• 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: Do you care for Ray Tracing "now"?

Do you care for ray tracing "now"?


  • Total voters
    294
Status
Not open for further replies.
Soldato
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Posts
15,438
Location
Aberdeen
Quite looking forward to trying out the f1 game:

It's a nice difference but not electrifying and adds little to the suspension of disbelief. Ironically they didn't show one of the best parts: that the shadows will change with the position of the sun (assuming they've programmed that).
 

TNA

TNA

Soldato
Joined
13 Mar 2008
Posts
21,627
Location
London
Could not give a rats arse about F1 myself. Even if it had the best RT by miles I would not bother. Just not my cup of tea. Honestly, I’d sooner play FC 6 :cry:
 
Caporegime
OP
Joined
4 Jun 2009
Posts
26,851
@Nexus18 Not sure how it is possible to enjoy the game without this level of fidelity present. :eek: :cry: :p

I've started turning the reflections off to save the 6 FPS they cost.

So pretty much the standard of screenshots I was expecting then :cry: Although you can easily see how the RT is representing realism better, not to mention if you were passing by in motion ;) But yeah, if you are on lesser/weaker/RDNA 2 gpus and playing at 1440 or above without DLSS/FSR, then the perf. will saved will be worth it.

But still the point stands:

As said before, it's a bit silly to be basing RT reflections on a game(s) that didn't implement it fully across the board like we have seen with other titles though.

If you want another better example of RT reflections, would check out the ascent, free on gamepass if you have it:


That video doesn't even show the best parts until later in the game either.

We all know you won't like/want to use RT until AMD beats nvidia at it though so it's a futile argument until then ;) :D




Went back to batman arkham knight last night as I consider it to be one of the best showcases for lighting, shadows, AO, reflections on rasterization (and it still is compared to most other rasterization titles tbf) but boi after having been playing RT games for the last 1-2 years, it was incredibly jarring, could see all the issues with rasterization immediately, surprised nvidia haven't got an enhanced/remaster of this out yet.
 
Associate
Joined
20 Nov 2020
Posts
1,027
@Nexus18 Not sure how it is possible to enjoy the game without this level of fidelity present. :eek: :cry: :p

I've started turning the reflections off to save the 6 FPS they cost.
Since those are reflections of the on screen objects, it shouldn't be too much difference anyway. Funny thing is many times the SSR have decreased quality for performance reasons. A puddle reflecting the tree in front of you should look the same with RT ultra or SSR max settings. It is only when the tree (or parts of it ) is off screen or something is moving in front of the reflection when you will see a difference, the RT reflection still looking the same while the SRS is dissapearing. ( We see some of the advantages of the RT in the 3rd slide ).
Even so, you can do non RT reflections that look amazing and show even off screen objects pretty well, but it takes more time. For example some reflections on Bioshock Infinite were a shock for a lot of people and that game is like 10 years old. They are a bit lower res ( for perf reason ) but they were looking amazing and still are:
https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/1kvlin/i_noticed_something_about_the_underwater/

Glq2DzL.jpg
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Mar 2010
Posts
12,058
Location
Under The Stairs!
When polls go bad. :cry:

Most of the forum won't/can't run RT'ing for reasons given throughout the thread, mainly because performance sucks when RT enabled/fps is king, but still arguing for the sake of arguing.
 

TNA

TNA

Soldato
Joined
13 Mar 2008
Posts
21,627
Location
London
When polls go bad. :cry:

Most of the forum won't/can't run RT'ing for reasons given throughout the thread, mainly because performance sucks when RT enabled/fps is king, but still arguing for the sake of arguing.
Solution? Join the thread and start insulting the people still arguing :cry:
 
Caporegime
OP
Joined
4 Jun 2009
Posts
26,851
When polls go bad. :cry:

Most of the forum won't/can't run RT'ing for reasons given throughout the thread, mainly because performance sucks when RT enabled/fps is king, but still arguing for the sake of arguing.
How can polls go bad? Please lets not turn this into another case of it being "to suit narrative".....

The results are quite interesting:

- 70.6% of the forum do care about RT
- 29.4% of the forum don't care at all and never will (which is weird, basically saying no, we don't want better graphics in which case, why bother with pc gaming, just get a console :cry:)

I think if I were to split the poll into something like the following, the results would be quite telling ;)

Yes (nvidia owner)
Yes (amd owner)
No (nvidia owner)
No (amd owner)
Not yet but in the future (nvidia owner)
Not yet but in the future (amd owner)

As shown throughout this thread by various developer comments, RT is more for the developers than us really, we get benefit of better graphics obviously but lets not fool ourselves, they aren't doing it for us so whether people like it or not, RT is only going to slowly fade out rasterization over the coming years, you would be a fool to think otherwise imo.
 
Caporegime
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
37,595
Location
United Kingdom
So pretty much the standard of screenshots I was expecting then :cry: Although you can easily see how the RT is representing realism better, not to mention if you were passing by in motion ;) But yeah, if you are on lesser/weaker/RDNA 2 gpus and playing at 1440 or above without DLSS/FSR, then the perf. will saved will be worth it.

We all know you won't like/want to use RT until AMD beats nvidia at it though so it's a futile argument until then ;) :D
That was running on a 3090 with DLSS Quality and to get acceptable performance you have to turn reflections off, as the game feels horrible below 55 FPS.

When polls go bad. :cry:

Most of the forum won't/can't run RT'ing for reasons given throughout the thread, mainly because performance sucks when RT enabled/fps is king, but still arguing for the sake of arguing.
Haven't seen polls this bad since Theresa May called a snap election. :cry: :eek:
 
Associate
Joined
1 Oct 2020
Posts
572
How can polls go bad? Please lets not turn this into another case of it being "to suit narrative".....

The results are quite interesting:

- 70.6% of the forum do care about RT
- 29.4% of the forum don't care at all and never will (which is weird, basically saying no, we don't want better graphics in which case, why bother with pc gaming, just get a console :cry:)
Let's bring some balance to the "suits narrative". 39.8% said not yet. That means as of "now" (a point you've stressed), it's actually only 30.8% that said "Yes, I care now".

Bit of statistical twisting there, chap.

I'm on the side of ray tracing and look forward to it, but I don't care enough about it "now".
 
Permabanned
Joined
31 Aug 2013
Posts
3,364
Location
Scotland
@LtMatt Still doing your best to play down the benefits of raytracing. Combine that with a rather odd tweet from kopite7kimi -

OK, let's do a new summary.
RTX 4090, AD102-300, 16128FP32, 21Gbps 24G GDDR6X, 450W, ~2x3090.
I am disappointed with RDNA3.
That's all.

Is RDNA3 going to be slower than Lovelace in raytracing workloads?

If Nvidia are indeed launching early then AMD have to start talking performance within weeks. If AMD choose to go dark on the subject, as they did with RDNA2, many of us will be ordering Lovelace rather than waiting for RDNA3.
 

TNA

TNA

Soldato
Joined
13 Mar 2008
Posts
21,627
Location
London
@LtMatt Still doing your best to play down the benefits of raytracing. Combine that with a rather odd tweet from kopite7kimi -



Is RDNA3 going to be slower than Lovelace in raytracing workloads?

If Nvidia are indeed launching early then AMD have to start talking performance within weeks. If AMD choose to go dark on the subject, as they did with RDNA2, many of us will be ordering Lovelace rather than waiting for RDNA3.
It makes me worry for RDNA 3. Does this mean it will also have crap RT performance relative to the competition like RDNA 2?

Then again I doubt he knows much more than we do about what to expect as only a select few working at AMD would be priy to that info :p

If RDNA 3 turns out to have awesome RT performance and better than nvidia we will slowly see a shift over 6-12 months where the narrative will change and suddenly RT will become relevant, oh and loads of users will be able to suddenly see the difference it makes :cry:
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
30 Mar 2010
Posts
12,058
Location
Under The Stairs!
How can polls go bad? Please lets not turn this into another case of it being "to suit narrative".....

The results are quite interesting:

- 70.6% of the forum do care about RT:cry:
- 29.4% of the forum don't care at all and never will (which is weird, basically saying no, we don't want better graphics in which case, why bother with pc gaming, just get a console
:cry:
)

I think if I were to split the poll into something like the following, the results would be quite telling
;)


Yes (nvidia owner)
Yes (amd owner)
No (nvidia owner)
No (amd owner)
Not yet but in the future (nvidia owner)
Not yet but in the future (amd owner)

Let's bring some balance to the "suits narrative". 39.8% said not yet. That means as of "now" (a point you've stressed), it's actually only 30.8% that said "Yes, I care now".

Bit of statistical twisting there, chap.

I'm on the side of ray tracing and look forward to it, but I don't care enough about it "now".
or 67% dont care for Ray Tracing *TODAY* ; which is about right - the performance hit from using it (unless you like 1080p upscaled to 4k) is too much.
Haven't seen polls this bad since Theresa May called a snap election. :cry: :eek:
Bill and I are running 3080's I voted not yet too.
 
Caporegime
OP
Joined
4 Jun 2009
Posts
26,851
That was running on a 3090 with DLSS Quality and to get acceptable performance you have to turn reflections off, as the game feels horrible below 55 FPS.


Haven't seen polls this bad since Theresa May called a snap election. :cry: :eek:
Which backs up what me, @Wrinkly, @TNA etc. have been saying all along, we have run out of grunt (and not just in DL 2 but several other titles too) hence the need/want for better RT hardware "now" ;)

But agree, you need to be using dlss balanced like I do if you want max settings, very usable at 3440x1440 but at 4k, you probably need dlss performance, which is largely why I played on 3440x1440 monitor as max settings with dlss balanced had greater IQ "overall" than playing at lower settings or/and no RT @ 4k dlss quality.

Let's bring some balance to the "suits narrative". 39.8% said not yet. That means as of "now" (a point you've stressed), it's actually only 30.8% that said "Yes, I care now".

Bit of statistical twisting there, chap.

I'm on the side of ray tracing and look forward to it, but I don't care enough about it "now".
Not really, most people are "making" it out like "no one/very small minority" cares for RT when the poll shows that they do care about it either now or in the future. This was why I created the poll to get a better idea as on this forum and as shown in this thread, you get a handful of a few on here who are very vocal about how they think RT is pointless/not worth it at all, which gives the impression that the larger audience also don't care for/like it. Someone on amd reddit also noted the same with that amd subreddit about there being a very toxic bias view point towards rt. Given history with various things like tessellation, physx, gsync, gameworks, hairworks, vram, power consumption, it's just the same thing happening over again with yet another feature where nvidia is better to start with/ahead of the game. You also get people who are vocal about their dislike to nvidia and what they do but yet they keep on buying nvidia over amd..... :cry:

Yes, as of right now, it's not a priority for people but still the point stands that I be willing to bet "most" i.e. not "all" of the no/never votes are amd owners or/and people who just simply don't care for graphics at all or/and don't understand/see what RT achieves (and refuse to watch/think otherwise even when you have in depth videos explaining it from several sources and developers themselves....), which sadly seems to be a lot, which is surprising given we're on a so called "enthusiast" forum....

or 67% dont care for Ray Tracing *TODAY* ; which is about right - the performance hit from using it (unless you like 1080p upscaled to 4k) is too much.

Plenty of people on this very thread would disagree. Not really the fault of the tech itself if people are using weaker/older or RDNA 2 hardware and either way, RT performance is only going to get better with every new gen of gpus, well, maybe not for amd if RDNA 3 is being hinted at to be disappointing already.... If a 4060 can provide 3090 levels of RT perf. for <£400, I think we could see a shift in interest in the not too distant future. Time will tell.

@LtMatt Still doing your best to play down the benefits of raytracing. Combine that with a rather odd tweet from kopite7kimi -



Is RDNA3 going to be slower than Lovelace in raytracing workloads?

If Nvidia are indeed launching early then AMD have to start talking performance within weeks. If AMD choose to go dark on the subject, as they did with RDNA2, many of us will be ordering Lovelace rather than waiting for RDNA3.

Hoping rdna 3 delivers on RT as I have been saving up a lot of bookmarks :D ;) :p :cry:
 
  • Haha
Reactions: TNA
Associate
Joined
1 Oct 2020
Posts
572
Not really, most people are "making" it out like "no one/very small minority" cares for RT when the poll shows that they do care about it either now or in the future. This was why I created the poll to get a better idea as on this forum and as shown in this thread, you get a handful of a few on here who are very vocal about how they think RT is pointless/not worth it at all, which gives the impression that the larger audience also don't care for/like it.
And you are making out like everyone loves it now. To settle it, you started a poll. 30.4% of 283 people said yes, now. That's a minority.

@LtMatt said he will care about it in the future, but the performance hit is too much at the moment (Paraphrasing, before I get a direct quote back :p). That is not unreasonable, and could also apply if his card was a 2060 or 3060, rather than a 6800xt/6900xt. If the reason is it doesn't do anything for him, that's opinion and fine. If the reason is his AMD card can't keep up, that's a perfectly valid reason to answer the question.

The question was originally about now, and "in the future" was added later (I agreed with doing that, by the way) to catch votes like mine. Ray tracing is great, but it is not yet the be all and end all. Please note, this is someone that can run it and appreciate the difference, too. I have no axe to grind, but this is starting to get a bit crusadey.

I enjoy your questioning, but your point does seem to change to "fit your narrative". Originally it was "who cares now?", then it became "who cares and who will care", then it became "I bet it's just because your GPU can't run it properly yet".
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Jun 2004
Posts
5,978
Location
Eastbourne , East Sussex.
Plenty of people on this very thread would disagree. Not really the fault of the tech itself if people are using weaker/older or RDNA 2 hardware and either way, RT performance is only going to get better with every new gen of gpus, well, maybe not for amd if RDNA 3 is being hinted at to be disappointing already.... If a 4060 can provide 3090 levels of RT perf. for <£400, I think we could see a shift in interest in the not too distant future. Time will tell.

Plenty of people on this thread wopuld agree ; being forced to use 1080p upscaling on a £2000 gpu for ray tracing to be useable, means it isnt ready for general use. Thats Cp2077 and the RTX 3090 ofc.
 
Caporegime
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
37,595
Location
United Kingdom
And you are making out like everyone loves it now. To settle it, you started a poll. 30.4% of 283 people said yes, now. That's a minority.

@LtMatt said he will care about it in the future, but the performance hit is too much at the moment (Paraphrasing, before I get a direct quote back :p). That is not unreasonable, and could also apply if his card was a 2060 or 3060, rather than a 6800xt/6900xt. If the reason is it doesn't do anything for him, that's opinion and fine. If the reason is his AMD card can't keep up, that's a perfectly valid reason to answer the question.

The question was originally about now, and "in the future" was added later (I agreed with doing that, by the way) to catch votes like mine. Ray tracing is great, but it is not yet the be all and end all. Please note, this is someone that can run it and appreciate the difference, too. I have no axe to grind, but this is starting to get a bit crusadey.

I enjoy your questioning, but your point does seem to change to "fit your narrative". Originally it was "who cares now?", then it became "who cares and who will care", then it became "I bet it's just because your GPU can't run it properly yet".
Well said Bill, totally agree with all of your points. You’ve summed it up perfectly so I don’t need to add anything else.
 
Caporegime
OP
Joined
4 Jun 2009
Posts
26,851
And you are making out like everyone loves it now. To settle it, you started a poll. 30.4% of 283 people said yes, now. That's a minority.

@LtMatt said he will care about it in the future, but the performance hit is too much at the moment (Paraphrasing, before I get a direct quote back :p). That is not unreasonable, and could also apply if his card was a 2060 or 3060, rather than a 6800xt/6900xt. If the reason is it doesn't do anything for him, that's opinion and fine. If the reason is his AMD card can't keep up, that's a perfectly valid reason to answer the question.

The question was originally about now, and "in the future" was added later (I agreed with doing that, by the way) to catch votes like mine. Ray tracing is great, but it is not yet the be all and end all. Please note, this is someone that can run it and appreciate the difference, too. I have no axe to grind, but this is starting to get a bit crusadey.

I enjoy your questioning, but your point does seem to change to "fit your narrative". Originally it was "who cares now?", then it became "who cares and who will care", then it became "I bet it's just because your GPU can't run it properly yet".
Except I'm not, I like to think of myself as an educator on RT :cry: :D

Just read back in this thread to see how many posts we have where people have no idea, "don't care for shiny puddles", "developers downgraded rasterization to make RT look better" then we have links to "show" areas where RT isn't even implemented or extremely limited/poor areas :cry: Then when you link videos/posts explaining the benefits/perks it can provide to the gaming scene, suddenly, oh they're paid by nvidia, doesn't count :rolleyes:

If people don't care for it then fair (which still puzzles me given we all want better graphics hence why we keep upgrading our hardware) but alas it's not just a case of that, again see posts showing no understanding for it. The performance reason is perfectly valid too, never said otherwise except that it's not the fault of RT as a tech., it's just an incredibly demanding workload and tbh, it's impressive how far it has come to do it in real time imo. We're only on second gen of RT too....

PS. might be worth reading matts posts way back with the fury x 4gb vram, power efficiency, tessellation comments etc. ;) He'll soon be changing his tune on RT :D

Maybe it's because I work in development so can see how valuable it is from a developers/project POV too, which is why I am a big fan of it, that and also as per wrinklys posts, the most underrated thing with RT is allowing for a much more dynamic interactive scene i.e. when it comes to things like physics/destruction of the game world, something which people have stated they would rather have over RT but not realising RT is vital to achieving that goal too.

Plenty of people on this thread wopuld agree ; being forced to use 1080p upscaling on a £2000 gpu for ray tracing to be useable, means it isnt ready for general use. Thats Cp2077 and the RTX 3090 ofc.
£2k? Last time I checked a 3090 cost £1400?

See above points, just going around in circles again....

Would advise people to watch some videos on Disney/Pixar productions, kind of puts everything into perspective imo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom