Read more.Has ray tracing lived up to expectations, or are you left wanting more?
Read more.Has ray tracing lived up to expectations, or are you left wanting more?
Never seen it in the flesh, tbh i've not seen any demos that have tempted me into throwing silly money at it. I'd like to see how it evolves with the next generation of cards.
Grab that. Get that. Check it out. Bring that here. Grab anything useful. Take anything good.
I usually upgrade every 4 years or so, but I've been holding off waiting for the next gen of graphics cards that can hopefully hit at least 60fps with RTX on. I've been reading about Geforce Now streaming Cyberpunk 2077 with RTX on at release in September though, so it's got me wondering if I shouldn't spend a ton of money on a new rig and just upgrade my internet package and stream it instead?
I have enjoyed the visuals on the titles I have played, once you have used it you really do notice where non-ray traced reflections, shadows and illumination are lacking in a lot of the finer accuracy, especially with effects that are rendered off screen. Once ray tracing becomes a standard and starts to free up dev time to focus on everything else, that is when it will really get interesting and overall graphical fidelity will improve I think. Performance could be better but having a 2080 @ 1440p has given me acceptable performance at this stage of the tech in all honesty, however, with that being said, if the next round of RTX games like cyberpunk and watch dogs require ampere for it to keep up, then I won't be too happy about the price they asked because there isn't a huge amount of content to sink into even after all this time.
There's nothing wrong with ray tracing and it will obviously feature very prominently in the future, when gfx cards catch up. There's nothing wrong with Nvidia introducing it with their RTX cards - unfortunately, they chose to introduce it via extreme greed.
Ngreedia were quick to introduce RTX pricing at eye-watering levels (particularly the 2080/Ti). They could easily have afforded to introduce this at more acceptable pricing, thus gaining more sales, but chose not to. There's a very sizeable group who chose not to upgrade (particularly those with 1080/Ti) - Ngreedia knows very well they lost these sales through that word again, greed. They've also lost a lot of 'heart and mind' points too.
AMD: PLEASE get your drivers fixed and PLEASE have Big Navi show the same love to Ngreedia as your Zen2 products do to $ntel.
Anyway...but yes...RT will be a very,very important and welcome addition to the 'gfx feature set'. Personally, with more powerful gfx cards, higher gaming resolution and RT, I can see VR really taking off, not least due to significant improvement in immersion.
I think this could be the new 3D TV.
Proof that the technology is not mature enough for budget prime time. It's grainy and buggy and slow performing. Often times looks worse than traditional technologies.
To be honest, I think it is ridicoulous... one company call it one thing and the other, something else, we need enforced industry/consumer standards much much more.
Think most would agree to that to be honest, then they can find out which card performs best, what niche this or that card would fit into and more, and just leave it at that, my take on it.
We need to set standards... I don't care if I get a Nvidia or AMD Radeon card or whatever whenever it get to it, as long as it perform excelent within the high end frames I am looking for, if in some cases that 5 FPS is the only difference... and the one with lowest is cheaper, then uh... can live without that little extra I can't see anyway ^^
Give it a few years and it will be fine but I'm in no rush (for the premium on the cards) for it.
I more wish the VR to finally be a major thing. Additional bling is just it. I agree that it looks better, however i still wait for cards that delivers snapy stable 60fps @4k ultra on all titles. 1080ti is not there yet, 2080ti is closer but still not there.
I don't think it'll take off while it's implemented using expensive fixed-function hardware. I hope AMD's response to RTX doesn't require silicon specifically dedicated to the task. That would just be damn wasteful.
I've been using Ray-Traced graphics for years in 3DS, so it's about time it became more widely used. That said we've got fairly close to it using other mapping techniques which use a lot less computing to render.
So until they can get a sold fps on at least the mid-range cards it's not something I’m going to rush towards getting.
I bought a 2080ti, got a good deal on it (£999).
In the games that support it (unfortunately few though they are) I notice the difference immediately. When I compare the RTX version of the new COD for instance to the non-RTX then you notice the lighting is more subtle, the reflections more real. The single player campaign looks almost real, and I caught myself thinking that while playing it (as did an RTX owning pal of mine). Shadow of the tomb raider does look spectacular with the RTX features on (though the game itself sucks). Control looks grainy, but I wonder if that is something to do with their engine, because I had the same complaint about Quantum Break. The RTX side of things is very cool tech (even if the performance even on my card is not as good as it could be)
Long story short, it's new tech that needs more support and a pricing structure that works. There also needs to be a set standard for all to follow, which if DirectX raytracing gets traction might actually come to pass.
Is it a game changer? Not really.
Is the FPS hit a lot? Yes
If the hardware can support it better in the future, do I think it is the way forward? Yes I do.
Should the pricing be better? Yes, but there is always a first adopter penalty to pay which I did in this case because I was upgrading my whole rig so it made sense.
Will people continue to bitch about Nvidia pricing? Yes, until there is genuine competition with GPUs - which there hasn't been really for the last 5 years or so.
Why are we arguing about graphics fidelity when we should be asking for games that play well and are fun first, then look good second? Who the hell knows
Last edited by ozzell; 22-02-2020 at 01:07 AM. Reason: Typo
I don't play games for the look, so this make it very hard to play anything cuz they don't really seem to be making games with the kind of game i like.
I will any day play a stonking game and be forced to turn graphics down to low, that's how i played back in the day anyway, not really from a hardware perspective as the games i was able to play with 60 FPS just fine, but i played with 200 Hz and FPS, so graphics settings and resolution had to come down.
Played at 1024 / 768 or something on the 2048/1536 CRT screen, and had no problem keeping in top 100 of the games.
Mind you the RTX i have seen look fine, but so do the new games i have tried on my new 5700XT.
So i am not sure even with a major lotto win i would swap out my 1080p screen and throw money at Negreedia.
Only new game that seem to have the game speed i require are the new Doom, but somehow i am almost sure they managed to ruin that in some way too, will have to watch for open beta and demos / reviews, and maybe risk buying a disk that might turn into a very flashy and expensive clay pigeon.
Past that looks at demos etc it certainly adds something when I am looking for it but not sure how much it would add in actual use for me for the price.
In short I can't afford ray tracing but look forward to when its matured and works on reasonable price hardware.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)