That star wars Demo actually uses ray traced AO, ray traced area light shadows, and ray traced reflections.
They wrote about that quite a bit
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
AMD RDNA 2 Microsoft DirectX Raytracing (DXR) Demo
- Thread starter Theorry
- Start date
They wrote about that quite a bit
Are you even serious now?
Of course you can, literally thousands of companies are doing this every day.
What about marketing deals and trademak/copyrigth? So if Microsoft want to make a fifa trailer running on xbox the can just do that?
Looks FAR behind Turing. Think about what Nvidia's next gen GPUs will do, which should be coming out at a roughly similar time frame as RDNA 2 PC GPUs.
I guess it's to be expected. AMD's R&D budget is a fraction of Nvidia's.
Different strategies but nothing that means cutting out Nvidia. Maybe there's some kind of aspect that'll cause a repeat of an asynchronous compute-style issue, but that's about it
I would totally play a game that looked like late 90's/early 2000's CG if it actually went for that style and tone lol
Look we're talking about running a benchmarking software, not making a TV commercial with footage from 3rd party software. The latter does need to be approved with the content owner. But running a benchmark? Like 3DMark? Half of YouTube is doing this every day on all h/w on the market - and people seriously think that all them are getting a "go" from UL for this? Lol.
I said a company LIKE AMD and NVIDIA specifically cannot just take a game and try to showcase it using their hardware without the permission of the developer.
there are deals made around this stuff and I know this for a fact. Whenever you see game footages in any of their product announcements, videos etc. they is money involved between AMD and those game products, for the simple reason that they use those footages to SELL their own product.
The reason why Nvidia's demos are far better in demonstrating raytracing is because they A. invested a ton of money into hiring an inhouse team of high end artists (I know of a few of them, like https://www.artstation.com/scrutch, and https://www.artstation.com/hexeract) to work on these demos.
AMD is trying to catch up and are starting to see the value in high end demonstrations of their hardware.
Last edited:
If they want to use a video presentation of 3DMark Port Royal for marketing purposes/public showing, they will need to license it from UL (the copyright holders).
The rules differ for press and media, if used in reviews. They can use footage without licensing, but can not claim copyright ownership of the video in which it appears.
I am sure AMD and/or Microsoft wanted to have full ownership of their demo, and to offer a presentation that could not be directly compared to exisiting products as RDNA2 is still in development.
I get what they are trying to show, but this was one of the ugliest things i have seen in a long time...
Theorry, it might be helpful to add this to the OP:
DXR 1.1 Inline Raytracing | Dave Oldcorn | DirectX Developer Day (Microsoft DirectX 12 and Graphics Education)
DXR 1.1 Inline Raytracing | Dave Oldcorn | DirectX Developer Day (Microsoft DirectX 12 and Graphics Education)
They could just use the numbers if AMD wanted to compare their performance to Nvidia. DXR is an API, the output should match visually regardless of HW being used and 3DMark is an application designed for benchmarking. But they clearly do not want any comparisons yet and since you cannot run this demo on your own HW (and the demo isn't showing anything new compared to previous DXR usage) it's pretty boring marketing exercise.
Last edited:
Considering they gave a talk on inline ray tracing, the reason they didn't use someone else's demo was because those didn't support DXR1.1. This demo was probably an in-house renderer made to the new spec. If anything supported the updated api, they'd be here themselves
Last edited:
He doesn't know what he's talking about. AMD is sponsoring 3DMark development, alongside with many other IHVs. They don't need any license to show it in any form because they have it, by default.
Yes, I agree. That's what I meant by my last paragraph. It's done this way specifically to avoid comparisons with current hardware.
This is also a very good point, regarding DXR 1.1: