• 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.

How much extra would you pay for superior Raytracing and DLSS?

Soldato
Joined
15 Oct 2019
Posts
13,297
Location
Uk
We all know Nvidia currently has the lead on raytracing and other bonus features like DLSS but how much extra would you spend on an Nvidia GPU for these features over an AMD GPU with equal rasterisation?.
 
Depends on how superior it is. Maybe an extra £100-150 if it's really good, on the basis that framerate would be a lot better in DLSS supported titles.
 
I'd say that the 6700XT is overpriced at MSRP at just $20 less than the RTX3070. I know the 6700XT has more memory and similar rasterisation, but for my money I'd get an MSRP 3070 for the extra $20 and be able to try out the ray tracing. However, at current prices, £700-800 for a 6700XT and £1200+ for a 3070, I'd take the 6700XT any day of the week, no way I can justify that huge price difference for one feature. I agree, maybe £100 difference would be my tipping point.
 
I still think we're far too early in the life of RT to worry about it, so I wouldn't spend extra for current-gen RT.

Maybe it'll be time in three or four generations.
 
I still think we're far too early in the life of RT to worry about it, so I wouldn't spend extra for current-gen RT.

Maybe it'll be time in three or four generations.

In 10 years from now no one will even care anymore, it's so automatic by then it won't cross the mind
 
Right now, zero.

In normal market times, zero.

They sell these cards to us and have to keep developing to make them worthwhile. Part of that is continuous improvement. We are not a charity.

Real time RT is in its infancy. Developers are barely making decent use of it. Even if you doubled the RT perf, it still isn't going to be mind-blowing up upgrade.
 
Right now, zero.

In normal market times, zero.

They sell these cards to us and have to keep developing to make them worthwhile. Part of that is continuous improvement. We are not a charity.

Real time RT is in its infancy. Developers are barely making decent use of it. Even if you doubled the RT perf, it still isn't going to be mind-blowing up upgrade.


RT Cores allow me to put out work twice as fast as using Cuda.
And the new 30xx cards are twice as fast as the old 20xx

So old cuda, vs new RT, is saving me 3 hours out of every 4 (at least).

Worth the money, for sure (at MSRP).

And AMD is currently not worth it, as they run slower than the 20xx series cards for more money, even at MSRP.

(Fully admitting that, as this isn't a gaming workload, my use case is not the 'norm' so YMMV)
 
I still think we're far too early in the life of RT to worry about it, so I wouldn't spend extra for current-gen RT.

Maybe it'll be time in three or four generations.
This. The terrible framrates of the marbles Demo (which I still think was using a limited lighting system) shows us that it isn't ready yet.

I see DLSS as an eol feature of a graphics card. 4 years down the line when it is no longer the top dog and is starting to hobble along, turn it it on to extend the cards life span but 4 years down the line you are not going to care how much you payed for your graphics card.
 
Last edited:
As for 'better DLSS': This is literally a band aid for poor performance thanks to needing 4K as a marketing tool. In the future it may get better with intense machine learning, but it's still a band aid right now.
 
I would pay something extra for that but would also depend on how much faster the card for RT. I try to go for the best GPU each generation and this time I was torn between RX 6900XT and RTX 3090. Having to pay ~500$ more for the most bare-bones RTX 3090 which loses in raster at 1440p (my resolution) was not worth it for me, so I went with 6900XT. Having said that if 3090 was faster no questions asked, I would have paid around ~500$ more for a decent RTX 3090 SKU.
 
RT Cores allow me to put out work twice as fast as using Cuda.
And the new 30xx cards are twice as fast as the old 20xx

So old cuda, vs new RT, is saving me 3 hours out of every 4 (at least).

Worth the money, for sure (at MSRP).

And AMD is currently not worth it, as they run slower than the 20xx series cards for more money, even at MSRP.

(Fully admitting that, as this isn't a gaming workload, my use case is not the 'norm' so YMMV)
So you are getting your money's worth because you are using it for pro work. Not to be rude but I don't give a crap about CUDA or RT cores unless they are helping me in games. These are GeForce cards and marketed for gamers. Consumers generally don't care about paying their hard-earned money for a companies profit margin or R & D, they care for the best product they can get for the cheapest price. Companies are able to innovate and earn profits without having to rely on consumers' charity and those that cannot perish away and are replaced by better ones, generally.
 
I still think we're far too early in the life of RT to worry about it, so I wouldn't spend extra for current-gen RT.

Maybe it'll be time in three or four generations.
Right now, zero.

In normal market times, zero.

They sell these cards to us and have to keep developing to make them worthwhile. Part of that is continuous improvement. We are not a charity.

Real time RT is in its infancy. Developers are barely making decent use of it. Even if you doubled the RT perf, it still isn't going to be mind-blowing up upgrade.
Agree with these two gents. Ray Tracing is still a big fat nothing burger. 95% of gamers don’t care about it and don’t use it.

Once we reach a stage that RT actually improves image quality, at a native resolution, without killing FPS, gamers will actually start to care about it. Clearly, that’s sone way off yet.
 
If RTX 3080s were in stock at the £650 msrp then personally the 6800XT would need to be under £550 for me to bite or be 20% faster in rasterisation at the same price.
 
We all know Nvidia currently has the lead on raytracing and other bonus features like DLSS but how much extra would you spend on an Nvidia GPU for these features over an AMD GPU with equal rasterisation?.

is this whole thread to justify your own purchase ?
 
For me, this thread is showing that fewer people care or want to try ray tracing, or would be willing to pay extra for it in it's infancy, than I expected. Don't believe the hype, eh?
 
5p, maybe 10p? Regardless of the vendor proving the extra performance for each of the technologies mentioned. Still got an ASUS AGEIA PhysX card in a cupboard somewhere...
 
Back
Top Bottom