Crytek demo DXR on Vega 56

[andybird123]

No, you fail to read it correctly.

They speaking about reflection resolution, not display resolution!
1080p @30fps = 4k Display with reflections at 1080p 30fps

1440p @ half reflection res gives 40+ FPS

And people are getting 4k from the uploaded video itself is 4K! Its a native 4K video.

It runs in 1080p with 30 fps on a Vega 56. Reducing the resolution of reflections allows much better performance without too much quality loss. For example in half-resolution mode it runs 1440p / 40+ fps.

so taking a 3rd off the entire render, plus halving the resolution of the raytracing to 720p only gives a 10fps improvement... sounds legit
also how is half resolution faster than quarter resolution?

the article doesn't say anywhere close to what you are saying, not in any way that could make sense

 

[shankly1985]

so taking a 3rd off the entire render, plus halving the resolution of the raytracing to 720p only gives a 10fps improvement... sounds legit
also how is half resolution faster than quarter resolution?

the article doesn't say anywhere close to what you are saying, not in any way that could make sense

Let us just agree to disagree and see how it does if they release the demo.

 

[humbug]

so halving the resolution of the entire render, plus halving the resolution of the raytracing to 720p only gives a 10fps improvement... sounds legit
also how is half resolution faster than quarter resolution?

the article doesn't say anywhere close to what you are saying, not in any way that could make sense

The Ray Tracing component is run at a different resolution to the rest of the scene, so in this case the scene is run at 4K while the Ray Traced reflections are run at 1080P.

By separating the Ray Tracing component from the rest of the scene you can optimize the performance, the Ray Tracing component resolution is separately configurable from the scene, Full - Half - Quarter resolution.
So, the 4K scene has 8.4m Pixels, if you run the Ray Tracing component at quarter resolution (1080P) you're only Ray Tracing 2.1m Pixels instead of 8.4m.

The Ray Tracing component is only one part of the scene, so of course it doesn't scale linear.

 

[andybird123]

The Ray Tracing component is run at a different resolution to the rest of the scene, so in this case the scene is run at 4K while the Ray Traced reflections are run at 1080P.

By separating the Ray Tracing component from the rest of the scene you can optimize the performance, the Ray Tracing component resolution is separately configurable from the scene, Full - Half - Quarter resolution.
So, the 4K scene has 8.4m Pixels, if you run the Ray Tracing component at quarter resolution (1080P) you're only Ray Tracing 2.1m Pixels instead of 8.4m.

The Ray Tracing component is only one part of the scene, so of course it doesn't scale linear.

Yes i get that, however the article says " Reducing the resolution of reflections allows much better performance"... thats strange language to use if you are going from quarter resolution to half resolution. It makes much more sense if you are going from 1080p scene with 1080p (full) ray trace to 1440p scene with 720p (half) raytrace. Nowhere in the article does it say quarter or 4k, except when it says RTX cards will most likely be able to run at 4k with full ray trace.

If they are going from 4k to 1440p it would be more accurate to say they reduced the resolution of the scene and that allowed them to increase the ray tracing from quarter to half.

 

[Nasher]

But they couldn't even run BFV or Metro's partial ray trace on RTX at high res, it's massively down-scaled by DLSS and looks blurry AF if you remember. If you turn off DLSS it's unplayable.

 

[doody]

No, you fail to read it correctly.

They speaking about reflection resolution, not display resolution!
1080p @30fps = 4k Display with reflections at 1080p 30fps

1440p @ half reflection res gives 40+ FPS

And people are getting 4k from the uploaded video itself is 4K! Its a native 4K video.

It runs in 1080p with 30 fps on a Vega 56. Reducing the resolution of reflections allows much better performance without too much quality loss. For example in half-resolution mode it runs 1440p / 40+ fps.

im tick and i understand

 

[humbug]

Yes i get that, however the article says " Reducing the resolution of reflections allows much better performance"... thats strange language to use if you are going from quarter resolution to half resolution. It makes much more sense if you are going from 1080p scene with 1080p (full) ray trace to 1440p scene with 720p (half) raytrace. Nowhere in the article does it say quarter or 4k, except when it says RTX cards will most likely be able to run at 4k with full ray trace.

If they are going from 4k to 1440p it would be more accurate to say they reduced the resolution of the scene and that allowed them to increase the ray tracing from quarter to half.

The RTX card's will handle it better, the Vega 56 i have no doubt could run this at 1080P highest settings with 1080P RT at over 60 FPS no problem, the point Crytek are making is you don't need RTX card's to run Ray Tracing, nore does it cost all that much in performance, and they are right to point that out. very much.

 

[Grim5]

I think Crytek has shown that you don't have to try and bruteforce 4k ray tracing which is what Nvidia's RTX cards are doing on every game released so far - you can use various tweaks like upscaling ray traced elements etc to improve performance.

Crytek's testing will be useful for consoles which will need to use these tweaks to get ray tracing running, while on PC we'll see the full fat quality as long as you have a hardware accelerator like RTX

 

[andybird123]

The RTX card's will handle it better, the Vega 56 i have no doubt could run this at 1080P highest settings with 1080P RT at over 60 FPS no problem,

Except crytek say it can't.

 

[Panos]

I think Crytek has shown that you don't have to try and bruteforce 4k ray tracing which is what Nvidia's RTX cards are doing on every game released so far - you can use various tweaks like upscaling ray traced elements etc to improve performance.

Crytek's testing will be useful for consoles which will need to use these tweaks to get ray tracing running, while on PC we'll see the full fat quality as long as you have a hardware accelerator like RTX

At last you picked exactly the point of Crytek's tweaking.

So grab yourself the popcorn to see the Nvidia Crusaders defending their RTX Holy Land. Already this discussion gets interesting.
Shame not in mood to bombard them also.

 

[D.P.]

The RTX card's will handle it better, the Vega 56 i have no doubt could run this at 1080P highest settings with 1080P RT at over 60 FPS no problem, the point Crytek are making is you don't need RTX card's to run Ray Tracing, nore does it cost all that much in performance, and they are right to point that out. very much.

Except crytek says the reflections at 720p gives 40FPS.

 

[D.P.]

I think Crytek has shown that you don't have to try and bruteforce 4k ray tracing which is what Nvidia's RTX cards are doing on every game released so far - you can use various tweaks like upscaling ray traced elements etc to improve performance.

Crytek's testing will be useful for consoles which will need to use these tweaks to get ray tracing running, while on PC we'll see the full fat quality as long as you have a hardware accelerator like RTX

The same tweaks can be applied to RTX hardware though. You could run half resolution reflections and get those same benefits, only the ray tracing will be 8-10x faster again due to the hardware acceleration.

 

[shankly1985]

Except crytek says the reflections at 720p gives 40FPS.

Where do they say 720p ?

 

[Distracted]

The way I read the article, it seems as though 1080p res with 1080p reflections gives 30fps on vega56. Reducing the res of the reflections allows the vega 56 to achieve 40fps at 1440p.

I may be missing some context outside of the article that makes the whole 4k argument make sense, however from the article alone that is what I'm getting.

"Our current implementation is both API and hardware agnostic. It runs in 1080p with 30 fps on a Vega 56. Reducing the resolution of reflections allows much better performance without too much quality loss. For example in half-resolution mode it runs 1440p / 40+ fps."

In addition to this they say that vulkan dx12 and rtx hardware will all improve performance.

"However, RTX will allow the effects to run at a higher resolution. At the moment on GTX 1080, we usually compute reflections and refractions at half-screen resolution. RTX will probably allow full-screen 4k resolution. It will also help us to have more dynamic elements in the scene, whereas currently, we have some limitations. Broadly speaking, RTX will not allow new features in CRYENGINE, but it will enable better performance and more details."

 

[Distracted]

Where do they say 720p ?

"For example in half-resolution mode it runs 1440p / 40+ fps."

1440p res with half res reflections (720p) enables higher fps and an increase in overal resolution vs running 1080p with full res (1080p) reflections.

 

[D.P.]

Where do they say 720p ?

in the article

"Our current implementation is both API and hardware agnostic. It runs in 1080p with 30 fps on a Vega 56. Reducing the resolution of reflections allows much better performance without too much quality loss. For example in half-resolution mode it runs 1440p / 40+ fps."

So 1080p with 1080p reflections gives 30FPS.
If you half the resolution of the reflections then there is better performance allowing a higher resolution screen for rasterization. Half of 1080p is about 720p : (1280×720)/ (1920×1080) = 0.44
So running reflections at 720p gives 40fps with the final scene at 1440p.

While GTX hardware can run 4K reflections and 4K screen. That is 8 times higher resolution of reflections and twice the screen resolution.

this is entirely expected because Nvidia's performance numbers and real-world testing confirm that the RTX hardware provided an acceleration of 8-10x over doing a software emulation with CUDA cores.

 

[Dontrocktheboat]

Debating if it's 1080p 720p or 4k is irrelevant.

Fact is, it looks good, does raytracing and runs on Vega 56 pretty good. Which in turn almost makes Nvidia rtx lineup with it 800+++++£ price tag look idiotic .

 

[andybird123]

Debating if it's 1080p 720p or 4k is irrelevant.

Fact is, it looks good, does raytracing and runs on Vega 56 pretty good. Which in turn almost makes Nvidia rtx lineup with it 800+++++£ price tag look idiotic .

Using that logic every review or benchmark is "irrelevant", except then when someone buys a gpu having completely ignored benchmarks and they find they can't actually play anything because they have a 4k monitor and a card that can only handle 1080p.

Even crytek themselves are saying RTX will allow much higher settings, so whilst the RTX cards are more expensive, its not like they give zero benefit.

Yes its a niche market but I really don't get this argument that says people would rather not have any advancements in GPU technology and everyone should only be allowed to buy 3 year old mid range tech.

 

[bru]

So they are using lots of tricks to get it to look that good, which to be fair that was expected. What resolution it was rendered at is pretty irrelevant, the fact is it looks good and it runs well.
The more important argument should be. All that knocking that DLSS gets for running things at a lower res an up scaling it. Then low and behold this new tech can do lower res with up scaling and a full res hybrid concoction to get it to look that good. Well kell surprise all of a sudden it's fine.
And yes I know that DLSS and this ray tracing technology are completely different, but the 'its still up scaling' it argument is still valid.

 

[loftie]

"Our current implementation is both API and hardware agnostic. It runs in 1080p with 30 fps on a Vega 56. Reducing the resolution of reflections allows much better performance without too much quality loss. For example in half-resolution mode it runs 1440p / 40+ fps."

If you half the resolution of the reflections then there is better performance allowing a higher resolution screen for rasterization. Half of 1080p is about 720p : (1280×720)/ (1920×1080) = 0.44
So running reflections at 720p gives 40fps with the final scene at 1440p.

Is 720p not 1/4 resolution of 1440p, and half resolution is a bit lower than 1080p?