Caporegime
I didn’t interpret it that way but you never know with our boy Nasher.
-
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
I didn’t interpret it that way but you never know with our boy Nasher.
Nice try but I'm getting 100fps with a 3080 with the texture cache on High. It's a cache not texture quality, textures are the same as on the highest setting.Certainly are. Good old NVIDIA. Oopsy.
Indiana Jones and the Great Circle proves Nvidia wrong
Indiana Jones and the Great Circle looks great, but Nvidia's low VRAM capacity struggles in the game.www.digitaltrends.com
Says it all really:
"The Intel Arc A770, for example, which is a budget-focused 1080p graphics card, beats the RTX 3080, which was the 4K champion when it launched. Why? The A770 has 16GB of VRAM, while the RTX 3080 has 10GB."
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,278
Not seen it in action but is this making Unreal Engine 5 games look like a pile of unoptimised mess? Maybe letting game developers know that other game engines exist?
Last edited:
Soldato
Outwith PT'ing it's as smooth as butter with higher textures/lod(reduced/no pop in) if you have the vram to run it.
Hardly anyone's running more than 8Gb in the grand scheme of PC gaming, UE(comparitively with ID engine) streams smaller amounts of data into memory=often causing traversal stutter especially on NV GPUs as they generally don't have enough vram.
Whereas ID is streaming more data into GPU memory less often=fluid gameplay without the traversal stutter, but requires higher vram.
Last edited:
Associate
Not here. Still rocking the gtx1080 which is no longer pulling it's weight especially in newer ue5 games. The problem as I see it is that, without upgrading, older games look and run better than those more recently released. Luckily there really isn't much in the AAA space that interests me, but there are still handfuls of indie titles worth playing which are now being made with ue5. These tend to look and run terribly on lowest settings.
I'll not consider a console as there's just nothing worth playing on them that isn't on PC.
Since as I said there isn't a huge incentive to upgrade as there's very little outside of graphics changing in the industry, it's really just pushing me further away from gaming.
Midrange prices now look like flagship when I last upgraded and that seems like a rip off. I use my steam deck far more than my desktop anyway and that's far from being able to run any RT.
The industry must continue to thrive on young guns who have yet to tire themselves out on these tried and true gameplay loops, as it likely did when I was one.
Let's see what next year brings.
Soldato
High<Supreme=16Gb Intel's running Supreme, DF's highlighted the difference between High and Supreme:
In response about Intels $400 gpu beating out Nv's last gen $700 4K flagship gpu@1080p, Nv's said 'Indiana Jones and the Great Circle still looks great at lower graphics settings'.
Nv's normalised hard locking performance with vram, but laughing at us now.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,114
He does contradicts himself a lot, for instance playing down visuals in a phrase, then comes the "but" and goes own how great a game was due to... visuals!
-UE 5 is killing the game industry!!! They all look the same!
then
-Ah, but there are some unique games as well!!!
and proceeds to name a few
-It's the lazy developers!!!
like any other studio/engine isn't it?
-they move away from Frostbyte and perhaps is for the best since that engine doesn't do well 3rd person view
then sometime later he goes:
-moving to unreal engine won't solve anything; the main reason for which they move to UE is not because it is so much better than their own proprietary engines (lol as per above), but because it's easier to outsource (doh!) + obsession with photo realistic of the "normies" thinking UE will fix whatever problem their favorite franchise has, but a game engine alone can't make a game, it still takes tallent (doh again!).
- graphics, most of the time, I can't think of anything less important to game development for me than pushing photorealism to its limits (lol).
then
-there are exceptions to this, of course; games like BF1 greatly benefit from the photorealistic graphics and helped with the imerssion of the game (that's what graphics do!!!). Eveyone that has played that game knows how incredible intens and real it feels while taking part in the battles [...] and Frostbyte engine excels at this (basically photorealistic graphics).
hmm...
when everygame will look photorealistic, won't everygame start to look the same and we'll lose a lot of distinctness in our video games?
I mean... each "next gen" brought an increase in fidelity, did they all look the same? Do the movies (ulitmate PT scenario
) ), don't look different based on color grading and cinematography with some being jawdropping beautiful and atmospheric?Then he goes and compares games made on "From Software" engine vs UE, how those felt better... again, studio issue, not engine.
Complains about how Stalker 2 "lost" its A Life AI (it still does what he says to some extent, but it's limited there by crappy HW and inappropriate implementation, not really engine, I'd say), but casually forgets original games from the series were a mess, too - Call Of Prypiat in some map, last I've played, had its FPS gradully falling down to ~ 33 fps and stay there; on modern hardware..., or that it had a rather "junky" movement, AI that can pin point granades at your feet in Clear Sky and so on
)Just as an example, I'd say Stalker 2 looks pretty much the same in terms of the atmopshere and color grading to the originals, making this more about the devs, not the engine...
Cherry on the top was comparing 2014 vs now and saying graphics haven't "trully" improved. Right...
In summary, he goes: it's baad, but.... is also good. it's craaap, but... it can also be nice
)))UE does't kill anything. There're still plenty of engines out there and is up to the developer to pick up whatever works for them. I'd still rather play Vampires The Masquarade Bloodlines in UE 5.5 with PT, RR, SER and whatnot instead of the old version in Source... but that's just me.
Last edited:
You conveniently forgot to mention these are greatly zoomed in distant textures which why they look like a blurry mess regardless of setting. Impossible to notice the difference during normal gameplay.High<Supreme=16Gb Intel's running Supreme, DF's highlighted the difference between High and Supreme:
In response about Intels $400 gpu beating out Nv's last gen $700 4K flagship gpu@1080p, Nv's said 'Indiana Jones and the Great Circle still looks great at lower graphics settings'.
Nv's normalised hard locking performance with vram, but laughing at us now.
My 3080 still runs every game no problem and the money I would normally use for upgrading have found better usage.
Anyway, ID tech 7 engine exposes UE5 for the garbage engine that it is and unfortunately there is an ongoing flood of UE5 games. I dont understand why MS don't use ID tech 7 for all their games since its a fantastic engine and they own it.
Last edited:
Soldato
You've totally surmised the part where you wouldn't know if there is a difference because you can't enable it on the 3080=you simply don't know because you can't enable it.:shrugs:
3080 is still at great card within it's limits, but when NV decides it's time for an upgrade, they've paid a dev to strangle their own users.:thumbsup:
Yes ID's got a great engine,but it's killing Nv's Vram choices all the way up the stack unless you buy the 4090, whereas UE is designed to run on a potato.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2016
- Posts
- 10,725
I think it's wrong game studio force people into buying a specific brand, because other brands RT isn't as capable.
I've yet to find a game that forces me to upgrade and I've been playing the majority of the latest AAA games.
The game looks exactly the same so what Nvidia said regarding low texture cache was correct.
Last edited:
Let's see, with few examples: never finished games and horribly buggy releases; horrible noise everywhere (even without PT, like in newest COD - like what the actual hell!); lazy publishers/devs (pick at will) doing what's cheapest not best for actual players; AAA games falling on their faces financially one after another because they are all bling and no substance whilst increasing prices? I rather go back in time, thank you.
That's not a new feature and it ALWAYS kills FPS and/or introduces stutter etc. Quite a few games were crashing because of it in the past too, as they simply couldn't handle it either. For gaming it's absolutely useless - GPUs are fast only if they can access data quickly from local memory, everything else has use in enterprise (to a degree) but not at home.
Watch some of the videos of the devs I linked earlier - you do NOT need RT/PT everywhere and you do not need baked lights either. There are other ways to do very good lighting in games (with very accurate GI and dynamic lighting etc.) and yet NVIDIA pushed narrative that it's RT/PT or nothing else (though with 5k series it will likely be AI or nothing else instead
) - that's one big lie that is only good for NVIDIA and perhaps lazy devs for cost cutting, nobody else. Devs that shown what you say also are heavily NVIDIA sponsored and pushing same narrative for same reasons. That said, Metro devs shown very good results without introducing horrible noise to the game and without completely butchering FPS - yet later devs couldn't achieve that anymore. Or didn't want to. Modern games are full of unoptimized code, often very easy to optimise as has been shown by other devs (again, linked by me as example, but there are other). It's a choice, it's not necessity - gamers do not need that, most gamers can't even run it.That's completely inaccurate - modern gamers with modern 4060 also have big trouble running such games even on 1440p. Be it because of pure performance or lack of vRAM. This all is clearly done to force people to buy more expensive/luxury products - that is really all there is to it. It doesn't seem to be working, gladly - we have a handful of games pushing this, they usually sell badly (for various reasons, not just performance) and majority of gamers don't buy anything above xx60 class GPUs anyway.
And yet prices were much much lower for xx60 or even xx70 class cards - it can't even be compared. What now people have to pay for xx60 card would be enough to get something like GTX 970 or higher back in the days. Ergo mid-high end GPU, in comparison to entry level for gaming now. That includes all the inflation since 2014 till today!
What is stuck is corporations in their never-ending greed extorting gamers for higher and higher prices each year, whilst trying to push tech on the market that's simply not ready for it. GPUs of the actual majority of the market each year barely get faster, yet prices rise and more and more gamers simply get outpriced from the market. That's where we are headed now. Not the future I look forward to.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Let's just throw all of the great coverage and and breakdown and talking to actual devs working on their games showing us exactly how what is done with RT and now PT out of the window, that will be the way yeah.
As Calin Banc points out, there are a lot of holes by that other youtuber who just appeared onto the scene one day.
As Calin Banc points out, there are a lot of holes by that other youtuber who just appeared onto the scene one day.
Last edited:
I've linked (easy to find gigantic post) devs showing why exactly UE5 itself is an unoptimized mess currently and also that devs in pretty much all UE5 games don't do any optimization either and do not even adjust defaul settings, but use UE5 as it comes. It can be done better, on UE5, it just takes some work which big publishers are unwilling to do. Why optimise meshes for example when you can slap Nanite on top of them - it works, but you throw away bunch of FPS for no good reason. Why fit games in 8GB of vRAM when you can waste it on various buffers to mask horrible noise and artefacts on cheap effects with TAA, bluring whole image to that, that even DLSS/DLAA and sharpening can't fix well later. Why mix Lumen with other known since 2017 algorythms that can produce accurate GI, dynamic lighting etc. when you can just turn it on and not bother, murdering FPS again. All these new toys are great for lazy devs, not for gamers, yet NVIDIA pushed the narrative that there's no other way to do it and it's only old raster or new shiny RT - but there are other ways, SOME games use them with great result. Most do not.
Again, I linked earlier videos posted by actual devs working on realistic looking games, showing RT/PT (that includes Lumen, Nanite and other modern FPS-killers) is the wrong way to go, unless you want to kill FPS for no good reason and be lazy whilst kissing fresh monies from NVIDIA. It's not the only way to do things, it's the cheap and quick way, which is what both GPU vendor and publishers love. And yet it's bad for gamers sans the tiny minority with high end GPUs, but even then things could be done much better. For example, a lot of static games, with no physics, no changes in the map or lighting do not need a lot of bits and bobs enabled in UE5 and yet they enable it for no reason, because devs making them do not know any better or simply do not care - and it kills FPS with 0 visual difference.
Or in other words, there are smart and there are lazy ways to do games - you seem to be confusing lazy ways with actually good graphics. One isn't connected with the other and games shouldn't be tech demos.
Last edited:
I am not talking about the video Calin Banc commented about at all, it's not even been linked by me. I am talking about this channel: https://www.youtube.com/@ThreatInteractive - it's not a youtuber, they don't run youtube channel as the main job. It's founding member of a development group working on actual games plus also very active member of Unreal Engine community (easy to check) for quite a while now. Dude seem to know very well what he is talking about and his YouTube videos are just him showing in practice, with real examples and using proper tools frames generated by games in for example UE engine - not on screenshots or video but live in the editor, to show what actual game engine is doing exactly at any given moment and what it does to the visuals. It's not marketing talk for any given vendor either.
They themselves are working on a realistically looking FPS game and chose UE engine as it's the most popular one currently, then noticed how bad a lot of things are implemented in it. Example of UE5.5 - it processes complex cloud over 800% slower than UE5.4, and even though it's been reported to Epic in beta, they never fixed it. Loads of things like that kill FPS in modern games for no visual reasons - just for lazy reasons. But people like DF, who have NO clue about actual development of games, only see visuals and assume that is how it is and that's it, completely ignoring that it's just a bad development choice, not necessity.
In other words, again, let's not confuse modern good visuals with just lazy development, bugs in UE code and bad (from performance standpoint) design and implementation in games. These are very different things.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Yes I am on specifically about UE5 (or UE in general) as it has never ending flaws which cannot be ignored other than by devs and Epic themselves typically, but point is games like Indiana Jones with id tech and a bunch of other in-house engines have demonstrated that ray tracing and path tracing can be high quality and high performance at the same time.
The alternative is to allow devs to remain lazy and not enforce something like RTGI which then results in the stutterfest and/or high latency we see in every single UE5 powered game currently out on launch day with months of patching needed to maybe fix some of the technical issues. ONly about 3 games in memory didn't launch with massive issues, and those were indy titles as well vs the mess from AAA publishers/devs that often see release.
RT is not the problem here, the engine and time dedicated to fixing the issues in the engine by a dev is.
I have not seen the game Threat Interactive are actually working, on, they talk a big game but what have they demonstrated other than breaking down already existing games? Their channel has nothing other than pointing out the flaws in Unreal which is fine, but if they are working on some super new FPS game then where are the improvements they claim to have being shown off?
They don't even have a website, just a wordpress landing page.
I will continue to stand by devs like Machine Games, Remedy, CDPR etc who clearly know what they are doing with modern tech like RT/PT until others demonstrate that what they have is superior.
The alternative is to allow devs to remain lazy and not enforce something like RTGI which then results in the stutterfest and/or high latency we see in every single UE5 powered game currently out on launch day with months of patching needed to maybe fix some of the technical issues. ONly about 3 games in memory didn't launch with massive issues, and those were indy titles as well vs the mess from AAA publishers/devs that often see release.
RT is not the problem here, the engine and time dedicated to fixing the issues in the engine by a dev is.
I have not seen the game Threat Interactive are actually working, on, they talk a big game but what have they demonstrated other than breaking down already existing games? Their channel has nothing other than pointing out the flaws in Unreal which is fine, but if they are working on some super new FPS game then where are the improvements they claim to have being shown off?
They don't even have a website, just a wordpress landing page.
I will continue to stand by devs like Machine Games, Remedy, CDPR etc who clearly know what they are doing with modern tech like RT/PT until others demonstrate that what they have is superior.
Last edited:
The only game VRAM was a big problem for me is: Ghost recon breakpoint. I had played it for 160 hours using a Fury X 4GB and it was super smooth. They patched the game, VRAM usage went from ~3.5GB to 7.5GB. Even on the lowest settings it was > 4GB, I never played it again.