NVIDIA Enables DXR Real-Time Ray Tracing Support on GeForce 10 and GeForce 16 Series, GeForce GTX 10

Or we could change the resolution to 1080p and get the cinematic 24fps! \m/ \m/.

Yah its a marketing ploy. I'm still not buying your overpraised RTX gimmick cards nVidia

 

If they really wanted RTX to take off they would have priced their new RTX cards way lower to encourage mass adoption then the developers would care to implement more of it.
But no. Let's charge an arm and a leg and pay off few devs to implement something only to warrant the purchase of few rich people.
RTX will die or be replaced by something else if they continue like this.

 

What are the RT cores bringing to the table? They bring RT hardware acceleration. It's like asking what does a GPU brings to the table because Quake 2 also renders in software mode on the CPU before most of us had GPUs. From NVIDIAI's slides the lightest RT effect, reflections, eats up 50% of a 1080ti in 1440p. For some reason the same people who claimed that RTX is a sham because it can't reach 4K/60fps are happy with 18fps in Metro @1440p on a 1080ti.

If you don't know what RT cores bring to the table, think how two equivalent GPUs, the 1080 TI and 2080 RTX, preform while using RT. In Metro the 1080 TI @1440p runs @18FPS while the 2080 RTX runs @46FPS. So what do the RT cores bring to the table? how about more than X2 the performance on the same card? If you think that the RTX series is bad value don't by them, but the RT cores are very important in order to bring RT to the mainstream.

 

I wonder about that. Between Huang's (artificially) fabulous RTX On/Off demo back then and the fact the first RTX game struggled to work decently on the super expensive 2080 Ti with RTX on, leaving customers with the permanent notion Turing RTX is kind of a failure, I'm not so sure it was such a success you could say it's important in bringing raytracing to the mainstream. If anything, Nvidia managed to make it seem like raytracing is nigh impossible in the mainstream (2080 Ti with its price is far from mainstream). It's up to others, like the Crytek demo with a far cheaper GPU, to show it can me made to work in mainstream. Without RTX.

 

Interesting move, wondering why some suggest it might be a move to counter the crytek presentation, not like this kind of things are decided over night.

Fact is, they realized some ray tracing features run on GTX 10XX serie. Got to keep in mind you can run the raytraced pass on a lower resolution, therefore lots of GPU can use raytraycing, but only the RTX cards wll be able to perform at the higher resolution.


The crytek presentation is inspiring as it shows that without dedicated hardware you can already get incredible results, just imagin how far you can go with those RTX cards then.

 

Anything non-dedicated hardware can do dedicated hardware can do better. Without NVIDIA's RTX project we wouldn't have RT in Cryengine. NVIDIA is the reason DXR even exists, they approached Microsoft and pushed them to do DXR because they wanted to make the RTX cards.

The 2060 RTX, a 350$ card, performs x2 better than the 1080ti in Metro with RTX/DXR on @1440p. If that isn't bringing RT to the mainstream, what is? Buying a 700$ 1080 ti and getting half the performance of a 350$ card seems somehow better to you?

 

It amazes me to see how Nvidia will fcuk the consumers over time after time like this. I bet you if we never saw the Crytech demo where AMD could do DXR with current hardware and no special cores then Nvidia would have never made a driver update like this. Oh well it’s a good thing so now everybody know that you don’t need special hardware to execute DXR on a DX12 compatible GPU. I never understood the reasoning behind special cores that can do only RT and AI when you could have just build a bigge GPU with more total core count and do everything on it.

 

Read the comment above you and understand why you need RT cores. Anything can run on anything, a pocket calculator can do RT, the question is how well will it run. The Cryengine demo? An empty street with 6 building and an on-rails camera that is being controlled by the Crytek engineers? Let's talk again when there is an actual game that uses that and works wonderfully on a Vega 56.

 

https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/geforce-gtx-ray-tracing-coming-soon/

Looking in the Test images- can it be that the Performance uplift of turing RTX 2080 (W/O RT cores) over Pascal GTX 1080Ti comes from FP16 2:1? (20,137 GFLOPS FP16 on RTX 2080 vs 11,340 GFLOPS FP32 on 1080Ti)
Also we already know that RT need very fast memory with low latency- so lets wait to see how this limited RT affect will perform on Pascal vs Vega 56/64 and Radeon VII with HBM and FP16 2:1.

For me- Just give me reflection in games like Rainbow Six Siege to see Caviera sneaking on me and I am Happy .

 

So basically, Turing main unique feature "ray tracing", is going to be supported by previous generation as well?

Why would anyone get an RTX card now? it literally makes no sense.


does that mean that the 1660/ 1660Ti will also support DXR? haha so awkward

 

The reason is simple: General purpose hardware is always going to be slow, while specialized hardware is really fast. Thats why RT cores and Tensor cores exist, they are specialized for their specific tasks, and do them at incredible speeds.

NVIDIA showed some other comparisons, with one monster Pascal GPU (not available to the public), which is basically the shader count of 4 1080 Tis glued together, and that barely matches the performance of a 2080 with RT cores. You would never reach that speed with conventional shader-only designs, because the consumer chips would never get that big. Even if they used all space that RT and Tensor cores used for normal shaders, you would maybe gain 20% more shaders, not 4 times as much. And thus, we have dedicated hardware.

 

You would get a RTX card because on previous gen cards this is going to be low quality effects and slow. Without the dedicated RT cores, it can barely do anything without seriously dropping FPS (and you thought DXR on RTX cards was slow already? Think again!)
So basically, the same reason you always get a new card: Those are faster.

This announcement really doesn't change anything. People that are interested in Ray Tracing effects will still want to get a RTX card, because its the only way to really make use of them.
People that are not really interested can get a 16-series, or try to scavenge up an old 10-series, but as a bonus they get a taste of Ray Tracing, entry-level quality and low performance.

If anything, this makes RTX look better, since you can truely see the performance cost it would have on previous generation of GPUs. And it also opens the door for more developers to try to work with it, since the market of people with DXR support suddenly vastly increases.

 

To me it seems the reason for this decision is just to get more game developers to add DXR Raytracing into games. Even if it's just for a few small effects so it results in acceptable frame rates on 10 and 16 series.
Then the RTX cards will naturally see significant performance increases in these games compared to AMD and NV's previous cards.

 

The Turing cards also struggle to run RTX. ofc Pascal would be completely useless with DXR enabled but for the avg Pascal owner, he hears now that "Pascal will support ray tracing"

that's not great in terms of marketing.

 

Also since developers know that Pascal is way way more popular than Turing, they can simply use DXR very very lightly for minor things, focusing on the main consumer base(also AMD will probably support DXR without dedicated acceleration hardware)
and might offer better visuals for RTX users

but that completely removes the main feature, the selling point of Turing, which is Ray Tracing.

 

To Me this is not a hilarious move, but a normal one, Nvidia knew about this but they were hoping that this will happen later on so they can squiz some money out of costumers. Maybe this is one of the facts why they also launch the 16xx series.
All graphic cards that fully suport DirectX 12, suport Microsoft's DXR-API (the API responsible for real-time ray tracing) , we only need to know the impact to performance, but ther rest is there.
And Nvidia needs to bring support for this tech just because this will be supported by every game developer. Also the new consoles will suport this.
The 2xxx series bring some nice thing to the tabel but until we see a real comparation we can't say if this is not ok or that it has limitations, and so on.
Now the real race for DXR Real-Time Ray Tracing starts.

 

They did it because they had to get RTX rolling and Turing failed to do so. they are forcing ray tracing as hard as they can.
will fail.

 

No, it won't.

With the RTX cards you can play with Ray Tracing a frames more or less decent, with the GTX cards not. Unless the purpose is to make a presentation of the game in slideshow.

The RTX cards would be irrelevant if they ran the game with Ray Tracing with the same performance and same visuals as GTX cards, which is not the case. So, the selling point is still there, nothing changes.

What do you expect from a conference focused in AI e ML? That's what GTC is...

It´s like going to a cooking show and then complain they talk about cooking!

 

Am wondering if this is Nvidias response to Cryteks RT reflections demo where the vega 56 seemed to do so well. It sort of caught Nvidia with their pants down. So they had to cobble up some response to show Pascal is still relevant (even on some feeble level) vs old Vega on the RT front.