Ultimately I think that we will see games benefitting from ray traced ground truth content , but not via directly being rendered, but being painted in by AI.
A little like DLSS works, but focussing not purely on hallucinating the extra resolution.
-
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.
NVIDIA RTX In 2020 - STILL Not Worth It? [HardwareCanucks]
- Thread starter Ploid 6.0
- Start date
Ultimately I think that we will see games benefitting from ray traced ground truth content , but not via directly being rendered, but being painted in by AI.
A little like DLSS works, but focussing not purely on hallucinating the extra resolution.
People should really stop specting a newly applied render technique to work perfectly right out of the gate.
Raytracing is pretty resource intensive? Of course it is! Just like antialiasing, SSAO, tesselation and other tricks we now take for granted.
Give it a bit of time to mature, maybe it'll need a whole generation, but it will work.
Also, as a 2060 owner, yes, it's worth it.
Raytracing is pretty resource intensive? Of course it is! Just like antialiasing, SSAO, tesselation and other tricks we now take for granted.
Give it a bit of time to mature, maybe it'll need a whole generation, but it will work.
Also, as a 2060 owner, yes, it's worth it.
The only game where I used RTX was Modern Warfare, and that was annoyingly plagued by noisy shadows with certain lights.
On my 2070 Super at 1080p, RTX isn't worth it for Metro or Control. In Metro, I have the choice to use RTX or supersample to 1620p. Supersampling makes a far bigger difference, and let's me maintain about 80+ FPS. In Control, it's either ~55-65fps with RTX on Medium, 40-45fps with RTX on High, or 90+ FPS with it off. The game plays much better at 90 FPS so that's an easy decision.
On my 2070 Super at 1080p, RTX isn't worth it for Metro or Control. In Metro, I have the choice to use RTX or supersample to 1620p. Supersampling makes a far bigger difference, and let's me maintain about 80+ FPS. In Control, it's either ~55-65fps with RTX on Medium, 40-45fps with RTX on High, or 90+ FPS with it off. The game plays much better at 90 FPS so that's an easy decision.
Once consoles adopt raytracing things will get better. People will spend the resources to find ways to optimize the technology to be able to run smoothly even with entry level enthusiast hardware. My first RTX card will probably be Hopper. That should be enough time to reap the benefits of a new console generation.
I don't know if this is a good photo. RTX on looks like it has the brightness way too high.
I don't think ~400€ (2060 Super) is that expensive for entry point that will give you acceptable to good performance in RTX titles currently and good performance in normal rasterized gaming.
We are already there. BFV with RT enabled was insane performance hit when it released. Now? We have game like Control that does a lot more with RT than BFV even tries to do, for less performance hit. Even BFV's RT performance has gone up since tech initial release in the title.
We have already witnessed good push in performance gains while increasing what games are doing with the tech. Next few years should be amazing for RT. Especially once AMD gets on board + consoles start to push it too so more and more developers start to collaborate on implementation.
Light scatter is fun thing, isn't it? That light source (player flashlight) in RTX Off shot is clearly very strong light source so it to scatter that much makes sense.
Assuming you're in the US, I'd suggest a 1660 Super instead. It's very, very close (less than 5%) to the 1660 Ti but cheaper.
Did Crysis have all these rehashed videos decrying every nice feature they pushed that "wasn't worth the performance hit"?
Thanks! I'm in the UK, but the comparison should hold. I'll look at it a bit closer. I seem to remember finding those extra 5% desirable, but ... if the savings are significant, I'll adjust my sights ^^
Going forward you will be adopter of it, liked it or not. Consoles will have it built in. Both AMD and NV GPUs going forward will support it.
OP
OP
They're not asking if it will ever be worth it, but if it's worth it after a year.
So far not many games use it, it's expensive performance wise, DLSS helps but takes a wile to mature in games (deep learning), and it is probably best to wait or buy and keep upgrading for the more capable hardware.
There is no doubt that it will be great with high framerates that we are used to, and it is here to stay. It's just not "Just buy it" good with the 20 nvidia series (early adopters).
Just Buy It: Why Nvidia RTX GPUs Are Worth the Money
Some enthusiasts are upset about the price of the Nvidia RTX 2080 / 2070, but the opportunity cost of sticking with old technology is higher.
www.tomshardware.com
Last edited:
I figure the lack of games has a lot to do with, in addition to Turing's high prices and lack of viable upgrade paths, there being a lack of cards with RT support. Nvidia added Pascal to the mix, but that was rather pointless. and with no AMD cards supporting it, there's a chunk of the market that can't experience it
Right but I would not consider that being an early adopter when it's in a mass produced consumer item. That's exactly the ideal situation. I'm not sure I came across properly considering the "like it or not" formulation. I certainly wouldn't dislike raytracing as a concept, it would be nonsensical. What I dislike is jumping on an early overpriced initial and inconsistently supported implementation in the RT cards. Once it goes cheaper and mainstream, I'll be all in -- I mean I won't even need to be, it will just be there, which is what you want from a product.
This is not really an RT specific thought process for me though, I largely shy away from being an early adopter in anything tech. The downsides usually outweigh the upsides
SSAO/HBAO was like the first thing people used to turn off not that long ago. Big performance impact and "I can't see the difference!" Ignoring how much depth it gives to the scene and how flat the game looks without it. Now it is taken for granted and built into every game after ps4/xbo came out. Similarly for tessellation. Same thing will happen here. Ray traced reflections will be standard feature in every game. GI probably won't be for a fair bit because it is too demanding still and if your game is expected to look good without it, it can be challenging to ship a product like that that can scale yet. With that said I think the current cards are performing pretty well. The expectation to have no or little performance drop is just unreasonable. There is no such thing as free effects. It is not going to change that much with the next cards either, they will still perform worse with ray tracing on. You can get playable frame rate right now with current cards so I really don't see what's even there to debate about RTX. It is not a gimmick, it makes a big difference and it will only get more prevalent.
Also about lack of support, there is just not many big budget games are coming out right now. everything is delayed or they are waiting for nextgen consoles to show them. Not much is coming out and last year was pretty sparse with big releases in general. We are seeing more support from smaller and independent developers. By E3 time, that will change. Pretty much everything will have RT support. First year honestly it was better than expected. Metro and Control are really great examples of what it can do and there other titles as well and it made it into CoD engine already. That's actually a pretty fast adoption. Things don't happen over night. It's a feature for enthusiasts but it is already trickling down.
Also about lack of support, there is just not many big budget games are coming out right now. everything is delayed or they are waiting for nextgen consoles to show them. Not much is coming out and last year was pretty sparse with big releases in general. We are seeing more support from smaller and independent developers. By E3 time, that will change. Pretty much everything will have RT support. First year honestly it was better than expected. Metro and Control are really great examples of what it can do and there other titles as well and it made it into CoD engine already. That's actually a pretty fast adoption. Things don't happen over night. It's a feature for enthusiasts but it is already trickling down.
Last edited:
Consoles are likely your best bet for that. As it seems clear both Sony and Microsoft want this tech in their next systems and functioning well enough to openly demonstrate and market it.
my current thinking, since im slowly building a pc atm, is to wait for the announcements and hope for reductions on cards like the 5700 / hoping that the there is a similarly priced card in Big Navi. when it comes to consoles, I'm still in the whole "only interested for exclusives" mindset, and the only real exclusive i need, sans a From Software release, is Marvel vs. Capcom 4 lol.
im assuming the 2060 isnt particularly up to par when it comes to rtx, but it's also a possibility for me if it say drops to $250 or something. i think when it comes to rtx on pc tho, i might be getting into a few years after i buy a card this year, not the best time to be making a new build with budget in mind rn lol
the 2060 is one sale away from $250 given it can be had for $320 now. either that or the announcement of a 3060 will drop it pretty quick
They are, but when they were introduced they were only available for the higher priced market not comparable with consoles. The majority of GPU sales still happen below 300$ and that market just recently got access to RTX with the 2060 price drop.
You can use RTX options on a 1060 6G which was sold for $300 in 2016. It's even kinda playable on a 1080 and 1080Ti in some titles.
I mean, I get it - some people will try to ignore it in hopes that it will go away up until the point where they won't have any choice but to buy it - and they'll embrace it then saying how it's "fully baked" now and how stupid it was of "early adopters" to buy it back in 2018.
Truth is, there never was anything stupid in this because RTX cards were always good outside of RT too, and there never really was a choice between a RT capable card or a "better one" without RT. Early adopters of RT hasn't paid for anything "overpriced".
And without them we could've probably got RT h/w in consumer GPUs several years later, likely outside of next gen of consoles even. Think about it this way: we will get new consoles with h/w RT support in less than a year from now. ALL of projects which will launch on them during the first year of their market presence have been in development for at least a year now. How exactly would devs look into adding RT to them a year ago with no consumer RT h/w available? RTX cards were used to prototype and develop all of RT effects you will see in next gen console launch lineups. They 100% worth it just for that.
OP
OP
If the RTX cards could use the tensor core to help with non RTX tasks making them much more powerful than 1080 ti (v2080) that would have been a good selling point due to the massive increase in power for normal RTX off gaming.
For now 10 series is still good enough until 30 or 40 comes, I'd even be looking at Radeon most likely since I feel I wouldn't wan't to go all out on the most expensive card that does ray tracing yet since it's still early. For me that will come in the middle of this next console generation I think. Also one of my favorite things to do is overclock, tweak, and edit bios/memory straps, when that's over I kind of get bored and AMD tend to let you mess with that stuff which is a plus.
For now 10 series is still good enough until 30 or 40 comes, I'd even be looking at Radeon most likely since I feel I wouldn't wan't to go all out on the most expensive card that does ray tracing yet since it's still early. For me that will come in the middle of this next console generation I think. Also one of my favorite things to do is overclock, tweak, and edit bios/memory straps, when that's over I kind of get bored and AMD tend to let you mess with that stuff which is a plus.
Radeon which performs similarly at the same price but doesn't support RT would be an odd choice indeed, no matter what you feel.
OP
OP
I'm interested in how open they are to overclocking, I see it as a game or hobby, and their CPU + GPU tech they are talking about (though Smartshift seem to be designed around hardware that can't keep up creating a bottleneck, laptops). Not these current cards, but future AMD cards. Though if I had to pick now I would go AMD unless the Nvidia card for the same power in normal games is cheaper, I don't though, I feel like I can hold off for quite a bit longer.
Currently I wouldn't use RTX features because I prefer very high framerate, I get disappointed when games don't let you go above 60fps, a lot of EA car games do this. I even planned to sacrifice resolution for framerate to keep them above 120(there's no way I need 4k, I have a 4k tv but that is way too much wasted resources to me). When ray tracing is in full swing I'll be ready for a heavily modded The Elder Scrolls 6, with mods to help the framerate still at 1440p or on my 1080p monitor. I am glad Nvidia allowed Freesync monitors so I'm open to buying them. I currently have a Nvidia card because my Radeon card doubled in price during the mining craze.
Last edited:
Certain implementations of TAA are still blurring the image and for games like BFV you can't turn it off, and the DLSS implementation is blurry for that game as well so there's no winning there.
I am sorry, but I am with a rog strix 2070 super and Metro runs at 1440p at 70 FPS stable with RTX on max!
Always irritates me a bit when PC hardware channels step out of their lane and make videos about graphics technology, things they're effectively laymen on. So many comparisons early on were channels like these (decent channels for computer hardware, don't get me wrong) flat out picking bad scenes and going "see look it's not worth it, it doesn't look different and performance is cut in half". Meanwhile you watch a digital foundry video and see how transformative it can be since they pick good scenes for the tech because they understand it well.
Nvidia never should have marketed specific ray tracing effects as a hardware feature. It invited these types of videos from channels that have no business making them and I feel it's what has largely contributed to the poor perception ray tracing has among many people.
Nvidia never should have marketed specific ray tracing effects as a hardware feature. It invited these types of videos from channels that have no business making them and I feel it's what has largely contributed to the poor perception ray tracing has among many people.
I always had the perception the RTX cards aren't really for gamers though, they are for Machine Learning and creative production.
I'm sure once the cards have become Cheaper then the perception amongst gamers will change, online opinions are limited to a niche group of super enthusiasts and the vocal majority want a card that offers a perceived upgrade AND is at a magic price point.
The fact that no benchmarks were really benchmarking for RT performance made it hard for the illinformed majority to parse the price/performance.
I definitely do not doubt that, to an extent, Turing for gamers was a bit shoehorned to make manufacturing more convenient/cost effective. That said, I'm still impressed with what has been achieved so far. People were right to criticize the price/performance of this batch of cards (though that's been largely remedied with the super cards), my gripe has always been with attacks on the technology.