• 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.

4080 or 7900XTX

You do realise there is FAR more than just 2 games out there? I would love to list every game again but you can google yourself.

I play a large variety of games (probably far more than most people here), graphics are great to help with immersion but it's second to gameplay for me, most games have RT "these days" so I'm not prioritising visuals at all, it just simply is there in games now and I have the hardware to enable it so why wouldn't I? As long as I can hit 80/90+ fps, I'm good, if it is a shooter/MP game, I'll drop settings or/and use a higher preset of dlss to get 160+ fps.

To me dead island was boring, didn't the new one get panned? Give me 7 days to die any day of the week.

There's your problem, it sounds like you are trying to max out graphics at 4k and not expect to use upscaling tech. and just be able to get 60+ fps.... Just because there is a ultra/max/high setting doesn't mean you have to use it... Again, why do you refuse to use tech. which has been shown with a ton of evidence now to provide as good or better than native along with a huge performance boost? Do you like shooting yourself in the foot?

Again I'm happily enjoying and playing RT games here, I'm getting better visuals over people who refuse to enable upscaling and turn off RT, that's their choice if they want a lesser experience or prioritise high fps.

I'm not playing cp 2077 now because I have already played it 3 times and I'm waiting on the next dlc before going back, I enjoy cp 2077 regardless of RT.

You made the statements saying to stop supporting RT "now" because it isn't worthwhile or/and usable and only get raster gpus when that is complete and utter nonsense tbph, again, if you choose to not use RT or upscaling, then great, amd and nvidia offer plenty of choice here for you to stay in the raster era.

Of course I realise. The part you don't seem to realise is that I buy GPUs based on what is coming, not what I have. I have never been in a situation where I could not run what I have.

I think you also have failed to understand what I am talking about. In any shape or form.

When the 1080Ti came out it was so powerful at what it did Nvidia almost shot themselves in the foot. Hardly any one bought a 20 series GPU unless they needed one period. Even less bought it for RT. It also sold really poorly because it wasn't all that in raster. The 1080Ti was more than enough. But of course, they wanted more people to adopt RT. Of course they did, it was their main source of revenue. As such? we have taken a monumental step back for nothing more than visual accuracy. There are tons of ways to mimic the effects of ray tracing without crippling a GPU. But that isn't what they want is it? they want the GPU crippled so you keep on buying more, whilst they keep on putting the prices higher and higher and higher. And this is why you should be smart enough not to fall for the marketing, but it sounds like you clearly have. In fact, as the post goes on you seem to concede more and more. Maybe what I said has made you realise how unimportant RT is? Or, maybe as your post goes you are starting to mention the exact sacrifices I pointed out? IDK. Every time you enable a feature like DLSS, or frame gen, or whatever else they try and do to make the game run better because how poor the GPUs are at it? you make a sacrifice. This is where I don't understand your argument. You are a strong supporter of RT because you think it is amazing and LOOKS so much better, but at the same time you acknowledge what I said about losing visual fidelity BECAUSE of it dude. Think about what you are saying to me before you say it.

I will reiterate, again - No GPU on this earth can PROPERLY and FULLY path trace a game without falling on its face. At £1700 every two years. Think about that for a moment before you support it. I DON'T support it. At all. Games run more than well enough without it, and UE 5+ will make games look even better.

As for me only playing two games? that is an assumption on your part. I don't, BTW, I am just really enjoying DI2 right now. On a 2080Ti, at 4k, 'cause you know? it still can. Because there isn't a whiff of the GPU crippler anywhere and it looks incredible.

I play PUBG nearly every night. Also doesn't need RT, looks like total hot garbage now but is FUN more than anything. I've bought TLOU remaster, which I will get to when DI2 is done, and again, not a whiff of RT but looks stunning. So much so they have had to nerf it and compromise the visuals because AMD and Nvidia got all greedy and squeaky.

Those are two recent examples of what I play, NOT what I play period.

I will also say it again? RT can absolutely and utterly ROT if this is what it is going to cost. No thanks, go away, jog on etc.
 
Of course I realise. The part you don't seem to realise is that I buy GPUs based on what is coming, not what I have. I have never been in a situation where I could not run what I have.

I think you also have failed to understand what I am talking about. In any shape or form.

When the 1080Ti came out it was so powerful at what it did Nvidia almost shot themselves in the foot. Hardly any one bought a 20 series GPU unless they needed one period. Even less bought it for RT. It also sold really poorly because it wasn't all that in raster. The 1080Ti was more than enough. But of course, they wanted more people to adopt RT. Of course they did, it was their main source of revenue. As such? we have taken a monumental step back for nothing more than visual accuracy. There are tons of ways to mimic the effects of ray tracing without crippling a GPU. But that isn't what they want is it? they want the GPU crippled so you keep on buying more, whilst they keep on putting the prices higher and higher and higher. And this is why you should be smart enough not to fall for the marketing, but it sounds like you clearly have. In fact, as the post goes on you seem to concede more and more. Maybe what I said has made you realise how unimportant RT is? Or, maybe as your post goes you are starting to mention the exact sacrifices I pointed out? IDK. Every time you enable a feature like DLSS, or frame gen, or whatever else they try and do to make the game run better because how poor the GPUs are at it? you make a sacrifice. This is where I don't understand your argument. You are a strong supporter of RT because you think it is amazing and LOOKS so much better, but at the same time you acknowledge what I said about losing visual fidelity BECAUSE of it dude. Think about what you are saying to me before you say it.

I will reiterate, again - No GPU on this earth can PROPERLY and FULLY path trace a game without falling on its face. At £1700 every two years. Think about that for a moment before you support it. I DON'T support it. At all. Games run more than well enough without it, and UE 5+ will make games look even better.

As for me only playing two games? that is an assumption on your part. I don't, BTW, I am just really enjoying DI2 right now. On a 2080Ti, at 4k, 'cause you know? it still can. Because there isn't a whiff of the GPU crippler anywhere and it looks incredible.

I play PUBG nearly every night. Also doesn't need RT, looks like total hot garbage now but is FUN more than anything. I've bought TLOU remaster, which I will get to when DI2 is done, and again, not a whiff of RT but looks stunning. So much so they have had to nerf it and compromise the visuals because AMD and Nvidia got all greedy and squeaky.

Those are two recent examples of what I play, NOT what I play period.

I will also say it again? RT can absolutely and utterly ROT if this is what it is going to cost. No thanks, go away, jog on etc.

Based on what is coming? You do know RT has been here for the past 2-3 years?

Turing was **** because of the price and because of not just the lack of RT games (we had what 2 titles?) but also how poor the RT was not to mention dlss 1 being utter **** (no surprise given first form of both of techs)

Yes, it is entirely possible to get almost as good as results for raster methods but:

1. it requires an absolute **** ton of effort to do that, how many games look like RDR 2 levels? And even then, it still pales in comparison to RT methods
2. even with good raster methods, there is a **** ton of artifacting issues with raster such as reflections randomly disappearing or having weird halo'ing/boxes around objects when near bodies of water, even rdr 2 has these obvious issues (and guess what, as devs embrace RT more and focus less on raster methods, the difference is going to get even more noticeable)
3. baking in lighting, shadows etc. leads to less dynamic environments because having a fully destructible environment will mean significantly more time and effort is required to get it looking right hence why BF games dialled back destruction considerably, look at the game finals to see how much better the game looks with RT enabled when buildings have been destroyed or metro EE where lights can be shot out (again possible without rt but it requires more effort and time hence why very few games have this nowadays too) or darktide with it's lights destruction.
4. It's got nothing to do with nvidia outside of their technical sponsored titles like portal and cp 2077, this is where nvidias marketing of "RTX" works on folks like you, ray tracing is not a nvidia thing, it has been around for a long time, used in pixar films and many other films and tv shows for yonks, nvidia simply brought real time ray tracing (in a usable form) to the gaming scene first. AMD, intel are also fully behind ray tracing in their own ways, every mobile chipset released now has ray tracing support, consoles have ray tracing support and in their games so how is this nvidia only pushing RT????? Just because they don't gimp the RT effects like a certain other vendor?
5. Ray tracing is more of a benefit to developers than it is for gamers, the time and effort saved is considerable (if you worked in the development indsutry, you would understand first hand what this means from a budget POV especially in the triple a sector), of course developers aren't getting the full benefit of this until they drop raster entirely:

One scene/frame with one light source:

S1qViYF.png


Now imagine what a full game would require......

but at the same time you acknowledge what I said about losing visual fidelity BECAUSE of it dude

What are you smoking? :confused: Where have I said that? The only ones losing out on visual fidelity is likes of yourself because you refuse to use upscaling tech (which as shown looks as good or better than native most of the time) and turning of ray tracing.....

I'm not saying you are only playing 2 games, you're the one who keeps insinuating that only 2 games have ray tracing when that is simply bs.

I suggest going to read and watch some videos on ray tracing.

I'm so glad there are loads of raster games for you to enjoy, no one is holding a gun to your head to turn on RT but enjoy it whilst it lasts but hey, you can always go back to all the games from 5+ years ago....
 
Back
Top Bottom