UL 3DMark now features a full DirectX Raytracing feature test

@Spets : Yeah, I pays F*ing 2,5 Euro, so I can see details.
(Btw, please, use spoiler tags. Images are huge.)

Paying for something I paid already is disgusting. I have paid asking price for Advanced, but have fewer features than someone who paid same asking price for Advanced later.
Since when are older customers treated in such ways? Why are they asking us to pay more for same service?

Instead of Advanced, they should have called it Season Pass 2015, Season Pass 2016, ...
So everyone would know they are getting very time limited service. Keeping same name of DIGITAL product and upgrading content of product only for new customers was not part of deal.

I tend to remember 5h*7 like this. UL, knows how to alienate people.

@Denial : We'll see once AMD's cards are around. If is is clean DX-R or VulkanRT, games/tests should run on AMD... as long as AMD enables support for particular revision of DX-R or VulkanRT.
If some run, some don't, we'll know who did not follow standard. Then it will be question of: "Will they patch their code or F* AMD?"
(But I am only interested in Witcher 3 raytracing patch. As I expect CDPR to deliver quality product. And they are putting Cyberpunk's sales on line.)

 

....Not quite. I personally involve myself with 3D rendering & simulations for VFX that's used in animations & other works of content.. The use of "ray-tracing", or perhaps more aptly described real-time ray-tracing is more akin to a gimmick in the video game word than anything else. The reason why it was even made was to first usher in a line of "features" that'd force gamers to upgrade their hardware as they had implemented a "feature" - one which no one asked for and you'll see why..- and made you feel as though you need because otherwise you're just in the FOMO bucket.

I can say without a doubt the 20-series was essentially just a large scale BETA to induce gamers into this idea that video games needed such a thing; yet- were you to look back at some of the most gorgeous games simply in the past decade and a half Crysis 3 (not the remaster), Battlefield 1, etc. (there's a plethora of games, I bet some I am not even aware of); none of them needed nor implemented the concept of "ray-tracing"/real-time ray-tracing. Furthermore there must be an emphasis on the reasoning for it being called "real-time"... Open up the viewport for something like OctaneRender & attempt to navigate yourself around a simple scene. You will find it impossible unless you cut down the amount of samples & even alter the depths for diffuse/specular/glossy materials in it of themselves. What you are seeing in games with these novelties are mere snippets & over glorified approximations. Don't take my word for it, please; see the original demonstration of "RTX" by Nvidia in which they have a side-by-side comparison of a scene using a vehicle & it's overall materials' behavior towards light. You'll notice something very unusual the more you zoom in. Which is, that in the demo with RTX "OFF", the actual geometry & assets used in the scene have been deprecated- manipulated. What would have otherwise been a perfectly round and spherical headlight is for some reason jagged as though they reduced the polygons? (removed the subdivision surface on the asset itself), henceforth of course it will not yield the same result than that of it's RTX "ON" counterpart where ALL surfaces on the assets (car/lens/edges/all the things that affect how any light or shadow will interact when light is dispersed upon it). That was the first red flag to what would eventually become a larger issue. In games where/when you enable or disable it- you can (if you just spend some time inside a 3D rendering/compositing application) see that the materials themselves are actually being changed. The light- or atleast the way the light naturally put in the game, is not behaving differently by somehow 'calculating' it differently- rather the materials themselves are altered. What would normally be a diffused material (one that scatters light & is often able to absorb it quite well- think say, worn cloth) is suddenly behaving as that of a glossy material with a higher index value (index referring to the value of refraction towards all light. Normally found in things like metal/tiles/plastic/etc).

The real advent to any "ray-tracing" (path tracing or PMC if you really wanted to go an extra step) is for artists, 3D renderers, content creators in the form of freelance or entirely independent film studios. Which, unsurprisingly is where you find the most detailed, vivid, and highest quality renditions of said lighting & overall rendering technique. However, depending on the amount of GPUs on hand- it'd be unsurprising to know that a single frame out of a (24/30fps animation; and very rarely 60fps) may take anywhere from several seconds to minutes or hours to render.. Which means you are by no means being served any actual type of render based upon achieving the best nor even close to its' full fidelity; rather just a accelerated view-port rendition of what it ought to look like when you need to render frames at a rate of (on avg the usual standard) 60/sec..... These cards; which by all means are the most exciting amongst content creators, CAD users, VFX artists, wickedly talented Houdini artists, sculptors of Zbrush able to make an insanely detailed and lifelike portrait of an individual character or even person, simulation/FLIP users (for things like making those commercials that you would've sworn was a true car IRL and everything!) was in fact all done within the parameters of an application of your choosing. Bar none the most popular combo lately is that of Cinema4D + OctaneRender/Redshift Render (both powerful; though fundamentally work differently and one may be better than the other for certain applications. Example: still frame scenery vs. animations).

By no means do I feel any animosity towards those whom disagree where it's inherit application first was born of. However- to say that someone is dumb for calling it as a bling/"oooh pretttyy" feature- is significantly short-sighted, naive, and perhaps even just ignorant; when not that long ago a certain Star Wars movie was shown to have expended an exuberant amount of money simply for rendering the scenes that contained storm troopers a while back.. & it's parent company being, Disney. Incredible with the advancements of A.I. that in 2020 people want to talk about whether or not a game has "RT/RTX", yet forget the absolute failures in the form of broken games that come with them out the game such as Watch Dogs: Legion. One talented 3D artists showed himself playing the game & even he couldn't help but laugh at it. Rather than primping up a company that doesn't do you any favors why not demand higher quality from the game developers themselves in the first place? Or are we complacent with Day 1 XYZ-GB patches that only address a portion of the issues? I mean after-all games in the industry have not simply been delayed exclusively to the world-wide pandemic; but for their aforementioned failures- who remembers Anthem? Besides the obvious, it was truly a gorgeous looking game; yet broken- so broken it's become a meme. /shrug

 

There are different implementations in the video game world.

I've been on this forum since 2004 - I can confidently say hundreds of people over the nearly two decades have asked for raytracing in games on Guru3D.

No one says you need raytracing to create gorgeous games. The problem is how "gorgeous" of a game you can create can essentially be plotted as a diminishing return curve against computer hardware, the last hurdle essentially being lighting accuracy. Most of the modern lighting techniques in games are resembling raytracing anyway - for example you mention Crysis 3, which is kind of amusing - because it makes use of Sparse Voxel Octree Global Illumination, which is essentially just a voxel cone tracing approach. The next step on that would obviously just be turning the cones into rays for higher accuracy in areas where you need it.. and guess what? Crytek went and did that:

https://www.cryengine.com/news/view/crysis-remastered-brings-ray-tracing-to-current-gen-consoles

As for Nvidia raytracing against a BVH approximation - we know they do that.. it's an optimization technique, one of many that are employed to make the implementation performant, but it's entirely optional - which brings me to the next section:

Yes it takes time but Octane, Redshift, Arnold, Etc all make use of RT hardware now, and in doing so it considerably cut down on render time. So I'm not really sure what your point is. Games are obviously approximated and optimized for real time rendering but all of that functionality can be disabled if you want accuracy and you still get a massive increase in performance. Which is why these renders all implement functions of OptiX and not RTX.

I feel animosity towards people who are against progress.

AMD RDNA2 is essentially showing how you can get rather performant RT with little to no increase in transistor cost. So essentially they are enabling an entire set of optional features that can not only be used for fancy reflections, but sound, hit detection, motion blur, etc, with literally no downside. Nadda. Nothing. So what exactly is the argument against it? That you hate options? That you hate developers trying new techniques and approaches to solving industry issues? What is it? You can't say it costs more because there is no cost on AMD hardware - outside of AMD just selling it as a value-add. You can't say "it's not worth the performance" because who cares? Turn it off if you don't like it. You can't say it's useless because it's the direction that modern lighting techniques are headed anyway. So why would anyone be against it?

I'm also not sure how raytracing in general has to do with the quality of games. You can have high quality titles with raytracing. Wolf is one, Control is arguably another - I'm not a fan of COD but it works there. Like no one is not playing those games because "raytracing". You're also ignoring the fact that all previous Watchdog games have been horrible with garbage optimization. Legion comes out and everyones like "it's bad because raytracing" even though you turn it off and the game still looks and performs like trash.

_

I see multiple people each year talk about how there's been little progress in graphics technology. Microsoft/Nvidia/AMD come and offer it and everyone's like "wah it doesn't perform well" even though its an option and in it's infancy, clearly has a ton of room to grow.. and now it doesn't even cost you anything with AMD basically doing it for zero transistor cost. As the hardware improves, the techniques improve, the denoising improves, etc, slowly, little by little it will just be worked into every game. Eventually games will come out that don't give you the option to turn it off. Perhaps "offline" renderers will go to some new paradigm in graphics but games will slowly transition to be more photorealistic using raytraced techniques to guide accuracy. One day games will just be fully pathtraced, the quality bar will exceed modern day movies, and while many people won't - I'll remember when someone sat there and said "raytracing is not useful" and I will think man that person was dumb.

 

Boy oh boy, their lighting model in this feature test is really, really bad. Most modern engines can deliver better IQ with standard rendering pipeline. They should be ashamed.

 

Port Royale has no DLSS what so ever, DLSS Test is the only place you will find it.

 

BS, the real reason for pushing it now is because Shadows and lighting hit a wall 10 years ago ago and now its time to play catchup

 

This guy had a i9-9900KF clocked at 5Ghz, but i assume that by "decent gaming CPU" you meant a 5820K from 2015?

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/52484948



Really pleased with the cooling of the MSI gaming X trio, cleaned up my cable management and my two 140mm front fans are now blowing directly on the card instead of my hard-drive/ssd+ a bunch of sata and power connectors.

 

Ok, cool, a full ray-traced benchmark, no other shading....well that's a good nod to the future of raytracing. It does seem that now with the launch of both of these latest cards (AMD & NVidia), given that raytracing has been vastly improved, then this seems like a sign of the times ahead.

 

@patteSatan
glad your crystal ball is working again, telling you what +7B ppl on this planet want/dont want.

@Miguel Angel Abad
lets only do stuff we have an immediate use/need for
(completely ignoring the game quality part, as it has NOTHING to do with features like RT.
played enough games that dont have it and were utter crap.)

dont remember how many "experts/pros" said something isnt useful/limited use etc.
reminds me when the top (not just german) car brands laughed about Audi and using AWD outside trucks (quattro), now one of the biggest and best selling brands on the planet.

 

Good stuff! 3dmark should be pushing the limits of the possible - that's what it was always there for

 

32fps with 2080Ti here, I wonder how much 6800XT will score.

 

I bet you call MMA UFC don't you lol

 

Pretty damn easy to understand my point. Up until DX12 Ult with Ray tracing, its been Nvidia BS tech. Just like all of their other BS proprietary or bought locked down crap.

Now that both sides have hardware ray tracing, we can finally move forward and get games with a standard for support.

Right now RT is a damn RGB gimmick.

 

No it hasn't. The only two games that don't use Microsoft's DXR is Wolfenstein and Quake RTX and that's because they are done through Nvidia's Vulkan extension (which is now actually part of Vulkan itself). So it hasn't been Nvidia BS tech, it's Microsoft's tech. It's all through DXR. DX12 ultimate is just DXR 1.1.

The rest is just your opinion. I already gave a ton of reasons on how RT is useful, described it's various implementations, why it's important for game developers to get experience with it now, how it can be useful in situations beyond just gaming, etc - you simply countering by saying it's not.. and that's it. Anyone that I care to convince here is going to read past your post and ignore it.

 

Boy did that look visually unappealingly unappealing.

 

I have a Q7

 

btw, i cant understand how they are standardized.....these benchmark.....system....

 

Like the test itself from Futuremark?

Lol @ Aesop's Fables; I used to read those. Yeah, I was thinking about one of the earliest ones from Industrial Light and Magic, the Stormtrooper Benchmark which looked great!

I agree with your sentiments completely.

 

People see scores they cant reach and the pitchforks come out.

So emotional.