Empty Wallets & bank accounts
and a long long wait till its released.
-
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.
RTX NO!!!
- Thread starter MaXxBoulton
- Start date
and a long long wait till its released.
Wouldn't buy it, too skint to spend any more than £15 on my current project, let alone hundreds!!
Just interested in the difference to my card, as its effectively the next gen, one tier down, upgraded version; bit of an oddball. Genuinely surprised by the extra performance my overclock achieved, especially at 45Cish, wondered how this card would compare.
EDIT: Quick Google shows about 17% at my resolution, don't know how much difference the OC would make. Definitely doesn't seem worth it at £500 to £750. If I was upgrading from my old 980, then at £500 plus a waterblock I suppose it's reasonable-ish, but I did pay that much for my 980 reference new, and it was the most powerful card in the world at the time, bar the Titan.
Don't forget both cards overclock.
I've had a 1080, 1080Ti and a 2070S. the 2070S is slightly faster than a 1080Ti
I guess that's changed for many of them recently
Another game which needs to be under a microscope to see any noticeable differences.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,841
My understanding is that the difference between RTX On vs RTX Off is like night and day. A game developer simply adds a light source and the hardware takes care of everything else. Lighting and shadows are taken care of by adding a few lines of code. This cuts down on game development time by months. For studios that employ thousands of people, the benefits of future purely ray traced games amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of savings.
RTX is such an amazing tool for developers which is ironic because like you say, the end user needs a microscope to notice.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,812
- Location
- Planet Earth
The cost just gets transferred onto the end user - typical of how PC gamers have been treated for a very long time! I expect despite cutting costs,the games will still go up in price and still have all bugs. So many PC games being poorly optimised and full of bugs,so we have to throw money at expensive hardware to get over the developers not caring. An example was Ark.
there is no chance next gen games cost more than $60usd, the economy and people's incomes doesn't support it
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,551
Even though it doesn't use path tracing, Control shows you can have a decent looking game in the same mix with Ray Tracing effects - which are used for more than just one thing like Metro, Tomb Raider or BF. There are quit a few games games that I would not mind be remade using such a treatment.
With that said, DX12/Vulkan should have brought more freedom to game developers and with the "magic" they already have (some just waiting to be implemented more), I guess the difference will continue to be rather small (although that can be a subjective mater), between the classical approach and ray/path tracing.
I'm sure they still have to develop the game for those who don't have RTX cards.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,841
Yes I said "future" games, meaning sometime this decade when EVERYONE has raytracing (even Intel integrated graphics). Raytracing is a Direct X 12 feature so Intel and AMD can't ignore it.
It would seem that you haven't loaded it correctly then It is completely different to standard Minecraft. My son was loving it after I got it loaded up this afternoon - really different.
Unfortunately yes, except for consoles.
The effects are theire, after a play around you can see te RTX, just it's not as good as SEUS PTGI with Optifine so I was underwhelmed.
With a full path tracing type implementation such as used in Quake 2 you have to be blind to not notice the difference especially it will be stark going back to games with older rendering techniques when you get used to it.
One of the problems currently though is that to make older approaches look good requires all kind of workarounds and techniques that conflict with full use of ray tracing unless you take the time to maintain two branches of the game which most developers won't do.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,812
- Location
- Planet Earth
The installed base of gamers with non-RTX capable graphics cards and the current generation of consoles,probably means for the immediate future,games will need to run OK on existing hardware,to maximise game sales. A lot of enthusiasts overegg themselves and wonder why so many next generation techniques,take yonks to actually start showing meaningful inclusion,as opposed to being tacked on.Look at how long tessellation took to be incorporated into games,as an important feature as opposed to something which was tacked on.
Sure,there will be a few "tech demo" type games which show what can be done with RT,but with the way things are going in the world,unless price/performance gets a decent uplift,people might just stick with what they have and turn some settings down.
Personally for me RT performance needs a decent uplift for me to be bothered,especially in the mainstream area. Once the mainstream area gets good performance things will start to move forward,but it would still need a critical mass of gamers with compatible hardware.
Last edited:
We have to think of the times like when a new DirectX version is released it takes ages before we see games that require (rather than just work with) the new DX version. The need to have ray tracing hardware will be like that for a good few generations yet.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,551
You can always have RT as an option, even for consoles - of course, with a penalty to resolution and/or frame rate. Although, if they plan to have 4k@60fps standard, then for future games, even traditional
techniques will tend to be performance hogs.
Because the hardware implementations for consoles came after for those features. When DX10 and DX11 came out, the consoles weren't capable of those features, so of course, it wasn't much interest in it, more so with "PC Gaming is dying" mentality.
With DX12 also was a bit chaotic what GPU supported which feature and which level of it, plus, to get the benefit of performance, it was mainly for AMD (which had a poor market share), you needed a stong "know how", plus not all games truly required it since the main platforms are already very limited - consoles and low end PCs, so games weren't pushing any big limits. So... why bother?
https://gpuopen.com/archive/gpu-demos/radeon-hd-4800-series-real-time-demos/
As you can see, even with a HD4800 series card you could have done a lot of stuff if you really wanted to.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,841
I doubt nvidia spent much time implementing raster lighting effects using the old method into the new remastered version of Quake II so it's not a fair comparison. It's also not fair to compare it to the original version of Quake II from 1997 because it has outdated low resolution textures etc.
If developers invested an enormous amount of time into it, they could probably get non RTX lighting to look as good as RTX lighting. But why should the consumer pay a premium for something that saves the developer a lot of time? It would be like a customer paying for a builders cement mixer. It would save the builder a large amount of time and get the job done quicker to maximise profit, so why should the customer pay for it? That's how I see RTX.
If RTX was the same price as GTX then it would be great. Maybe it will happen next gen or the gen after that.
Last edited:
Even with all the limitations inherent to the original engine/design such as blocky geometry you can see many of the effects in use with the path tracing implementation in Quake 2 that are missing in even top end current games and it makes a difference - the little things like accurate reflections and indirect lighting on surrounding world geometry from moving objects that emit light, the organic way light seeps through a scene and dynamically reacts correctly (or close enough) throughout the scene, etc. I'm not comparing it in the way you are talking about.
Some people are going to eat their words in the longer run when it comes to ray tracing because they lack the imagination and/or willingness to see how can be applied when done properly and get hung up on all the irrelevant limitations of the environment that current implementations of it are slapped into - take this scene here even without a proper implementation and notice how much difference just the colour of the light reflecting somewhat accurately off the paintwork makes
We pay for dev time in game costs. If ray tracing makes game development cheaper then it's a win to the customer as we'll see more time spent on content etc.
Personally think it'll be interesting next gen and mandatory gen after that. Market penetration will be high enough that you'll need it to run any good games in high/ultra settings