BF5 with AMD Using Rx570 -Ray Tracing

[stuman]

Raytracing will be the next graphical evolution... when we get good at it. 1-2 years. It looks amazing, but hardware and software could do with a little more time in the oven.

And on that, I thank the people with deep pockets for funding the advancement!

 

[EastCoastHandle]

Just to be clear screen space reflections don't typically/always use ray tracing (though one common version uses sampling of the depth buffer using techniques like ray tracing) but you can have a form of ray traced reflection (as per your link before) that is constrained by screen space and/or a limited number of virtual cameras rather than proper ray traced reflections whereas proper ray traced reflections can accurately reflect all elements of the scene and from off camera angles as well.

Even "screen space reflections" are often done in a much more simple fashion rendering a limited number of scene angles into texture buffers to use as environment maps with little if any ray tracing involved.

Unfortunately there is a lot of people talking BS over the whole ray tracing thing and often picking up on elements of a scene to be critical not understanding the full context of the scene, etc.

To further add, Ray Tracing doesn't specifically need DX12 nor DX11. It's not dependent on API. It never has. Ray Tracing has it roots going back to the late 1970's. And it's been something "toy'd around with" for sometime until hardware starting catching up.

Therefore, yes, you can ray trace in DX11. Heck you ray trace in DX9 and so on.

Ray Tracing is not specific to any particular gpu. And you certainly don't "need" tensor cores to ray trace.

It's sad that has to be explained. And I'm sure before this thread dies it will need to be repeated multiple times.

Although I'm speculating...it appears to me that Dice is preparing raytracing for consoles. As it's been already rumored/discussed that raytracing will take a more hybrid approach. Such as what is found in the Crytek Ray Tracing Demo. Think of it as competition in the console space to say, "hey guys, use my engine..."

 

[Rroff]

Ray Tracing is not specific to any particular gpu. And you certainly don't "need" tensor cores to ray trace.

No you don't "need" tensor cores but we are a long way from being able to do anything really worthwhile with software processing alone other than some token effects integrated with traditional techniques - to properly use something like path tracing for a unified lighting engine that does direct and indirect lighting, caustics, etc. requires dedicated hardware units - even the shader architecture on modern GPUs is insufficient alone partly due to its general purpose nature causing overheads.

We don't need a hybrid approach like Crytek that is ultimately another dead end.

 

[EastCoastHandle]

No you don't "need" tensor cores but we are a long way from being able to do anything really worthwhile with software processing alone other than some token effects integrated with traditional techniques - to properly use something like path tracing for a unified lighting engine that does direct and indirect lighting, caustics, etc. requires dedicated hardware units - even the shader architecture on modern GPUs is insufficient alone partly due to its general purpose nature causing overheads.

We don't need a hybrid approach like Crytek that is ultimately another dead end.

However, this is why I believe that ray tracing, since we will see it on consoles, will be of a more hybrid approach. We are no were near the fidelity of true ray traced scenes that offer close to life like approaches in the games that offer it now (which is what ray tracing offers). And, as far as I'm concern never will with tensor cores unless you have dedicated hardware. Tensor cores, in it's current configuration is simply not the answer here. Brute force hardware is not the answer as it will never be economical to do. One must find a way to work around ray tracing from the software side. While finding a way to get both the CPU and GPU more heterogeneous in it's approach to render ray tracing together. Unfortunately Nv can't do that which is why they use Tensor Cores (an expensive proposition to say the least).

Same principal applies to physx when Nv bought out Ageia Physx. They removed the need for the Ageia Phsyx Card and down right banned it's use for those who had it via drivers. Even though it worked better with a dedicated card and hardly anyone complained about having to add a "daughter card" to do it. They forced everyone to use a Geforce card.

Since the majority of video card users were mid-low they were having all kinds of issues with performance. But there was another option...use the CPU. We knew using Physx on CPU provided a horrible experience. But what happened next? Their dirty little secret was discovered...physx used x87 code (very old, outdated, inefficient) to hobble physx on CPUs to justify it's use on GPUs.

The goal was to get those who couldn't properly use physx on mid-low end to upgrade to more expensive card. They were outted. Nvidia claimed to have updated it to be more efficient (that version was never used in games that I'm aware of). It was also claimed to not use x86 on consoles, etc. And then one day, once the smoke settled it was discontinued...although I'm paraphrasing a few years.

And to this very day we never saw it's use on a more efficient instruction set like AVX, etc. in any game that had physx (at least non that I know of).

The point I'm making is that there is always a better way to use an API. For me, I don't trust Nvidia and if they can find a way to hobble ray tracing to get you to buy into RTX they will certainly do it. It certainly looks to me this is a repeat of what they did when they bought Ageia Physx. And since we already know that companies like Dice, Crytek, Unreal, etc. are working to fine tune their existing IPs to work well with next gen consoles we know there is a more efficient way to render ray tracing without the need for tensor cores.

It's called Hybrid Ray Tracing.

 

[doody]

To further add, Ray Tracing doesn't specifically need DX12 nor DX11. It's not dependent on API. It never has. Ray Tracing has it roots going back to the late 1970's. And it's been something "toy'd around with" for sometime until hardware starting catching up.

Therefore, yes, you can ray trace in DX11. Heck you ray trace in DX9 and so on.

Ray Tracing is not specific to any particular gpu. And you certainly don't "need" tensor cores to ray trace.

It's sad that has to be explained. And I'm sure before this thread dies it will need to be repeated multiple times.

Although I'm speculating...it appears to me that Dice is preparing raytracing for consoles. As it's been already rumored/discussed that raytracing will take a more hybrid approach. Such as what is found in the Crytek Ray Tracing Demo. Think of it as competition in the console space to say, "hey guys, use my engine..."

Just works on amd

 

[doody]

However, this is why I believe that ray tracing, since we will see it on consoles, will be of a more hybrid approach. We are no were near the fidelity of true ray traced scenes that offer close to life like approaches in the games that offer it now (which is what ray tracing offers). And, as far as I'm concern never will with tensor cores unless you have dedicated hardware. Tensor cores, in it's current configuration is simply not the answer here. Brute force hardware is not the answer as it will never be economical to do. One must find a way to work around ray tracing from the software side. While finding a way to get both the CPU and GPU more heterogeneous in it's approach to render ray tracing together. Unfortunately Nv can't do that which is why they use Tensor Cores (an expensive proposition to say the least).

Same principal applies to physx when Nv bought out Ageia Physx. They removed the need for the Ageia Phsyx Card and down right banned it's use for those who had it via drivers. And they put everything on the Geforce card. Since the majority of video card users were mid-low they were having all kinds of issues with performance. But there was another option...use the CPU. But what happened next? Their dirty little secret was discovered...physx used x86 code (very old, outdated, inefficient) to hobble physx on CPUs to justify it's use on GPUs. The goal was to get those who couldn't properly use physx on mid-low end to upgrade to more expensive card. They were outted. Nvidia claimed to have updated it to be more efficient (that version was never used in games that I'm aware of). It was also claimed to not use x86 on consoles, etc. And then one day, once the smoke settled it was disconntinued...although I'm paraphrasing a few years.

And to this very day we never saw it's use on a more efficient instruction set like AVX, etc. in any game that had physx (at least non that I know of).

The point I'm making is that there is always a better way to use an API. For me, I don't trust Nvidia and if they can find a way to hobble ray tracing to get you to buy into RTX they will certainly do it. It certainly looks to me this is a repeat of what they did when they bought Ageia Physx. And since we already know that companies like Dice, Crytek, Unreal Engine, etc. are working to fine tune their existing IPs to work well with consoles we know there is a more efficient way to render ray tracing without the need for tensor cores.

It's called hybrid Ray Tracing.

Agree with you it's what's best for consoles

 

[Rroff]

However, this is why I believe that ray tracing, since we will see it on consoles, will be of a more hybrid approach. We are no were near the fidelity of true ray traced scenes that offer close to life like approaches in the games that offer it now (which is what ray tracing offers). And, as far as I'm concern never will with tensor cores unless you have dedicated hardware. Tensor cores, in it's current configuration is simply not the answer here. Brute force hardware is not the answer as it will never be economical to do. One must find a way to work around ray tracing from the software side. While finding a way to get both the CPU and GPU more heterogeneous in it's approach to render ray tracing together. Unfortunately Nv can't do that which is why they use Tensor Cores (an expensive proposition to say the least).

The current system can get very close to that - definitely good enough for video game visuals - just because the implementation in current games is kind of woeful doesn't mean the underlying tech can't do it - I got a good bit of the way there with custom stuff in Quake 2 RTX with all the limits of that engine!

And to this very day we never saw it's use on a more efficient instruction set like AVX, etc. in any game that had physx (at least non that I know of).

Dunno about games using it but PhysX SDK was update in 2011 to include AVX code paths and I believe the CPU/DX physics implementation as FleX uses AVX where appropriate - it doesn't give the magic speed up though some were claiming.

 

[Rroff]

We are no were near the fidelity of true ray traced scenes that offer close to life like approaches in the games that offer it now

So this is broke as **** and pretty LOL as the geometry limits of Quake 2 aren't even close to adequate but with high resolution meshes RTX is quite capable of close approximation to a scene like that:

Spoiler

And on Turing GPUs at playable framerates.

 

[Panos]

However, this is why I believe that ray tracing, since we will see it on consoles, will be of a more hybrid approach. We are no were near the fidelity of true ray traced scenes that offer close to life like approaches in the games that offer it now (which is what ray tracing offers). And, as far as I'm concern never will with tensor cores unless you have dedicated hardware. Tensor cores, in it's current configuration is simply not the answer here. Brute force hardware is not the answer as it will never be economical to do. One must find a way to work around ray tracing from the software side. While finding a way to get both the CPU and GPU more heterogeneous in it's approach to render ray tracing together. Unfortunately Nv can't do that which is why they use Tensor Cores (an expensive proposition to say the least).

Same principal applies to physx when Nv bought out Ageia Physx. They removed the need for the Ageia Phsyx Card and down right banned it's use for those who had it via drivers. Even though it worked better with a dedicated card and hardly anyone complained about having to add a "daughter card" to do it. They forced everyone to use a Geforce card.

Since the majority of video card users were mid-low they were having all kinds of issues with performance. But there was another option...use the CPU. We knew using Physx on CPU provided a horrible experience. But what happened next? Their dirty little secret was discovered...physx used x87 code (very old, outdated, inefficient) to hobble physx on CPUs to justify it's use on GPUs.

The goal was to get those who couldn't properly use physx on mid-low end to upgrade to more expensive card. They were outted. Nvidia claimed to have updated it to be more efficient (that version was never used in games that I'm aware of). It was also claimed to not use x86 on consoles, etc. And then one day, once the smoke settled it was discontinued...although I'm paraphrasing a few years.

And to this very day we never saw it's use on a more efficient instruction set like AVX, etc. in any game that had physx (at least non that I know of).

The point I'm making is that there is always a better way to use an API. For me, I don't trust Nvidia and if they can find a way to hobble ray tracing to get you to buy into RTX they will certainly do it. It certainly looks to me this is a repeat of what they did when they bought Ageia Physx. And since we already know that companies like Dice, Crytek, Unreal, etc. are working to fine tune their existing IPs to work well with next gen consoles we know there is a more efficient way to render ray tracing without the need for tensor cores.

It's called Hybrid Ray Tracing.

Amen.

What we have here in the case of BF5 is Dice & NVidia colluding to promote reflections Ray Tracing, by reducing the reflections quality outside RTX mode the game normally should had. Just to have the youtubers and gamers say "ooh shiny".
Clearly expecting the users to forget that those types of reflections are available to the Frostbite engine on previous games like BF1, SWBF1 and SWBF2 some of which are 5 year old games. (SWBF1).
That shows how low this company can go to sell it's products.

Also those who have XBX and played the last Tomb Raider in HDR and trying to compare it to PC without RTX, are scratching their heads why the PC on max out settings looks worse than XBX.

But all these could be under the NVIDIA NDA forced all reviewers to sign if they want new cards to do their reviews. So until 2024 we won't hear those things.

 

[DrCrabHands]

Amen.

What we have here in the case of BF5 is Dice & NVidia colluding to promote reflections Ray Tracing, by reducing the reflections quality outside RTX mode the game normally should had. Just to have the youtubers and gamers say "ooh shiny".
Clearly expecting the users to forget that those types of reflections are available to the Frostbite engine on previous games like BF1, SWBF1 and SWBF2 some of which are 5 year old games. (SWBF1).
That shows how low this company can go to sell it's products.

Also those who have XBX and played the last Tomb Raider in HDR and trying to compare it to PC without RTX, are scratching their heads why the PC on max out settings looks worse than XBX.

But all these could be under the NVIDIA NDA forced all reviewers to sign if they want new cards to do their reviews. So until 2024 we won't hear those things.

Do you have proof for these claims or is it just your opinion?

BF5 on ultra settings at (no RTX) reflections look fine to me and comparable to the other games you mention.

 

[LePhuronn]

but meh who pays 100s to look at a puddle.

RTX apologists it appears

 

[bru]

Do you have proof for these claims or is it just your opinion?

I would say it is his oppinion and of course he is perfectly entitiled to have it and post it.

NVidia are getting a lot of hate for the whole RTX thing and some of it is justified in my opinion, a lot of it isn't though, but of course that is just my opinion.

NVidia have given the world the cards that can just about do real time ray tracing, they are not really responsible for what the world does with it.

Raytracing will probably move forward with some form of hybrid system due to the sheer horsepower required to do it properly and the APU's in the next gen consoles wont be able to do the maths that well.

It will certainly be interesting the way things are going to develop over the next few years.

 

[DrCrabHands]

I would say it is his oppinion and of course he is perfectly entitiled to have it and post it.

NVidia are getting a lot of hate for the whole RTX thing and some of it is justified in my opinion, a lot of it isn't though, but of course that is just my opinion.

NVidia have given the world the cards that can just about do real time ray tracing, they are not really responsible for what the world does with it.

Raytracing will probably move forward with some form of hybrid system due to the sheer horsepower required to do it properly and the APU's in the next gen consoles wont be able to do the maths that well.

It will certainly be interesting the way things are going to develop over the next few years.

Will be an interesting few years indeed.

I'm always sceptical when it comes to the consoles though. I'm looking at you Xbox One with 720p and the "Power of the cloud" Day One Edition for £429.99. Won't fall for that one again!

 

[Rroff]

Do you have proof for these claims or is it just your opinion?

To be fair it is a bit of both but doesn't really excuse him just running with anything that can sling mud at nVidia for the sake of it - the demos nVidia used to show off RTX in BF V had suppressed level of normal visuals - the game itself however on ultra settings isn't anything like as bad as he claims.

First hit on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDTMQXr0afY (the bits where the player is wading or swimming through water is a good example of the difference the tech can bring - notice how with DXR on the water reflects the tree line on the left and what is behind objects in the middle ground properly while with it off it just reflects the same simplified version of the long distance scene adjusting slightly for distance but not accurately reflecting what is actually around).

 

[Marine-RX179]

Reflections isnt that hard to make nice looking, look at gta 5 on the cars with high refections turned on it looks great, cant say i noticed anything on a puddle for example tho but meh who pays 100s to look at a puddle.

Could almost rename the game to "Puddle-watching simulator 2019" instead of BFV lol

BF franchise gonna go to hell (well, deeper than it already is) with the Fifa boss now being placed at executive position to oversee DICE and the few other key studio of EA. Incoming BF Dreamteam card packs (probably in BF's case it's gonna be weapons instead of players lol).

 

[Nasher]

I wonder what Nvidia's response to this one will be. It just works so well you don't even need to buy one of their overpriced cards at all?

It's that or admit they lied and it's actually faked.

 

[EastCoastHandle]

Wicked burn on RTX.
Cliffs:
Media reviews RTX in a bias light. One person has RTX 2080 TI yet runs Control it on 1080p monitor. Tells viewers that RT at 60 FPS at 1080p is ok...because that's all he uses.
Next Example: Reviewer uses 2060S and runs Control at 1080p but at resolution at 720p. Although he shows it doesn't clearly state it's down sampled to 720p for RT Control at 60 fps.


Examples:


No screen space reflection used in the window to make RT on look good.




Ok, we see the shadow of the handle to the fire exstinguisher in RT version. That could have been added to the non rt version.



0
Ah, yeah...we got comedy gold. Reflective pool of blood. Yeah, that's how it suppose to look .

The problem is that when RT is used there should be a level of critical thinking involved. The problem here is that except for a few examples of reflections (which seems to be the goto aspect of Ray Tracing in games) you are not see any visually improved difference. A difference that would be obvious without having to do "close ups" on reflections, shadows etc.

RT works best when it's used to mimic real world objects to make them as "real world" as possible. Those examples are simply horrible.

Take the example used in the video above:
Halo vs Crysis from 2007. You don't need to be shown close ups in order to see a visual difference. You can tell right away that Crysis is better. This is not what we are getting with any form of ray tracing found in the games that use it currently.

If you want to use ray tracing in an unrealistic kind of way like this then do it in Indie games or potato games simply designed to just have fun in. Games not to be taken to seriously about itself. Just you, a couch and a controller trying to advance to the next level...

 

[Panos]

Ah, yeah...we got comedy gold. Reflective pool of blood. Yeah, that's how it suppose to look .

I can tell you from experience, the blood in both cases is pretty crap representation. Is not reflective to boot, it doesn't have such transparency and within minutes turns to thick dark brown mud as the red cells dying pretty fast.
Had to treat a bayonet wound in the army from someone who tried to suicide inside the dormitory Christmas 1995.

FYI the best looking game was still Crysis 3 from ages ago, on the above video

 

[EastCoastHandle]

I can tell you from experience, the blood in both cases is pretty crap representation. Is not reflective to boot, it doesn't have such transparency and within minutes turns to thick dark brown mud as the red cells dying pretty fast.
Had to treat a bayonet wound in the army from someone who tried to suicide inside the dormitory Christmas 1995.

FYI the best looking game was still Crysis 3 from ages ago, on the above video

Correct, both are no where near what it should look like. I can forgive that. But to turn it into a mirror so it can reflect the ceiling/walls, it just going overboard.

 

[Rroff]

Correct, both are no where near what it should look like. I can forgive that. But to turn it into a mirror so it can reflect the ceiling/walls, it just going overboard.

Problem is people are using this to slate ray tracing but the underlying technology is capable of far more and far better - sure that might require people on the team with a better understanding of the physics of materials, etc. but most people are using this as an excuse to hate on RTX.