now people assume RTX On = Ray Tracing On.

Him and the other guy were argueing that RTX was the name for raytracing - I linked to a MS article which showed that MS described it as "technology" to expose Nvidia specific hardware features to DXR.

Its the same with them claiming Nvidia invented DXR(which MS doesn't say - it says Nvidia worked with them and implemented RTX to work with DXR),and that they invented raytracing and that all the Nvidia specific extensions which like RTX,only target Nvidia specific features would be the basis of Vulkan RT.

Yet,3 times I have linked to the same article showing these are only stop-gap extensions,and run under a ported version of DXR to Linux using specific tools MS also helped created.

The same article says the extensions will be replaced by a group of extensions which are cross vendor which makes sense as Nvidia only has hardware which supports it.

At this point its almost like they are saying MS and other vendors are not doing anything for some weird reason,and on purpose misreading the obvious. The thing is consoles take years to develop,so if MS and Sony are talking about RT now,its been in the pipeline for a long time,just like adaptive sync was.