Ray tracing confirmed for next Gen PlayStation

[loftie]

Oh great... so a whole generation of console games to have over used water, mirrors and and glass effects... the joy

Yay for faketracing

If it's just that, it's not too bad. I'm expecting everything to be seared into our eyeballs like when hdr/bloom etc became a thing.

 

[BubbySoup]

I bought my 2080ti for more frames, that's it.

I'm not interested in ray tracing at the moment from the 2 games I've seen it in - it's not worth the trade off in performance. Could I see a difference, sure. Did I care that much - nope.

Maybe in 2 or 3 generations it'll be standard but right now I'll just live with the fact that part of my 2080ti sits doing nothing

 

[dreigns]

I bought my 2080ti for more frames, that's it.

I'm not interested in ray tracing at the moment from the 2 games I've seen it in - it's not worth the trade off in performance. Could I see a difference, sure. Did I care that much - nope.

Maybe in 2 or 3 generations it'll be standard but right now I'll just live with the fact that part of my 2080ti sits doing nothing

Well it wont matter for the console boys they like 30fps games also same here got rid of my old two 1080's and got one 2080ti for more frames seeing as sli isn't any good anymore.

 

[loftie]

Sounds like you're bashing them cinematic feels, Ubisoft would like to have words

 

[greatash]

PS5 confirmed for another gen of 25-30fps then? Disappointing, looks like consoles will never move to a 60fps standard, or even simple mouse/kb support.

 

[TonyTurbo78]

not the news I wanted to hear to be honest, don't get the fuss surrounding RT. I wanted native 4k@60fps as standard in the next gen consoles. News of RT in games for a console would surely mean that would be totally unattainable.

 

[LePhuronn]

News of RT in games for a console would surely mean that would be totally unattainable.

If you use Nvidia's implementation and current performance metric as your baselines then yes. If you consider AMD may have a different approach, implement hardware acceleration in a different way, assist in a better baseline for the software, then perhaps the outlook isn't so bleak.

Look at that recent Cryengine demo that did (sort of) ray tracing using general compute cores, then imagine that same codebase accelerated through dedicated ray tracing cores.

 

[Bluntwrapped]

RT will only be ready when it's no longer referred to or used for marketing purposes.

 

[doody]

If you use Nvidia's implementation and current performance metric as your baselines then yes. If you consider AMD may have a different approach, implement hardware acceleration in a different way, assist in a better baseline for the software, then perhaps the outlook isn't so bleak.

Look at that recent Cryengine demo that did (sort of) ray tracing using general compute cores, then imagine that same codebase accelerated through dedicated ray tracing cores.

ye and that was on a radion 56

 

[LePhuronn]

ye and that was on a radion 56

Exactly my point

 

[DarrenM343]

I'm not sure that's the case. Hardware Unboxed did analysis with RTX on and off in Metro and explained why it looked better when on but the differences seemed minimal to me. They talked about 'the accuracy of the shadows', which I don't really care about. You can judge for yourself:

I'm sure elsewhere there's a more technical comparison where they came to the conclusion they wouldn't want to play the game without it once they had seen the comparisons . There were some huge differences in some scenes I think where the non-RT image was pretty unrealistic. It's one of those things where people won't care if they haven't experienced it but it brings another level of realism with it.
I've so far only bought one of the RT enabled game but looking forward to trying Metro later in the year. Hopefully it's better than the first one as I couldn't get into that.

 

[bru]

If you use Nvidia's implementation and current performance metric as your baselines then yes. If you consider AMD may have a different approach, implement hardware acceleration in a different way, assist in a better baseline for the software, then perhaps the outlook isn't so bleak.

Look at that recent Cryengine demo that did (sort of) ray tracing using general compute cores, then imagine that same codebase accelerated through dedicated ray tracing cores.

It is exactly this, from what we have seen so far it looks like lots of power is needed, but just how AMD are going to go about it, we have no idea. they might be able to knock it out of the park with a different approach.
The Cryengine demo certainly looks impressive, but until we know how they did it using just a Vega 56 we have no idea.

 

[DELETED_195422]

Looking at previous generations, Sony will say anything to sell a console.

By the end of 2020 the GPU scene will be different and more competitive than it is just now with AMD, Intel and Nvidia all having something to offer consumers.

 

[drunkenmaster]

I'm not sure that's the case. Hardware Unboxed did analysis with RTX on and off in Metro and explained why it looked better when on but the differences seemed minimal to me. They talked about 'the accuracy of the shadows', which I don't really care about. You can judge for yourself:

Paid for reviews, cba'd to watch that one in particular but I watched a couple of videos and there were comments about how without raytracing the people not directly under the light in one scene were too bright and with ray tracing only those directly under a light were lit up as it 'should be'. It was just bull ****, aside from the fact that it was a small space and we've had games for a decade that can light up things closer to a light source more or show a cone of light and those underneath as better lit, it's the fact that with ray tracing turned off Metro has the lighting absolutely and completely purposefully neutered to make ray tracing look better by comparison.

This is what I've been saying for years on ray tracing, ray tracing vs 90s rasterisation was night and day, ray tracing vs absolute best case rasterisation and 'fake' lighting look extremely close to each other. The only way to make ray tracing look genuinely hugely better is to cripple the lighting without it.

Even Nvidia's first demo of it on launch they showed the one green room with lighting from the early 00s vs ray tracing and marvelled at the improvement, thankfully Tomb Raider was too early to have it's lighting completely neutered to make ray tracing look better.

Ray tracing in Metro doesn't look any better than Tomb Raider, it just looks like effectively no improvement over the normal lighting modern games have. Metro had time to get crippled by Nvidia.

This is also what I've said in recent threads, the reason I go with AMD is their messing around doesn't harm all gamers, it gives a benefit to everyone. nvidia have decided even if you're an Nvidia user you can now play Metro with crippled lighting if you don't have an RTX or you don't have the performance spare to turn RTX on. So a worse experience for 90% of Nvidia's own customer base and for all AMD users just to make ray tracing look better by comparison. Tomb Raider as said added ray tracing and only for Nvidia users, but the base game wasn't crippled in quality just to make it look better. I'm fine with that, Nvidia isn't, they want to make it a worse experience for people who have paid them hundreds for cards if they can't use ray tracing. Nvidia are terrible for gaming and gamers in general.

 

[Grim5]

Looking at previous generations, Sony will say anything to sell a console.

By the end of 2020 the GPU scene will be different and more competitive than it is just now with AMD, Intel and Nvidia all having something to offer consumers.

Yes it’s tough to take Sony add it’s word until we have the product in our hands due to their history of bait and switching

The ps5 is only in dev it form now while they still plan the features out - when it comes time to actually building the final machine they may have to start cutting backIf costs forecast blow out, heat can’t be dissapaited, production delays eventuate and generally over promising like they did with the ps3

Of course I’ll still buy one, the ps4 delivered some of the best exclusives I’ve ever played in these last 4 years and I’m keen to keep that momentum going

 

[Calin Banc]

Paid for reviews, cba'd to watch that one in particular but I watched a couple of videos and there were comments about how without raytracing the people not directly under the light in one scene were too bright and with ray tracing only those directly under a light were lit up as it 'should be'. It was just bull ****, aside from the fact that it was a small space and we've had games for a decade that can light up things closer to a light source more or show a cone of light and those underneath as better lit, it's the fact that with ray tracing turned off Metro has the lighting absolutely and completely purposefully neutered to make ray tracing look better by comparison.

This is what I've been saying for years on ray tracing, ray tracing vs 90s rasterisation was night and day, ray tracing vs absolute best case rasterisation and 'fake' lighting look extremely close to each other. The only way to make ray tracing look genuinely hugely better is to cripple the lighting without it.

Even Nvidia's first demo of it on launch they showed the one green room with lighting from the early 00s vs ray tracing and marvelled at the improvement, thankfully Tomb Raider was too early to have it's lighting completely neutered to make ray tracing look better.

Ray tracing in Metro doesn't look any better than Tomb Raider, it just looks like effectively no improvement over the normal lighting modern games have. Metro had time to get crippled by Nvidia.

This is also what I've said in recent threads, the reason I go with AMD is their messing around doesn't harm all gamers, it gives a benefit to everyone. nvidia have decided even if you're an Nvidia user you can now play Metro with crippled lighting if you don't have an RTX or you don't have the performance spare to turn RTX on. So a worse experience for 90% of Nvidia's own customer base and for all AMD users just to make ray tracing look better by comparison. Tomb Raider as said added ray tracing and only for Nvidia users, but the base game wasn't crippled in quality just to make it look better. I'm fine with that, Nvidia isn't, they want to make it a worse experience for people who have paid them hundreds for cards if they can't use ray tracing. Nvidia are terrible for gaming and gamers in general.

As far as I know, Tomb Raider only has RT for shadows and Metro for Global Illumination, which does look nice in certain areas while not so good (too dark or weird) in others. Not being able to keep 60fps in 1080p on anything else than a 2080ti (and who knows, maybe are moments when even on that one is limited), while not providing a big imagine quality jump over other methods is indeed the biggest drawback. I doubt any next gen console will be 2-3x times faster than a 2080ti.

A pretty old game like the Vanishing of Ethan Carter can look very good (at times even better) and run way faster.

 

[Rroff]

This is what I've been saying for years on ray tracing, ray tracing vs 90s rasterisation was night and day, ray tracing vs absolute best case rasterisation and 'fake' lighting look extremely close to each other. The only way to make ray tracing look genuinely hugely better is to cripple the lighting without it.

I disagree with this a lot - but it will take awhile for ray tracing in games to get there - when you see a scene with proper realtime indirect/bounced lighting, caustics, etc. it takes it to another level again over even high end current lighting engines.

Keep an eye on the efforts with Minecraft and path/ray tracing as some of those are starting to show what the real potential is.

 

[DeanT77]

PS5 confirmed for another gen of 25-30fps then? Disappointing, looks like consoles will never move to a 60fps standard, or even simple mouse/kb support.

It does sound that way doesn't it

 

[Grim5]

As far as I know, Tomb Raider only has RT for shadows and Metro for Global Illumination, which does look nice in certain areas while not so good (too dark or weird) in others. Not being able to keep 60fps in 1080p on anything else than a 2080ti (and who knows, maybe are moments when even on that one is limited), while not providing a big imagine quality jump over other methods is indeed the biggest drawback. I doubt any next gen console will be 2-3x times faster than a 2080ti.

A pretty old game like the Vanishing of Ethan Carter can look very good (at times even better) and run way faster.

Nor does it need to be. A single 2080ti runs a stable 60fps with Metro at 4K with Ray Tracing on, DLSS on and graphics settings just one notch under the maximum. The devs who spoke to DF said if the ps5 does support RT they wanted dedicated hardware for it and not a software implementation which I found fascinating.

I agree that RT seems to have less effect the more realistic the game already is. It’s effects are much more pronounced on games that due to their age or due to their design were never intended to have realistic lighting shadows etc. games such as Minecraft are totally transformed when it’s turned on. So is Quake 2.

In the end if rayvtracings biggest advantage will be making old games look incredible I’d still be happy with that it seems to help modest a lot

 

[Phixsator]

Nor does it need to be. A single 2080ti runs a stable 60fps with Metro at 4K with Ray Tracing on, DLSS on and graphics settings just one notch under the maximum.

Well then its not true 4k is it?