• 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.

The RT Related Games, Benchmarks, Software, Etc Thread.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dicehunter said:
Nearly 100FPS with Frame Gen using DLSS at Performance so likely 50-60 using Quality, That's quite playable.
Click to expand...
50-60 after frame generation would be very unplayable imo (way too laggy). Unless it's just with dlss. Though, it's widely accepted that dlss performance in 4k doesn't look great - very visible quality loss on textures etc. In effect, that's dropping lots of texture details to get pretty light. I prefer good textures, but YMMV.
 
Bencher said:
The scene at 1:27 looks real world with the overdrive. Holy cow
Click to expand...
There's also quite a few scenes shown that are way too dark to the level of being unplayable and a few way too bright. Game clearly wasn't designed with fully realistic lighting in mind and would have to be redesigned in places to be fully playable with it. I consider it to be a tech demo in current state and nothing more.

I also find it interesting that it finally exposes how little actually RT mixed with raster adds to visuals and how much of a waste of fps it is in comparison to actual path tracing. Also, the moment PT arrives the usual people (including DF) praising RT suddenly consider it to be a waste of time and only PT now matter. In my opinion what actually matter is the gameplay and not visuals. A lot of people seem to be completely focused on the wrong thing, whilst games coming out these days feel mostly bad, with just pretty look. PT won't change that one bit.
 
Last edited:
Think until games are RT lighting only, these patches will never look that good. I found RT in the comparisons videos to be too dark but there's more than that. It really needs to be RT lighting only from the ground up.

My big worry then will be devs who fancy themselves as cinematographers are love to show off their virtual "camera skills" in very dark scenes. Even with a 1000 NIT HDR monitor, I am not sure I like things that dark. That has mostly been my problem with ENB mods too. I want to enjoy the game not have to sit in a darkened room squinting at mostly black screens.

I actually hope that any eventual full RT lighting only game would have a functional brightness adjuster. Turning up all light sources by a constant % should be easier than brightness adjustment in baked-in games.

EDIT: what @Tinek just said!
 
Last edited:
CP 2077 is a funny one in terms of how dark/bright some areas should look, the problem is you can't just go by screenshots when it comes to this as with cp 2077, you have huge buildings and very dense areas where no natural light will get in so the only light sources will literally be street lamps, fire barrels and the neon lighting. Someone posted a screenshot of a tunnel way back saying it didn't look correct as it was too dark, I found that area and turns out, the area is enclosed with buildings all around you thus no sun light was making its way to that area so imo, that's pretty accurate as opposed to the issue which DF highlights very well with raster where light bleeds through and you have this artificial/floating look around the area.

Tinek said:
50-60 after frame generation would be very unplayable imo (way too laggy). Unless it's just with dlss. Though, it's widely accepted that dlss performance in 4k doesn't look great - very visible quality loss on textures etc. In effect, that's dropping lots of texture details to get pretty light. I prefer good textures, but YMMV.
Click to expand...

It certainly isn't as good as dlss quality/native but performance mode has come a long way to the point it is far more usable especially for 4k, even at 3440x1440, it is much better, I uploaded a few comparisons with fps hidden from witcher 3 and people got them wrong :p Mrk and a few others have also done the same with other games.
 
Nexus18 said:
CP 2077 is a funny one in terms of how dark/bright some areas should look, the problem is you can't just go by screenshots when it comes to this as with cp 2077, you have huge buildings and very dense areas where no natural light will get in so the only light sources will literally be street lamps, fire barrels and the neon lighting. Someone posted a screenshot of a tunnel way back saying it didn't look correct as it was too dark, I found that area and turns out, the area is enclosed with buildings all around you thus no sun light was making its way to that area so imo, that's pretty accurate as opposed to the issue which DF highlights very well with raster where light bleeds through and you have this artificial/floating look around the area.



It certainly isn't as good as dlss quality/native but performance mode has come a long way to the point it is far more usable especially for 4k, even at 3440x1440, it is much better, I uploaded a few comparisons with fps hidden from witcher 3 and people got them wrong :p Mrk and a few others have also done the same with other games.
Click to expand...
I said it before and I'll say it again (also, Linus many times shown that in videos too) - most people do not care about visuals, they can't see a difference between AA on and off, they can't see dlss on and off, they can't see a difference between 1080p and 4k. They only see big artefacts (like objects flickering in and out of existence) but that's about it.
Only trained nerds can usually see these things - I'm one of these trained nerds and can easily feel lags caused by FG, I can see dlss texture quality loss and ghosting almost instantly (fsr issues too) and I can feel (more than see) instantly when my FPS drops below 100. Again, most people aren't trained and won't see it.

Also, a lot depends on the monitor (including size and how close you sit to it), as for example lower quality on console on 4k OLED few m away from me doesn't bother me one bit but on my UW monitor I see it instantly and it bothers me. Plus, if you post videos of dlss, video compression artefacts usually eat differences in pixels unless it's all magnified.

However, we aren't talking about feelings here but facts. Facts are, irrelevant what people see or not see, DLSS in any form is a net quality loss. You can't cheat physics.

I'll add a small thing regarding PT in cp2077 - I shown it (videos) to my wife and parents, out of pure curiosity, as none are gamers. They all chose instantly, as much better, the raster version Vs PT one. Why? Too bright, too dark, too much contrast and hard to see things. More real but visually worse as a game, in their opinion, just tiring eyes quickly. I suspect that's how much most typical gamers (not nerds like us) care about RT/PT and other things like that.
 
Last edited:
Tinek said:
I said it before and I'll say it again (also, Linus many times shown that in videos too) - most people do not care about visuals, they can't see a difference between AA on and off, they can't see dlss on and off. They only see big artefacts (like objects flickering in and out of existence) but that's about it. Only trained nerds can usually see these things - I'm one of these trained nerds and can easily feel lags caused by FG, I can see dlss texture quality loss and ghosting almost instantly (fsr issues too) and I can feel (more than see) instantly when my FPS drops below 100. Again, most people aren't trained and won't see it. Also, a lot depends on the monitor (including size and how close you sit to it), as for example lower quality on console on 4k OLED few m away from me doesn't bother me one bit but on my UW monitor I see it instantly and it bothers me.

However, we aren't talking about feelings here but facts. Facts are, irrelevant what people see or not see, DLSS in any form is a net quality loss. You can't cheat physics.

I'll add a small thing regarding PT in cp2077 - I shown it (videos) to my wife and parents, out of pure curiosity. They all choose instantly as much better the raster version Vs PT one. Why? Too bright, too dark, too much contrast and hard to see things. More real but visually worse as a game, in their opinion.
Click to expand...

See I'm very picky when it comes to temporal stability and ghosting and I just don't see any new severe game breaking issues that aren't already there or usually worse in a native representation especially if using TAA and a poor TAA implementation at that.... Heck I was the only one to point out the severe ghosting/trailing in days gone native+TAA, which was actually pretty damn awful and worse than any dlss ghosting in the past but narrative and all that :p

What I do notice though is that say for example a game running natively at 30/40 fps but when using dlss performance to bring me to 90/100+ fps, guess which one is far more enjoyable experience? Sure I could lower settings across the board and run native but then I am going to notice the loss in overall graphical fidelity..... The biggest problem is if DLSS was so bad, why aren't the reviewers like HUB, oc3d, computerbase, pcgamershardware, TPU, DF, gamernexus etc. pointing out all the issues? Why do they often also state "better than native"..... I would classify them as being "trained nerds" given they slow footage down, zoom in 400x to show differences.

I have a 4k 55 where I sit 6/7 feet back from hence why performance mode looks fantastic but even when about 4 feet from it, it still looks very good, with my 3440x1440 monitor, I'm about 2 feet from it and dlss quality often looks better "overall" than native as there is less shimmering, less aliasing/jaggies and so on, the simple matter is that dlss is just a far better AA than any other AA method hence why if often looks better than native "overall", I have done videos comparing this before as people say "oh, it's just a poor implementation of TAA, we need MSAA, SMAA etc.", well low and behold, they look even worse and are immersion breaking:



FG, all I have seen are good reports from "gamers" (once the severe latency issues revolving around vsync, fps caps was fixed), main point with FG which everyone agrees on is that you need at least 50-60 fps as your baseline to get a good experience, sure you will be adding latency but you will be gaining more fluid motion and increased motion clarity, pick your poison.

Raster vs path/ray tracing is pretty subjective, some prefer raster, which is ok but at the end of day, raster is dated/old, it's on its way out whether people like it or not. There is a misconception with raster being better suited to light artists etc. too iirc something around making it easier for them to create environments, this has been debunked many times by people who work in the industry, ray tracing methods provide a whole new world and offer more control for them to tune a game world to their vision. The problem is developers who shoehorn in RT on top of raster, the best example of lighting is still metro EE, portal RTX and maybe now CP 2077 when path tracing arrives but I'll check that out for myself to see what is what.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TNA
Tinek said:
No, it won't. Different people work on the story than lighting, it's completely not connected. What it will do is to lower cost for the Dev and publisher so they can earn more money. As they will not drop their prices for gamers.
Click to expand...

Did you maybe consider that the studios would shift the headcount around in each department at all? I guess not given your attitude.
 
Seems I was spot on with my estimate :cry: :D

uJ1w9Rr.png

About 40 fps on average in game, intense busy crowded areas drops to about 28-30

Lighting is very impressive but notice a few issues, could be vram related maybe..... :eek: :p :cry: Notice in the dark areas/tunnels, everything has a specular look about it, like the textures etc. haven't loaded in but then vram usage isn't being maxed/dedicated here, this is the only area where I notice this issue, everywhere else is fine, well, actually, DLSS doesn't look as good, noticed it updated to 3.1.1 so I might drop back to 2.5.2 as that had less ghosting etc. But all in all it's nice and runs/feels pretty good considering.... Was expecting much worse, no doubt, some further "optimisation" can be done ;)
 
Nexus18 said:
Seems I was spot on with my estimate :cry: :D

uJ1w9Rr.png

About 40 fps on average in game, intense busy crowded areas drops to about 28-30

Lighting is very impressive but notice a few issues, could be vram related maybe..... :eek: :p :cry: Notice in the dark areas/tunnels, everything has a specular look about it, like the textures etc. haven't loaded in but then vram usage isn't being maxed/dedicated here, this is the only area where I notice this issue, everywhere else is fine, well, actually, DLSS doesn't look as good, noticed it updated to 3.1.1 so I might drop back to 2.5.2 as that had less ghosting etc. But all in all it's nice and runs/feels pretty good considering.... Was expecting much worse, no doubt, some further "optimisation" can be done ;)
Click to expand...
Are you sure is path traced? In their patch note for 3080 is only in photo mode.
 
Definitely some issues which aren't down to vram e.g.

Move forward slightly:

3cMgkJJ.jpg

GHdRALe.jpg

My car is suppose to be all black:

8lcpQE2.jpg

AKUhUTA.jpg

After skipping time:

AbkwqPs.png

Still on the whole, very impressive looking, screenshots and videos don't do it justice, you need to be in the game looking around to see your environment, light sources etc. to really appreciate it :cool:


PS. DLSS 3.1.1 definitely introduced ghosting compared to 2.5.1 for me.
 
Glad to see DLAA added as I quite like it. It's also free in terms of performance. My preference is FrameGen + DLAA

FrameGen with NO DLAA and NO DLSS:

image.png


FrameGen with DLAA and NO DLSS:

image.png
 
Nexus18 said:
Definitely some issues which aren't down to vram e.g.

Move forward slightly:

3cMgkJJ.jpg

GHdRALe.jpg

My car is suppose to be all black:

8lcpQE2.jpg

AKUhUTA.jpg

After skipping time:

AbkwqPs.png

Still on the whole, very impressive looking, screenshots and videos don't do it justice, you need to be in the game looking around to see your environment, light sources etc. to really appreciate it :cool:


PS. DLSS 3.1.1 definitely introduced ghosting compared to 2.5.1 for me.
Click to expand...

Time to upgrade to a 4090 :p:D
 
Nexus18 said:
Honestly, after seeing raiden etc. results, I think the 4090 could be a very nice gpu for 3440x1440 path tracing..... :p But alas, no point until more games are out that need that kind of power, that and when 50xx is out, that's when "it will be safe to upgrade ampere friends" :D
Click to expand...

Yep. I agree. I am waiting for it to be safe (for my wallet) :cry:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom