-
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.
DON'T Waste Your Money On RTX!! "video title"
- Thread starter shankly1985
- Start date
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 20,676
- Location
- The KOP
Agree with this 15k voted poll
Well, they are only on-par for now. 3-4 years later 3060 will most likely be a lot slower than an actual PS5
GTX 760 was literally a lot faster than PS4 and somehow PS4 managed to outlive GTX 770 in RDR 2.
So even if 3060 gives a near performance at same price point (barring the extra other cpu/ram/ssd cost, and the fact that you would need a really, really expensive nvme ssd to match the ps5 but that's another topic), at some point its performance will drop off compared to PS5 once developers manage to squeeze out more performance out of the consoles.
This makes the price/performance ratio even more horrible, because PC platform always pushes you for upgrades.
personally the games still play the same, i dont see point of looking around at lighting/reflections etc, im playing the game for the game its self,im not buying it to admire things, a game is a game whether its standard or dressed up in frilly things.each to their own at end of the day, but i dont see the point of this tech atm, maybe in 5-10yrs it will become the norm, but for myself its fps that wins hands down over tanking fps for some eye candy
People here dont tend to care about fun in games. They just want something to justify their 3 grand pc. Thats why consoles get pooped on by people with zero experience of them.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 1,477
Is that true though? PS4 will be on the lowest settings and probably 720p or 900p. Field of vision will also be reduced. Could the 760 match that? Although I suppose the PS4 has more VRAM so there is that.
Love how the Nvidiabots are complaining that the video doesn't use the best example of RT. They have conveniently forgotten that until Metro Exodus Enhanced is released, Cyberpunk is considered to be THE best example of RT in any game. I can remember when it was launched and all the Nvidia fanboys were dumping on AMD for not being able to do it. It was the best thing since sliced bread for them and now it's bad?? 
You've made several points here, aome are a tangent from, your orginal post. which was this:
First and foremost, just because something looks "realistic" doesn't mean it is artistically pleasing. They are two seperate things. Just because something is ray traced doesn't mean it looks more "realistic". You can get cartoonish renders using a raytraced engine. I remember when cycles first came out for Blender ten years ago, I believe it was Andrew price from Blender Guru stated that "yes cycles uses ray tracing which is based on how light works in the real world but that doesn't mean your artwork is going to look good or be more realistic" (paraphrasing a bit it has been 10 years)
I love my raytracing it is the only thing i use in Blender for the past 10 years. I will wait 30+ mins for a test render rather run it through Eevee in about 2 mins. but at the end of the day raytracing and raster are nothing more than tools in the hands of artist.
With regards to ray tracing and your orginal point, light doesn't behave differently because there is more of them in a scene, or do you mean it is not realistic because you don't have 3+ lights in your house pointing at you wherever you go?
Do you know or understand why they use so many lights? It is about looking good not looking "realistic"
Are you aware that the use of multiple lights in a single scene thing happens in video games regardless of whether it is rasterised or ray traced? Because the point is to look good not to look "realistic".
Movies are about looking good not looking realistic (there are arguments to be made about chromatic aberation that i will leave to the photography club) but this has nothing to do with raytracing.
Hold on are you saying that because something is raytraced it doesn't automatically mean it looks real and awesome and amazing.
The raytracing used in films is orders of magnitude "better" than anything you will be running in a video game in the near future. They spend literally hours per frames in movies and as you say that can't get it to look "realistic" yet you have people touting about how realistic their videogames look when it was rendered in a fraction of a second.
Well no. PS4 renders the RDR 2 native 1080p, and never ever dips below that (I'm serious, played the game for a good 100+ hours on PS4, enjoyed every single minute of it)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGBotKiGNyw
"Pinned by VG Tech
PS4 renders at a native resolution of 1920x1080 and Xbox One renders at a native resolution of 1536x864."
I can't even think any GPU that as 1.3 tflops can run this game at all at 864p. That alone is impressive altogether. XD
And no, it does not run "lowest " settings,
Textures: Ultra
Shadow: High (serious)
Far shadow: High
Soft shadows: High
Geometry LOD: 5/5 (ultra)
SSAO: Medium
Water: Medium
Particles: Medium
Tesselation: Medium
Volumetric light: Medium (gorgeous god rays were clearly seen in the ps4)
Parallax: Medium
Decals: Medium
Furs: Medium
AF: 4x (mediumish?)
Tree quality: low (only visible in very far distance)
Grass render distance 2/10 (not that distracting but 4/10 is a bit better on PC)
Near volumetric res: Low
Far volumetric res: Low (couldn't see much of a differece between high and low on PC platform)
Lighting: Low (only low setting that actually can be better on med/high but even on low, game's lighting is still gorgeous on base consoles)
Global lighting: Low (no perceptible differences between low and high evidenced by a lot of review channels)
Grass shadows: Low (no perceptible difference)
Reflections: Low
PS4 does these settings at locked, rock solid 30 FPS with native 1080p. It only gets rocky in Saint Dennis and Strawberry, but that's due to its Jaguar cores being stressed, not actually anything to do with GPU.
And.. this is how the gtx 770 runs the game on EVERYTHING lowest possible:
https://youtu.be/_2nyTwTiN30?t=15
GTX 770 would probaby hit below 24 fps with PS4 equivalent settings. Not to mention, it cannot even run Medium textures but that's another topic.
---
Xbox One X also runs this game with a bit higher settings at a locked 30 FPS with NATIVE 4k. That's freaking awesome. Supposedly, XBX runs on a customized RX 480 GPU, you can guess how bad a RX 480 would run the game at 4K with XBX equivalent settings.
https://youtu.be/rlSux8NYyOc?t=227
Practically, even a GTX 1070 cannot match the Xbox One X on XBX equivalent settings at native 4K.
Clearly, THERE's a huge optimization headroom that consoles have in their later years. Developers squeeze out much higher useful performance out of them. This is primarly due to Nvidia and AMD pushing new GPUs every 2 years and people keep buying them.
Oh finally, I never noticed any low draw distance in general when playing RDR 2 on PS4. It was just a fine experience overall. Game looked really fine on that base console. It is practically unplayable on everything that was more expensive than a PS4 in 2013
To be fair there was a lot of focus on Tomb Raider which has crap RT and was the first title which implemented it. I was quite surprised at the results for Minecraft though, as it always looked like a night and day difference with RTX on/off in that game, but yet a few people could not tell the difference.Love how the Nvidiabots are complaining that the video doesn't use the best example of RT. They have conveniently forgotten that until Metro Exodus Enhanced is released, Cyberpunk is considered to be THE best example of RT in any game. I can remember when it was launched and all the Nvidia fanboys were dumping on AMD for not being able to do it. It was the best thing since sliced bread for them and now it's bad??
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 1,477
Well no. PS4 renders the RDR 2 native 1080p, and never ever dips below that (I'm serious, played the game for a good 100+ hours on PS4, enjoyed every single minute of it)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGBotKiGNyw
"Pinned by VG Tech
PS4 renders at a native resolution of 1920x1080 and Xbox One renders at a native resolution of 1536x864."
I can't even think any GPU that as 1.3 tflops can run this game at all at 864p. That alone is impressive altogether. XD
And no, it does not run "lowest " settings,
Textures: Ultra
Shadow: High (serious)
Far shadow: High
Soft shadows: High
Geometry LOD: 5/5 (ultra)
SSAO: Medium
Water: Medium
Particles: Medium
Tesselation: Medium
Volumetric light: Medium (gorgeous god rays were clearly seen in the ps4)
Parallax: Medium
Decals: Medium
Furs: Medium
AF: 4x (mediumish?)
Tree quality: low (only visible in very far distance)
Grass render distance 2/10 (not that distracting but 4/10 is a bit better on PC)
Near volumetric res: Low
Far volumetric res: Low (couldn't see much of a differece between high and low on PC platform)
Lighting: Low (only low setting that actually can be better on med/high but even on low, game's lighting is still gorgeous on base consoles)
Global lighting: Low (no perceptible differences between low and high evidenced by a lot of review channels)
Grass shadows: Low (no perceptible difference)
Reflections: Low
PS4 does these settings at locked, rock solid 30 FPS with native 1080p. It only gets rocky in Saint Dennis and Strawberry, but that's due to its Jaguar cores being stressed, not actually anything to do with GPU.
And.. this is how the gtx 770 runs the game on EVERYTHING lowest possible:
https://youtu.be/_2nyTwTiN30?t=15
GTX 770 would probaby hit below 24 fps with PS4 equivalent settings. Not to mention, it cannot even run Medium textures but that's another topic.
---
Xbox One X also runs this game with a bit higher settings at a locked 30 FPS with NATIVE 4k. That's freaking awesome. Supposedly, XBX runs on a customized RX 480 GPU, you can guess how bad a RX 480 would run the game at 4K with XBX equivalent settings.
https://youtu.be/rlSux8NYyOc?t=227
Practically, even a GTX 1070 cannot match the Xbox One X on XBX equivalent settings at native 4K.
Clearly, THERE's a huge optimization headroom that consoles have in their later years. Developers squeeze out much higher useful performance out of them. This is primarly due to Nvidia and AMD pushing new GPUs every 2 years and people keep buying them.
Oh finally, I never noticed any low draw distance in general when playing RDR 2 on PS4. It was just a fine experience overall. Game looked really fine on that base console. It is practically unplayable on everything that was more expensive than a PS4 in 2013
Fair play and if only games were as well optimised for PCs. If you could click 'PS4 settings/PS5 settings' it would be interesting. I wonder what GPU would play those setting at 1080p at 30ps on the PC. Seemingly the RX 570 runs it 43 FPS average at 1080p high settings. I magine you'd get more FPS by using PS4 settings
Well, with enough VRAM, gtx 770, and 1050ti
Horizon Zero Dawn is the same. According to Guerilla Games, "Medium" preset equals to console settings
https://youtu.be/Vc7T-R114bs?t=362
Practically, PS4 can perform nearly equal to 1050ti/770 when people claimed it was equiavelent to a 750ti!
You'll always get topics like this when it comes to vendor unique features and it's always the same old, one side defends their key feature and makes it out like its the be all i.e. vram, PE, tessellation performance just to name a few..... and the other side goes meh, then come next gen when places have been traded, you'll also see the arguments reversed
Difference with ray tracing is that it benefits EVERYONE, either now or will in the future, given that console games are having ray tracing added (sadly very limited effects due to lack of hardware grunt but progress is progress!), it's pretty obvious what way this is heading especially since it makes a developers life easier so they will want to use it when possible after they have got more familiar with it.
Metro will be the first good game to compare no ray tracing and ray tracing as without ray tracing, the lighting, shadows were already fantastic, cyberpunk was pretty good on the whole too.
Yes, you can still play games such as cyberpunk without ray tracing and enjoy it just as much but having extra graphical effects like this just add so much more to the experience and make it more immersive and enjoyable (played first time on my vega 56 and loved it, played second time with the 3080 and all bells on), same way I can play games happily on my LCD monitor but rather play on my oled tv as it just provides a better experience.
Got to love youtuber clickbait videos
Watch as we get a video in a week or 2 going "rtx is a must have" and uses metro and cyberpunk etc. as their examples
Their video was terrible, why use the worst examples for RTX???? And you do realise RTX/ray tracing affects more than just shadows if done properly?
If you have to "pixel peep" to see differences like this, then yes, you need to go to spec savers
RTX all turned off:
Just reflections turned off:
Just reflections turned off:
The first two images, it took me a good 3 minutes to see the reflection of the light stand in the window on the right, that's how i knew the first image was RTX, the reflections in the water, they can be as clear as that with Screen space reflections, in fact they usually are, which made me think twice about using that reason to call the first one RTX because the blurriness of the second image could be more accurate as the true effect of the water surface which Screen Space reflections wouldn't pick up.
It's actually just like that because the developer made it like that to make the RTX reflection stand out from it, not the first time we have see that, DICE removed the Screen Space reflections from BFV at first presumably because you couldn't tell the difference.
Love how the Nvidiabots are complaining that the video doesn't use the best example of RT. They have conveniently forgotten that until Metro Exodus Enhanced is released, Cyberpunk is considered to be THE best example of RT in any game. I can remember when it was launched and all the Nvidia fanboys were dumping on AMD for not being able to do it. It was the best thing since sliced bread for them and now it's bad??
this post comes across as extremely childish lol.
Cyberpunk is not the best example of RT on any game, that would be QUAKE 2 RT or control, if you dont see why Tomb raider is a ****** example of RT implementation example i dont know what to tell you, even the spiderman on ps5 (that ironically runs on AMD hardware) is a better example than tomb raider lol.
That is incredibly disappointing if a 25 year old game is the one of two best examples of RT available.
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 20,676
- Location
- The KOP
Agree with this... I don't see the appeal of running an extremely old game with RT it's still an old looking dated game.
Not talking about the game per say, i am talking about the RT implementation itself, not defending RT anyways, i just think the vid had the worse possible examples, tomb raider is a really bad implementation lol and the timing is just awful considering Metro Exodus is being released today and from the digital foundry vid it is looking very promising.
Why do people keep saying this like they wrote, tested, filmed and edited this video in a day?
Or do you expect them to bin the video because of factors outside their control?
No, i expected them to pick decent examples, not Tomb Raider lol.you have better examples even on the consoles.