Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Jan 10, 2019.
No comment lol
The 2060 is dead in the water now. That whole focus on the announcement of the 2060 is now useless. My bet is that is what triggered the response. AMD has that price point covered with a superior performing card. So his generosity of offering an RTX card at such a "low" price has now bit him in the backside.
Make Nvidia great AGAIN!
AMD announcing a $700 card triggered him because his $350 card is now useless? Am I missing something?
Thats old. 2080 is faster in every new game and it will continue to be. Its all about the Turing. 1180/2080 and RVII will run the show this year, Pascal is history and probably its support too.
"And if we turn on ray tracing we’ll crush it."
What? With that LOUSY ray tracing framerate?
Hilbert, I really appreciate you for posting this story. In my opinion, these comments made by Jensen Huang are very inappropriate. Hopefully AMD's upcoming Radeon VII will obtain a good market share for them!
AMD is well behind in the GPU game but it's till an improvement over the best AMD card, and 7nm should be quite a bit more efficient.
Hopefully Navi is not too far away, even though I don't care for the highest end cards.
Raytracing does not interest me in the slightest yet, needs to go a few generations before things get better.
Yes this all RTX is now only bad joke.
I can understand people being upset that an introduced technology is being released with such an unprecedented pricepoint...
But after years of developers having to use hacks to achieve raytracing effects...
I do not understand how real time ray tracing is the gimmick?
Personally I know an army of creatives who are chomping at the bit to leverage ray tracing to heighten the art of real time graphics and an army of gamers whining because a technology just introduced hasn't resulted in a flood of games right away sounds pretty unrealistic.
What release from any GPU didn't come with new tech that was touted in a few demos and their SDKs had a mass adoption in all games at time of release?
Self shadowing soft shadows? Subsurface Scattering realistic skin? Tessellation?
Who cares if no games are published that does not use Ray tracing as long as an army of creatives finally have a card ( cheaper than volta ) to finally begin working on implementing as much.
Heck.. Nvidia's real time sss skin demo was released with the 8800 ultra...
And it was several generations till as much was feasible in games. I don't remember all this nay-saying over cutting edge tech not being published by all games right away back then?
If AMD doesn't have an aggressive implementation of real time ray tracing support to make nvidia compete on price then it will be a big step backwards for graphic progress!
Everyone saying RTX RT is a gimmick needs to check themselves. Ray tracing is an awesome step forward not backward albeit at an unrealistic price point.
If an 11xx series does come out without RT...
Than as much will hurt graphical fidelity progress.
And promotes less progress in support of as much in new games.
It would be a vote for the least common denominator in graphics.
So how is that not just turning down/sacrificing on ultra settings to achieve FPS? We have advanced real time ray tracing playable on QHD at 60fps with the newest Battlefield drivers and it's the end of the world for real time ray tracing? And lighting fidelity in games is ... a gimmick?
U people are insane!
Reminds me of Louis Ck's everything is amazing and no one is happy skit!
Jensen sounds mad gamers aren't forking over hundreds of dollars more for his RTX cards. I would be impressed with RTX if DLSS would work with every single DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan program out there... not specially trained "partner" games.
It's sort of like Valve releasing Steam without Half-Life 2. nVidia dedicated half of their silicon to RTX... only one or two games use it right now... and they're not even popular games.
So what you're saying is, DLSS and ray tracing will become the most wildly adopted technology for games ever.
If not, then that analogy doesn't make sense.
(i just realized you may have been saying that as IF valve didn't release steam without HL2....if that's what you're saying, then that's wrong, Steam released in 2003, HL2 in 2004)
It is a gimmick for as long as the performance is poor, raytracing will need a good 2-3 generational steps in power to have enough support for it to work on even low end. Buy a 2060 now and you basicly cannot use RT without being on sub 30 FPS.
AMD can already do raytracing albeit with less performance.
It's not the price point it's the fact that right now only one card can actually manage to achieve a somewhat acceptable performance. What's the point for a developer to include raytracing if realisticly only a handful are going to use it.
Well said. Luckly AMD have hinted that they will be doing Ray Tracing in the future. When this happens i suggest there will be a change of attitudes. I currently use an AMD GPU, but am so hyped about Ray Tracing.
of course he says that. It's what he does best, talks $h1T
Performance isn't poor, performance is extremely good compared to anything else out there and considering the one main game(for now) can be played at 1440p with ray tracing affects for a first release, that's not bad at all. People need to really figure out what they deem is "good fps", as first introductions of technologies have generally been far worse in performance cost then ray tracing has, and yet ray tracing should have been the most.
As to your "AMD can already do ray tracing", proof? where? I mean any CPU and GPU can technically do ray tracing, but you say less performance? 1fps? Where's your statement come from?
If you don't understand my point, lets say two graphics cards with equal performance in "normal" rasterization technologies, are pitted against eachother in ray tracing. Lets say Card A, gets 10FPS, and card B, gets 60FPS. Again, both are equal without ray tracing. What about that is "poor performance" about card B?
No, currently, we can't test that out to see if it's true, but what IS true is that ray tracing has NEVER been possible in a game at any reasonable resolution, until now. This is fact. If you want to say that's not fact: Prove it.
Also you should note these are big words from the man who sold, 110,000 of his shares in Nvidia and is being sued for lying to the share holders and lying to his customers for years.
It's not so simple. First the Riva TNT and TNT 2 and then the GeForce were pitted against 3Dfx and beat them. Yes, 3Dfx hastened their own demise, but they were already behind. Ever heard of the Voodoo 5?
ATI came out with the Rage chip back in 1996. Yes, they beat 3Dfx and Nvidia to market with a "3D" chip (and I use that term loosely). Yet their design was terrible, and even though they made a huge amount of money from integration into OEM PCs (with marvelous advertising stickers on the front proclaiming, "Blazing Fast 3D"), it wasn't enough for them to come out with a competitive card until the Radeon in 2000, which was plagued with issues right from the beginning.