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

[Bencher]

It's not the developers/game fault though, never is......





In all seriousness though, wasn't expecting anything good for amd here given nvidia sponsored.

Cyberpunk 2077 Raytracing Overdrive Modus Benchmarks

Wie schnell läuft der neue Raytracing-Overdrive-Modus mit Pathtracing in CP 2077 auf welcher Grafikkarte? Die Community hat es getestet.

www-computerbase-de.translate.goog

Also, another example of how well optimised this is when compared to other path tracing titles, lego journey build, look at how that game runs compared to this, shows just how far they have come.



What about over the last 2 years? Certainly isn't 10%.

We need to stop looking in the past and look to the future and just accept that raster is going to be phased out more and more as time goes on.

Usually nvidia sponsored games work great on amd as well. Cyberpunk itself without RT runs equally / better on amd hardware than on nvidia.

 

[Tinek]

Something I found quite interesting is 1 of the CDPR devs explained a few days ago that path tracing needs higher resolutions to give the best visual outcome, Preferably 4K or higher, To get the most accurate information for the frame and also deliver the best "shiny".

Experimented around, 1080P vs 4K, Even outside of the higher resolution textures on show, Higher resolution really does make path tracing show more detail in a scene, There are actual full on reflections, Lights, Shadows etc... missing at lower resolutions due to insufficient data, Found that quite interesting.

Path Tracing - Imgsli

In other words, DLSS lowers quality even more then usual with PT. It can't fill in missing data at all here. And there's no GPU out there that can play it sensibly well in top quality (not even 4090 and I doubt 5090 will be able to either).

 

[TNA]

In other words, DLSS lowers quality even more then usual with PT. And there's no GPU out there that can play it sensibly well in top quality (not even 4090 and I doubt 5090 will be able to either).

But even so, it is better than without PT.

PT will also look even better at 8K. Shall we not bother until we have GPU's that can play it native at 8K? See you in 4-6 years then

 

[TNA]

I noticed a big difference in image quality (much bigger than usual) going from DLSS Quality to Performance when playing Portal RTX. Quality looked much better.

I guess fun times ahead. Will make upgrading hardware more fun as you can go back and replay games every 2-3 years at higher IQ when one upgrades.

Reminds me of Crisis days. Difference being is GPU's cost a lot more now due to greedy Jensen, inflation and the pound going down the toilet. Back then pound to dollar was 2 to 1

 

[z10m]

In other words, DLSS lowers quality even more then usual with PT. It can't fill in missing data at at all here. And there's no GPU out there that can play it sensibly well in top quality (not even 4090 and I doubt 5090 will be able to either).

True but it is tech demo after all.

 

[Tinek]

But even so, it is better than without PT.

PT will also look even better at 8K. Shall we not bother until we have GPU's that can play it native at 8K? See you in 4-6 years then

You're missing the point of my statement. Up till now a lot of people said DLSS offers better than native quality of image - with PT there's no more such argument, it doesn't, it can't. And also the fact that it's again Nvidia pushing tech for which current hardware just isn't ready. Though, dreams sell well, apparently.

 

[Tinek]

True but it is tech demo after all.

That's irrelevant in this specific case - that's how PT works, apparently, so this won't change in future games. If there's not enough render data, it just won't look as good as it could. I thought that's about noise but I can see now, as confirmed by the dev themselves, it's much more than just noise being affected here.

As mentioned above by TNA, Portal RTX is also affected by this. I've not played it that much to notice (noise alone was way too distracting for me) and in Quake RTX there's not enough geometry to even notice such things.

 

[z10m]

That's irrelevant in this specific case - that's how PT works, apparently, so this won't change in future games. If there's not enough render data, it just won't look as good as it could. I thought that's about noise but I can see now, as confirmed by the dev themselves, it's much more than just noise being affected here

While I agree regarding the reflections etc but look at street lights with DLSS, there is something way off about them and I think it’s a bug.

 

[Tinek]

While I agree regarding the reflections etc but look at street lights with DLSS, there is something way off about them and I think it’s a bug.

I can't exclude such possibility, as CP is currently riddled with bugs. I mean, I took a white car from the shadow into the open and it turned out to be red... I can't even imagine how that works with PT unless there's other trickery happening that they didn't tell us about.

 

[Calin Banc]

At the end of the day, with or without the extra detail from higher resolution, if the PT provides a better image (especially in terms of GI and unlimited shadows), should still be better than simple RT or raster.

Rasterisation has an advantage though: it has been on the market for so long that people got used to its shortcomings, so unless something is really bugging you it can be easier to accept it as "fine".

 

[Dicehunter]

In other words, DLSS lowers quality even more then usual with PT. It can't fill in missing data at all here. And there's no GPU out there that can play it sensibly well in top quality (not even 4090 and I doubt 5090 will be able to either).

When I disabled DLSS the difference was so incredibly minuscule you have to do slide comparisons and squint.

 

[z10m]

At the end of the day, with or without the extra detail from higher resolution, if the PT provides a better image (especially in terms of GI and unlimited shadows), should still be better than simple RT or raster.

Rasterisation has an advantage though: it has been on the market for so long that people got used to its shortcomings, so unless something is really bugging you it can be easier to accept it as "fine".

I never got used to screen space reflections, they’ve been bugging me all these years and still do.
I will take lower resolution reflections that are stable in motion anytime over sharper ones that fall apart when moving camera and break immersion.

 

[TNA]

You're missing the point of my statement. Up till now a lot of people said DLSS offers better than native quality of image - with PT there's no more such argument, it doesn't, it can't. And also the fact that it's again Nvidia pushing tech for which current hardware just isn't ready. Though, dreams sell well, apparently.

And the point you are missing is without DLSS you would not be able to use PT in a game like Cyberpunk at all for at least a couple of more generations.

Nothing wrong with pushing tech forward. No one is forcing you to buy or use it.

Like look at me. I had fun messing around with it last night with my 3080 Ti which only runs it on Performance at just about playable fps. Did it mean I had to go buy a 4090? Hell no! Do I look forward to buying a 5070/80 next gen a bit more now? Yes

 

[Nexus18]

I'll get some comparisons up with 3440x1440 of native, dlss and upscaled, will hide fps too so we'll see how good peoples eyesight really is

While I agree regarding the reflections etc but look at street lights with DLSS, there is something way off about them and I think it’s a bug.

This.

At first I thought it might have been the dlss version, going back to 2.5.1 reduced the artifacts that 3.1.1 introduced but there is something not quite right looking still.

At the end of the day, with or without the extra detail from higher resolution, if the PT provides a better image (especially in terms of GI and unlimited shadows), should still be better than simple RT or raster.

Rasterisation has an advantage though: it has been on the market for so long that people got used to its shortcomings, so unless something is really bugging you it can be easier to accept it as "fine".

Exactly.

When you have experienced ray tracing, it makes all the flaws of raster even more obvious and immersion breaking e.g.

Spoiler

BF 1, a game I thought looked great especially the water, going back to it, not so much:



Ark, well the less said the better:





Hogwarts:



high on life:

It's things like that, which break my immersion as opposed to a slightly softer image

 

[Tinek]

Anything that causes very visible artefacts is bad. Which does indeed include SSR and bunch of other bands aids, or bad AA. This also include DLSS in many places (but it's less and less common which is good). However, cp2077 has really bad textures, completely not adjusted for PT. Nothing in it looks realistic or immersive imo. I like GI a lot but that's about it. GI doesn't need PT to be good enough though. There's other ways that are close and much less costly, without any odd artefacts. It's just too early for PT and if not the big marketing push by Nvidia (and paying Devs), Devs wouldn't even touch it for years to come, yet. I suspect it will take another 10-20y before it starts to actually catch on, still. I enjoy tech demos (especially as a member of demo scene back in the days) but that's all this is. And not even that impressive yet. UE5 seems to be already able to produce better looking graphics, with less computational cost as is.

 

[Grim5]

In other words, DLSS lowers quality even more then usual with PT. It can't fill in missing data at all here. And there's no GPU out there that can play it sensibly well in top quality (not even 4090 and I doubt 5090 will be able to either).

Precisely. While Nvidia wants to tell you to use dlss3 and fg and play it right now. CPDR devs are saying it's a tech showcase, it's not meant to be playable and the proper way to play it is native 4k so come back in a few years to enjoy its full glory

 

[Harlequin]

Precisely. While Nvidia wants to tell you to use dlss3 and fg and play it right now. CPDR devs are saying it's a tech showcase, it's not meant to be playable and the proper way to play it is native 4k so come back in a few years to enjoy its full glory

A few of the tech sites are looking at FG (Fake Frames) in depth and looking at all the problems, which includes crashing!

Would actually like to see 8k ( 8k downscaled to 4k if needed rather than native 8k) and PT. More pixel density, better quality Path Tracing#

edit for clarity

 

[Nexus18]

A few of the tech sites are looking at FG (Fake Frames) in depth and looking at all the problems, which includes crashing!

Would actually like to see 8k ( 4k upscaled if needed) and PT. More pixel density, better quality Path Tracing

But but but it's upscaled and not true 8k, just fake res.

 

[Harlequin]

But but but it's upscaled and not true 8k, just fake res.

Read what i said, this is about Pixel Count for Path Tracing quality, it would actually be downscaling (render 8k, output is 4k) not upscaling (render 1080p output 4k)

 

[Nexus18]

Read what i said, this is about Pixel Count for Path Tracing quality, it would actually be downscaling (render 8k, output is 4k) not upscaling (render 1080p output 4k)

It's still upscaling from 4k to 8k though, it's not native 8k.... Same way dlss upscales from 1080p etc.

EDIT:

See you updated your OP now to say downscaling instead of this:

Would actually like to see 8k ( 4k upscaled if needed) and PT. More pixel density, better quality Path Tracing