Battlefield V Raytracing Features are now enabled (benchmarks)

I've not looked into all the details, but my first reaction is that I'd be surprised if we're still on 7nm in 4 yrs. If they stay on 7nm for a long time, then I guess the price of manufacture of the silicon will become cheaper as they increase yields through fine tuning of the manufacturing process, but how much it would decrease I do not know, and whether or not that would offset the increased costs of a larger die to accommodate those 20B transistors. My gut reaction is that a smaller node would be needed to keep costs under control, as you've mentioned. Who knows, but I'm not buying a Turing GPU, the next gen is probably what I'll go with, because I'm certainly not gonna wait 4 yrs from now for a GPU upgrade!

 

snail traceing

 

I don't care how pathetic it is, I'm just glad it's finally been started. We've been relying entirely on rasterization for far too long. Without ray tracing, games will remain in the uncanny valley of weirdness for the rest of our lives.

 

Im ok with 4K/30fps, i never puked while playing exclsuive Sony games on old PS3 and new PS4Pro Uncharted, Killzone, inFamous and all the rest are 30fps and thats fine by me, i play with gamepad anyway.
In my case I use OLED TV as my monitor, so even if i play in 1080p /60 it actually look great, the internal upscaling is of high quality and in any case 1080p on 4k screen is just 4 pixels doubling so look good.
So i have a choise, 1080p/60 or 4k/30 or if the game has internal scaler then maybe something in between scaled internally to 4k

 

Tbh, I feel the performance-loss with RTX on is much better than I thought it'd be.

Of-course, this technology is something we'll appreciate more in a few more generations of hardware.

 

https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam

64,29% of us

 

Dice has already stated that Medium settings on their RTX currently is bugged, so don't look at medium

 

Finally 4K Ultra with DRX Low works fine above 50FPS with 2080Ti but no SLI at all. I also tried SWBF2 SLI profile for DX11 also and it works fine too well above 100FPS but no DXR at all in DX11.

 

Seems obvious that they need more dedicated RTX cores on the die for this to work properly. There is just not enough space on the die.

Why wouldn't they sell a daughter card with only RTX cores instead of trying to do it all on one PCB? That way the price of the GTX card are still a good value and if you want ray tracing you buy a 2nd card.

 

Actually a cool idea. Practically, add in cards seem to be declining in popularity, Physix never kicked off with dedicated cards, (W)LAN connectivity is on every mainboard these days, as well as sound chips. It would make most sense in terms of available market customers, some just buying the GPU part and call it a day.
Also I agree, as it seems they either need to be way better at doing RTX (software wise), or they need more die space for it... the second part is probably more of an issue here since bigger dies are always more troublesome than a better algorithm / software.

I'm also wondering, if at any point DLSS will work together with ray tracing, which could help produce more than 30fps on 4K resolutions with current cards, for instance, and possibly stable and playable stutter free 60fps on 1440p. If they can do that at some point, I could imagine that the next iteration of RT cores can really help bring RTX to 4K resolutions (maybe 1440p rendered and then upscaled / supersampled via Nvidia's supercomputers via DLSS).

 

Theoretically they could calculate raytraced reflections at reduced resolutions, then put it through DLSS and afterwards do blending composition to existing scene (or whatever method they use merge raytraced data with rasterized).

This way only raytraced information gets DLSS threatment for greatly improved performance and removal of some artifacts... keeping rasterized image cleaner.

 

It should be noted that only 1.31% are gaming in 4k. Those that play at 1440p are 3.52% of the population, which leaves the the vast majority of those not running 1080p actually using a lower resolution than a higher one by a lot.

Some guy the other day was bragging on global chat about getting 120fps with all settings on Epic in Ark: Extinction on a GTX 1080, which of course after a few questions we discovered he was running 720p.

 

I didnt know DX12 has to be enabled to use RTX.

 

I would be interested in a RT card or a tensor one. But from Nvidia, they took the aproach to put every technology in the same core, even in professional enviroments, so they must perform worst separated. Radeon's David Wang talked about the problematic of SLI and Crossfire in fast games (non professional use) for the system to interact with them as one and the classic added problems of micro-stutter and latency, that's maybe the cause why they did it that way. Or maybe because they don't want that people mix their cards with the competition ones, as usually.

About DLSS, Final Fantasy XV test was updated with a DLSS option and people said it runs about a 35% faster without loosing quality, so the RTX 50% penalty in a game will be only a 15% with both active, if the card doesn't burn.

I don't know if the IA upscaling and denoising can be applied to real time raytrace. I think it needs rasterized images that can be processed at Nvidia computer farms for that technic to work.

I think we must wait much more to know how far this cards can go in RTRT and how well their tricks works.

 

Playing games under 60 fps no thanks

 

I've been watching the events unfold regarding RTX and honestly I'm excited about it regardless of all the negative crap which is mainly the price! Just wish Nvidia would have handled it better and I'm sure they probably feel the same way with their recent financial situation, if they had released this at a reasonable price point so instead of enthusiasts and rich kids we could all enjoy it things would be much better right now,.

Battlefield is not a great example of what this tech can do but it's a start and ultimately for me this all about immersion and RTX is going to bring us closer to true photographic quality in games which is what I dreamed about ever since I got into VR, I can't wait for this tech to mature and for prices to come back down to earth because raytracing is the future of GPUs, it's behind rasterization in performance right now but that is to be expected, 60 fps is not a dealbreaker for me as I mostly play in 1080p unless I'm playing on my TV but the price is ridiculous and I know there's been GPU's in the past with similar price points when inflation is taken into account but I can't even begin to consider a graphics card that's priced above £500, there's more important things in life than gaming and when we're talking over a grand for the price of admission it's a out of the question.

 

I agree - 1st iteration/Tessellation took time, now it runs with ease. Where this launch is different from then was Fermi introduced greater performance gains for its time for consumers while adding an array of new features, imo a notable one - the first GPU architecture to support ECC.

I'm of the opinion that Fermi's launch and that of AMD's HD 5xxx are a far cry from current. One GTX 480 held the gaming performance of a GTX 295 - at launch. That is pretty damn impressive for it's time, forget about tessellation. NV charged the consumer $699 back then for that. Inflation hasn't increased at a high enough rate to where cost has literally doubled across all boards. (RTX current costs as opposed to GTX 400)

This is where the angst comes from. The disgruntled communities that complain & moan and stir their collective pot about Nvidia. R&D, manufacturing, ohh the tensor cores the uhmm raytracing cores. Tesla gpus. Yield solutions at the plant for those products in existence already. Don't give Nvidia less credit than they deserve. Were 1st-time technologies harder to develop during Turing than Fermi? Possibly - I honestly doubt it. I know they became more dominant - and a Monopoly crept in.

That's the main thing that's different. Not the two products. The lack of competition. The fixed market in the GPU-space. And the fact that it's ironic I seem to be talking to someone in-denial named Denial about the very subject of it all.

 

Ray Tracing, Ultra settings... anything to make consumers buy latest and highest end video cards. If there no need to buy a better GPU, create a need. Genius.

Guess I am getting too old to give a damn about small eye candies, especially those that I have to compare between screenshots to tell the difference.
Checked Ray Tracing comparison lately, to be honest you have to know what you looking for. It's not night and day difference in my opinion.
Could be a cool feature to have, so in future devs don't have to fake reflection on models. And by feature I am mean cross platform/hardware feature, not Novidias money making cow.

Glad Novidia keeping themselves busy and consumers mind occupied.

 

The more and more i see people say such nonsense like this (in reference to ray tracing), the more and more i realize so many people have zero clue as to what ray tracing is.

 

Ray tracing = fail

The only people defending it are the idiots silly enough to spend $2200 AUD to go back to 1080p. Honestly are some pretty reflections and shadows really worth downgrading your fps and resolution.

Whats the point of owning 144hz / 165hz monitors im sorry but tech just wasn't ready for ray tracing also I don't know about you but I turn shadows off in multiplayer games as it usually makes it harder to spot enemies with shadows on.

Say what you will throw up graphs and argue but at the end of the day if ray tracing was as good as it was talked up to be you wouldn't have to be defending it so HARD.