Has RTX Changed The Way We Game?
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 05. 2024
- When Nvidia switch the naming scheme of it's graphics cards from GTX to RTX it ushered in a new era for the company. Years later Keith is here to look at how, if at all, RTX hardware has changed the way we game and what it could mean for the future.
Buy PCWorld merch: crowdmade.com/collections/pcw...
Follow PCWorld for all things PC!
--------------------------------
SUBSCRIBE: czcams.com/users/pcworld?sub_c...
TWITTER: / pcworld
WEBSITE: www.pcworld.com
#pcgaming #raytracing #gpu
00:00 - Intro
00:30 - Brief History
01:32 - Ray Tracing Impact
03:50 - Upscaling Impact
05:40 - Reactions Both Positive & Negative
07:15 - The Future/Wrap Up - Věda a technologie
I'd argue DLSS has had a bigger impact than Ray Tracing because it can extend the life of a GPU and with how much they are now days that matters a lot.
I could be wrong, but that's why DLSS was invented, because modern video cards don't pull ray tracing as well as we'd like.
DLSS was invented as a way to improve performance since typical ways of improving performance have slowed to a snail's pace
I think this is the general consensus, and why in recent news, AMD finally decided to follow Nvidia and Intel using ML/AI on FSR upscaling, RT performance hit is still too much for anything below 4080 to be meaningful.
Even if you had a powerful GPU, DLAA is the best anti-aliasing I've used.
@@KillFrenzy96 Best antialiasing is 4k and higher 😅
The pricing of GPUs is the real kicker. The reliance of upscaling and how gpu vendors (nvidia primarily) has artificially upsold the value of GPUs through software features and clever marketing has really resulted in a net negative in my book... These companies strive for constant growth in every field, and when innovation in manufacturing has stifled they became really creative on how to extract profit from consumers, and they killed off budget gaming completely. Just imagine that I could get a RX480 for 199 back in 2016. 6 years later you could get 20-30% better performance with the RTX3050 for 20% more money... So yeah, consumers were the ones that got screwed.
Welp hopefully Intel can take that part over as Arc's drivers are slowly improving and maybe the Battlemage series will be complete gasss!!!
Now for < $100 extra you can get an RTX 4060 that is 300% faster than your RX 480 with countless new features. I'm not seeing how you (or I) are being "screwed" whatsoever. The only way I was "screwed" was buying an RTX 3060 for $350 when I could have had a 4060 for $70 less, or a 4060ti for the same price if I'd waited a few months.
Bacause back in 2016 those 14nm/16nm only cost around $4000 per wafer. TSMC 5nm cost $17, 000 per wafer. Good thing is the increase of GPU price did not go in linear fashion with wafer price increase.
Hdr has the biggest impact and it's FPS cost free
Except usually need a costly display to actually view HDR content.
@@josephjoestar515 I don't get the amazing black levels with my LCD (Honestly not bad, but not OLED) , but the colors are still much more intense with HDR turned on for everything, though I swear I had monitors 10 years ago as vibrant as this with HDR turned on...
true @@josephjoestar515 but will outlast many build though
@@josephjoestar515I have a $400 65" Walmart TV with HDR, and that's my primary gaming display. $400 for 65".
@@josephjoestar515 lasts a lot longer than a GPU though, and you know they're not just price gouging you
I have yet to play a game where RTX made the slightest bit of difference to me. I usually have it turned off majority of the time.
You mean "ray tracing"? RTX is Nvidia's brand name for ray tracing.
Most people still don't use ray tracing 5 years later.
Most people have low-tier cards from 4 years ago. That doesn't mean RTX isn't good. Games that are completely or almost fully ray/pathtraced look so much more realistic than rastered, that you'd have to be blind not to use it when the performance level isn't stupidly low.
If you introduced RTX 5 years later because "most people still don't use it," you'd be 5 years late to whenever it's basically standard.
@@phahq In its current form, it is over rated and still not where it needs to be and the performance cost is too steep for what it does.
Unless you have both pictures side by side it's very difficult to see the difference. Also path and ray tracing causes weird visible noise, ray reconstruction is supposed to reduce it, but it's still very noticeable.
Also ray traced reflections are supposed to be more realistic, yet in Cyberpunk you still can't see your own reflection outside of interactive mirrors.
The best current use of ray tracing is to help developers make rasterization look more realistic.
One day it may be worth using, but for now it's just a marketing gimmick that most people disable.
@@australienski6687
"Unless you have both pictures side by side it's very difficult to see the difference."
So, you're blind. Gotcha!
If you can't see the difference, then you need to see an eye doctor@@australienski6687
@@phahq No, the difference is just not that big.
I have an Rx 6700 XT and I'm not upgrading until ray tracing becomes the norm at 1440p 60fps for a GPU at the same price range.
I'd add that the implementations aren't broken; most games introduce a lot of artifacts and/or micro-stutter with RT. I can get over 100FPS on the path traced mode in 4K for Cyberpunk, 4090 with DLSS2 + Frame Generation + Ray Reconstruction, but guess what, I don't play with it on because the noise and artifacts are annoying. In some games, Spiderman/Ratchet and Clank, it can look okay but other than Metro Exodus EE ray tracing is an afterthought and poorly implemented. (Haven't played Alan Wake 2 yet but that one is supposed to be another good implementation.) I always try RT and I'm always disappointed.
Rx 7800 XT and 7900GRE
Only thing that has surprised &shocked me since rtx came out is that it’s already been 5 years!!! Time flies
This is a fantastic video idea. A retrospective look at promises made by these companies is essential to holding them accountable by informing consumers.
Imo i'd prioritize developing better/next gen real time game physics and other mechanics which has a tangible impact on the gameplay rather than lights.
Game developer in general are not interested to put complex physics in their game.
I turn on RT, look around. Then turn it off immediately.
Upscaling at quality mode on the other hand looks great at 4k resolution, Even with FSR.
yeah, FSR or DLSS both at current state has really good quality. i'm nvidia user but tbh i don't see any noticeable difference between fsr or dlss if it configured correctly (some games has better/worse implementation of FSR/DLSS).
I think, in 10-20 years, realtime raytracing will finally up to the level of good handcrafted shaders that simulates the effect. In most usecases today, it's just bullshit. Like in Alan Wake 2: Low Performance for the graphic quality, and if you look in mirrors you just see a blurry mess of pixels. Thinks developer could do better 20 years before with portal rendering and well made shaders. So for me, in most cases this hype is just a ton of energy waste for microscopic benefits. And who cares if the reflection on a sword looks more physical correct if the game sux's, is still broken after month of release but cost like 2 AAA Games back then?
I'm going to have to answer with a NO, don't want it, don't use it, didn't ask for it, and don't care about it... I feel they took the cheap way out by jacking the price up while avoiding the issue which is the only thing any of us should really care about, I'm referring to rasterization, everything else is nothing but a software magic trick and doesn't contribute to my experience with any of my games. I will stick with AMD cards until Nvidia can produce a high raster card that don't cost $2000+, that's just obscene. I'm kind of hoping the next gen of Intel cards can perform this task better with their architecture and gaining experience with drivers.
I'm using a 2080 Super. I don't really care about RT, the card still seems fast enough for anything I do though.
It's the future for game lighting for sure but I've yet to turn it on in any games I play
We still need several gpu generations to make Path Tracing significant and a few monitor generation to make seeing it properly affordable.
I feel like monitors have done such a better job than GPU’s. I wouldn’t be surprised if monitors got there by 2025 but *shocked* if GPU’s met that deadline.
Path tracing is viable on a 2080ti, or a 4060. Both can be found for less than $300 used.
@@Wobbothe3rd Path tracing in Portal RTX even with a 3090 was barely playable without DLSS. The 4060 is nowhere near a 3090. Is 15-20fps what you call viable?
_and a few monitor generation to make seeing it properly affordable_
Clarify. I can see the difference just fine. If you mean the looking window effect, that is like 480Hz and up, and doing that on a gpu is gonna take a while, let alone pathtraced.
If you mean HDR, get a better screen. If you mean just contrast, get OLED.
@@jamegumb7298 I'm referring to actual hdr of brightness. RT/PT can often look worse on sdr because dim areas go black and bright areas wash out effectively and all sorts of nuance provided by the more physically accurate lighting model is just lost and it destroys the image. Some of this can be mitigated with better settings and better rt/pt implementations, but with decent HDR it's much easier to see the weaknesses of raster in providing realistic imagery compared to rt/pt.
Thanks for explaining the state of Ray Tracing and the effects on game development. As a non hardcore gamer that so happened to buy a 1080ti at launch, it's interesting as only now in 2024 I really feel that itch (edit: to upgrade now, as I upgraded from a low tier old graphics card back then at the 1080ti launch year) from back then where certain AAA games are starting to really push the old 1080ti past its limits. RT combined with machine learning will be the way forward the next 10 years, when inevitably the next advancement comes around. I used to belong to the "it's fake resolution" crowd, but in 2024 you just have to accept it's the only mainstream way forward. All I can hope is that AMD can stay competitive when it comes to Ray-/Pathtracing performance, since the chokehold Nvidia has on the graphics card industry is harmful to consumers.
Good video! Imo the thing holding back ray tracing the most is that low-mid range hardware is still just not powerful enough to run it, basically price gated so that only high end priced products get you enjoyable ray tracing experience.
I miss the rasterization era
Excellent content. More of this in the future.
Real time raytracing (RTX, DXR, etc.) is not and will not be a requirement for games for a long while yet. Yes a handfull use it, but we have yet to have that... Shadow of the Beast (Amiga) or Wing Commander (PC) moment. Once OS requirements for Windows (or Linux) need raytracing hardware as a standard, then the game is a foot.
Until then Office and Open/Libre Office really need that killer raytracing functionality for it to become the standard. 😉
Even with a raytracing capable gpu, I still don't find myself enabling it in anything.
With my 3090 I use it in everything that has it at 4k.
@@Safetytrousers lol 30fps ?
@@Safetytrousers The 3090 is outdated and belongs in a museum but not in a 2024 gaming rig.
@@Lukas-lp2fzlolwut? The 3090 is a card you can still buy new and nvidia considers it current gen.
@@Longlius No it is ancient.
If you game on pc you must have a 4090, there is just no excuse.
For real, since we're expected to pay upwards of 1600$US on just the graphics card I'd expect a new level of interactivity rather then better shadows & reflections which were totally exceptable pre-RTX. Give me a new way to enjoy videogames, VR was a good attempt but its still pretty undercooked. There's so much more better pixels can get you.
Anyone who gets any "new" tech has more money than brain and LOVES to be free beta testers for the big corporates.
Nvidia knows that they have millions of chump customers who would nod to any new tech that they want to "market" to.
I got a good deal on a 1 yo used 3060ti (230$) when the previous owner wanted to "upgrade" to the 40 series because of the "promised" new stuff by their dad Jensen.
Dont use RT and dont care a duck to turn on the feature even at 1080p.
I want raytracing in games for practical reasons. Ray traced reflections so reflections work properly as opposed to Screen Space reflections. I am personally fine with current ambient occlusion and shadow technologies. I want games to stop using TAA or find another technique. I feel like AMD and Nvidia have been leaning on upscalers to not have to push as hard on pure GPU horsepower. But that's just my opinion and feeling. I would need to test games without upscalers over a bunch of graphics card generations to see if we are making meaningful (40%+) gains anymore.
I really want it not for reflections, but for games where light and dark is front and center, or where playing with the light is a theme, like CP2077.
As far as games where light vs dark is central, I mean games like Little Nightmares 1&2, perhaps Stray, SOMA, IXION perhaps. For sure Alien Isolation, and 110% GTFO, especially that one. No more flashlights acting weird, proper light in the darkness, shadows falling the right way, as they should, every time, it would add a lot.
But more than raytraced graphics, I want more raytraced sound, used far too little and even a half decent implementation sounds godlike. Trying to add a small mod for it to GTFO, very hard to do, but if I can make it work, oh muh lorr.
@@jamegumb7298I dont like raytracing mainly for the performance drop. The game that made me kinda change my mind about raytracing solely being a gimmick was dying light 2 for global illumination. Night actually looking like night is too good, but on the same hand night in dl1 looks good even without raytracing...
Rtx is a lot like many other visuals that are nice and all but if you are honest with yourself, you don't notice it while playing when it's on and you really only notice the extra fps when it's off
I don't think it should change gaming, it should change how devs make games though, it hopefully makes things easier for them.
Yeah it sounded like the kind of thing Nvidia should have been marketting to the devs not to gamers but consumers always get burdened with the cost so...
I want to know about Ray Tracing beyond gaming. Thinking about content creation. A low end RTX card seems useless to enable R/T for gaming, but how effective is R/T, say on an RTX-2060 - with apps like Blender, DaVinci Resolve, or Light Room?
You can find lots of benchmarks and reviews dedicated to that subject, Puget is a good place to start. Ray tracing in Blender is a genuine game changer. The jump to RTX from GTX was very much as advertised. Depending on the scene in question, you could actually see the 6X performance improvements that Nvidia claimed when they launched Turing. That didn't go for every scene, some scenes saw "only" 2X boosts (2080ti vs 1080ti). But make no mistake, you could see the differences immediately going to RTX in the software that truly used it, even in the worst case you still got double performance.
Even the low end 2060 Super was faster than a 1080ti in this kind of software, so yes, the low end cards could have value if the VRAM was enough. The 3060 in particular has been a long considered a "bang for buck" option in this regard. The 3060 can render as fast as the 2080ti, which as we already stated was much faster than the 1080ti. This combined with 12GB of VRAM made it a very attractive option for those who want to play with rendering software, and even now you can find hobbyists picking up a 3060 for this reason.
Also, it needs to be noted that many rendering software allow you to use multiple GPUs, so you can stack their performance. VRAM does not stack unless you have specific support and only certain 2000 series or the 3090, so keep that in mind. But you can buy two 3060s and render quite fast considering the price differences to the 3080 12GB or ti models. Performance tends to scale very well across many render engines, often in the 90-95% range.
Better still, you do not need identical cards, you can mix cards of totally different kinds. I have both a 3060 and a 3090 in my computer. So if my scenes are less than 12GB both cards will work together.
Another big point is that rendering is not helped by any of Nvidia professional cards. The only advantage they offer is extra VRAM capacity, which may be nice, but the price tag is just too much just for extra VRAM. This is one reason why the 3090 and 4090 are so valued. But hobbyists can get by with less if their budget isn't there.
Even the much maligned 4060ti 16GB has some interest from content creators on a budget, because of its 16GB. However I tell them to try picking up a used 3090 instead as it is much faster.
Many rendering engines only use Nvidia CUDA, and even the ones that do not use CUDA still run much better with Nvidia than AMD. While it is possible to use AMD in Blender, you can render much faster with Nvidia's OptiX, and many commercial renderers will not even function with AMD. If you do find a render engine that AMD can work in, the performance is usually at least a generation behind. I point at the 4060ti again, because for its price, while it sucks at gaming, it can beat much of AMD's lineup, seriously. I know gamers would lose their minds reading that, again, I am talking about Blender. That is how wide the gap can be.
Since Turing, each new gen has made large strides in ray tracing performance. The 3090 could double the 2080ti yet again, and the 4090 nearly repeated the feat.
Davinci can run fine on AMD, so there's that. But only the new 7900XTX is decent. The 6900XT couldn't even beat the older 2080ti, much less the 3090 which crushes it. The 7900XTX is slightly faster than the 3090, so while AMD works, they seem to be about a generation behind here.
Lightroom is quite different. Intel is actually preferable, at least for CPU. Lightroom leverages Intel's built in GPUs even when you use a dedicated GPU. So you will get better performance combining Intel CPU plus a GPU. Nvidia+Intel dominate the Lightroom user scores. This goes for a lot of Adobe software, they tend to take good advantage of Intel's integrated graphics.
So while ray tracing may not be taking gamers by storm, it is everything it was advertised to be for content creators. They run Stable Diffusion pretty well, too, if you wanted to try running SD locally on your own computer.
At current prices the 3060 is still a decent starter option if you want explore these things without going in too hard. You can get by with 8GB, but you may still feel like kicking yourself if you start with less. (Just make sure it is a 12GB model, I keep forgetting they made some 3060s with only 8.) It can be hard to say for each user just how much VRAM they might truly need.
Whatever you do, though, you need to research each software to see what the performance may be. It can vary between each software, other than the 4090 obviously being the fastest at pretty much anything, there can be some surprises.
In Short: NO
Same Problems with RTX since 2018
I wonder if 5090 will be the first "no compromise" GPU? As in both frame rate & image fidelity. Hmm...
I have a rtx 2070 since launch and have only played one game that was RTX enabled.
YOU SOUND JUST LIKE THE GUY BEHIND THE PROJECT FARM CZcams CHANNEL!!! IT"S CRAZY!
RTX was an excuse for Nvidia / Jensen Huang to skyrocket GPU prices.
That basically sums it up. AMD not really doing any good by jumping on the bandwagon of overpriced GPU's as well....although they are the more reasonably priced manufacturer.
as if R&D is free. if nvidia was not here we would still be 10 years behind with amd.
@@TheMichaelparisexactly. None of these people who say these things have ever worked in the tech industry. Advanced software and hardware integration can be mined or grows on trees? Who knew.
The hilarious thing is that they obviously do want this tech or they wouldn't say it's "overpriced." I wonder if they gone shopping for cars in the last twenty years.
RTX was basically NVidia going 'hmm, we have these tensor cores to make use of, what can we do with them.' And quite simply, it was brought in far too early. The cards (on both nvidia and amd sides) have to rely on upscaling gimmicks as they simply don't have the grunt to do ray\path tracing natively with a high framerate with the exception of a few outliers (generally ancient games).
Most people will still prefer framerate over seeing their character model reflected in windows, puddles etc, obviously RT is more than that but that's generally one of the more noticeable effects.
Raytracing has its place, but its still years off being something you enable and the framerate hit being so minimal that you don't mind using it.
It's very viable for 40 series cards at least, some high end 30 cards. I think the 20 series definitely wasn't quite up to the challenge but was probably a necessary step to make it happen
@@jayceneal5273 it depends entirely on what you consider an acceptable frame rate, it’s more viable with dlss than without. And more often than not people prefer frame rate over enabling a feature that in a lot of instances has very little immediate visual difference over raster rendering.
@@gerv55 dynamic lighting and reflections has a huge impact over awful screen space artifacts and static lighting or pixelated shadow maps. And global illumination can be quite transformative as well. I understand people who prefer framerate over max graphics settings, but coping that there's no discernable difference is just wrong. Some titles use rt in weird ways that are wasteful, like only having rt ao or other peculiar implementations, but when you combine everything together it looks incredible
If you think the most noticeable effects are reflections in puddles, you're either playing games that are only very partially raytraced or you're completely blind.
@phahq you seem to enjoy saying people are blind if they're not blowing loads over ray tracing, simple fact is in a lot of games the effects are quite subtle. Stop getting your panties in a bunch about the facts of the matter.
When the RX 7900XT dropped down to $700, I pulled the trigger (The $830 I paid for my EVGA RTX 3070Ti during CryptoWars still smarts) and enjoy current Gen.-Goodness on my 4K Monitor. Micro Center's Dirt Cheap 5800X3D/B550 Bundle 2 weeks ago ($300) has allowed me to retrofit my X470/2700X/64GB-3600C16 workhorse into a svelte Budget Gaming PC with the aforementioned 3070Ti (Gorgeous Card).
Disappointed that you don't have magical powers to predict the future 😁. Thanks for the overview!
I'm always surprised to find people like DLSS - my experience even with current games like Alan Wake 2 is that DLSS makes the game look off. I've found that I'd rather turn off, or turn down settings to run at native resolution with a good framerate.
Unfortunately Alan Wake 2 also has the disturbing trend of not allowing users to make the choice of whether the feature is enabled.
It's highly dependent on resolution/PPI. DLSS at 1080p I agree looks bad, 1440p DLSS quality looks great, and at 4k DLSS performance even looks good.
@@plebbitI'm running ultrawide 3440 x1440
Probably using the wrong DLSS setting
@@Luthair Alan Wake 2 with DLSS... The 4k resolution scales insanely well, while you will need higher rendering resolution on 1440p screen to get even close to the image quality. I did run like 50h just DLSS testing AW2 on my 1440p ultrawide OLED and 4k OLED monitors. I was blown away how sick the DLSS scaling is on 4k.
The only thing that gets better DLSS image quality on 1440p screen is the DLDSR + DLSS combo. Even at 2.25x + performance... The game looks stunning. With 4k resolution, the game just scales insanely well with performace (1080p). Hell, I even 4k ultra performance was nice when played on TV, but had to remove all the elements that blurs the image. with proper sharpening, DLSS 4k 720p with maxed out PT + settings and textures looked so nice..
One more thing. I originally played with 3080 Ti, but now with 4080S... Game is just on another level. Still, 1440p monitor does look bad compared to 4k screen. The DLSS scaling difference is just so massive. After doing all these tests, when anyone asks what resolution monitor they should buy ---> 4k for every modern AAA game (when using RTX GPU). Even my 3070 laptop looks way better when playing using 4k screen with DLSS 1080p vs 1080p native screen. Would be fun to test 8k TV with DLSS ultra performace.
Battlemage! 🧙🏼♂
They don't offer any other choices. If they offered raster without RTX, everyone would just buy those and laugh at the dweebs that spent 3x as much for RTX. AMD and Intel (if they ever get anything out) also force RT, charge almost as much as Nvidia, and have worse drivers and features across the board, so that doesn't work either.
Also RT really only works on a very specific subset of game---first person 3d "realistic" action/shooter games. So no simulations, drawn art, VNs, RPGs, sports, fighting games, MOBA, RTS. You can only play the one style of game that's all.
No one I personal know uses upscaling or raytracing. You sure it had any impact what so ever?
it has changed, we now waste time thinking on it and not having anything useful on games thanks to it
Useful like?
I really don't use RTX, but it is cool when I do use it on a few games like Cyberpunk and so on.
The best use of raytracing at the moment is raytraced shadows, because the rasterized shadows had those LOD resolution lines in the distance which were always annoying.
Raytraced reflections? Something tells me that some games just use planar reflections ,like in Half life 2, and call them raytraced , hence the Vram requirements because of the game rendered twice (watch witcher 3 water reflections disapearing at a far enough distance - maybe im wrong)
Global illumination raytracing - games that have proper rasterized global illimination (Cyberpunk ,Metro Exodus) Raytraced G.I. just looks different, not better.
Although i realize this saves development time.
Short answer: no
Long answer: nooooooooooooo.
The answer to the last question is that the overwhelming majority of gamers play on low end hardware.
Mid to high end PCs and even consoles make a lot of noise online and in ads, but one of the reasons why mobile gaming is king and handheld PCs are on the rise is that they are so much cheaper.
Nintendo has been trying to show the way for devs for the last 20 years, but barely anyone is listening. Of course, one could say that Nintendo is going overboard and that they're milking the Switch for all it's worth - the last two Zelda games run better on emulators even on mid-range PCs, something you'll never see on other current gen consoles - but the lesson is valid nonetheless.
Gameplay and art design over everything else.
Considering that rt uses more resources than everything else around you is rtx off reason 1,... But the issue with middle ware and up scalers is that everyone is making anthem , and control clones
I bought a 3080 but my next card will be an AMD for sure unless Nvidia does something about their prices.
I sold my 3080 for a 7800xtx and never looked back.
@@dacbiet yeah I'd buy a 7900xtx but it's not quite enough of an upgrade I'm gonna see what's next with the 8000.
I have a 4070 and I'm pretty sure I have never played a game that supported Ray tracing. Apparently it takes time for those to hit Steam sales.
IsThereAnyDeal.
It changed the cost
It is as you say, after 5 years or so, RT is just starting to become useful in a few AAA games. In the meantime we have been stuck with ludicrously overpriced cards that has largely just been running tech demos, or games with very minor and barely noticeable rt implementation. It's gonna take a long time to get over this.
what gtx 2080 is that?
FE
@@Sheltur_0311 what do you mean? There is no official gtx 2080, so what is that shown?
@@TuxikCE it was a preproduction model before they changed to rtx branding but theyre the same card with a slightly altered shell, there are a few articles about it
Shitty upscaling and fake frames were only developed to sel u lesser hardware for more monies. Make no mistake about it. Only to increase their proffft margins.
_Nvidia, the way you're meant to be played._
*jealousy is a destructive emotion*
kill my raster for brighter lit areas? Hell no. And I don't see how anyone can find joy in stopping at puddles to see reflections.
I don't think any of my friends or me have any use for raytracing.
Despite owning a rtx 2080super since 2020, it hasn't changed anything for me.
I didn't really care for the ray tracing stuff, I wanted a upgrade over my 1070
so I bought just before the prices went to the sky, DLSS makes a bigger impact than RT
RT kills your FPS while DLSS helps it
I thought ray tracing was never gonna work out until Nvidia invented ReSTIR path tracing and implemented in games like CP77, now I see a path for a full ray traced future, although currently you still need at least a 4080 to get 30 fps with acceptable image quality, but it is real time.
4070 gets me 30 fps at native 1080p, can use frame gen too in games where latency isn't a big issue
With a 4080 you can get 60-70fps at 1440p maxed out with path tracing.
DLSS quality has basically no reduction in image quality
@@mitsuhh DLSS doesn't have a reduction in image quality?
@@NulJern DLSS QUALITY
@@mitsuhh Yes it does, lol. Sharpen can't carry all the weight unfortunately.
Happy to watch this video on my GTX 1060 pc, while have never played any RT title and don't care less about ever playing one😂😂😂 RT and new Gpus are for the super 1% rich!!!🎉
Expensive eyecandy that is still just in tech demo state for enthusiasts. I would be much more interested in ray traced audio for good horror experiences or mechanical impactuful additions like reatlime reflections. Maybe in 15 years with a whole new sets of cards...
I went with Intel’s arc A770 16gb because of the cost. Nvidia doesn’t care about those that are on tight budgets anymore
fill video right there, zzzzz / this is the era where NATIVE res its almost dead because of DLSS, sharpe details are only for real PROS with the PC POWER to deactivate DLSS or any other scaling shit. I do that sometimes, but fps drops badly, Game optimization suck in this years, because companies trust on DLSS tooo much... trust that DLSS will boost their fps for their fucking low-fps game.
No..... nothing for me. Performance hit is not worth the minimal visual difference.
@0:02 i want to know more about this ES, as an avid Nvidia collector.
I think a larger issue is the community demanding everything run at unachievable fps numbers with max graphics. I remember the days of half life 2 doom 3 and crysis where getting 40 -60fps felt good. However game development stagnated massively after those 3 big titles (remeber how stick on dx9 devs were and refused to move on) I think the same here can be said of rtx and rasterization. The pipeline is so funneled into rasterizarion that it takes a long time for devs to optimize and a large majority of devs dont want to spend the time to learn and program. Rasterizatiin has hit a plateau and u can see it in this generation of concoles vs last gen.
People have really been spoiled with 120+ fps gaming. It's simply ridiculous to think real time ray tracing isn't worth it because you can't run it at obscenely high frame rates. Max graphics in any current gen has pretty much always been 30-60 range
People are too brainwashed about high FPS for sure. I think reviews having only FPS as a measure of performance between different GPUs has caused this.
My own pet peeve is how stupid it is of many people to be obsessed about FPS in top down RPG and Strategy games. Those games feel fine at 30-40 FPS because the action tends to be slow and your controlling things with a mouse cursor and keyboard shortcuts.
@@jayceneal5273 No by pascal era, even mainstream 60 series cards were doing well over 60 in the latest games with all settings turned up. Its helped to condition people to expect higher fps.
"Any headline that asks a yes or no question can almost always be answered with "no"".
I won't touch any graphical setting that causes so much damage to performance with such a small relative visual benefit. This isn't like UHD textures or super resolution (aka super-sampling AA): the lighting is just a bit more responsive? And I'm throwing away all these free frames?
Part of the problem is sdr monitors. They really nerf what you get from many rt/pt implementations. Everything in raster is designed around the less complete image model (dynamic range and gamut) in most sdr monitors. RT/PT however calculates more realistic lighting, which sdr cannot show properly. The brightest to dimmest details the human eye can typically make out at the same time simply cannot be shown on an sdr monitor. Not by an order of magnitude. and RT/PT can produce colors outside the range of sdr, but not outside the range of the human eye. The rest is of course processing power atm. a full blown path traced 60fps native render was estimated to take approx. 50x the 2080ti's abilities. or about 20x the 4090.
That depends on the game. Some games like Doom Eternal, Fortnite, Watch Dogs 2 it doesn't make much of a visual difference. Games like Metro Exodus Enhanced, Dying Light 2, Cyberpunk 2077, Resident Evil Village makes the game look completely different from ray tracing off.
And you can see more of a benefit with super sampling? My eyes cant tell any difference if I am running the game at 150% or at 100%.
@@NatrajChaturvedi DLDSR + DLSS vs DLSS. The difference is massive on detail. Especially when playing with lower than 4k resolition screen. I personally use both... Ray tracing/PT and DLDSR + DLSS. Not the basic super sampling, but still using higher resolution. It just might be the biggest visual gains, because of how much more detail it can create. Love it! But I rather balance on all the features + they utilise different GPU cores. RT cores for ray tracing + Tensor for AI features.
They are dwindling but there are still too many deniers that pay today's pricing for yesterday's tech. RTX is awesome and worth that little bit extra.
i'm stuck on that bit of shadow of the tomb raider 2:08
weres my upscaling 🤣👍
Ray Tracing is a great thing from W11 (DX12) and Nvidia jumped the gun to provide hardware to support it.
But they gated it out the door. Obviously had a product line for it for who knows how long. They know what it takes to actually run Ray tracing. Along with game developers. Which is a lot of processing power.
I love the idea of anything making games look better. But the massive hype over it vs game studios even putting it in their games. Was a cluster fk. Nvidia and AMD should have worked with game studios behind the scenes way longer before even releasing a piece of hardware for it.
Even now with the over priced 4090. W/rtx. The games with barely hit 60fps. Which is absolutely asinine to me.
There is easily another decade before ray tracing could be playable at over 100fps full max RT features.
Hardware companies are going to gate the stretch of physical performance to software.
For some weird as reason they come out with FSR and DLSS to produce fake frames that are at low upscaled resolution. So the end result is paying for an over priced under preforming Ray tracing hardware, for lower raw resolutions to be upscaled and produce fake frames. Then another piece of software had to be married with it to reduce input lag from said frame gen boosters.
Horrible. Horrible horrible. And people thing this is good stuff.
Raw performance is always best. Tuning all this AI shit to fake shit is legit a legal scam. I see no point in that crap.
Make good hardware at a reachable price for majority. Like they used too. Not that hard.
only price have increased and nothing else
Has RTX Changed How Much We Pay For Graphics Cards?
Kinda. At least I stopped buying Ngreedia cards and switched permanently to the red side.
No, it didn't, the only one game which i can remember worth to have enabled raytracing is Control and not because it was somehow mind-blowing, but because developers made a terrible job with rasterized shaders which would do exact the same job hell a lot more efficiently
My only confusion since Nvidia has come out with DLSS and future progressions, and AMD has come out with its FSR and future progressions, was that the PC master race that I'm part of.... literally shit all over consoles (and their users who just want to play games and have fun) for using upscaling technology "what's that your hardware is not good enough to do it for real", "wow! you got a fake it to make it", "consoles suck, real gamers don't need fake resolutions" and suddenly now we're all on board with it and yelling at each other for using the version we think is worse 😞
If you're using RDNA2 GPUs you MIGHT AS WELL BE ON CONSOLES lol
Yeah i went back to baldurs gate and diablo 2 that's what the RTX series did.
I'll use it if I can run over 100fps at 1440p with it but I really don't care too much if I don't have it
Including the lead time for the 20 series makes it more like 6 or 7 years. And that's a long time for ray tracing to still be basically a tech demo gimmick:
That's as long ago from now as the 8800 GTX was from then...
that's just..not true. the 8800gtx came out 12 years before the 20 series.
i think the FPS hit is still way too heavy for most people to care yet. i think it looks great in some games but there's very few if any situations i'd take RTX over having higher FPS even in single player games
No but it did make for some funny thumbnails from very ill informed people with the whole rTx On every time ray tracing is in applied regardless of how negligible of an implementation it is.
Still not implemented in anything i put much time into 🤷
What i have noticed more is that anti-aliasing has gone to sh1t over the same period.
I will never use something like DLSS. I do not want another layer between the visual which the game produced and the one I see on my screen. Also, it breaks the quality. Btw, I am not an Nvidia user, so I can not use DLSS but I think similar things for FSR too :D
"2080 cost more than the 1080 ti" That's a lie. Both were $700 USD MSRP
False. Newer one was more because of crypto shit.
You always lie.@@zdspider6778
Go bother someone else.@@zdspider6778
When 2080 launched 1080ti was discounted for the same performance as there were no RT games at first and very few for a while after as well as dlss being a vaseline smear. That's on top of the fact that 2080 released 18 months after 1080ti
so you start video with 2080 in hands and spend 8 min mumbling abot comparing graphics cards finally present nothing xD
I'd happily trade away RT to get MSAA back. If such a trade were possible.
DLAA >> MSAA
I do not use RTX for anything.
because youre broke
@@TTx04xCOBRA Nothing says confidence in your purchase like calling multiple people broke lmao
@@Voyajer. imagine having to say you hate something just because your PC cant run it well lmao
I use ray tracing on several games that support the DirectX ray tracing standard because they seem to run really good on every card that supports ray tracing if they're a game that specifically has code written to nvidia's RTX I generally don't turn it on because it really fucks up my frame rate and the smoothness because it's literally written for only Nvidia cards, it sucks, but I can understand why Nvidia fanboys are willing to pay the extra money to get the amazing looking ray tracing effects on two out of 10 games
I turn it on then turn it off. It's not worth the performance hit.
Ray tracing is pretty underwhelming. I was a lot more impressed when games started using physics. At least it looks like AI is the new craze, which is sure to lead to more interesting developments than coffee in s tea cup reflecting my character's face.
why are you babbling about DLSS a software solution in a video that should be about raytracing
I know from folks I know its got them back on consoles. Not much difference between a PS5 and a $1000 mid card today. And with the Ps5 Pro coming (well played sony, well played) for gta 6 the luxury priced PC hardware will be less appealing to more people as the closet of living continues to climb. They really F'd up gaming with the rush to 4k and photocopy games. out now.
Just reading the title: big NOPE! Not even interested in it, the only game really making use of the technology itself that I know is Cyberpunk...which I mostly use as a benchmark. Don t think it adds anything, more like making the experience somehow less "real" and kinda more corny. But hey, generally not a fan of single player or non-competitive games but can imagine the fans of that kind might also like the extra bling that to me, feels rather wrong.
But you clicked on the video to leave this salty ass comment.
DLSS aged really well, but RT did not or at least certrainly not for the RTX2000 series.
The 2080ti does RT better than most AMD GPUs
2080ti sits between 7700xt and 7800xt when it comes to RT
@@Wobbothe3rd that's the $1200 card which got outclassed a $500 3070, it better does at least one thing well. Anything below the 2080Ti will struggle to get you playable frame rates with RT yet it was their main marketing point.
Dlss have bigger impact
I have a 3080, 5800X3D, 32GB RAM machine running a QHD monitor. I bought Cyberpunk a few months back. Standing in a market, with everything maxed out, DLSS set to Quality, and Ray Tracing turned off, I was getting 85 fps. I then turned on Ray Tracing and cranked it up to the highest setting (Psycho). The frame rate dropped to 24 fps, and the image didn't look any better or even different. Aside from thr frame rate taking a dive, I wouldn't have been able to tell any difference.
Real time Ray Tracing is going to be pointless for probably another 15 years at least. The saving grace is we've gotten DLSS, DLAA, and frame generation out of it. Those features make it worth sticking with Nvidia over AMD for me. I wish we had more competition.
GTX 2080 aka the GTX 1080ti - 3GB VRAM. Hahaha, when raster was king, hilarious.
RTX 2080 supports mesh shaders, at least
Nope it hasn't.
RTX is niche. I'd love a steam stat on % of users actually using the feature.
DLSS is cool since it can extend it's lifespan. But for new GPUs it's basically saying we couldn't do it with raw raster power so here's AI generated frames 🤡
Something a broke person would say
More than 50% of all Gamees has an RTX card now, and the clear majority use RTX features. Rtx isn't one thing, but you're delusional if you think RT isn't turned on by gamers.
Yep, there like a handful of games that I actually use RT in most of the time it's barely noticeable graphics-wise but I sure notice a big FPS hit. Especially when you game at 4K which causes me to have to use DLSS and sometimes Frame Gen just to get playable FPS on a $1600 GPU. It seems a little silly that it can't handle them natively.
I am still rocking the GTX 1080ti... :D
My youngest has a 3090, my eldest and I both have 4090’s and none of us use RTX or DLSS.
Why?
What a Boomer
@@Safetytrousers Why didn’t I upgrade my youngest? I had built him a custom loop and I didn’t have the time to redo his system, also when I do upgrade him it will be to AM5 and I’m waiting for Zen5 3D to do that. My eldest didn’t have a custom loop so I upgraded his 3090/9900k to 4090/14900k in his own custom loop.
@@victorsegoviapalacios4710my wife and I work hard in our own business to afford our lifestyles. Our parents are boomers.
I was asking why you don't use any features of RTX? DLSS is part of RTX.@@goranstewart4726
RTX has made everybody more stupid
5:26 "Hey! Where's my upscaling?" Said nobody. Ever.
Said everyone with an DLSS 2.0 or higher card.
AMD fanboys with their 6k cards " RT is stupid and a gimmick"
AMD fanboys with their 7k cards " OMG RT looks awesome in Cyberpunk"
😂😂 Talk about hypocrists
I was enjoying ray tracying on my 3070 with tweaks in the settings. People expect to crank up the RT settings knowing their cards arent built for that then complain because they're I'll educated about their cards limits.
No, it changed how much people are willing to spend. It is kind of viable in the 4090 and about 2 or three generations away from being usable in raw raster.
I still turn off RTX in everything. I don't like seeing the moving grain in the lighting, and prefer extra FPS anyway (even in singleplayer).