That's where you're mistaken. There won't be many games more intensive than Minecraft RTX. Especially not AAA games. Minecraft RTX is that pinnacle
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Is Ray Tracing actually even worth it right now?
- Thread starter MazeHaze
- Start date
OP
OP
aren't RTX cards using hardware accelrated ray tracing too though? So that 15 TFLOP 2080TI machine would actually be 30 TFLOPS if you put in those same terms. I think the new XBOX is going to be outstanding value and compete with current high end PC hardware graphically no problem, but it's not going to be a secret raytracing sauce. Otherwise AMD would be making super affordable GPUs and killing that market as well.
Inside Xbox Series X: the full specs
This is it. After months of teaser trailers, blog posts and even the occasional leak, we can finally reveal firm, hard …www.eurogamer.net
"Without hardware acceleration, this work could have been done in the shaders, but would have consumed over 13 TFLOPs alone," says Andrew Goossen. "For the Series X, this work is offloaded onto dedicated hardware and the shader can continue to run in parallel with full performance. In other words, Series X can effectively tap the equivalent of well over 25 TFLOPs of performance while ray tracing"
I have bought a rtx 2080 day one and while im happy with the upgrade in performance from the 1080 ti especially when using dlss i cant say i used much ray tracing in my two years of owning the gpu and thats mainly because little to no games use it and the performance impact of it since i want to actually play at over 100 fps
OP
OP
It is what it is, but it is good that ray tracing wont impact raster performance.
OP
OP
you'll see by my thread title, and the context given in the OP, I am speaking about the performance hit right now. If you think it is, that's cool, but you don't have to be snarky and sarcastic about it. Let me know your experiences and maybe some other games I could try and why you value it over the performance hit maybe?
The performance hit isn't that massive, depending on your card, and it isn't like super high FPS is needed in single-player games.
Paired with DLSS it's literally a game-changer, and has changed graphics. I can't go back.
The point op is trying to make, if you turn off RTX.. there isn't a huge glaring difference.Control running on my PC (RTX 2080)
Bonus Pic
The problem we have now is that the game industry is built on decades of rasterisation. and until we have actual GPU's that can accelerate native raytracing and not the hybrid solutions we have now, (will take 15 years or so) there isnt a huge leap that will blow your mind.
My advice is to treat RTX cards like any other GPU's on PC. and let the devs slowly deal with all the forms of hybrid raytracing and move their tools in this direction. It will get faster, the benifits will become more apparent, and the performance hit will go down as time progresses and we will get more and more hardware accelerating Raytracing.
We are now at the first generation of PC GPU's that offer raytracing and many devs havent even had a thought of adding it to their games since the amount of people using RT accelerated GPU's is very low.
It will take time.
OP
OP
MOSTLY 60 fps ain't really it for me. Control at 1080p maxed out with high RTX natively runs like 45-60 and jumps a lot. Granted, the DLSS does work well, but also doesn't look as crisp to me, and I run into problems where it only gives me certain resolutions to render when at my native res as 4K, I have to adjust the ini to get it to render lower than 1080p, it's just a whole thing.
Also CODMW as far as I can tell I can't really see any RTX difference anyway. The implementation seems completely limited to dynamic shadows, which are hard to pick out even in side by sides IMO.
edit: also Quake 2 RTX gives me high 50's with dynamic res going as low as 50%. (at 4K I think, theres no res option in game I just played with it briefly) Accetable I guess, but it's also a 20+ year old game.
The reflections and light refraction stuff Im not really seeing what the big deal is, looks shiny I guess. But whatever Metro Exodus is doing with ray tracing, that needs to be the norm. Imagine Resident Evil with all those shadow effects.
OP
OP
yeah this is where I'm at completely. Those screenshots look great, but they also look pretty close to that without the raytracing, at like 2-3 times the performance.
I'll reiterate again, I know for a fact that raytracing is the future and lighting is going to be bonkers good. This thread is about if it's worth the trade off right now in it's earliest implementations.
Edit: also this thread isn't really about consoles at all tbh, as they aren't out yet, and we haven't even really seen any of their games. This is about actual raytracing, as it is availble right this second.
you never get anything at 100% day one. if you think waiting until we can get 100% (whatever you think that is), you'll never get anything. like every other technique, it's going to come in steps, so you got to start out when the tech is only usable at the high end.
Depends on whether you're asking whether it's worth it for companies/devs to be pursuing it, or whether you're asking if it's worth it for consumers currently.
If it's the former... performance goalposts are always gonna be moving. There's no such thing as a future where raytracing is faster than rasterization, so companies have gotta bite the bullet eventually and say "we're doing raytracing now even if it means lower FPS, fuck you"... and apparently, that time is now. The transition stings... but raytracing is definitely worth it.
If it's the latter, that's up to the individual. Most games are only partially raytraced and don't really showcase how transformative it can truly be, but if you've got money to burn and aren't so concerned about having the absolute highest FPS possible, then maybe it's worth it. And Minecraft is something of a killer app for showcasing raytracing, so if you happen to be a huge Minecraft fan, then it alone might be enough to sell you on a high-end card.
If it's the former... performance goalposts are always gonna be moving. There's no such thing as a future where raytracing is faster than rasterization, so companies have gotta bite the bullet eventually and say "we're doing raytracing now even if it means lower FPS, fuck you"... and apparently, that time is now. The transition stings... but raytracing is definitely worth it.
If it's the latter, that's up to the individual. Most games are only partially raytraced and don't really showcase how transformative it can truly be, but if you've got money to burn and aren't so concerned about having the absolute highest FPS possible, then maybe it's worth it. And Minecraft is something of a killer app for showcasing raytracing, so if you happen to be a huge Minecraft fan, then it alone might be enough to sell you on a high-end card.
OP
OP
Right on, can I play Minecraft RTX for free? I'm honestly old as fuck and have no knowledge of minecraft other than there's like a java one and a windows store one or something. Also I've never played minecraft and have no friends on PC to play with.
Right now, probably not. I did buy the 2070 Super to Play Control with ray tracing on. But to be honest, 5700XT is probably a better bang for the buck option. It is a badass card though, as I'm playing Rise of TTR at 4K60 and Gears 5 at 4K60 on my 55 LG OLED. Games look pretty glorious.
And you do want "effects" to be subtle and built with good taste. If everything was very blingy ray traced to shit just to prove a point, that shit would look bad regardless. I think its more a matter of subtly and used in good taste. Like back in the days when everyone turned up the chrome effects to 11....it looked gross. However, with well designed ray tracing in games, and to be able to run it smoothly at 4K60 and 60+, the next gen cards are probably the best bet.
And you do want "effects" to be subtle and built with good taste. If everything was very blingy ray traced to shit just to prove a point, that shit would look bad regardless. I think its more a matter of subtly and used in good taste. Like back in the days when everyone turned up the chrome effects to 11....it looked gross. However, with well designed ray tracing in games, and to be able to run it smoothly at 4K60 and 60+, the next gen cards are probably the best bet.
I think it is.
Don't get me wrong, the performance hit IS big but it's such an amazing (and natural) effect that I believe is worth putting something down like resolution.
The great thing is that as software and hardware matures, it's only going to look better while costing less performance.
Don't get me wrong, the performance hit IS big but it's such an amazing (and natural) effect that I believe is worth putting something down like resolution.
The great thing is that as software and hardware matures, it's only going to look better while costing less performance.
Gotta agree with this for now. Minecraft and Quake in RT look great, but in grafix intensive games like Battlefield 5? I can hardly notice it, the water puddles and glass are cool tho.
To me I feel the the difference. It makes everything in a scene sit the way they should, it starts to look real and less video gamey. Its worth it right now to me. I agree with what your saying all the way. Progression in upscaling etc is great imo.
I think you need to have the Windows Store version of Minecraft, then you just need to opt into beta releases.
And Minecraft can be plenty fun as a single-player game, if you're the type of person who can get into sandboxy games where most of the fun is in making your own goals.
I think the best demo to make right now to help users understand the "why" of raytracing is to show the limitations of otherwise very impressive stand-ins for it in traditional rendering. So while screen-space reflections still look stunning, all it takes is obstruction from something in the foreground or tilting the player view downward too much to immediately lose the effect. When you realize how many angles we can't use it for at all, you notice that everywhere in normal games. We have very nice faked light-shaft effects, but you see how that falls apart next to totally dynamic casting/parrallel refraction through transmissives. While shadow-maps do a good job of giving the sense of dynamic shadows, the limitations in resolution, color, and contact properties are easy to see next to the real thing.
There's a reason something as visually "simple" as Minecraft is already a showcase, next to some of the best art in the industry. Raytracing and path-tracing bring the curiosity of virtual spaces back into focus more than anything this side of VR. We're moving on from impressively crafted dioramas to building totally dynamic spaces, with the properties of light "inherently" built into it. This isn't even all-or-nothing, and we're at the start of developing smarter ways to use the tools, and the tech behind it.
There's a reason something as visually "simple" as Minecraft is already a showcase, next to some of the best art in the industry. Raytracing and path-tracing bring the curiosity of virtual spaces back into focus more than anything this side of VR. We're moving on from impressively crafted dioramas to building totally dynamic spaces, with the properties of light "inherently" built into it. This isn't even all-or-nothing, and we're at the start of developing smarter ways to use the tools, and the tech behind it.
Last edited:
The 5700XX sounds good on paper but half the people I knew who bought one returned it and just got the 2070 Super instead because it either ran too hot or had terrible drivers.
I'm having a blast building shit in Minecraft just to see how the GI interacts with the different materials, colors, etc. Hopefully it takes off with next gen games making use of it.
If you have a crt monitor, that's about it. You can run in lower resolutions and it still looks good.
I don't really follow game tech much, but I feel like I've been hearing about "ray tracing" since at least the PS3 days
Until you can reliably get 60FPS+ with it turned on, then no it's probably not worth it. I notice framerate problems a lot more than I notice inaccurate lighting or relfections.
There's also the problem that it makes developers more inclined to make every surface glistening and shiny.
There's also the problem that it makes developers more inclined to make every surface glistening and shiny.
OP, you need to play Shadow of the Tomb Raider with raytracing on. It's an ideal game to test RTX functions on because you can increase the amount of raytracing effects in game without having to restart the game (edit: and see the performance hit each raytracing level gives you on your rig, so you can determine what level of performance you're willing to stomach in exchange for graphical fidelity). IMO, you can really see what RTX adds this way, its a great showcase.
Plus SOTR keys are cheap nowadays!
Plus SOTR keys are cheap nowadays!
Last edited:
Quake 2 RTX is some goddamn fucking beautiful shit.
Minecraft makes me shit my pants with how gorgeous it is, even if I don't give 2 shits about MC.
Fuck realistic graphics. Gimme RTX in these otherwise simple games. Gimme HL1/2 with RTX.
Minecraft makes me shit my pants with how gorgeous it is, even if I don't give 2 shits about MC.
Fuck realistic graphics. Gimme RTX in these otherwise simple games. Gimme HL1/2 with RTX.
It's going to be one of those things that ends up ruining the performance in games. I hope they make it optional.
I'm not exactly thrilled about it like most seem to be, as I honestly don't know what I'm supposed to be looking at. All I see is "new shininess" that I haven't found to be aesthetically pleasing and don't understand how it will benefit the actual game.
But I'm taking a wait and see approach, I guess.
But I'm taking a wait and see approach, I guess.
I disagree. I think the difference is huge.
No RT
With RT
Of course not every scene in Control has this big of difference, but still, its fairly drastic.