• 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.

Poll: Which is the better visual upgrade, HDR 10 or Ray Tracing?

Which is the better visual upgrade, HDR 10 or Ray Tracing?

  • HDR 10

    Votes: 95 65.1%
  • Ray Tracing

    Votes: 51 34.9%

  • Total voters
    146
Soldato
Joined
6 Feb 2019
Posts
17,464
Sure, do they do one under 40” for the vast majority of people? Or is it still 48”+ for the niche?

PC monitors are in a tough spot

To get proper HDR you need pixel level light control and only OLED offers that right now. The problem is the smallest practical screens are 48 inches 16:9, too large for most people.

After OLED, then to get decent HDR you need high contrast, high brightness (1000+nits), low maximum black level FALD VA LCD monitor (500 zones MINIMUM). The problem is back lights are power hungry so when you fit 500 of them back a VA panel you end up with a monitor that is HEAVY, THICK, HOT, LOUD and EXPENSIVE - while these monitors do come in reasonable sizes (27 to 38 inches) they typically cost 2 to 3 times more than the OLED.

There is nothing on the market that can be everything to everyone, you either sacrifice your ideal size or you sacrifice your bank account to get HDR.

In the medium term (1-3 years), hopefully smaller OLEDs can come to market but expect prices to go up - I know its counter intuitive but yields are lower and they sacrifice wafer that could be used for larger panels which sell really well, maybe LG will have a 40 inch OLED but it will cost more than the 55 inch.

In the long term (5+ years) there is a new technology (MicroLED) which might arrive. Thought it has its own issues around yields and cost - in theory it should provide the benefit of an OLED and VA panel in one without the downsides. HOWEVER and its a big HOWEVER its very expensive to shrink the pixel sized LED lights down, as such when this technology hits the consumer market it will be only in TV's first (75+ inch TV's) and cost $5000-$10000. Over time the cost and screen sizes may come down if new fabrication processes are found to shrink the LED pixels smaller. I'd expect 7-10 years if you want a MicroLED monitor, as of 2020 all attempts to make small MicroLED panels results in extraordinary costs that the market will not accept and hundreds of dead pixels due to bad yields.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
19 May 2012
Posts
3,633
This is such a tough choice.

I'd say at this current moment in time, HDR is better and more impactful.
RT has the potential to absolutely transform games but we're probably 3-4 GPU refreshes away from it.

As much as I love RT, SDR lacks so much colour depth and pop compared to HDR...


Argh... I'd go with HDR.
 

ne0

ne0

Associate
Joined
2 Feb 2018
Posts
682
hah this is a complete no brainer imo. HDR is a huge visual upgrade, way more than ray tracing. Ray tracing is awesome in the sense that it adds accuracy and realism but up until now developers have done such a great job at faking it that the impact of RT, imo, is subtle. HDR on the other hand is visually jaw dropping and incredibly immersive. A lot of people dismiss HDR as they haven't seen it on a proper HDR display or they don't know how to use it properly which is a shame but it's due to lack of standards unfortunately plus there's a lot of miss selling going on where displays are sold with the letters 'HDR' on the box with a max brightness of 300 nits lol. Then the consumer goes 'HDR is crap'. Oh well.
 

ne0

ne0

Associate
Joined
2 Feb 2018
Posts
682
the other thing I should mention, particularly with HDR gaming is that it completely solves the issue of getting the brightness or contrast in your game just right. Once you flick on HDR you can just sit back and relax because everythiing is taken care of for you. Night times in games look like actual night time which had always been a bug bear of mine where to get nights looking right you would have to reduce brightness but then days would look too dull, etc. HDR fixes all of that. Even games like COD MW have amazing HDR. Try playing a night time map with HDR and you'll feel like you're actually there, it's amazing.
 

ne0

ne0

Associate
Joined
2 Feb 2018
Posts
682
I dare anyone to play in a dark room, with a proper HDR display, something like The Division 2 w/ neutral lighting in night scenes (esp if it's flares going off), Doom Eternal, Tetris Effect, Metro Exodus, Far Cry 5, or Jedi Fallen Order when you light up your lightsabre for light in the caves, and say they'd take ray tracing over HDR. It's just insane!

100% agree, HDR is the biggest step up in visuals and gaming immersion for years. RT is necessary and a logical progression but HDR is way more impactful.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
4,333
My eyes were opened when i played death stranding on my sony oled 65inch. its the only way to play it once you have tried it.
 
Associate
Joined
9 Mar 2017
Posts
166
Location
Manchester
Outside of tech demos I haven't seen any real use of raytracing that has made me want to use it. It either seems to make everything too dark or make surfaces with reflections look like buffed chrome/pools of mercury.

Give me HDR any day.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
90,805
:eek: Check out the Ray Tracing difference on the first one in this video :eek:


Problem is no games currently are really using the features that make ray tracing stand out - when you have bounced light off surfaces indirectly illuminating nearby surfaces, scattered light from chromes, proper caustics (or at least a close enough approximation), etc. in real time it really enhances things in a manner that is prohibitive if not impossible to fake up decently with older techniques.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 May 2014
Posts
5,225
I wonder which will be first: budget, high refresh rate, true HDR monitors (with the software to support it) or 60fps (Native) full raytracing on budget hardware.
Or will they both happen at the same time.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Feb 2019
Posts
17,464
Problem is no games currently are really using the features that make ray tracing stand out - when you have bounced light off surfaces indirectly illuminating nearby surfaces, scattered light from chromes, proper caustics (or at least a close enough approximation), etc. in real time it really enhances things in a manner that is prohibitive if not impossible to fake up decently with older techniques.

We're 2-3 generations away from that though. My vote still goes to HDR, cause games don't look like that yet and won't for a few years until we have a GPU with several times more Ray Tracing grunt than the rtx3090.

Right now, most ray tracing games might have a few reflections here and there where as HDR makes the entire image POP. There are games where its hard to tell side by side at first glance which is RT on and RT off - no such mistake is made with HDR, you immediately know which is why
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
90,805
We're 2-3 generations away from that though. My vote still goes to HDR, cause games don't look like that yet and won't for a few years until we have a GPU with several times more Ray Tracing grunt than the rtx3090.

Right now, most ray tracing games might have a few reflections here and there where as HDR makes the entire image POP

While everyone drags their heels over it yes :( but it doesn't need to be so long away.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
90,805
A clear win for HDR. That said, If this poll is re-run a couple of years from now, maybe the results might be different. :)

Hopefully in a couple of years we have both in proper implementation :s

I like HDR but I find I too quickly see the deficiencies with current implementations and then that ruins it for me.
 
Back
Top Bottom