Caporegime
Wish they did Deus Ex.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Ray Tracing
- Thread starter CashmereThoughts
- Start date
Caporegime
He smokes the same stuff as eastcoast. Just has the opposite effect on him. Lol
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 45,037
Depends what your metric is. In terms of value, ease of use, and less faff consoles are miles ahead. In terms of visuals, sure, and I would say that console users seem to now be more graphics focussed as we've seen from the countless DF videos with analysis of every frame.
In many ways all I see these new techniques is adding to developer work load resulting in diminished gameplay and fewer and fewer decent titles. The upgrade cost for PC is hilarious when you consider there will be 1-2 reasonably decent games before the next upgrade cycle begins again.
Ask any minecraft player if they would like a graphical upgrade to minecraft. I'm sure it still has a handful of players.
Are you saying 4k 60hz is fine, but 1440p 60hz is not? There is no reason that I can think of that would stop the Quake 2 RTX path tracing code being implemented in a next gen title, 1440p 60Hz, as an alternative option to legacy rasterization. Maybe this is why Nvidia are putting time in to it. The 20 series was a complete fail for RT. The 30 series delivered what the 20 series promised.
I don't play Fortnight myself, but I'm sure there are people out there playing with RTX on. Maybe even more than a handful. The 1st video I found, which has 435,263 views -
Personaly, I accept less FPS with RT due to it being far more demanding than legacy solutions, while providing a far more pleasing experience. I don't make a living out of competition gaming thus ~60 FPS at 1440p is fine. I'd even drop to 1080p for a path traced play through of Skyrim, though I'm sure it would be fine at 1440p due to how path tracing works.
Soldato
Most Minecraft players I know are playing it on Potato rigs and if they really cared about graphics wouldn't play it. The art style was intentionally basic so it would scale well to lower rigs - it was developed by a one man band. Even with RT it isn't a pretty game due to its blocky art style. Enthusiasts on forums are getting excited because it's a tech demo they can run on their new acquisitions.
Again as I mentioned elsewhere it will take until RDNA3 and the Ampere successor for things to really start moving. ATM, even the new mainstream GPUs under £300 will be the big limitation,as will consoles and the huge userbase of older GPUs.
Again as I mentioned elsewhere it will take until RDNA3 and the Ampere successor for things to really start moving. ATM, even the new mainstream GPUs under £300 will be the big limitation,as will consoles and the huge userbase of older GPUs.
Last edited:
Last night I was playing around with RT on Control on my 2070s and I liked it. I was still getting 70+ fps and gives an extra dimension that is worth the fps loss for myself. I know Control is supposed to be good for RT and DLSS but I find myself more leaning towards the 3080 than the 6800xt even though I game at 1440p where the 6800xt shines.
If that's true, why are people still making texture packs for it?
1) viewing figures of a youtube video does not equate to people ACTUALLY playing with RT on.
2) i am not saying 4k60 is acceptable at all. if you care about smooth gaming experince rather than just sharper images or on bigger displays then 60hz is not really acceptable experience. 4k60 is only acceptable standard cos there aren't many affordable 4K 144Hx monitors and the GPU can't do much higher. this is why a HUGE portion of the gamer are on 1440p or lower resolutions; even at 1400p RT performance is still completely poor and unacceptable.
3) 60FPS is for you then fair enough, but do be mindful that gamers do care about smoother gaming experieces more than RT. if a game is stuttering, jerky or whatever no matter how pretty the visual is, it is not pleasant. i think a recent youtube survey was done by hardware unboxed on what resolution and Hz peopel play or want to play at. over 50% of the surveyed were @ 1440p 144Hz. with around another 20%-30% are 1080p @ 144hz and some are higher 240hz etc. but the point is the main steam is 2k high refresh rate as this seems to give people better gaming expereince that is noticably perceivable. if you still think 60FPS is still the norm (which it isn't) in the wider gaming industry context then i really dont have anything further to add. and happy to agree to disagree.
1. It shows the interest. Of course most people won't be playing with RT on due to it costing more, but given the choice, do you really think they would leave it off? Do you play games at the lowest settings, 720p just to chase FPS? Are you a pro gamer?
2. 60Hz is not acceptable, but is sometimes because more costs more?
3. The most common card on Steam's hardware survey is the 1060. It's not doing 144FPS at 1440p. Indeed what about all the console gamers who play many games at 30FPS?
1) Interest...millions of people watch unboxing video - what does that tell you? millions watch gogglebox - what does that tell you? nothing other than the content draws people attention and it is good to use it to market something or sell something. you play at the most reasonable setting that give you the smoothest game play. that is what every does rather than go in and turn everything on and game on regardless. cos even a 1650 can take ultra setting @ 4K but you are gonna get 1FPS.
2) dunno what you are on about now. if say someone have a 4K 144hz monitor why would that person accept 4k60 as an acceptable performance. them monitors cost a lot of money so why get a card than can only output 4k @ 60??? makes lilte to no sense. if you got 4K 60hz monitor then fine you can live with that. but then again comparing 144hz gaming vs 60Hz gaming, given people's the choice people will want 144Hz over resolution.
3) we are not talking about consoles are we. you know it. so dont try to go off an tangent. with those seam survey you kindly pull out, it even makes a clearer picture that RT is just a gimmick - how many of those hardware support RT and can run RT gaming. now back to the point about FPS, again leading the survey is all budget cards 1050, 1070 1650. people wants to game on the budget, but do you think if given them the choice of the same budget @60Hz or 144Hz, they will still use 60hz. that is the point - people wants to move to high FPS more so than having RT or high res. that is the point of the survey Hardware Unboxed found. If nvidia or AMD brings out a £200 card can do 2k @ 144hz it will sell like hot cakes and those steam survey will be skewed towards those cards
1. You didn't answer - It shows the interest. Of course most people won't be playing with RT on due to it costing more, but given the choice, do you really think they would leave it off? Do you play games at the lowest settings, 720p just to chase FPS? Are you a pro gamer?
2. You stated 60Hz is not acceptable except at 4k because it costs more. Today, most people will have 60Hz £99 or less panels.
3. We are talking about gamers, no? You thought a survey done by HW unboxed showed that most gamers play at 144hz 1440p. That maybe true of those who watch HW unboxed, though doubtful, but it's not true of gamers. And many gamers are happy with the console experience that lags way behind PC. Even if you want to ignore consoles, Steam's HW survey still lists the 1060 as the most popular GPU. Who is getting 144 FPS at 1440p out of an old 1060?
I'd love a complete redo of the original game with ray tracing but updated mechanics, etc. there is a lot missing from the game because they didn't have the technology and/or ran out of time - the whole pandemic side of it isn't portrayed well in the game and lots of the Icarus/Daedalus story is missing, etc.
Caporegime
Yeah, that would be awesome
No it doesn't show interest. it just shows people will watch other poeple play games thats all. I dont play @ 720P i play games 1080p 144Hz. i had a 1660 super, i cant hit those FPS with max setting so i dial it down. it is what every other person do. and I want max setting, so i get a 2070s to run 1440p @ 144Hz. if RT turns the experiece into 60fps affair. no thanks. I am not a pro-gamer. you dont need to be a pro-gamer to see 144Hz vs 60Hz there is a difference. noticable difference. just ask around. you are on 60Hz so you dont know what you missing. pro-gamer is doing even higher FPS and its far beyond my aging reflex and eye balls to notice any appreciated gains in gaming smoothness.
i never said 4K is acceptable @ 60Hz. i repeated said it is BS to spend £1400 on a card to game at 4k60. it is only a standard becuase there is no hardware or reasonably priced hardward. if you can game @ 144Hz why compromise to 60Hz. that is the crux of it.
lol you are ignorign the fact that even 1060 can still do 144Hz with res turned down. I can bet those people do. you are arguing 60Hz is the main stay, i am saying 144Hz is the future if not now. given the choice, people clearly wants higher FPS than RT or higher resolution. poeple only want higher res if they can have larger screens thus the console gaming support 4k which can be played in your living rooms. but if you know what 144Hz is like and ging back 60Hz, it is ust meh... also i dont know which generation of console you are talking about doing 30Hz, maybe wii. but hell, that cant be right.
Associate
After playing a large chunk of the COD Cold War single player last night with RT maxed in Ultra 4k it's a fairly easy conclusion that RT effects matter, the game looks amazing. The RT effects improve the visual quality of the game and that's why I buy new video cards, to make games look better.
The question for me is also, what is the alternative? If we went full rasterization and ignored RT all together, what would the value proposition be in a new video card? Even more frames per second? Right now there's no competition in this space for alternatives to RT in terms of leaps in visual fidelity.
The question for me is also, what is the alternative? If we went full rasterization and ignored RT all together, what would the value proposition be in a new video card? Even more frames per second? Right now there's no competition in this space for alternatives to RT in terms of leaps in visual fidelity.
If availability wasn't such an issue and it was AMD £587 vs. Nvidia £650, I don't think there would be too much of a debate. The other issue is that we don't know how much better 6800 RT/DLSS alternative will get over time. I picked up the 6800 XT for £599 and there is some buyers remorse but I don't know at what point I could get a 3080 at a competitive price, if ever.
Soldato
Oh yeah! Redo all of them. One of my favourite games and one of the rare ones I buy on release.
Associate
Both have severe shortages right now and likely will into the near future, so availability problems cuts both ways. As will price gouging. It'll be interesting to see what Super Resolution does for AMD but without acceleration by something like tensor cores I don't see it being very good.
I forsee a lot of the old image quality battles we had back in the DX8/9 days coming back to haunt us however, with DLSS vs SR comparisons probably being a hot topic. Back then it was MSAA battles over how much you could optimize them before IQ loss became a problem and that lead to fierce competition.