-
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.
Linus Tech Tips does a ray-tracing video where they test their staff to see if they can tell the difference.
- Thread starter Cow Mengde
- Start date
what you're seeing is games that are made without RT first and then have the sauce slathered on after the fact. it's expected to be subtle because that's really all it can be. hence why Metro Exodus has such a drastically different look
I don't think they advertised this video as a real scientific study. It's just evaluating examples of existing Ray Tracing in the titles they chose. It's no different than an HDR test they've done or high refresh rate tests.
I didn't say that he did. I said it was disingenuous and flawed and it is. It's presented as if any meaningful conclusions can be drawn from their tests, and suggests that RTX may be a waste of their viewers' time based on their conclusions, which is a joke.
If he wanted the video (or their point) to be taken seriously he should have at least done a real survey with clear examples and blind choices among everyday folk. They certainly have the resources.
He's proven that by his embarrassing explanation of path tracing.
Yeah... games made with RT in mind look super different when that setting is on. The scene itself is made with RT in mind and takes advantage of its benefits.
Lol, folks just skip to the 13 minute mark.
Linus shows Metro Exodus 2021 and explains how it eases development by reducing lighting artists work load.
Linus shows Metro Exodus 2021 and explains how it eases development by reducing lighting artists work load.
We already know why they used the games that they did. The examples they chose were more subtle, and thus less likely to be able to be distinguished from their rasterized counterparts, since it's clear the goal here is to persuade the audience that RTX isn't worth it.
For developers couldn't RTX, or more expensive developer hardware also help them make rasterized graphics easier not just put that burden on the user's cards, especially since they still have to make rasterized graphics for cards that don't support it, or the off config to save framerate?
Yeah that's kinda what I'm getting at. It "makes no sense" as long as we assume a good faith intention by Linus here instead of a lazy, okay here's a video topic let's make video as quickly as possible.
He's done far better work than this, and even the technical explanations in the video were not bad. So this is just annoying disappointing and pretty bad.
Comments on ERA sometimes are more embarrassing than on Youtube. Did you even bother watching entire video, especially near the end at 13 minute mark?
I think that makes the video even worse. Because it is just at odds with the rest of the video.
And it doesn't justify anything because, yes while Metro Exodus enhanced is not quite yet released great example, and Linus can use it as this sort of "hey yeah in the future like RTX will be good but not right now" it's kind of bullshit since again, there are already a number of games that ALREADY use it really well.
The video is dishonest. It acts like games right now aren't noticeable and RTX won't be interesting until the future. That's just not correct.
Yes there's not a TON right now, but there are a number of really great RTX experiences right now that the video has to ignore to make its point. It just doesn't feel like a good showing.
RTX isn't a far off future that doesn't matter. It's something that has already begun to gain traction.
That's probably the main reason it'll become standard. Allows the artists to spend their time on other things.
I'll have RT and 60fps, Mr DLSS, thanks!
As for the choice of games: should have been waiting for Metro and really use state of the art RT examples. Metro EE and Control.
on the other hand, this shows well how early this tech is when sublime samples are few and rare.
As for the choice of games: should have been waiting for Metro and really use state of the art RT examples. Metro EE and Control.
on the other hand, this shows well how early this tech is when sublime samples are few and rare.
Most of them were okay but his explanation of path tracing was completely off base and wrong. It's not "basically a shortcut version of ray-tracing". And NVIDIA's RT core method for hit detection/intersection is not specific to path tracing.
I unfortunately watched the entire thing. It doesn't even remotely change my point. The video was generated for clicks, plain and simple.
Exactly.
with the existence of DLSS and, eventually, FRS, saying RT "isn't here yet" because of performance is a faf. performance loss mitigation techniques exist and are pretty good (and hopefully good). even then, even the 6700XT can produce playable frame rates with lower fidelity RT
I still chose no-RT, looked better overall and kept the 60fps
Not to mention, the two most recent RT-enabled games - Metro Exodus Enhanced and Resident Evil VIII - achieve perfectly playable framerates on *both* AMD and nVidia, at native resolutions.
I'll take 60fps over ray-traced reflections only, but if we're talking global illumination, then that's a more difficult choice.
In a slower paced / cinematic game, I'll deal with the lower frame.
Also, this. With the DLSS and a current gen GPU, you don't even need to choose if you're only trying to hit 60fps.
In a slower paced / cinematic game, I'll deal with the lower frame.
Also, this. With the DLSS and a current gen GPU, you don't even need to choose if you're only trying to hit 60fps.
Disingenuous implies he's knowingly not showing it at it's best. Dunno' if that's fair to say but I agree that I wish they had a better selection.
Basically.
And of course he attempts to clean it all up at the end by showing examples that cast doubt on his conclusion, yet somehow those examples were never evaluated by his staff.
They could have cropped out the labels for the Metro example at the end of the video, showed it to the staff, and I guarantee you all of them would have been able to tell the difference. They knew what they were doing.
Not that it matters. The tests would not have been meaningful for consumers either way.
Even their Minecraft example is undercooked. You can do pinhole projection in Minecraft RTX (which they discovered completely by accident) and it's not something you could casually fake in a dynamic world with simple rasterization given the complexity.
I know he's a pc gaming channel, but the fact he never brought up Spider-Man and it's 60fps RT mode is, another, odd [thing]. he also brings up Metro Exodus Enhanced, but neglects the fact that current gen consoles will have RT at 60fps as well. like proof that RT hardware is capable (if you expend resolution a bit), but I guess that doesn't fit the narrative one is trying to push.
Consoles aren't using Nvidia RTX, which is what the video is focused on, but it is a stupid video yes
A week ago I wondered how much it would cost me to upgrade my 1060GTX 2017 PC, to be more in par with my Series X experience, and 120fps stuff.
I searched 5 minutes and closed the browser...shocked.
What is going on with the video cards? Really. I haven't researched in years.
chip shortage and mining craze
also note that chip shortage isn't just computer parts, but automotives and shit like microwaves and refrigerators
the same thing that's going on with most electronics right now: There's a global chip shortage.
There isn't any major difference between Nvidia RTX and the RT on consoles. The only real difference is API language. So you're talking about the same thing even if they have different names.
For example, Quake2 RTX has both the RTX and generic Vulkan APIs available (so I believe you can use it on some AMD cards?). For the most part it's just a slightly different code path but it does all the same stuff.
People are really writing off the strengths of ray tracing in this thread. I agree that stable framerate will almost always come before increases to graphics, but Ray Tracing has the ability to fundamentally change the feel of games depending on how it's utilized. Ray Tracing is one part of the future and the time is coming where a games vision will be achievable in full only with RT.
Thanks. Dumb question.
Why would there be a shortage?
Is it artificial? Example: monopoly in certain regions, or does the world really lack the factories/materials/capacity?
Is COVID a factor?
I understand that, but they're evaluating the value of a graphics card feature aren't they? PS5/XSX come with hardware-accelerated RT, on PC you have a choice.
The factories/capacity is the biggest factor. As far as I'm aware, the materials aren't the issue here.
And yes, Covid has been a huge factor, along with massively increased demand within a short time frame.
Sure. But all that time they spend getting the lighting to still look nice, could have been spent implementing more microtansactions.
Hmm, I can kind of get that? Not that it won't matter for long as eventually the only cards you can buy will have it as standard. At which point I'm honestly stumped as to what the point of this video was. They aren't really showing off ray tracing at its best strengths, and they aren't really (entirely) debunking if ray tracing actually is a thing that exists. This whole video is frankly super confused and I'm wondering if it was just content for the sake of content.
Considering they actually reference the upcoming enhanced version of Metro at the end of the video, it's clear they're talking about the perception of any features of RTX, not just whether or not the game uses RTX or not. In other words, they're arguing that there aren't any noticeable visual features that RTX can provide over traditional rasterization, but there will be in the future, which is still a flawed conclusion as it's completely false and can be disproven in select RTX games today. The Metro example just shows how much more potential RTX has in terms of longevity, and if you can tell the difference between a game that uses different implementations of RTX, you sure as hell are gonna tell the difference when RTX is turned off.
I know it's probably not charitable to call them out on that but I think we can safely say that it's content for the sake of content. They've done much better videos than this.
But the big difference in that screen comes from the difference in exposure mainly.
Raytracing has nothing to do with that, there's a clear difference in setup between the old and new version which is why that image looks so obviously different, and showing it as an example of what RT can do is quite misleading.
It's not a good video. I can agree with his conclusion at the end of the video but the experiment itself was worthless and it felt like a waste of my time.
I'm referring to the Metro examples in the video, which aren't nearly as overexposed. And while the exposure levels aren't identical in the examples in the video, the main difference is in how much more bounced light has visibly accumulated in the interior environments (thanks to RTGI). Anyone would be able to tell, it's that big of a difference.
EDIT:
Point is, anyone who isn't blind can tell when there's more or less light visible in a room and it doesn't require any expertise whatsoever.
Well, you quoted my message which was responding to a message that posted this:
which is what I was contesting.
The reason this image is posted over and over is because the difference is of course starking, but this difference has very little to do with raytracing, and nearly all to different exposure.
And it's even more wrong if you're trying to show the difference rt can make vs. rasterisation, considering both are using raytraced gi.
Well, you quoted my message which was responding to a message that posted this:
which is what I was contesting.
The reason this image is posted over and over is because the difference is of course starking, but this difference has very little to do with raytracing, and nearly all to different exposure.
And it's even more wrong if you're trying to show the difference rt can make vs. rasterisation, considering both are using raytraced gi.
Yeah I was speaking more on a tangent, not really trying to refute what you were saying about that specific example.
This one referenced in the video is a much better example.
Even when accounting for the difference in exposure, the difference in the accumulation of bounced light is instantly perceptible.
EDIT:
Also, a comparison with the enhanced version and the same game with RTX off would show a difference even more stark, not less.
Last edited:
On the consumer end it's definitely not there yet for most titles. The benefits to people in the art departments really can't be underestimated though. Lighting systems and setups are pretty time consuming and RTX can help with that. But I agree that I'll take FPS and tricks now as a consumer every time.