My image is from Cyberpunk.
Reminds me of cs2 for some reason.
-
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.
What do gamers actually think about Ray-Tracing?
- Thread starter Purgatory
- Start date
Reminds me of cs2 for some reason.
Soldato
I know, but that doesn't change the fact that most people claim they want to upgrade to play games at higher settings, which means to look better.
So if those same people say they don't care for ray-tracing they're either lying or they don't understand the visual impact ray-tracing can provide
Last edited:
Maybe you should ask some of those people then? To me its something I'd probably use in SP, but not in multi.
What a load of nonsense. Getting RT or prettier graphics is not the only reason people have higher end GPUs. Some chase FPS, some chase graphical fidelity. You are taking your personal preferences and assuming everyone else thinks the exact same way.
The vast majority of PC gamers are on mid range or even older GPUs and you think they “just don’t understand what RT can do for them”? Maybe, just maybe they are actually telling the truth when they say just RT is not worth the performance hit.
Soldato
I only SP games now, since RTX launched, every new RTX game installed went-Launch RTX on, low high ultra, native, DLSS-test performance/artifacts.
My visual impact experience that ray tracing is providing me goes like this: shiny shiny shiny and is chugging away with erratic fps more often than not as it was 20/30/70s then 3080 and they can't cope for my fps needs.
It's definitely not happening, max textures, settings on high native fps is king in my house, and that's all that matters.
Exactly, if your gushing over what your 4090 can achieve, nothing wrong with that, but claiming folks don't understand RTX/are lying
RTX is the current PhsyX/Hairworks/Gameworks tool to slow down your gpus.
It's overdone to harm performance on Nv so that(since RTX On launched) you needed to buy a 2080Ti then 90's, then insist it's soo lifelike:
Nothing remotely 'real life' RTX at all, it's overdone to the point of obscuring the donuts but rendered solely to concentrate on almost one to one mirror reflections.....
Meanwhile in the real world
...
Last edited:
Soldato
I didn't say it's the only reason. You should at least read the comments you are replying to...
Soldato
To clarify @no_1_dave because I disable RTX on my Nv/AMD gpus when I upgrade for higher fps, I'm either lying or don't understand the visual impact ray-tracing can provide because it does nothing for me-and every other liar that doesn't enjoy the RTX experience ?
All I'm reading is arrogance.
I hope you enjoy your experience as I do mine, but as @ICDP rightly said, Dgpus are purchased for the sole purpose of maximum enjoyment for the end user, it's their choice how they prefer to game, not ours.
that doesn't enjoy the RTX experience ?All I'm reading is arrogance.
I hope you enjoy your experience as I do mine, but as @ICDP rightly said, Dgpus are purchased for the sole purpose of maximum enjoyment for the end user, it's their choice how they prefer to game, not ours.
Last edited:
Something I'll say again that is mostly down to the implementation and/or limitations of hybrid rendering used (AW has some weird stuff going on with reflections and other effects in certain situations i.e. as you move around near the threshold between inside and outside locations, sometimes dropping ray traced reflections entirely for screen space) and the environment is quite gloomy which distorts things a bit - there is a massive difference in the lighting between your two examples including the lack of internally lit element, glass in a dark environment will reflect brightly lit areas much more clearly than when you have light equalised throughout.
RTX/ray tracing/path tracing itself is capable of much more realistic reflections, you do need the right definitions on your physically based materials, etc. though. I don't really have great examples as I'm just dabbling at the moment and Quake 2 RTX is relatively limited compared to a modern engine and my knowledge of materials is limited but just messing about you can get very different kinds of reflections and looks to glass, etc.:
(Quake 2 doesn't actually have any rendering functionality for liquids like that so it looks a bit odd and the engine runs out of refraction depth/has problems with transparency as well).
Last edited:
You applied YOUR reasons for upgrading to everyone else. I do not see most people posting about upgrading to get higher settings. I see the opposite, I see people simply refusing to upgrade after deciding the entry price for max RT settings is now too high and that RT is not worth the hit it gives for the handful of games that have it in excess. RT is not a binary on or off setting, there are levels like any other graphical setting.
I lol when people use games like CP2077 to showcase RT by showing RT on vs Off with its “normal” raster mode. Do they not know there is a RT setting, show us RT high vs Path traced and I bet the difference would be minimal but the FPS hit is massive. The difference between full path traced, ultra and high RT in CO2077 is minimal and hardly worth upgrading for. People with mid range GPUs can “sample” RT at various setting even in high RT games and decide if those marginally higher settings that totally tank FPS are worth upgrading for.
Edit: I can play CP2077 at 4K on a 7900XT with ultra RT just fine. My 4080 gets a bit less upscaling shimmer and slightly sharper Psycho RT reflections. So yes the 4080 looks better, but not massively better.
Me upgrading to a 4090 for Path Tracing and Ray Reconstruction that makes little tangible difference and a bit less shimmer in upscaling is not worth the massive entry price.
Last edited:
Soldato
I see you're another one who didn't read... I didn't say when you upgrade for higher fps, I made it clear was referring to people who upgrade to use higher graphic settings.
Upgrading for fps reasons has absolutely no bearing on what I said
I didn't apply my reasons at all. I simply stated people who specifically upgrade to turn graphic options up and then say "I don't care for RT" are either lying or don't understand the difference it can make. Not caring for RT and being priced out of it are different. I can completely understand that to many people it is not worth the cost to run RT smoothly, but that isn't not caring about it, that's simply not feeling it's worth it. They are two different things
lol, keep moving those goal posts because I don’t see a lot of people saying this is why they upgrade. The vast majority upgrade not to turn the settings up, but to prevent them having to turn settings down. You may think this is the same thing, but there is a fundamental difference.
The vast majority of games play just fine on mid range GPUs or consoles. So people simply look at RT and decide not worth the premium GPU prices for the handful of games that benefit. You have decided these people are too stupid to understand what RT really means, or that they are liars for saying they don’t see the point.
Last edited:
Soldato
@no_1_dave
Can't read you say...
Selective quoting ommiting the most relevant part of my point.
Ditched NV at the high end because I want higher textures on higher FPS, something you can't have on lesser NV GPUs under the 90 and maybe the 80.
To clarify, higher textures for the win here, overdone RTX running duff textures upscaled with artifacts-ram it.
If you enjoy it fine, genuinely happy for you but enough of calling folks liars and then claiming they can't read, just because your reading skills are selective to the point of ignoring why users DISABLE RTX!
Can't read you say...
To clarify @no_1_dave because I disable RTX on my Nv/AMD gpus when I upgrade for higher fps, I'm either lying or don't understand the visual impact ray-tracing can provide because it does nothing for me-and every other liar
All I'm reading is arrogance.
Selective quoting ommiting the most relevant part of my point.
Ditched NV at the high end because I want higher textures on higher FPS, something you can't have on lesser NV GPUs under the 90 and maybe the 80.
To clarify, higher textures for the win here, overdone RTX running duff textures upscaled with artifacts-ram it.
If you enjoy it fine, genuinely happy for you but enough of calling folks liars and then claiming they can't read, just because your reading skills are selective to the point of ignoring why users DISABLE RTX!
Soldato
I've not moved any goal posts. I've simply had to repeat what I said originally because people like yourself struggle to read and you've done it again here... Show me where I said people who don't feel RT is worth the premium are stupid or liars. I haven't said that at all. Clearly you either struggle to read or don't understand what you're reading
TBH it is quite hard to understand what you've written to know if it's worth quoting it so sorry if you've seen it as selective. But again you're off point and completely missing what I was referring to. It boggles my mind that I've had to repeat myself, including rephrasing it so you might grasp what I'm saying. And then you still reply in a way which clearly demonstrates you still don't understand.
Last edited:
Soldato
Not very No1 Dave of you when you keep ignoring a succinct point after you labelled users liars, so at this point you enjoy your RTX experience in ignorance on reasons why some of your fellow NV users prefer RTX Off.
Soldato
If you know what I said (typed) why do you keep replying as though I typed something else?
Every time I read your posts I swear I can feel my brain cells dying
Last edited:
Soldato
Mate, a loss of brain cells doesn't excuse arrogance, keep em coming if you want, but in order for you to actually insult me, I would only feel offended if I valued your opinion in the first place.
But for the hard of reading and absorbing conversations I'll point out the conversation:
edit-
I'm not saying anyone should/shouldn't be happy with RTX, I'm not a fan like others aren't, if anyone reading this is RTX pro, fine enjoy it as much as I enjoy not using RTX in order to run the highest textures, settings and fps I can get.
Last edited:
There’s no confusion. You said people who claimed they upgraded to enable higher settings in games, were either lying or too stupid (or hypocritical) for dismissing what RT offered. You were arrogant and dismissive of other people’s preferences because you projected YOUR personal preferences onto them.
Some people prefer higher res textures with no upscaling. Some people prefer higher FPS and think RT is a pure FPS hog for no major benefit, others like you want all the RT bells and whistles. People like me will happily turn on RT and tinker to get the balance between fidelity and FPS because RT like other settings is configurable.
Last edited:
Soldato
Yes but it wasn't a deep dive comparison intended, that's why I used a
in the comparison pics posted.
Caporegime
To clarify @no_1_dave because I disable RTX on my Nv/AMD gpus when I upgrade for higher fps, I'm either lying or don't understand the visual impact ray-tracing can provide because it does nothing for me-and every other liar
All I'm reading is arrogance.
I hope you enjoy your experience as I do mine, but as @ICDP rightly said, Dgpus are purchased for the sole purpose of maximum enjoyment for the end user, it's their choice how they prefer to game, not ours.
Currently playing Control now that i can with all the RT, it just looks like all the floors have a mirror finish.