NVIDIA Brings DX-R To Pascal GPUs with new driver

lol, are you also mad you dont own a 200 room mansion or that you dont drive a Bugatti for 2mill?
the only thing you are forced to do is breathing and dying, everything else is optional.
buy it, or dont, no one cares.
im happy for the ppl that have the means to get it.

funny how many whined rtx is only on 2 cards, and they should offer it on "all".
now they do, and ppl still whine.

 

Possible, Nvidia seems to be going farther from double or single precision compute with each generation. I guess even single precision isn't that important for gaming or deep learning tasks?

 

Gaming its important, deep learning not that important (half precision is typically good enough for training, inferencing can be done with super low precision). AFAIK the only games that even make use of half precision are Farcry 5 (specifically the water shader) and Doom. I don't think I ever read if it's even been confirmed that those implementations are working on Nvidia's half-precision hardware as both were developed with AMD's shader intrinsic functions. That being said now that both companies support half precision workloads we'll probably see more use of it in various ways going forward but limited to shaders that don't really impact image quality/relatively unnoticeable to the player.

 

I wonder how the GTX1660 Ti vs GTX1070 / Ti will compare with each other with RTX/DRX on. As the 1070 cards have more Shader Units and / ROP count and 2GB more VRAM. It would be very interesting to see.

 

Ah, that's a good way to not have to deal with your statements that are completely off when called on it. Don't provide proof, don't provide why you stated what you stated, just try and insult.

Good job.

 

Always a good indication of lack of intellect. When no debate is left...retort to insults.

 

Hats of to nvidia for opening support, but...pointless at these performance levels. Helps a consumer feel good about an old purchase, but not realistic at all to use in real time gaming.

 

Wait, you're surprised that the over all percentage of folks using something new is very low? Gosh, I wonder if that is because it is in fact new and very few titles use it. Nah...that can't be it. I can't be that simple and obvious. Nobody needs to justify their purchase to you. What your post reads like is the typical complaint from an AMD fan who just recognized two things: If you want the TOP END PERFORMANCE, you will have to switch camps and pay for the privilege. The enthusiast space, which AMD has apparently abandoned (for now), is not the price/performance space and never will be.

 

I'm not sure about that yet. Sure on the 3DMark bench I average 10 FPS. But as a technology mule, this might be interesting. Frankly I think a lot of effects are over done. Like in nature you see hints of reflections, whereas in games they tend make them hyper realistic almost as if the EFFECT is the point and not given the image a more natural look with visual cues. What I'm getting at is I think as the rendering tech progresses, we'll see more efficient and natural effect that may require less rendering. No, I don't expect full screen RT at 4K on a 1080 Ti. But RT effects certainly could be done.

 

At least GTX users have some thing new and exciting to play with, and newer games will of course be designed with that in mind.

With all said and done, it can only be a good thing.

 

NVIDIA is STILL boicotting pascal gpus. Installed the 425.31 driver needed to run this demo and all my installed games just as the Unigine Valley and Heaven benchmarks did experience a performance loss around 8-10%
This gtx 1080 card that I have is my last one.
Good luck green boys.

 

Sales are lower than last year specifically because of the mining market decline. Card sales to nVidia's normal customer base is not any lower than last year. I personally know far more people who bought RTX cards than did Pascal in the 6 months after each respectively was released.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy one bit about the prices for cards. Which is why i refuse to buy one. The fact that prices are still where they are is due to them selling just fine.

 

Im curious to know how many poor indie developers are pushing the most cutting edge next-gen graphics features. They're not interested in pushing the limits of technology. Even if these cards were half the price they wouldn't be using RTX features. That's a luxury for well established devs with the money to burn on eye candy.

 

I am running the game fine.... with rtx on medium and sometimes high and getting around 30 to 40fps lol Its only when i turn off the rtx off when i see the performance impact lol coming from 1080p exteme quality 104 - 110fps lol the performance impact is huge.

 

Which card do you have? i just installed the driver restarted my pc and i could enable rtx easily in dx12. which card do you have

 

multi gpu and sli does not scale well nowadays and in some cases you get even worse performance than running a single card.

 

Its irrelevant, RTX is just a feature, and having it is better then not having it, they widen the market by having such features.

 

The whole point of RT is being easy to implement.

 

If its so easy why games using it are so scarce?

 

It's a new technology, brought less then a year ago, and most game development takes far longer then 1 year to develop, many developers/publishers don't like adding things half-way through, it's risky, may add more to the development time, cause launch issues if a launch date has already been determined, etc. Tacking on ray tracing rather then implementing it from the beginning is not necessarily the smartest thing to do.

It's a little difficult to say that it's easy or not, as yes, it's easy to implement, and if all hardware supported it and you didn't really have to worry about performance, then there wouldn't be any need to put in rasterized lighting, and only ray traced lighting. If this was the case, it would cut down costs quite a bit.

But given that currently this is not the case and if a developer decides to do ray tracing they still have to do rasterization methods, it becomes a cost to implement over not.

The hardware needs to become more out there and universal before ray tracing will technically cost less (then rasterization) and be "easy" to implement. And this likely will not happen until consoles natively, and effectively, support ray tracing. One this is done, there will be no point to spending more money on rasterization methods, when it looks worse, and takes more time and money to implement and perfect.

It makes sense that until then, there may not be a ton of developers deciding to put ray tracing into their games. Other then hoping their extra time and effort gets them more money then they spent on it BECAUSE people wanted to see it ray traced, what is the point?

My point in the end is this: It's an added addition, which means it's an added cost to implement, and that's not to be mistaken with being "difficult" to implement, one of the major points of ANY kind of ray tracing is how much EASIER it is to implement since you no longer have to manually put fake light sources everywhere just to make the scenes not look like there are black holes everywhere. This is by definition EASIER and LESS COSTLY, but will only really matter on those fronts when rasterization methods of lighting are no longer implemented in games, until then, regardless if "easy" or not, it's added cost, which means many developers, and more importantly publishers, won't bother.