Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Nov 14, 2018.
Curious what would happen to the thermals if whole GPU would be synthetically burdened.
I guess the next gen of cards will be what will have acceptable frame rates.
Are you trolling?
The 480 sees a 37 % performance drop with the max level tesselation back then... the 2080 sees a 68 % (!!!!!) performance drop from 1080p ultra to 1080p DXR ultra... quite a facking massive difference...
Some praise the beauty of the game with RTX on, but another says the implementation in this game is only about reflections... so what does RTX really do in this game?
I think that one of the best things is that maybe this time Nvidia abandons DirectX 11 and let the industry keep moving to 12 and Vulkan, because their 10 series weren't equally prepared for them, and now they will need the promised improvements more than before.
Ray-tracing is hard.
RTX cards are okay at it.
If you care about performance over visuals it's probably not for you right now. Its more for show and an example of what these can now be achieved rather than something we will all adopt for day to day use.
"that can deal with it" ?? lol. Strange wording....
SLI In 2k18 omegaLUL
Eeeewww that must look so blurry, not to mention the poor performance you'd get on modern titles.
ewww? blurry? lol
It's the clearest from all @ 19% smoothing, and perf. is ok too, your 1060 would struggle more
Something doesnt seem 100% right. I am getting higher 4k FPS than you in the PRE ray tracing settings. And I am getting 4k60fps 16ms frametimes, Raytracing ultra. 60fps with ray tracing at 4k. I have everything at ultra, but AA turned to low, undergrowth turned to low (Pointless to have that high, its a handicap). 4k60fps locks, ray tracing, ultra.
RTX should be on or off only not low-ultra nonsense.
Well having levels at least gives you options but I agree it’s as simple as RT can get and levels on top of that kinda dilutes the whole thing but with the teething it needs whatever advantage it can get.
I don´t know why you think the reflections on the water look that good?:
Crysis 3 on a gtx660:
Vs $1200 card in 2018:
Yes, obviously, if you understand even remotely what ray tracing is, you'd know why it's such a resource intensive feature.
The only thing your post proves is you don't understand the difference between rasterisation and ray tracing. Resterized reflections can look "decent", but never perfect, they never will ever have the ability to reflect everything, naturally, without gimmicks. Everything has to be hardcoded into the reflections, and there are certain things that is literally impossible to do.
That crysis 3 looks decent right? Because you have no idea how it'd look ray traced, what the TRUE reflections would be, everything you are missing in the sky from the skybox, models they never put in there but you just attribute to not being in there as "it must be in the blurry spots". For instance, the far left of the picture, where's the tree or rock or whatever it is that is coming pretty high out of the water? Why is it just undefined brightness all the way to the edge of the water?
Where are the reflections for the helicopters? The blue bullets/whatever they are? The red streaks in the sky?
Rasterized reflections plain and simply will never be able to do what ray traced reflections can. You can say you don't care, but that's too bad for you, technology will advance without your approval.
There is also quite a "fracking" difference between real time raytracing at 60+fps and rounding triangles at 30fps. Not to mention that the first hardware tessellation system was AMD 5790 which came out a year prior to the 480. So yeah.. the first tessellation hardware (comparable to the first DXR accelerated hardware) both see 50%+ performance losses and in tessellation's case it's at completely unplayable levels of performance (sub 30fps) and no where near as technically, or visually impressive as real time raytracing - even if it's just reflections.
I'll quote what I wrote earlier in the thread:
I don't personally care about 2000 series. I've stated numerous times on this forum that the 2000 series is a terrible launch. My issue is that most people here are combining the 2000 series launch with DXR as a technology. I think DXR is insanely awesome and the initial performance results, regardless of the price, are surprisingly good considering the potential for it to completely replace the lighting pipeline in all games 2-3 generations from now.
I absolutely agree... the "fake" reflections used in games like crysis 3 (and especially bf5) are good enough, especially as reflections are hardly the most important part about graphics, and certainly doesn't warrant the MASSIVE performance hit just for more "accurate" reflections.
Actually, i wouldn't mind water and other reflective surfaces just being shiny without any reflections, if that meant the graphics power can be devoted to more important things, like a high LOD, high quality assets etc.
But all the people who are preaching that raytracing will now be the norm are forgetting a little something... what game developers do with their games depends entirely on the consoles... the consoles doesn't support raytracing, and even if they did, they won't have enough power to run raytracing for maaaaany years to come. So raytracing will be a pc gimmick, much like physx was, and will likely see the same fate.
Thanks for the review Hilbert. I love RT eye candy and full appreciate it, but as I said it before, its not there YET.
Nvidia should have released a GTS card without the tensor cores for faster rasterization performance at 4K which is needed and at a better price then release RT when its "ready".
If they had made DLSS universal, then that may be a valid reason to have the RT cores, but so far, nope so feel bad for all the 2070/2080 RTX users paying for features they were expecting to use fully, but have to compromise.
Thankfully your definition of "good enough" isn't what drives hardware development. If it was, we'd have no HDR, AO, many different forms of AA, any physics, among so many other technologies that we take for granted now that at one time were considered by some to "not be needed, what we have now is good enough".
I wonder if enabling DXR will disable cube mapping?
Not at all. Not a single game i know that has decent global illumination and decent lighting and shading. RT is the future. It may take several generations to reach acceptable levels, but all other lighting technologies have to go. That was same with shaders or tesselation. It took a while and were very resource hogging at the beginning, but now you can't find a game without them.
Fake! 2:55 is prime example where you have water with ships and ships are not visible in reflection. Instead you see building/background.
How big was the update again? How many pre-baked cubemaps is that?
3:12 as player enters building...
-> Pillar has lamps. On pillar you can see reflection of bulb inside of the lamp as it is bright enough.
-> Reflection on ground should not have it in same spot, but below lamp as that's angle from which light reflects towards camera
=> Actual lamp on pillar is shaped in way that it is much wider on bottom than on top.
=> Floor Reflection removes this shaping as if you looked on it more from above
I think they baked this from very bad angle
I agree it looks beautifull but we need 2 maybe 3 gens before we will get 100 fps at 4k with every RT feature on