Cyberpunk 2077 will not have Ray Tracing on AMD RX 6000 GPUs at launch

I think it's "phisiological", because the game is deeply using the rtx (proprietary) technologies, so all the rt part of the game needs to be "translated" for the DXR on which 6000 series and nextgen consoles are based.... That's it

 

I somewhat disagree with their conclusions - from what I recall they've looked at things like text sharpness/clarity.

I love DLSS - but the image is quality is certainly not "better" than native. It might have visual characteristics that an individual might subjectively like... but In my experience it's still something I'd never turn on unless I really need the extra performance.
If every game I have runs at 60fps - there's no chance I'm turning DLSS on.

It has a weird subtle visual effect that is at once both blurry and pixelated.

I don't quite understand why opinions around it need to be so extreme...

 

I'm running a RTX 3080 FE and i've tried turning on raytracing in several games but to be honest, it really isn't that much more noticeable than rasterized rays. So AMD card owners aren't exactly missing that much.

Game artists have gotten really good at 'faking' rays. The true benefit of raytracing goes to the game devs themselves since it means they have less work to do if the GPU can draw the rays for them. But until all GPU's properly support that feature, then game devs will continue to rasterize rays manually, regardless.

 

Lol so much AMD salt in here its hilarious. I knew as soon as the AMD cards had horrible RT performance we were going to see all the apologists tell us DLSS is trash (Even though AMD is making their own) and RT isn't needed. The mental gymnastics are astounding.

Yeah CDProjekt sure are jerks for not including some half baked AMD beta feature... *Facepalm*.

 

Apparently, the game will only be available to the new consoles via backward compatibility at first, the proper "next gen" console patch including Raytracing is scheduled for some time in early 2021. I'd assume the PC version will get a patch for AMD Raytracing around that time as well since it should be very similar to what the Xbox Series X version will get in regards to Raytracing.

I'd also guess since Nvidia's cards sadly are a bit more powerful when it comes to Raytracing (which was to be expected, this is AMD's first attempt at real time Raytracing on consumer cards after all - I'm sure it will improve in future generations), they'll have to optimize it's use for AMD cards to not tank performance too much on the Radeon cards. Also, AMD seems to be using lower quality Raytracing than Nvidia in various games, so that may also be worth a consideration.

And yes, they could delay the game a couple of more months (I'd personally welcome it if it needs more time instead of launching with problems), but it'll be alright if they patch some features in later and ensure they work, too.
From a business perspective, releasing the game now with so many people in lockdown and having enough time to spend on gaming makes perfect sense, as sales will likely be higher than later on when the majority will be vaccinated and the whole situation will hopefully improve.

 

Actually, most people giving DLSS a thumbs down in this thread own Nvidia...

The real question is how long it'll take AMD to fix their DX:R implementation as currently it's not working properly in a few games. There also seems to be some disparity between the actual quality vs Nvidia's RTX implementation when it is working, though that's probably still bugs with their implementation. The foundation for Microsofts DirectML is also based on Nvidia's DLSS, which Nvidia donated to MS. The problem is how to implement it in RDNA2 without crippling performance.

To coincide with this thread;

 

I going to have to AGREE with CDP's decision. They have to weigh a business (sell games) vs optimizations. They can provide a patch later and as others have said, I CAN wait for a patched version because I can barely buy a RT GPU anyways!

No, I won't buy a 3070 because it is overprice here plus I am looking long term ownership of the GPU thru the life of the next system. I just don't have time to swap parts or phones as before. Time is money.

Also, DLSS 2.0 has good potential if the SOURCE if good enough. I wonder how it would look to upscale 4K to 8K vs 1440p? The source material does matter as I find native 4K better looking to in those videos vs DLSS8K from 1440p. That 1440p sourced DLSS just looks like melting ice cream to my eyes. No way I would use that mode if I can get away with it. I am sure there will be a better balance over time.

This is one technology I hope AMD can get going after improving RT though or we have to look at SLI/CFX again to get GOOD 4K RT or 8K performance.

 

He's not entirely wrong though, I've already seen a few posts by infrequent posters saying things like "DLSS Degrades quality".

AMD wants to produce an open source ML super sampler, but I'm not convinced it'll run well, DirectML/WinML substitutions work for static images, but i'm yet to see them do it on realtime gaming without a latency penalty.

Err, wrong?

 

DLSS 2.0 is NOT upscaling in the context you are using. It isn't taking an image and upscaling it. It is an image construction technique and you calling it 'upscaling' to make it sound bad doesn't change what it does and how it works.

It uses a jitter pattern of samples, motion vectors and previous frame data to generate a brand new image. It could be considered 'native to itself' because that is the image generated using that technique. There is no 'base image'. Just because an image is different doesn't mean it's worse - that's subjective. Depending on the implementation, DLSS can provide more detail than what you consider 'native' due to how the construction of the image takes place. I would highly recommend you watch the GTC video on DLSS 2.0 so you can learn what it is and how it works.

I expect AMD's Super Resolution and MS's DX12 version to work very similarly.

 

The thing is we already knew the AMD cards were not going to be great at RT. The many months of leaks and rumours pointed towards 2080Ti levels of RT performance and upto 2x the rasterization performance of a 5700XT. Both of which turned out to be very accurate with RT performance coming in just above the 2080Ti for the 6800XT and almost (and sometimes bang on) 2x the performance of a 5700XT.

The thing is RT in any shape of form just isn't ready yet, the performance drop even on a 3090 just isn't warranted for the, mostly, small bump in IQ. The truth is the next few years RT implementation will mainly come down to console games using the feature, where devs have to really optimise for the weaker and fixed hardware of a console. Something where AMD has an advantage as their architecture is being used so any implementation that's well optimised and doesn't have the huge performance impact AMD and Nvidia will both be fine. Otherwise rasterization will continue to be the dominate choice.

Now DLSS on the other hand I don't think anyone can be salty about that, the tech is awesome and is only getting better. But I think its much better suited to lower end hardware (like a new nintendo switch) where it can really be used to great effect or on a low to mid range GPUs allowing those gamers to achieve much better fidelity. It just seems like a cheat to get us to 4K gaming without having to actually render at native 4K res. It's still really cool tech though.

 

At first i read this as you expect 100fps+ on your 6800 ultra...was...confused...(yes i know you stated settings, i stopped when i read 6800 ultra lol)

 

That was nice card i had GT version if i remember correctly. Should i say R6800 but soon ryzens maybe 6800....

 

Yeah. Lets go back to real world. Only games where DLSS produces better/equal image to native rendering are games which either do not use native rendering (Wolfenstein) or use bad TAA implementation (Like 99% of games using TAA).

Having better reflections is smallest of benefits DX-R can bring. It is biggest selling point as it is flashy, but adds little to realism in ways it is being sold. In many cases it actually takes away as they add reflections to surfaces which should not be reflective. And they become distractive.

On other hand, everything around realistic light scattering is what adds feeling that environment is realistic. (light/shadows)
Imagine playing game where you walk into place where there are statues made of translucent glass. As you move flashlight, parts of statues light up realistically. And will bounce light around room as if statue was source.

 

If this is to be believed, where are all the individuals who chatter about what a benefit AMD PC hardware will have because of the next gen consoles being AMD hardware. Guess the two platforms have nothing in common except the name of the company the cpu and gpu came from.

 

Does it take basis in the native resolution? No. Then it is per definition upscaling, and it looks the part. It really doesn't matter what upscaling technique it uses.

Here is a couple of screenshots from control, which uses dlss 2.0... taken with my old 2080 ti at 4k with maxed settings, except rt off.

Dlss on



Dlss off



Dlss enabled is NOTICABLY less detailed, and more blurry - everything from the airvents in the floor, the pavement outside and the reflections on the ground... all looks like shite with dlss enabled.

 

I'll just wait the 5 years or so like I did Witcher 3 before playing. No big deal. The game will likely still look good then, and I can run it at ultra with whatever card exists at the time. That way you also get to play all the DLC and expansion content while playing the full game.

Plenty of games to play while you wait for this product and tech to mature

 

Dragam1337 re: post 59

Interesting. The take away I get from this is that the DLSS version brings it closer to 60fps in this particular screenshot comparison. As I understand it, if it weren't for the visual artifacts in motion, then, DLSS would be good for clawing back some performance. I can't test it so will wait until I can to form my own opinion of it.

Don't forget that there's 2 versions of this tech. The quality is also scalable.
https://www.pcgamer.com/nvidia-dlss-2-performance-benchmarks-control-wolfenstein-youngblood/

I went through all posts.
​

 

From your screenshots DLSS disabled looks more blurry and looses detail. If you look at the "Notice" sign on the door, DLSS enabled makes it appear more detailed and less blurry. It's exactly the same as the major reviews noticed when they tested Control when 2.0 was enabled.

You can also see it from the upscaled 4K screenshots below in this Death Stranding/DLSS review.




Remember DLSS is still young and still has issues, so it's not perfect. But development is continuing big time and we can all expect better things in the future.

 

Cant really go by the fps counter, as im using a fps cap at 58, and one of the screenshots the fps dibbed cause i was tabbing in and out etc. But dlss is like 30% less gpu load compared to native.