• 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.

Poll: Do you care for Ray Tracing "now"?

Do you care for ray tracing "now"?

  • Total voters
    294
Status
Not open for further replies.
Alan McFall said:
Hotwired said:
People talk about "liking" raytracing far too much.

It's a graphics setting which can, if well implemented, look good. It comes with a godawful performance hit which is the primary dealbreaker.

What's there to like or not like beyond the bleeding obvious.
Click to expand...
It's physics. Do you like to have realistic gravity in games ?
Click to expand...
I don't think that argument works. Games will tweak their physics to get the gameplay right as a priority. Not to achieve the most realistic physics (unless it is a sim game). One game that comes to mind is rocket league, it's in game gravity value is 6.5 m/s2 for refernece earths gravity is 9.81 m/s2.

Concidentally this extends to graphics as well. The goal should be for games to look "good"; that doesn't mean looking realistic. I still think the main benefits of RT will be reducing the work that artists need to do to get their games looking "good".

Regarding the OPs questions, as it was alluded to by two previous posters RT cores have been amazing for offline render engines. They are ready to go in that industry. For games, they are still underpowered and hampers what can be achieved by artist as they need to compromise because of the limited rays that can be used per frame. I think we need to see a huge increase (at least 3x increase in 3090 RT performace) in RT core performance before they become the must have feature for a majority of gamers. Currently the trade off between performance loss and visual gain, is skewered to heavily towards performance loss.
 
Yes as it really adds something to a few of the demos I've seen. Someone else gave the example of reflections in office windows in Control. It's one of those things I didn't realise was missing until I'd seen it. However, I still feel the technology is a bit of a bust this generation as far as its effects on overall performance, but I can't deny that when I've been weighing up GPU options, the AMD 6000s make me feel like I'd be wasting my money, even if that might not be the case. Either way, I'm not buying any current gen and I'll stick with the 970 until the 7000s and 4000s are out, and at that point I'll buy whatever is best between 4080 and 7800.
 
For me, computer graphics reached an acceptable level some years back. RT, well, I guess I can see a difference but I am really not bothered. Certainly not bothered that I need to spend money on it.
 
RT has a long way to go yet to be fair. We are limited by hardware. I am more impressed by HDR when it is done right at the moment. But still, very nice thing to have even now, hence my vote :)

I am sure if you make a new poll in one or so years time when people have next gen cards, especially AMD owners, there will be a difference in results. Would actually love to see AMD end up with more RT grunt than Nvidia, can think of a few people that would change their tune on RT :p
 
TNA said:
RT has a long way to go yet to be fair. We are limited by hardware. I am more impressed by HDR when it is done right at the moment. But still, very nice thing to have even now, hence my vote :)

I am sure if you make a new poll in one or so years time when people have next gen cards, especially AMD owners, there will be a difference in results. Would actually love to see AMD end up with more RT grunt than Nvidia, can think of a few people that would change their tune on RT :p
Click to expand...
You know it ;) Especially since amd might have RT being displayed/working correctly by then... Makes sense now why Matt and the others say they don't notice the difference! :cry: :D :p
 
I'd rather have RIS that works on pretty much everything than 'RT', and yes I've had multiple 3000-series cards and 6000-series cards and prefer the AMD cards for this very reason (plus I feel there's a bit more pop-in on Nvidia cards generally so they can maintain a high framerate but that's another issue) :)
 
JediFragger said:
I'd rather have RIS that works on pretty much everything than 'RT', and yes I've had multiple 3000-series cards and 6000-series cards and prefer the AMD cards for this very reason (plus I feel there's a bit more pop-in on Nvidia cards generally so they can maintain a high framerate but that's another issue) :)
Click to expand...
Why not both?

Ris is a completely different thing to RT and both can be used in conjunction.

Not only that but if you really love ris and what it does, generally sweetfx/redux will provide better results since it is individually tuned per game and various presets you can choose from. Although obviously not as convenient/easy as a global setting at driver level though.
Personally I don't like any kind of over sharpening as can notice the issues it causes with increasing artifacts present in the native image especially if using upscaling techniques, even more so with FSR 1.
 
I voted yes; I like it, it looks great when implimented well, and it reminds me of the good old days of gpu improvements that added extra stuff rather than just more fps. I only have a 1440p monitor for my main display so a 3080 plus ray tracing plus DLSS (when necessary) still provides good enough performance.
 
JediFragger said:
Tbf the Nvidia version is pretty pony and I've noticed artefacts with that as well.
Click to expand...
Yeah nvidia has 2 different ways you can do it:

- via geforce experience, which gives various different types of sharpening "filters/sliders" and also hits performance harder
- via the windows xp control panel, basic sharpener like amds one and doesn't hit performance at all except maybe 1-2 fps

I don't like either way.

When I had my vega 56, amds ris was good but you still get the usual traits that comes with over sharpening.

Sweetfx/redux is the best overall in my experience.

In game sharpening is actually quite good these days too e.g. division 1 and 2 in game sharpness sliders work very well.

All in all, it very much depends on the game, generally games that are very blurry because of TAA e.g. RDR 2, sharpening advantages can outweigh the issues it brings about, thankfully RDR 2 got dlss though, which fixes all the overdone blurriness and artefacts present in the TAA/native image.
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
I don't think that argument works. Games will tweak their physics to get the gameplay right as a priority. Not to achieve the most realistic physics (unless it is a sim game). One game that comes to mind is rocket league, it's in game gravity value is 6.5 m/s2 for refernece earths gravity is 9.81 m/s2.

Concidentally this extends to graphics as well. The goal should be for games to look "good"; that doesn't mean looking realistic. I still think the main benefits of RT will be reducing the work that artists need to do to get their games looking "good".
Click to expand...

I think when it come to graphics that physics comparison is more akin to the approach you choose: "realistic" (Mafia, Crysis, etc) or "cartoonish" like Borderlands. In both cases, light and shadows are still important.
 
Due to other thread being locked, which tbf wasn't the right place really, I think it's ok to continue the investigation with regards to AMD not rendering RT reflections 100% correctly here @montymint since it looks like it might be an issue with amd RT and if so, @LtMatt can raise with the correct people in amd (he works there) to get it resolved or perhaps some answers as to why it is happening. Don't see why we can't continue it here, feel free to state otherwise though.




Regarding the poll, seems the yes option has gone up a fair bit since this morning.
 
Nexus18 said:
Due to other thread being locked, which tbf wasn't the right place really, I think it's ok to continue the investigation with regards to AMD not rendering RT reflections 100% correctly here @montymint since it looks like it might be an issue with amd RT and if so, @LtMatt can raise with the correct people in amd (he works there) to get it resolved or perhaps some answers as to why it is happening. Don't see why we can't continue it here, feel free to state otherwise though.




Regarding the poll, seems the yes option has gone up a fair bit since this morning.
Click to expand...
I think it’s time to call it a day Nexus.

I’m going to order a 3080 AIB myself and test it with side by side comparisons in a controlled environment. Trying to properly look into this with you providing screenshots of recorded videos is not very productive, and folks are getting fed up of reading it all. As we saw from the FC6 example you provided, using different settings can have a big impact on how things look. Nonetheless, I’ll let you know the outcome of my findings if there is actually an issue there or not.
 
Bill Turnip said:

There you go chap. Let's leave it to the thread title for now.
Click to expand...
Someone who works there would get a result/answer far quicker not to mention get past the non technical helpdesk stage :)

But yes, perhaps not the right thread here either although given what has been discovered, it would have an impact on these poll findings i.e. you can't really say you don't care for RT if users aren't having RT being correctly displayed in the first place... I shall leave it to someone else to open another thread if they wish to continue it but given all the people and various sources (we're not just talking about one source and one game here either) and comparisons showing the issue at hand, it kind of invalidates any future RT perf. comparisons now imo.

LtMatt said:
I think it’s time to call it a day Nexus.

I’m going to order a 3080 AIB myself and test it with side by side comparisons in a controlled environment. Trying to properly look into this with you providing screenshots of recorded videos is not very productive, and folks are getting fed up of reading it all. As we saw from the FC6 example you provided, using different settings can have a big impact on how things look. Nonetheless, I’ll let you know the outcome of my findings if there is actually an issue there or not.
Click to expand...

Sure thing.

Be good to see your ghostwire comparison though as per the other thread.

I might close this thread and reopen a new one with these poll options instead given the new findings of RT:

Yes (nvidia owner)
Yes (amd owner)
No (nvidia owner)
No (amd owner)
Not yet but in the future (nvidia owner)
Not yet but in the future (amd owner)
 
@Nexus18 I don;t see a problem disusing existing card RT performance here, as long as we kind of keep it on topic.

The subject is "do you care for raytracing now", not Manufacturer X vs Manufacturer Y play by play breakdowns which turn into petty squabbling. So a discussing about AMDs RT not working seems ok to me.

Do you want to make the other thread, if you do it in the next 20 mins and ping me I'll close this and do the poll for you.
 
Last edited:
montymint said:
@Nexus18 I don;t see a problem disusing existing card RT performance here, as long as we kind of keep it on topic.

The subject is "do you care for raytracing now", not Manufacturer X vs Manufacturer Y play by play breakdowns which turn into petty squabbling. So a discussing about AMDs RT not working seems ok to me.

Do you want to make the other thread, if you do it in the next 20 mins and ping me I'll close this and do the poll for you.
Click to expand...
Thanks for confirming monty. I think as discussed above, we'll keep this thread to the topic at hand and if @LtMatt @Wrinkly or anyone else wishes to continue the "potential" amd RT issue discussion, they can create a new thread.

Will let the majority decide on what to do with the thread/poll, say a certain amount of likes (10?) on yours or/and my post for all those in favour of the new thread/poll options?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom