DON'T Waste Your Money On RTX!! "video title"

[Nexus18]

Ok you clearly don't get it, you really don't.

I can acknowledge extra settings.

I have said, and this goes for anything, no body plays games to play screenshots.

Can you honestly tell me if there was side by side gameplay in motion, actual gameplay in motion, you could tell the difference to what was RT and not RT if you didn't know which is which via settings aka a blind test.

You have just done the huge fallacy of taking screenshots, putting them side to side and knowing which is RT and which isn't RT.

To go along with your comparisons, did you ever take a look at the whole scene? only some of the scene has a difference of looks, not the whole thing, if you are only focusing on the one aspect to try make RT look good in this scenario, you have done a bad job.

Even looking at that first video, when you take in the whole scene, its barely any impact - Also who the fing hell plays a game to just look at reflections.

You are not gonna tell the difference between RT on and off when fighting 20 bad guys.

The point of Linus video was to say, could you tell what was better and which game mode was RT on or off, most people failed just like most people would, and the only way people will truly know if RT is on without pixel peeping is being told it.

I don't play games to look at reflections, I don't play games to look at puddles, I don't play games to look at how light rays bounce in a corner next to a lit sign on non important building sign.

If people can't tell RT is on when in motion compared to non RT when not told what is which and more importantly, can't come to a conclusion to which they like better, its a dull feature to rave about now.

Control does not look good, RT on a game that does not look good just makes a game that does not look good have accurate lighting.

And for people to say LMG used a bad example, Tomb raider is a damn good game that looks better then control....

Most RT games out right now are badly done and are rubbish games, theres only a few AAA RT games out right now and they have still done a meh job of it, even Metro is a old game and that didn't look great either, just beige all over unless thats your thing.

IMO RT only works when a game is made for it in mind, so far thats not the case.

Except I have cyberpunk and control on my pc here right now in front of me and I can tell the difference as soon as I switch RTX off..... That's because these games have lots of windows/glass, mirrors etc. in place and are part of the game world, hence why it is more noticeable.

Out of interest have you actually got either of those games? Cause if you did, you would see that there is more to the game than just "fighting 20 bad guys" all the time..... A lot of the time in cyberpunk is spent travelling around.

I suggest to get out in the real world, look at windows in the city centre, puddles etc. and see how reflections actually look, likewise with shadows and the way illumination works, it's all pretty cool

As for the other points, they have already addressed many times throughout this thread.

If only we had people like yourself put the same effort/detail into why ray tracing is a "waste" with actual "evidence" to back up said claims as the likes of digital foundry......

PS.

If you knew what ray tracing did, you wouldn't just be talking about the "reflections" in those screenshots of mine There is quite a lot of differences other than just "reflections"

 

[Raelgun]

To be honest games need to spend more time on making them actually work/not be **** rather than worrying about Raytracing... //Stares at a few recent releases but mainly CP2077//

Well ironically RT does actually speed up work flow and should be easier to have working compared to normal rendering.

The issue actually comes from performance and what devs try to use to shortcut it or cheat it. - DLSS currently is used as a cheat to up performance from RT being used.

 

[LtMatt]

Except I have cyberpunk and control on my pc here right now in front of me and I can tell the difference as soon as I switch RTX off..... That's because these games have lots of windows/glass, mirrors etc. in place and are part of the game world, hence why it is more noticeable.

Out of interest have you actually got either of those games? Cause if you did, you would see that there is more to the game than just "fighting 20 bad guys" all the time..... A lot of the time in cyberpunk is spent travelling around.

I suggest to get out in the real world, look at windows in the city centre, puddles etc. and see how reflections actually look, likewise with shadows and the way illumination works, it's all pretty cool

As for the other points, they have already addressed many times throughout this thread.

If only we had people like yourself put the same effort/detail into why ray tracing is a "waste" with actual "evidence" to back up said claims as the likes of digital foundry......

PS.

If you knew what ray tracing did, you wouldn't just be talking about the "reflections" in those screenshots of mine There is quite a lot of differences other than just "reflections"

Aha but, you fall into one of those categories.

 

[Ian Evey]

Saw title, clicked on it, saw the op username, left

 

[LtMatt]

Saw title, clicked on it, saw the op username, left

You should have put the effort in to read it, he made some fair points and gave his opinion.

It wasn't a dump and run.

 

[Wrinkly]

Oh, ok, so this isn't a meme?

It demostrates the uptake in RT, where using DXR you can develop a fully useable path tracer without big bucks or an off the shelf engine, then basically plug it into existing game code replacing the rasterisation. It's an excellent open source project for those interested.

 

[Nexus18]

Aha but, you fall into one of those categories.

Yup I fall into the group whose opinion is the only one that matters

Now to balance out the last screenshot comparison I posted..... this is where you do "need" screenshots to see the difference.... Although this was before any of the main patches i.e. before texture rendering was fixed and before the ray tracing improvements so these screenshots are a bit pointless now!

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/foru...rtx-ray-tracing.18916589/page-2#post-34488685

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/foru...idias-rtx-ray-tracing.18916589/#post-34482012

Like I said many times before, rasterization methods can do a fantastic job but it has a lot of limitations which is why ray tracing is the better option as it doesn't have those limitations and ultimately developers are going to go down this path whether people like it or not.

 

[K1LaW8tt5]

Well, it's pretty accurate tbf, unless do you see it differently on here? When you have been here for long enough, you tend to notice how it is swings and roundabouts in the arguments on here, happens with every new gen of cards and big triple A title. Of course nothing wrong if people fall in to either of the first 2 categories but don't be spreading bs that is easily disproven.

You stated "how great cyberpunk is....Then I really laugh"

Is that generally not how you get an insight into if people enjoy the game???? i.e. bc 2, bf 3 and bf 4, I have hundreds of hours in them and over a thousand for bf 4, meanwhile for bf 1, hardline and bf 5, my hours are double digits, if that for bf 5..... i.e. I didn't enjoy the last 3 BF games hence less hours.... not rocket science.

Also, if you look at most reviews and even metacritic, cyberpunk does pretty well, (outside of the bugs, which are mostly fixed now). If it weren't for the bugs upon release, it would have been a heck of a lot higher rated but sadly most people jumped on the bandwagon of "haters gonna hate" and never even played the game themselves And by all accounts, the game is pretty well polished now after the patches.... Yes CDPR lied about the game and promised things they couldn't deliver but people should know by now to never get pulled into the false promises of e3 "previews" etc. Just because they lied doesn't make it a bad game, same way division 1 wasn't a bad game because ubi lied about it in their e3 demos.....

Who told you your categories were accurate?

"The how great cyberpunk is " partial quote was in the relation to the ray tracing implemented in the game. I never asked you how many hours you played but you provided it and a mini review/ justification of the game and decided people who don't think the game is great or gives it a bad review must just be "haters" who never played it.


Agree with you on battlefield though.

 

[LtMatt]

Yup I fall into the group whose opinion is the only one that matters

Nope, you fall into the minority.

 

[kylew_is_back]

Sry, but it's a bit different;

PS4 operated with a 800 mhz clock due to power efficiency reasons, it also had two CUs disabled (18).

HD 7870 boasts a 1 ghz clock and 20 CU.

This actually makes the 7870 nearly %40 faster than a PS4. It was actually %35-40 faster than a PS4 back in the time. It's not anymore. That's what I'm trying to convey here.

Plus, it doesn't seem to be able to lock to 30 as opposed to a PS4 so... PS4 still performs better in terms of GPU horsepower/efficiency in modern games.

I was getting a bit better framerate in Witcher 3 compared to a PS4 with a R7 265. Because at that time, R7 265/HD7850 had disparity with the actual PS4.

I was practically playing the GTA 5 a tad bit better than PS4.

Everything turned upside down in especially 2017 for some reason.

Once newer GPUs are released, disparity shifted to newer GPUs all of a sudden. Of course almightier card such a r9 290 might've survived the hit.

Just because it have more mhz and CUs doesn't mean it will scale 100%, no gpu architecture does that and certainly not the GCN.
A great example is the HD7850 with 860MHz and only 16 CUs and yet the HD7870 is only 17% faster in games.
ALso in order to give a better fighting chance to the HD7870 in modern games (like the RDR 2) we need the 4GB version which is hard to find.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

Well when you get people saying things like "there is no difference", "rtx is a waste of money" when there quite clearly is a difference and it doesn't cost anything "extra" compared to cards with little to no ray tracing capabilities, what do you expect? People not to call out BS?

There's 3 types of people on this forum as of right now:

- ones that will never admit ray tracing is good or downplay it (often amd fans)
- ones that will big ray tracing up as being the only way to play any game and any game without ray tracing is **** (often nvidia fans)
- ones that understand why ray tracing is better and the way forward and call out BS when they see it but at the same time aren't going to lose sleep if a game doesn't have ray tracing (neutral members)

Well, it's pretty accurate tbf, unless do you see it differently on here?

So where does the "it currently isn't worth the performance cost for the change in visuals and therefore isn't a selling point for the current generation of GPUs" fit into your world view because when a forum poll was done on this from memory that is where a majority of people sit

 

[LtMatt]

So where does the "it currently isn't worth the performance cost for the change in visuals and therefore isn't a selling point for the current generation of GPUs" fit into your world view because when a forum poll was done on this from memory that is where a majority of people sit

HDR vs Ray Tracing, HDR won comfortably. I started that thread.

 

[Wrinkly]

The "noise" on surfaces looks absolutely awful. Like an old CRT TV that's not been tuned in has been superimposed on top of everything. I noticed it at times in their video about the new Metro update too, and yet it was never mentioned (in that video anyway, I haven't watched all of this one). It's far, far more distracting to me than having "fake" lighting, since I'm generally not going to stop playing a game and have a good, long think about whether the light sources in the scene make complete sense or not, whereas it's impossible to not notice this artifact.

My problem, which is due to fake lighting, is that I notice how flat games are. NPCs and stationary objects mostly appear to me as carboard cutouts. RT, at least in CP2077, corrected that. I tend to take a slow stealthy approach in games without using heals so I do tend to notice surrounding more I guess.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

HDR vs Ray Tracing, HDR won comfortably. I started that thread.

Thanks for reminding me. Some of the posts made me laugh, just because i didn't expect certain people to vote the way they did.

 

[LtMatt]

Thanks for reminding me. Some of the posts made me laugh, just because i didn't expect certain people to vote the way they did.

Anyone who voted RT has never tried HDR was the TLDR.

 

[Gerard]

Saw title, clicked on it, saw the op username, left

So you managed to post by magic by not entering the thread again?

 

[humbug]

Thread title just singles out Nvidias cards, when AMDs cards are the same price/higher, and the title of Linus' video should be - 'Is RT A Total Waste Of Money ?', as he too, is just singling out Nvidias cards.

Does not compute :/

He's basing it off RRP, not the scalped prices, which is fair because Nvidia / AMD don't see any of the scalped extra.

 

[humbug]

Saw title, clicked on it, saw the op username, left

Not without announcing it first.

 

[shankly1985]

Saw title, clicked on it, saw the op username, left

Title of the thread was actually the title of the video.

 

[stooeh]

Anyone who voted RT has never tried HDR was the TLDR.

I'm not really sold on HDR tbh (nor RT for that matter)

Always willing to check out some game if it supposedly has great HDR compared to SDR but so not seen much to wow me.