LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksSounds about right to me.Originally Posted by Spreadie
Expensive, faddish and (thankfully) short-lived?
Sounds about right to me.Expensive, faddish and (thankfully) short-lived?
Looks impressive but pointless for me because I'm using a peasant rig and it'll be quite a while before I can afford a new rig.
I did ray tracing on an atari ST. Took several hours for a 320x240 image. Looked cool, but wasn´t worth the effort.
Ray-tracing today is still the same. Looks cool, but not worth it. Games look great anyway, but paying the extra money at the moment for ray tracing is only for people with more money than me.
In a generation or two, then it will be a mildly cool extra to have.
Asus Z170 Pro Gaming. i5-6500. 16gig Ripjaw 2400. Samsung 950pro NMVe 250gig+ 1tb Intel 660p. GTX Titan. Corsair TX650M.
939 3800 X2 | 2gig corsairXMS 3200C2
1950XT | 500gig,320,200,160
Plextor DVD burner | Yamaha CRW-F1 CD-drive
Thermaltake Xaser 3 w 480W FSP | X-fi fatal1ty
Things have moved on since I first joined...
What are Ray Traced Graphics?!
Like most things that have a high premium at launch, right now we'll say it makes no difference. Then, when it's ubiquitous, we'll fume at the temerity of any developer who dares to release a game without raytracing.
I'll take good fluid frame rates over too much eye candy every time. But nice to have the option in a growing number of games.
Well, my opinion hasn't changed in about 25 years.
Which is, I've played and enjoyed games with quite primitive graphics, and they've been great. I've also played some with really good (for the era) grapics but lousy gameplay, and they were a huge disappointment.
It is first and foremost about gameplay. RT might improve the user experience of a good game, but no amount of fantastic visuals or sound will rescue a lousy one.
You can polish a dogpile all you like, but it's still a dogpile.
So .... it comes down to how much difference RT makes to MY gaming experience, in relation to the cost of hardware. And right now, that's that RT is not essential to my gameplaying experience, and certainly not worth anything remotely resembling the cost.
It's a value-judgement thing, and mine is, for now, a clear thumbs down. Yours, of course, may be different. But I'll go for strong gameplay, whatever the genre, over fancy graphics every time
A lesson learned from PeterB about dignity in adversity, so Peter, In Memorium, "Onwards and Upwards".
As above, gameplay over graphics any day of the week.
it is like the 80ish when Turbo became a thing... then they put Turbo on everything from sunglasses to combs and more haha....
I'm getting to the point where I'm due an upgrade anyway, and I don't find this exciting enough to make me take the plunge quite yet.
Just wish they would sell the RTX series without the raytacing at a discounted price .
I'd buy that, ray tracing I'm just not interested in and will not pay what they are currently going for.
No, I'd say not. Well, actually maybe, in the sense that there were some things whee "Turbo" really did mean something .... on some models. .Like a Porsche 911 Turbo (loved the driving experience, albeit that it was a bit hairy) or the Lotus Esprit Turbo (preferred the normal V8 but the driving position was 'orrible in both). But then, there were lots of cars where the Turbo was tuned for efficiency not performance and yes, as a great marketing gimmick.
Similarly, ray-tracing when done well provides for stunning realistic and fast-reacting visuals.
But for me, it's not even the icing on the cake, it's more like the cherry on the icing - i.e. nice to have, providing that first, it's done well, and second, it doesn't add too muxh to the cost.
Maybe like, would you buy a normally aspirated Ferrari (assuming you could afford it) at £150k, or the Turbo version at £5m?
Even if I could afford the £5m version, does it add enough value to be sworth it? For me, not unless I was a billionaire, or multi-billionare and £4,850,000 was insignificant.
So RT is good, worth worthing, but not at excessive price. IMHO, of course.
A lesson learned from PeterB about dignity in adversity, so Peter, In Memorium, "Onwards and Upwards".
Not used it personally
I hope implementing of it in the next-gen consoles at a cost of around £500 drops the price of the cards in the future
If you think about it , Nvidia HAD to introduce it. When even mid range cards are capable of 1440/2556 gaming then you need something at the top end to drag the cards down. Otherwise everyone will just be buying mid-range or slightly higher ( xx60 xx70 ) rather than the super premium xx80/Ti. Nvidia know that the gfx card market is shrinking and may shrink even faster with streamed games. So they have to get their last hurrah in, eg super premium pricing. 5g and mobile will destroy the standalone Gfx market, for any reasonable volume of sales.
As DanceswithUnix says....The new new 3d, or Hairworks etc. Only very small parts of a scene are being RTX'd at the moment with performance penalties so horrendous that it brings the top end GFX cards to their knees. Not to mention the hit to one's bank account.
It is just ridiculous.
Still, there are suckers out there who have to have the latest fad, no matter the pointlessness.
Nvidia will quietly drop it in a few years....
Having used RTX since launch with the RTX 2080, and the slow start, I have been very impressed with it's improvement now, especially in combination with DLSS which has made all the difference. DLSS has come on leaps and bounds! This was always a risk for Nvidia with the old chicken and egg scenario, as without buying the RTX GPU's we would not really have gotten this huge push we now have with everybody jumping on board ray tracing especially the next gen consoles. Yes it was more expensive but thankfully the non RTX performance was still more than good enough and yes we were the guinea pigs..but we the early adopters welcome your thanks.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote