People only say it’s the least noticeable because they want to dump on AMD. I’m pretty certain in a screenshot that our resident RT champ posted he was bemoaning the lack of properly casted shadows. Even DF dedicated a lot of time to talk about RT shadows.
As already posted, it depends entirely on the game and it's implementation of said RT effects. Show me something like WOW or tomb raider and the RT shadows is completely pointless because it was added on as an afterthought and the developers had obviously spent a lot of time of the raster methods to get good results, for obvious reasons, some people like to use these 2 games to make their case of "RT sucks and makes no noticeable difference"..... Show me something like cp 2077, metro ee, riftbreaker (amd sponsored) where it looks great but then I suppose we will have the same old silly rhetoric of "that's just because developers gimped raster methods"
Also, grim is right, RT shadows are the easiest, which is why it's a favourite for amd sponsored titles i.e. we tick the box of "we do RT too".... watch DF video where he breaks down what RT effects hit the hardest. Take FC 6 and their RT shadows, the only RT shadows are cast by the sun in FC 6 and on certain objects so when compared to something like cp 2077 shadows, of course it is going to be less impressive.
There are lists of Ray Traced games out there, i think the highest number of games is around 90?
Also do remember even though it's "Ray Traced" it can mean just as much as "Ray Traced Ambient Occlusion" is bugger all and doesn't really make any difference at all, so the game has now got "Ray Tracing" in it.
Like Black Ops Cold War or Battlefield 2042.
But there are also games on the list like Crysis which have Ray Tracing which is software based.
So in the big scheme of things, the list of fully ray traced games is less than what these lists give and to have quality full ray traced games are far less.
Like above, it depends entirely on the game e.g. RT AO, 2 games that come to my mind where it can actually make a nice difference is
deathloop and funnily amds sponsored title
saints row, it makes objects look grounded and not floating.
EDIT:
From what I recall, it made a decent difference in bf 2042 too (obviously you wouldn't want it for MP though as makes it harder to spot people) but I stopped playing as the game was ****
Really don't know why people are so defensive over the RT being worse on amd, it's quite simple and as I have said in pretty much every post:
- RDNA 3 is a great gpu overall if you are upgrading from turing, lower/weaker end ampere or RDNA 2
- for those on 3080/3090 levels, RDNA 3 is not an upgrade if you also care for RT, we have had that perf. for the past 2 years, especially when you factor in that dlss uptake is still better and quicker than fsr 2+ (which is
required for ampere and rdna 3 rt levels of perf)
- if you don't care for RT, we get it but believe it or not, some do care and so does pretty much every industry, game engine, developer studio, console manufacturer with them investing in it in some shape or form
If you don't care for RT, that's fine but to say it doesn't matter and tarnish the whole industry with that brush is just silly and/or ignorant, personally I think a few people just aren't fully knowledgable on the subject and for some reason refuse to acknowledge developers comments on the subject but alas, as has always been the case, it's a good thing RT is "optional" and no one is forcing people to use the effects.
Saw this posted on Reddit, AMD has had its fluid motion tech for a while
That's for videos, I imagine for gaming, it will require a completely different approach.
