-
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
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Posts
- 1,206
Is ray tracing baked in on a game by game level, or can it be updated with remix etc? I was playing Witcher 3 last night with all RT effects on, and found I was casting shadows over open fires, wondered if the RT can be modded to stop things like that happening. It's bits like this that really stand out when you have RT baked in over raster focused games, the bits that look wrong just look REALLY wrong. The classic mirror puddles, they can only look like that in a particular scenario, it's jarring to see a mirror on the floor when trees are blowing, dust is being kicked about etc. - the water would ripple, destroying the reflection The effect of wind is not included, and it just looks off at times.
I'm sure that when you get games developed from the ground up with RT it's less of an issue (Don't think I've played a game fully RT dependent, so have assumed this), but this will coincide with mass market GPUs being able to process it. Game development takes years, and why develop a game for a small market? Am I wrong in thinking that currently the vast majority of games (obviously some examples) are still being developed from a raster base? If raster is going away (which it may do in time, as I'd have thought ray tracing will eventually) what about strategy games, more 2d style games etc? Games without a particular light source? CHESS?!
If it is easier for devs to just use RT based development paths, surely it would start with the lower power indie games anyway which are likely to have far less graphical demands? These groups are likely to have far less time to be able to devote to game creation. Although they still have to cater for older GPUs which don't (to my knowledge) process RT, so perhaps that's self perpetuating at the moment.
Just a few thoughts.
I'm sure that when you get games developed from the ground up with RT it's less of an issue (Don't think I've played a game fully RT dependent, so have assumed this), but this will coincide with mass market GPUs being able to process it. Game development takes years, and why develop a game for a small market? Am I wrong in thinking that currently the vast majority of games (obviously some examples) are still being developed from a raster base? If raster is going away (which it may do in time, as I'd have thought ray tracing will eventually) what about strategy games, more 2d style games etc? Games without a particular light source? CHESS?!
If it is easier for devs to just use RT based development paths, surely it would start with the lower power indie games anyway which are likely to have far less graphical demands? These groups are likely to have far less time to be able to devote to game creation. Although they still have to cater for older GPUs which don't (to my knowledge) process RT, so perhaps that's self perpetuating at the moment.
Just a few thoughts.
This is true but the caveat is the raster performance is significantly better than that 4 year old Nvidia GPU. That will only help AMD so far though and we are entering a stage where RT is right at the cusp of becoming mainstream. I mean mainstream as in every AAA release and also at a price/perf ratio where it becomes viable for the masses and that means consoles. In my opinion RT cannot be called mainstream until both metrics are met. We can agree to disagree of course.
The real paradox is, are AMD timing their PS 5 Pro and newer improved RT tech* just right for this mainstream adoption in price/perf. Or are they the reason it has taken over 6 years and we are only just getting there.
* I know the PS5 Pro and 8800 XT perf is only rumour and may not be true. If (big if) we get Nvidia and AMD at 4070 Super raster and RT for £350 or less, then that would be what I would class as a good baseline.
Last edited:
Soldato
The 7900XTX is 2 year old tech, so when it started competing with it, it was 2 years old and currently the best available RT card.
That currently 4 year old tech is still only 1 generation old, you're just trying to make it sound much older and less significant.
Soldato
It's a good point but then some games have still included AMD tech...
Soldato
Given their market share of 80+%, I'm still surprised that Physx has more or less died a death.
Thought it was excellent tech when done properly, take the Batman games for example.
It doesn't matter if at the time it was 2 years old, it was and still is competing with what is "now" 4 year old tech.
I don't doubt amd will improve their RT again next time and of course for sake of argument, if it were 4090 level rt, fantastic but who knows what more will come/happen with RT advancements and how much further ahead the 50xx will be compared to rdna 4 in RT.
Again, it's not a case of AMD being "bad" but a case of them needing to deliver "now".....
Caporegime
There is still a long way to go in terms of game physics and making the AI less "robotic". It feels like we haven't made much progress in those areas.
I think they finally realised keeping it in a black box was putting most developers off. With RT there is no such black box “our way or no way” limitations. It remains to be seen if AMD ever develops a way for Ray Reconstruction tech to be enabled on their hardware, because that can make a nice difference when enabled. Well as long as it’s done right of course.
Yep, AI is just as dumb run in straight line through choke point and die. Hmmm, come to think of it that’s exactly how the Russian troops behave in Ukraine. Maybe we are being harsh on game AI
It was great. But I’m glad we don’t have to fork out for a GPU only for that, as when people would have two high-end SLI and one mid-range for Physx.
I believe RT will follow the same destiny. At the moment, any minor implementation won’t cripple much performance on mid-high tier GPUs. Going ballistic with RT implementation pretty much makes DLSS or similar a must on high resolution.
When we think back that the top-tier GPU would struggle to run 4K 60+fps, and in some games still do, the RT implementation without affecting much performance to the point of being just another fixture that people can switch on without halving the performance is a long way, unless upscaling is used.
I don’t hold hope that anything below a (assuming the name will be) 5090 would have much joy doing it.
Just need to think how much GPU power will be required for Ultra + 144+ (a lot of 4K displays available now) 4k + RT on badly optimised pre-beta status (on release) AAA games.
Well this is why 4080 like performance would be good at £500 with decent VRAM. Mine can run RT with quality or even no upscaling at 1440p in the vast majority of games.
For mainstream 4070 super like performance at £350 would be the “it’s finally mainstream” moment.
For mainstream 4070 super like performance at £350 would be the “it’s finally mainstream” moment.
Soldato
Iv'e been pumping money into NV gen on gen since 9 series last few gens for 2 systems, I'm more than entitled to have a go at NV if I want.
You missed out/ignored the unhappy with the 'forced to buy AMD' and I'll add missing out on the proprietary stuff at the high end because they maintained the pricing of the 4080 too far ahead of the 79XTX and only giving it 16Gb...
The problem with trying to throw everyone under the same bus is, myself, Gpueruilla and ICDP are all running Nv GPUs, and I don't have a post count remotely near the pro NV repetitive posting, no where near it.
You can pick your friends but not your family, but tribalism, way off, maybe it's just the rebel in me.:thumbsup:
Completely agree. Vehicles, for example, the more fanatic fan of premium brands are the ones that buy entry-level poverty spec high mileage because of the badge.
During launch I went with the 4080, which despite the hate, was what I needed. I bought it at a good price, all things considered, RT not a deal breaker for me. Was more for the fact that the power consumption was reasonable, the card runs muuuuch cooler than my previous 3080 and at the time the 7900 XTX was way more expensive than it is now. If it was today, I would go straight for a 7900 XTX, even if the 7900 XT is very appealing (much cheaper than the 7900 XTX).
It’s all about priorities, I guess. Some people would sacrifice a lot of their budget to get some “YouTuber recommended RGB fan / Oled AIO and RGB cables” but will happily sacrifice on GPU/CPU or even (often neglected) speaker/headphones.
It’s more about the perceived value than actual value. A blacked out high end system won’t appeal to as many people as a vending machine.
Each person will have a different idea of perceived value. It’s one of the running reasons why we get so heated in here sometimes. I have a 4080 myself and am happy with the performance but not the price I paid (and I bought used).
As for premium poverty spec, even that has its place. For example I bought a brand new Qashqai and it had plenty of options but was a terrible quality car and I only found that out after owning it a few months. It was objectively terrible for build and quality compared to our subsequent used BMW 4 series, used BMW X1 and used Audi Q2 cars. All cost the same price and all of those BMW and Audi would fall under “poverty spec” but they were night and day superior in every way to a Qashqai.
As for premium poverty spec, even that has its place. For example I bought a brand new Qashqai and it had plenty of options but was a terrible quality car and I only found that out after owning it a few months. It was objectively terrible for build and quality compared to our subsequent used BMW 4 series, used BMW X1 and used Audi Q2 cars. All cost the same price and all of those BMW and Audi would fall under “poverty spec” but they were night and day superior in every way to a Qashqai.
Last edited:
Cases and cases. When the A3 uses the same gearbox and engine as the VW, Seat and Skoda counterpart, won’t be much value. A 2.0 TDI Golf would be more appealing than an entry level 1.6 TDI A3.
I am someone who has never bought nor owned an Nvidia GPU. I've always gone Radeon. No particular reason really just prefer them.
Don't feel I've ever missed out on anything either. Though note being able to run the RTX remix stuff is a pain. But RT performance on my current card is good and if I use RT then I run at 1080p to get the best from it. Rather than my usual 1440p. Still hotting 70-100fps from most recent games with RT on.
Don't feel I've ever missed out on anything either. Though note being able to run the RTX remix stuff is a pain. But RT performance on my current card is good and if I use RT then I run at 1080p to get the best from it. Rather than my usual 1440p. Still hotting 70-100fps from most recent games with RT on.
Associate
As the driver of a midrange 2.0 TDI 150bhp auto Golf, I can confirm that it was infinitely more appealing than an entry level 1.6 TDI 110bhp manual A3.
Back on topic, when RT first appeared on 2000 series cards, it was way too much of a performance killer. It's not as much nowadays, but it's still too much. So when a game has RT effects that I hardly notice, I tend to not bother with it. Where the effects are nice and noticeable, I'll use RT and leverage some DLSS, maybe even FG where possible.
Associate
Didn't particularly care about RT when I had my 3070, don't particularly care about it now I have a 7900XT.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2011
- Posts
- 410
Still you luuve me Bubba!