Ray Tracing

[IceWolf]

After playing a large chunk of the COD Cold War single player last night with RT maxed in Ultra 4k it's a fairly easy conclusion that RT effects matter, the game looks amazing. The RT effects improve the visual quality of the game and that's why I buy new video cards, to make games look better.

The question for me is also, what is the alternative? If we went full rasterization and ignored RT all together, what would the value proposition be in a new video card? Even more frames per second? Right now there's no competition in this space for alternatives to RT in terms of leaps in visual fidelity.

Quote for truth. I literally would not have bothered upgrading my GPU if it wasn't for raytracing. Otherwise I could just keep playing on a console

 

[gpuerrilla]

If availability wasn't such an issue and it was AMD £587 vs. Nvidia £650, I don't think there would be too much of a debate. The other issue is that we don't know how much better 6800 RT/DLSS alternative will get over time. I picked up the 6800 XT for £599 and there is some buyers remorse but I don't know at what point I could get a 3080 at a competitive price, if ever.

Buyers remorse at 599 for the XT? You must be joking! I didnt even manage to get one in the shopping cart. That's a bargain!

 

[Sc00p007]

Unless it is a competitive mp fps game, I much prefer gfx over fps. Played Crysis on ultra at 20-30fps. Not ideal, but those gfx PhysX card for 1 game, I'm in.

 

[Poneros]

Buyers remorse at 599 for the XT? You must be joking! I didnt even manage to get one in the shopping cart. That's a bargain!

The power of marketing has tremendous psychological pull. I know better but I still feel it, had some of the same thoughts seeing CP2077 yesterday and all the footage today. It's very, very easy to be seduced by all these nice promises.

 

[Wrinkly]

No it doesn't show interest. it just shows people will watch other poeple play games thats all. I dont play @ 720P i play games 1080p 144Hz. i had a 1660 super, i cant hit those FPS with max setting so i dial it down. it is what every other person do. and I want max setting, so i get a 2070s to run 1440p @ 144Hz. if RT turns the experiece into 60fps affair. no thanks. I am not a pro-gamer. you dont need to be a pro-gamer to see 144Hz vs 60Hz there is a difference. noticable difference. just ask around. you are on 60Hz so you dont know what you missing. pro-gamer is doing even higher FPS and its far beyond my aging reflex and eye balls to notice any appreciated gains in gaming smoothness.

i never said 4K is acceptable @ 60Hz. i repeated said it is BS to spend £1400 on a card to game at 4k60. it is only a standard becuase there is no hardware or reasonably priced hardward. if you can game @ 144Hz why compromise to 60Hz. that is the crux of it.

lol you are ignorign the fact that even 1060 can still do 144Hz with res turned down. I can bet those people do. you are arguing 60Hz is the main stay, i am saying 144Hz is the future if not now. given the choice, people clearly wants higher FPS than RT or higher resolution. poeple only want higher res if they can have larger screens thus the console gaming support 4k which can be played in your living rooms. but if you know what 144Hz is like and ging back 60Hz, it is ust meh... also i dont know which generation of console you are talking about doing 30Hz, maybe wii. but hell, that cant be right.

My laptop uses a 144Hz Gsync VA panel (3ms from memory), ASUS ROG Strix GL703GS SCAR 17.3". It's not convinced me to upgrade my 60Hz 1440p IPS panel yet, though no doubt my next panel will be faster. I don't notice the difference when gaming unless I jerk the mouse around, which I don't do. I prefer relaxed gaming, maybe with a nice malt whisky

I think the sad thing is people feel they need higher FPS to be competitive within online games. The industry drives this opinion to sell new hardware. Me, I'll take quality over quantity when given the choice. I'll even cap FPS/undervolt to keep things running cool and quiet.

 

[pc-guy]

I think the sad thing is people feel they need higher FPS to be competitive within online games. The industry drives this opinion to sell new hardware. Me, I'll take quality over quantity when given the choice. I'll even cap FPS/undervolt to keep things running cool and quiet.

it is not a point about being competitive. I don’t even play games like wow or CS or fortnite. The odd games I do play that involves lots of players, I am doing it as RP for the story line and experience.

>60hz is a smoother experience and give you better image to look at. That’s all. It is not about faster reaction, more headshots or able to make the kill shot easier. Certainly not for me. I just want my games to have smoother transition from frame to frame where I don’t see tears in the screen and don’t feel like I am looking at some kind of shutter curtain films.

that for me is the first priority then it is the effects. And I would imagine it is the same for most of those people running 1060 1660 1070 cards. They want as high refresh rate as possible with many effects as possible. If they got a 60Hz monitor then they will aim to get close to that. But if they somehow have a 144Hz monitor for sure they will be upping the FPS and compromising effects.

 

[ColdAsIce]

You definitely want as much FPS matching a high refresh rate if you are a competitive player. It’s not a gimmick at all.

 

[Wrinkly]

I'll be playing with everything maxed at 1440p/60Hz...

... That is if my 3080 ever shows up.

 

[arc@css]

Yeah, the original Deus Ex with RT would be sublime. One day, for sure.

 

[pc-guy]

Ironically. Hardware Unboxed is doing a survey on RT. Question is “if you are to buy a GPU right now, which of the following is most important to you a) standard rasterisation performance (RT off) b) ray tracing.”

35k votes so far nearly 80% skews towards answer A. It gives you a picture where RT is at in terms priority over a wider community as opposed to enthusiast niche.

RT is simply not mature enough to be a factor in consideration for purchase. Early adopter remorse.

 

[Woodsta888]

My laptop uses a 144Hz Gsync VA panel (3ms from memory), ASUS ROG Strix GL703GS SCAR 17.3". It's not convinced me to upgrade my 60Hz 1440p IPS panel yet, though no doubt my next panel will be faster. I don't notice the difference when gaming unless I jerk the mouse around, which I don't do. I prefer relaxed gaming, maybe with a nice malt whisky

I think the sad thing is people feel they need higher FPS to be competitive within online games. The industry drives this opinion to sell new hardware. Me, I'll take quality over quantity when given the choice. I'll even cap FPS/undervolt to keep things running cool and quiet.

Laptop?

Oh, wrong forum, laterz

 

[Woodsta888]

I'll be playing with everything maxed at 1440p/60Hz...

... That is if my 3080 ever shows up.

With a 3080 you'll be able to do 1440 @ 120hz easily. MOnster cards - hope it turns up soon

 

[Richeh]

Ironically. Hardware Unboxed is doing a survey on RT. Question is “if you are to buy a GPU right now, which of the following is most important to you a) standard rasterisation performance (RT off) b) ray tracing.”

35k votes so far nearly 80% skews towards answer A. It gives you a picture where RT is at in terms priority over a wider community as opposed to enthusiast niche.

RT is simply not mature enough to be a factor in consideration for purchase. Early adopter remorse.

To be fair that's a very leading question as in you have to have one or the other. With an Nvidia card you don't, you may be 5-10% off a 6800XT with a 3080 in rasterisation but it will still be very high fps, but you can also have RT and DLSS as well.

Also to add re the Cyberpunk video above, I certainly wouldn't want to spend circa £700 on a new card and not be able to make the game look as good as it can. But maybe i'm weird that way?

 

[Grim5]

To be fair that's a very leading question as in you have to have one or the other. With an Nvidia card you don't, you may be 5-10% off a 6800XT with a 3080 in rasterisation but it will still be very high fps, but you can also have RT and DLSS as well.

Also to add re the Cyberpunk video above, I certainly wouldn't want to spend circa £700 on a new card and not be able to make the game look as good as it can. But maybe i'm weird that way?

It's a bad poll, there should be a third option: 50/50, RT and Raster are just as important to me.

 

[Richeh]

It's a bad poll, there should be a third option: 50/50, RT and Raster are just as important to me.

Agreed or though I would go so far as to say that it should be 'Good RT/Rasterisation or Best Rasterisation but no RT' obviously meaning at a 'playable level'.

I think I said it in another thread (there's so many that are technically on the same subject now) but AMD did fantastically to do so well this gen, the extra R&D budget has really showed. But to me, they haven't won anything for this gen. They have closed the gap and exceeded in several cases on Rasterisation but most of the advanced graphics in AAA games have moved on past just Rasterisation and games like CP2077 show that used properly the extra features can really add to the game and experience as explained in the video above.

If they weren't so closely priced (MSRP) it would be harder but for this gen (which lets be honest, there's ALWAYS something around the corner so we have to look at what we have now) Nvidia is still holding the lead, in some games you may not get the absolute top performance but it will still be incredibly playable. If you're a competitive gamer, bearing in mind most truiy competitive games don't require much hardware wise (Fortnite, WoW, LoL, Valorant, CSGO etc) - which is generally their nature to allow the biggest audience, you won't be able to notice the difference between 200 and 250fps but get a new AAA game with all the top features why would you not want the option to play with all the latest features at a decent framerate ie 4k DLSS, RT enabled on Nvidia vs 4k, RT enabled on AMD which even with their own DLSS variant would still be unlikely to match as the RT performance is so far behind.

 

[Kaapstad]

I find it difficult to get excited by Ray Tracing.

ATM I am finding it hard to find the energy to pop a Ray Tracing capable card into my 24/7 PC, for me the end result just is not worth it.

Having said that other people think Ray Tracing is one of the best things to come along lately, they are probably right but it is just not for me.

 

[TNA]

I find it difficult to get excited by Ray Tracing.

ATM I am finding it hard to find the energy to pop a Ray Tracing capable card into my 24/7 PC, for me the end result just is not worth it.

Having said that other people think Ray Tracing is one of the best things to come along lately, they are probably right but it is just not for me.

Ray tracing is awesome. Trouble is most titles implementation of it is so basic thus far is likely the reason why you feel that way about it. I have been underwhelmed myself with all the games I have tried. But just wait, if we get Atomic Heart next year and it looks anything like the demo, then it may even change your opinion. Because the demo looks very good imo.

Just imagine a game that looks like the Neon Noir benchmark. That would be awesome.

Some say it is very good in the latest COD. But that is not my type of game so won’t get to try it unless someone borrows me their blizzard account for a while at some point. Hopefully it is good in Cyberpunk, that is what I am looking forward to most.

 

[dazzlaa]

Ironically. Hardware Unboxed is doing a survey on RT. Question is “if you are to buy a GPU right now, which of the following is most important to you a) standard rasterisation performance (RT off) b) ray tracing.”

35k votes so far nearly 80% skews towards answer A. It gives you a picture where RT is at in terms priority over a wider community as opposed to enthusiast niche.

RT is simply not mature enough to be a factor in consideration for purchase. Early adopter remorse.

I bought a 3080 and would still buy a 3080 over the RX series now. Guess I’m in the 20% who consider ray tracing to be important. The competition have shown they aren’t in the same ballpark just yet.
I was a 2080ti owner as well, I like ray tracing effects. I loved playing mine craft with RTX, it genuinely made me sit back and say ‘wow’. I haven’t had that so often with gaming lately.
Obviously that hasn’t happened with every RTX game but it’s there and I don’t mind paying for it. The 3080 is pretty much level with the 6800xt in most rasterisation benchmarks I have seen, beating it out at 4K res so for me, the AMD card just isn’t good enough.
It’s amazing, no doubt and a welcome return to the top end, but it’s no 3080 beater.
But like others have said, with the 3080 you are not sacrificing anything, ray tracing is an added bonus.

 

[Calin Banc]

I don't think its a thread whether you can do without it or not. We can all do without technical advances we've yet to experience. Question is; is ray tracing performance a deal breaker when buying a card?

We're not getting hurt by RT right now, but what about when the devs have it built from ground up or leave the setting out?

I find this quote from @Humbucker on point, to which I may add; nobody bothered to give a detailed response to.

To me it matters, is something subtle, but there. Considering the performance numbers we've seen so far, if I would need to buy a GPU now and it would be available, then I'd go for rtx3080. 6800xt would be an option only at launch price of at least ~ $250 less.

 

[Wrinkly]

I find it difficult to get excited by Ray Tracing.

ATM I am finding it hard to find the energy to pop a Ray Tracing capable card into my 24/7 PC, for me the end result just is not worth it.

Having said that other people think Ray Tracing is one of the best things to come along lately, they are probably right but it is just not for me.

That's probably down to today's games rather than RT. Games now require the attention span of a gold fish and so the atmosphere built by a properly lit and shadowed environment is lost. Hardware manufacturers have gotten behind E-Sports as it sells hardware, but doesn't produce good games.

Minecraft and Quake 2 RTX are probably the best examples of RT so far, while control isn't bad it still looks like it's been bolted on as an afterthought. People look at WDL and decide RT is not worth it and I have to agree in that poop train of a title they are correct. It's not that RT itself is done badly, but more the gameplay. Metro Exodus was somewhat held back by Turing in what it could do and Battlefield V was a train wreck that proved 'it just didn't work' before making the game playable.

Fingers crossed Cyberpunk will show some impressive effects and I'm looking forward to seeing MSFS updated.

Personally I'd like Theif, Dues Ex, System Shock, Dead Space, Alien and even a Skyrim RT edition.

What sort of games do you enjoy?

 

[Born_2_Kill_83]

I deffo max all RT settings soon as I boot a new game up, Im all about the visuals always have been and RT adds some nice effects. Can't wait to see what Cyberpunk will offer with them on, I personally think it'll be a show case.