• 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.

Ratchet and Clank: Rift Apart RDNA 2 Ray Tracing

Game said:
if Intel can bring out something in the £150-200 bracket that does rx5700xt performance by the end of the year they will clean house

but its looking first 1/4 next year by all reports
Click to expand...

It could even be RX5600XT and be actually available to buy at under £300 and it would sell fine. The fastest new GPU you can actually easily find under £300 is a GTX1650 GDDR6.
 
Game said:
do intel have there own fabs or is it outsourced
Click to expand...

It appears to be TSMC. However,Intel has been known to do things such as contra-revenue,and eat margins shorter term to get a foothold into the market. However,in this case AMD/Nvidia have done them a favour. Even Nvidia selling tons of GTX1660 GPUs at RRP,etc had massive margins.
 
Last edited:
PrincessFrosty said:
Well...it's not "might", it very definitely is. And has been the case for just about as long as we've had multi-platform games. The only real issue there is that it's not that well known among console gamers, they're sold in the marketing that their consoles are super high end, this generation they're being sold 4k, 120hz, ray tracing and a bunch of stuff. But the reality is that there's massive amounts of compromise just to get any one of those things working in a AAA title. It's a shame because it leads to the angry rage quit stuff you saw with oguzsoso where even if you literally do a technical breakdown of the differences in large amounts of really specific detail, it just leads to defensiveness and denial.

There are examples of what you're talking about. If you want extremely large player battles you can play a game like Planetside 2 which has very high player numbers on the same server, I'm not sure exactly how many, wikipedia claims 2000 which seems way too high, but I do know the original Planetside capped at about 333 per continent and PS2 is at least that or higher. Huge texture packs exceeding what we already have generally wont get made because they wont get used. They make fairly little difference to visual outcome on most common screen resolutions because the texel count often exceeds the pixel count it's being displayed in. For example if you look at the 4k UHD texture pack for R6 Siege and read comments from people, most people find it a waste of time at 1080p and only those at 4k really notice the difference. But WDL specifically does have a high res texture pack for the PC, it's large enough to have an impact but not be a waste. Running games at 144fps is typically just a hardware limitation, it's hard for CPUs to get modern engines up to that kind of tickrate, but it certainly is something you can trade off visuals for if you like, and some people do, they prefer 1080p or 1440p over 4k, and lower video settings in order to maintain higher frame rates.

It doesn't matter if it's high end visual settings, very high res textures, very high frame rate...they all share one thing in common which is they all have diminishing returns. Going from 40fps to 60fps is more noticeable than 120 to 140, going from 20 players to 40 is more noticeable than 300 to 320 etc, despite the delta being the same. Probably something to do with Weber's law, if you want to massively geek out watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHG8io5qIU8
Click to expand...
I added "might" because you(we) don't know whether that is true for each and every game and newer generation consoles have not been cracked yet (as you said yourself). Planetside does not have 2000 players or even 333 on the same map. It's all some sort of instanced scenario thing.

Also, so what if many of the settings that I mentioned are not going to result in a huge difference. The point is PC is not getting it's fair due. You must have heard of greater than the sum of its part.. idiom. All these small things taken collectively can make a huge difference and then there things like better Physics engine/ Physx etc. which were at a time only present on PC and made a huge difference to how things looked (Batman: Arkham Asylum ). Now, there is no new technology being developed from the developer side that can give PC that edge. I know it's about market forces but PC still has a lot to offer at the high end, if only the devs cared.

New Battlefield is finally going to have 128 players and that is going to make a huge difference to gameplay and the overall feel of the game.
 
AAA PC games have been infected by the copy and paste,lootbox filled nonsense for the last 10 years. Innovation costs money,so they are more interested in making a quick buck instead of making a good game now.How many openworld games have not even improved in basic mechanics from those made 10 years ago?? Some of the earlier FarCry games had proper weather systems,fire which reacted to it,etc. Games such as Red Faction had destructable physics and so on.

If anything things are getting worse with Early Access,where devs released poorly optimised,bug filled games which take yonks to get fixed.
 
Really Steam-early access thing killed the gaming on PC. Some games are in alpha stage for years now, they are bugged as hell and look like crap but hey, they are in alpha so that's an excuse.
There was a big crash in the 80s in gaming industry. And it looked a lot like what is happening now on PC. Everyone was making videogames but their quality was crap.
 
Abhishek Shukla said:
I added "might" because you(we) don't know whether that is true for each and every game and newer generation consoles have not been cracked yet (as you said yourself). Planetside does not have 2000 players or even 333 on the same map. It's all some sort of instanced scenario thing.

Also, so what if many of the settings that I mentioned are not going to result in a huge difference. The point is PC is not getting it's fair due. You must have heard of greater than the sum of its part.. idiom. All these small things taken collectively can make a huge difference and then there things like better Physics engine/ Physx etc. which were at a time only present on PC and made a huge difference to how things looked (Batman: Arkham Asylum ). Now, there is no new technology being developed from the developer side that can give PC that edge. I know it's about market forces but PC still has a lot to offer at the high end, if only the devs cared.

New Battlefield is finally going to have 128 players and that is going to make a huge difference to gameplay and the overall feel of the game.
Click to expand...

It's certainly not true for each and every single game because many games simply don't stress the GPU through high quality graphics to need it. Specifically this tends to happen with modern AAA games which have high graphics budgets. And we don't really need to prove it for every single game, we know what roughly the hardware equivalent the consoles have and we can just infer out that they simply cannot be running settings the PC is using with a high end discreet GPU. They just don't have the horsepower to do that and never have. The performance metrics from that DF show a mid range card from LAST generation squarely beating the console performance even with much higher settings (4k instead of 1440p, and higher RT settings). There is also a fairly long history of going back and comparing settings on consoles to get similar comparisons, I remember this being done for some notable games like GTAV.

The original Planetside did in fact have 333 cap per map, it was 111 per faction and 3 factions could clash on the same continent (map) at once. And Planetside 2 definitely does exceed this but it's not as high as 2000. It's something quite high though, I played in on launch and anecdotally the fights were way bigger. PC still is the place to innovate, all of the modern graphics innovations on the consoles borrow from the progress graphics has made on the PC. The AMD APUs in the new consoles are heavily based off the architecture developed by AMD in the last generation. The PC pioneered things like Ray Tracing and the consoles are just playing catch up.

Keep in mind the lifecycle of PC graphics is every 2 years or so before we see new hardware and innovations, and this tends to happen about 3x before the consoles finally get a generational refresh. When the consoles get a refresh they're just borrowing the innovations from the PC space and they're always at least 1 generation behind. Quite literally in the case of the Xbox they're just borrowing the DirectX API from the PC and using DXR instruction set to do stuff like raytracing. As I said with regards to things being a "huge" difference, that's just never going to happen because all of the low hanging fruit where you can make large gains for relatively little investment have all been hoovered up. The graphics industry is very mature now, and we're making less progress that requires more effort, but that's to be expected.
 
PrincessFrosty said:
It's certainly not true for each and every single game because many games simply don't stress the GPU through high quality graphics to need it. Specifically this tends to happen with modern AAA games which have high graphics budgets. And we don't really need to prove it for every single game, we know what roughly the hardware equivalent the consoles have and we can just infer out that they simply cannot be running settings the PC is using with a high end discreet GPU. They just don't have the horsepower to do that and never have. The performance metrics from that DF show a mid range card from LAST generation squarely beating the console performance even with much higher settings (4k instead of 1440p, and higher RT settings). There is also a fairly long history of going back and comparing settings on consoles to get similar comparisons, I remember this being done for some notable games like GTAV.

The original Planetside did in fact have 333 cap per map, it was 111 per faction and 3 factions could clash on the same continent (map) at once. And Planetside 2 definitely does exceed this but it's not as high as 2000. It's something quite high though, I played in on launch and anecdotally the fights were way bigger. PC still is the place to innovate, all of the modern graphics innovations on the consoles borrow from the progress graphics has made on the PC. The AMD APUs in the new consoles are heavily based off the architecture developed by AMD in the last generation. The PC pioneered things like Ray Tracing and the consoles are just playing catch up.

Keep in mind the lifecycle of PC graphics is every 2 years or so before we see new hardware and innovations, and this tends to happen about 3x before the consoles finally get a generational refresh. When the consoles get a refresh they're just borrowing the innovations from the PC space and they're always at least 1 generation behind. Quite literally in the case of the Xbox they're just borrowing the DirectX API from the PC and using DXR instruction set to do stuff like raytracing. As I said with regards to things being a "huge" difference, that's just never going to happen because all of the low hanging fruit where you can make large gains for relatively little investment have all been hoovered up. The graphics industry is very mature now, and we're making less progress that requires more effort, but that's to be expected.
Click to expand...
I looked into PS2 player count and it has so many ifs and buts, developer restrictions, having specific customs servers for the highest player counts, etc. But if it was more than 128 player stable then that just makes one more suspect of COD and BF not bringing this setting to PC. I did not mention RT as PC-specific tech because it was already in Consoles before it got any decent support on PC effectively making it a console tech from the beginning. You must remember how there weren't even tech demos available for people to run (except for press) on their 2080tis for months after its launch. Also, Consoles are/were not necessarily dependent upon progress in PC gaming hardware. This might be true now but PS3, if remember correctly had a quite different architecture to x86/x64 and was in some ways better than PC hardware for some time after its release (for some scenarios). Now you could say that PS3 has an Nvidia chip but point is, it was customized and not a close copy of PC GPU tech.

About the industry maturing, difficult to say how much of that is organic and how much is just various deliberate choices by devs/publishers/MS/Sony, etc.
 
fs123 said:
The performance RT mode is the definitive way to play this game. Looks totally smooth and as good as the quality mode even though the resolution is technically lower.
Click to expand...


Once you have the game you can try for yourself. YouTube videos never show the full picture because of compression . Going by YouTube comparisons I was sure I'd use performance RT mode but once I loaded up the game and saw how blurry and soft performance RT looks I quickly switched to Fidelity and haven't looked back
 
Too bad the game ain’t that fun, for me at least. Still would use perf RT probably, cant stomach 30 fps on the CX..

On the other hand ff vii remake got the 4k60 patch so gotta finish that, also demon souls to occupy the time til elden ring :(
 
chris85oc said:
Too bad the game ain’t that fun, for me at least. Still would use perf RT probably, cant stomach 30 fps on the CX..

On the other hand ff vii remake got the 4k60 patch so gotta finish that, also demon souls to occupy the time til elden ring :(
Click to expand...


It's very fun actually. I grew up on ratchet and clank so I love these games, I love 3d platformers
 
Grim5 said:
Once you have the game you can try for yourself. YouTube videos never show the full picture because of compression . Going by YouTube comparisons I was sure I'd use performance RT mode but once I loaded up the game and saw how blurry and soft performance RT looks I quickly switched to Fidelity and haven't looked back
Click to expand...
Disable 120Hz mode, performance mode uses that and if your TV doesn’t support HDMI 2.1 then it’s going to drop to 1080P.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom