I have seen in that my housemate is sat downstairs with it on the same monitor as me. We also tested 4 cards, GTX1070, 5700xt, 6900xt & 3070fe. It really didn't wow me or anything tbh. It looked very much like anything else from the last few years graphically. In fact the NPC's seem worse than RDR2 and the facial animations etc on most pretty poor. The city had nice areas, some nice details but it didn't stand above anything particularly previously 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.
The thread which sometimes talks about RDNA2
- Thread starter CAT-THE-FIFTH
- Start date
- Status
I have seen in that my housemate is sat downstairs with it on the same monitor as me. We also tested 4 cards, GTX1070, 5700xt, 6900xt & 3070fe. It really didn't wow me or anything tbh. It looked very much like anything else from the last few years graphically. In fact the NPC's seem worse than RDR2 and the facial animations etc on most pretty poor. The city had nice areas, some nice details but it didn't stand above anything particularly previously released.
Something has gone wrong if you are reviewing race cars and only measure reversing speed
You seem to have some affinity that only raytracing results are important now because a handful of games have it and then dismiss anything else as relevant. Tbh as someone whom does not own a single RT game directly (see comment above about CP2077 which after seeing it wont be buying either) and nothing coming out around corner that I am wanting I have zero interest in RT performance to date. Thus testing in rasterization is what I want to know and see currently. If suddenly the next 50 games release have it, they actually use GI, shadows & reflections to make an actual difference I might then care and would probably just upgrade next generation to whatever performs best at the performance to price ratio I am happy with. But yeah, no need to blanket dismiss the performance shown otherwise cause it isn't what you particularly want. With that HU also did show some RT figures, not like there is a huge selection to review anyways.
The big problem with RT IMO is that it's going to lead us to some very bland level design for the next couple of years where art direction will include:
1. 80% of surfaces made with a reflective material
2. Bright lights blasting at those survaces to relly show it off
3. Mirrors everywhere
4. Neon
5.Games set at night, and most likely in the rain.
RT does look nice - but it needs to be subtle to make a game more immersive IMHO. Designing game worlds based on this OTT usage is a step backwards for me - unless something liek the use of a hand mirror in a horror game was a full mechanic that added to the game.
1. 80% of surfaces made with a reflective material
2. Bright lights blasting at those survaces to relly show it off
3. Mirrors everywhere
4. Neon
5.Games set at night, and most likely in the rain.
RT does look nice - but it needs to be subtle to make a game more immersive IMHO. Designing game worlds based on this OTT usage is a step backwards for me - unless something liek the use of a hand mirror in a horror game was a full mechanic that added to the game.
I see RT and upscaling tech that tries to describe a frame rather than just push pixels as tomorrows tech. When I buy a equipment, I want it to run tomorrows games. AMD, Apple, Intel, Microsoft, Nvidia, Sony and some SoC developers can't all be wrong. As far as seeing rasterisation performance, sure that can be important on the low end side, but all these higher end cards do very well in raster trading blows across multiple benchmarks. To omit the new tech makes as much sense as burying your head in the sand to it.
Nothing on the market at the moment can handle full RT in a new game. RT is the future but Ampere / RDNA2 are not good enough to realise it.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 2,209
I see RT as a complete gimmick at the moment and DLSS a sticking plaster over crap performance that should not be encouraged.
People see RT as next decades games not tomorrows. (Timelines exaggerated to make a point)
RDNA 2 and Ampere will be irrelevant when it happens, maybe even hopper and RDNA 3.
Like it or not DLSS is going to be the future from both teams. It's how consoles can keep up.
Lol you have no idea about how upscaling works. If you think the rasterization performance is close, wait until we will compare upscaling. Of course everyone will claim that his 400x300 > 4k looks amazing and much better than native, but the FPS will look the same. Even more, Nvidia will abandon DLSS and will get Microsoft DX12 upscaling.
The cards will always be compared at their native resolution because this is the easiest test someone can do to see which card is better based on numbers.
This. I think DLSS is more interesting than RT myself.
Really?
Sorry, Microsoft DX12 upscaling? You do realise Nvidia has shared the DLSS model with Microsoft so that it may be introduced as part of DirectX? Is that the Microsft DX12 upscaling you refer too? What about AMD's solution, should we simply ignore that?
<insert trendy facepalm image here>
There won't be any DLSS in the future generations, they will both do DX12 upscaling. With or without tensor cores for Nvidia, with or without dedicated hardware for AMD, the FPS difference will be minimal.
Look now at lower resolutions AMD is ahead of Nvidia. But Nvidia has dedicated hardware for upscaling. So at fake 4k, they will have pretty much the same FPS. (AMD will lose some of the FPS from lower res because part of the hardware will do upscaling, Nvidia will use tensor cores ).
Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,552
- Location
- Hertfordshire
Surely DLSS is just a stop gap because the hardware isnt powerful enough without it, once the hardware is powerful enough we dont really need DLSS style cheating.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 2,209
Its maybe how consoles can keep up but 1500 quid video cards?
Er nope, sticking plaster please.
I wouldnt mind but this RT and DLSS crap has got out of control, you shouldnt need to upscale on such an expensive bit of kit. Ok for a 3060 but a 3090?
You shouldnt need to watch 75% of your FPS drop off a cliff if you turn on RT.....
Seems familiar this, like we once had a "Crysis" with something??????? hmmm
Yeah sorry I just don't agree with this assertation at all or believe that rasterization performance is only the low end side at all. You clearly have your opinion on RT being the next big thing but are not correct in dismissing the here and now. We are still years away from good implementation of RT that is effective and works as intended. All of tomorrows games are also not suddenly just going to be RT only and thus you can also run them in rasterization as well and I would rather that than the performance hit we currently have with RT. So yeah another generation easy before this is important in my view.
I have mentioned before, I use programs daily that do raytracing etc, but what we have in games is not where it needs to be for the benefits. You can get 90% the fidelity without it whilst maintaining about double the performance. That is not a good trade off in my view. We will get another generation of cards by the time this really comes forward from what we have. And that is best case timeframe. I don't expect RDNA2 to ever improve enough this gen to even consider turning it on. RDNA3 possibly but also not likely as they would literally have to double their RT performance next gen to even start competing with Nvidia. Maybe the gen after there will be enough of a performance gain to make it relevant for me. I have to say from everyone I have spoken too and game with directly that none of us have any views that RT is important. I am glad you like it but don't dismiss what some prefer to your views and say it is all rubbish/low end.
It is part of the future since the consoles will need it. But if one wants to see which is the best card for PC, he should always look at native resolutions performance.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 2,890
- Location
- Exmouth, Devon
As usual lots of people commenting on RT and DLSS 2.0 that can't try it looking at the cards in their sigs.
As someone who came from a 1080ti not RTX card. I played control on 1080ti and played through it again on my 3080.
DLSS 2.0 does a phenomenal job with RT on in that game. Like all game effects, you need to play the game and get into the atmospheric environment to appreciate it. Having a quick google on youtube to see if you like it or not isn't how immersion works.
Neither are the b all and end all, but like people with OLED and full HDR. RT, DLSS doing a great job (particlulalry at 4k) they are the same as all the other in game effects to help produce a better more fluid IQ. DLSS goes a long way to be able to get very high framerates @ 4k making 4k 120hz possible for those that can afford all the bells and whilstles. Not everyone still games at potato 1080p resolution, enthusiasts want more and who would not want 4k 120hz, proper HDR, RT, and whatever other effects make it more realistic?
Both the AMD cards and Nvidia cards this gen are beasts in normal rasterization, you couldn't feel the difference between them or perceive it. But Nvidia at the moment do offer a couple of selling points that for some, with games that support it a winner for people who game at 4k high refresh.
Any AMD or Nvidia card from this gen from a 1080ti or less is a monster upgrade if you game at 1440p +. Jakcet man was right when he said finally, a reason to upgrade from a 1080ti. And that goes for the AMD cards as well.
As someone who came from a 1080ti not RTX card. I played control on 1080ti and played through it again on my 3080.
DLSS 2.0 does a phenomenal job with RT on in that game. Like all game effects, you need to play the game and get into the atmospheric environment to appreciate it. Having a quick google on youtube to see if you like it or not isn't how immersion works.
Neither are the b all and end all, but like people with OLED and full HDR. RT, DLSS doing a great job (particlulalry at 4k) they are the same as all the other in game effects to help produce a better more fluid IQ. DLSS goes a long way to be able to get very high framerates @ 4k making 4k 120hz possible for those that can afford all the bells and whilstles. Not everyone still games at potato 1080p resolution, enthusiasts want more and who would not want 4k 120hz, proper HDR, RT, and whatever other effects make it more realistic?
Both the AMD cards and Nvidia cards this gen are beasts in normal rasterization, you couldn't feel the difference between them or perceive it. But Nvidia at the moment do offer a couple of selling points that for some, with games that support it a winner for people who game at 4k high refresh.
Any AMD or Nvidia card from this gen from a 1080ti or less is a monster upgrade if you game at 1440p +. Jakcet man was right when he said finally, a reason to upgrade from a 1080ti. And that goes for the AMD cards as well.
That's my arguement, people don't understand the tech we have today, partly due to BS from reviewers such as HU, partly due to the BS from Jensen during the Turing launch. I'm playing Cyberpunk 2077, which does look great without, but with RT on and I'm blown away. It makes a huge difference to the environment, thus increasing immersion.
As far as Ampere goes, well I've said a few times and it's part of the 10GB is enough argument, Ampere is not powerful enough to last past Hopper/RDNA3. We should have some great silicon then due to competition.
No. I haven't played the demon souls remake but i can damn well appreciate the atmosphere and sounds of that game on a compressed Youtube video. Or are you saying that the effects from RT are so subtle that the youtube compression basically washes RT out of the video?
- Status