Ray tracing performance is more relevant than rasterization at this point.
This is an Nvidia - marketing created problem.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ray tracing performance is more relevant than rasterization at this point.
I agree, and it's only accelerating... In most games it's a dramatic difference or at least like a whole new settings bump. Virtually all good looking games come with it now and despite some claiming they can't tell a difference, it's big. I'm not sure why some seem to hate the idea of a new tier of graphics, but as you can see by the responses you got, well... .If you don't care about ray tracing you don't really care about graphics. It isn't 2018 anymore. Every new AAA game has ray tracing, games without look like garbage by comparison. Ray tracing performance is more relevant than rasterization at this point.
not sure why some seem to hate the idea of a new tier of graphics
I do, but I got slapped the last time I mentioned it being called a "gimmick" by some people.You know damn well why lol
So they're the bad guy for adding new graphics features that require more performance? It's a big win for gamers to have even better graphics. Not sure why the animosity towards it.This is an Nvidia - marketing created problem.
I do, but I got slapped the last time I mentioned it being called a "gimmick" by some people.
Frame gen isn't common yet, so that argument falls flat as most gamers are using dlss for raytracing which looks very close to native. However, both amd and Nvidia are pushing it, Nvidia's frame gen works very well by all reports from actual players.I just can't get over the irony of on one hand pushing RT for more accurate/realistic lighting and on the other hand pushing frame-generation to "infer" what the scene should look like to maintain any semblance of high framerates.
I just can't get over the irony of on one hand pushing RT for more accurate/realistic lighting and on the other hand pushing frame-generation to "infer" what the scene should look like to maintain any semblance of high framerates.
Some used to believe it or not, which to anyone today is laughable. Same thing now, but with lighting instead as you said. Being anti-tech improvement is confusing.Did you feel the same way about using anti aliasing to make edges appear smoother, instead of just running at natively such a demanding much higher resolution that edges are no longer jaggy?
Some used to believe it or not, which to anyone today is laughable. Same thing now, but with lighting instead as you said. Being anti-tech improvement is confusing.
It's not an argument it's merely an observation.Frame gen isn't common yet, so that argument falls flat as most gamers are using dlss for raytracing which looks very close to native. However, both amd and Nvidia are pushing it, Nvidia's frame gen works very well by all reports from actual players.
I suspect you're smarter than this (based on prior posts of yours) - the issue(s) of aliasing are not even remotely related to my point about pairing RT with AI/DL frame-generation.Did you feel the same way about using anti aliasing to make edges appear smoother, instead of just running at natively such a demanding much higher resolution that edges are no longer jaggy?
Same thing. We had 'fake lighting' as a shortcut for a long time cause we couldn't do 'real lighting', as it was too computationally demanding. Now we can do 'real lighting' to a degree, but shortcuts are still necessary. Devs like it cause it's less work for them. I like it cause it's just more technologically advanced and a more accurate portrayal when (trying to) rendering reality.
It's not an argument it's merely an observation.
I suspect you're smarter than this (based on prior posts of yours) - the issue(s) of aliasing are not even remotely related to my point about pairing RT with AI/DL frame-generation.
Fair enough - I think we're just looking at this from different perspectives: practical application (you) and ray/path tracing fundamentals (me).People want RT at playable frames - they don't consider that 60FPS anymore, frame generation is giving them that, by way of a shortcut
Eventually you'll be able to generate the same number of frames natively, with the same graphical settings. But not today. So until then, shortcuts. But then we'll have shortcuts for other things or even higher framerates, and people will be complaining about that instead.
Fair enough - I think we're just looking at this from different perspectives: practical application (you) and ray/path tracing fundamentals (me).
I wouldn't call it a gimmick, but I think you're definitely swinging to the other end of the pendulum calling it a "dramatic difference". Truth is somewhere in the middle and as such it's perfectly acceptable for folks not wanting to spend $1200+ on GPUs to say they care about raster vs RT.I agree, and it's only accelerating... In most games it's a dramatic difference or at least like a whole new settings bump. Virtually all good looking games come with it now and despite some claiming they can't tell a difference, it's big. I'm not sure why some seem to hate the idea of a new tier of graphics, but as you can see by the responses you got, well... .
I mean, is there any doubt that the lighting in the interpolated frame will be much closer to the real lighting than without path tracing..... I am not sure why we would not say; lol fake pixel using denoising to show real lighting (while it is used in non-real time hyper high quality renderer a lot) with that logic, even without the fake inserted frame."lol fake frames to show real lighting"
I'm definitely guilty of throwing "gimmick" around when really "shortcut" is the proper term.I understand the irony of "lol fake frames to show real lighting" - but it just screams 'shortcut' to me instead of 'pointless' or 'gimmick'. Shortcuts are both the name-of-the-game and the enemy (which is also ironic) until we're literally just creating and rendering another reality. Which will also be cool.
I mean, is there any doubt that the lighting in the interpolated frame will be much closer to the real lighting than without path tracing..... I am not sure why we would not say; lol fake pixel using denoising to show real lighting (while it is used in non-real time hyper high quality renderer a lot) with that logic, even without the fake inserted frame.
To add to the frame gen convo, its somewhat ironic that you need a beefy enough card to generate enough real frames for frame gen to work well.
It depends what we mean by working well, I think that in the blind test at LTT, everyone and by a large margin to a small margin preferred 30ish fps with DLSS3 to 15-17ish fps without. The fact that 60 fps with DLSS 3 is not a good experience to many like 30 fps isn't, does not mean those people would not much prefer 60 fps with dlss3 than 30 without and would mean that it works quite well.To add to the frame gen convo, its somewhat ironic that you need a beefy enough card to generate enough real frames for frame gen to work well.
It depends what we mean by working well, I think that in the blind test at LTT, everyone and by a large margin to a small margin preferred 30ish fps with DLSS3 to 15-17ish fps without. The fact that 60 fps with DLSS 3 is not a good experience to many like 30 fps isn't, does not mean those people would not much prefer 60 fps with dlss3 than 30 without and would mean that it works quite well.
If by work well we mean better experience that without, it seem to work at it best at the very low fps level. Work well has a nice gaming experience than sure, but if the scenario is to lock a 120 fps monitor to 120, you need a gpu strong enough for say 80ish fps, able to almost never go down 60 instead of one that need to never go down 120 and there will not be a clear beefy enough GPU for that, you can usually reduce setting or resolution to make it happen and if the game is cpu limited like it seem to become a norm, to make it even possible.
All DLSS3 video card will be (has of now and should include the 4060 family) above that beefy enough bar (the kind that reach 70+ fps with regular dlss on at reasonable settings).
I guess if you just stare at curated digital foundry screenshots all day. Most games barely make a difference with it.
*Edit* Speaking of "curated screenshots", I love when they clearly gimp the non-RT version to make RT look better. The best example I saw of this was, I think, a cyperpunk one with a car and the non-RT screenshot had literally no shadowing under the car, which is absolute nonsense. You don't need RT to make a shadow under an object.
In a open world with many thousand objects, some that can move, it can be quite hard to have shadows for everything all the time and a good frame rate.*Edit* Speaking of "curated screenshots", I love when they clearly gimp the non-RT version to make RT look better. The best example I saw of this was, I think, a cyperpunk one with a car and the non-RT screenshot had literally no shadowing under the car, which is absolute nonsense. You don't need RT to make a shadow under an object.
I said "or a whole new settings bump", which isn't so dramatic but is noticeable. Also said in most games, not all .I wouldn't call it a gimmick, but I think you're definitely swinging to the other end of the pendulum calling it a "dramatic difference".
Objects don't cast shadows all the time in real life depending on the lighting. I am sitting in my artificially lit office right now and I'm not casting any shadow.I guess if you just stare at curated digital foundry screenshots all day. Most games barely make a difference with it.
*Edit* Speaking of "curated screenshots", I love when they clearly gimp the non-RT version to make RT look better. The best example I saw of this was, I think, a cyperpunk one with a car and the non-RT screenshot had literally no shadowing under the car, which is absolute nonsense. You don't need RT to make a shadow under an object.
DLSS4 is time traveling frame technology. It travels into the future and grabs a frame for you, and brings it back to your time.
will DLSS 4 remove the latency added with DLSS 3?...I think my 3080 will be fine for another year and the 5000 series is sure to be a major leap in performance so I'm fine with waiting
VAMPIRE!!!Objects don't cast shadows all the time in real life depending on the lighting. I am sitting in my artificially lit office right now and I'm not casting any shadow.
What does that have to do with a shadow existing in RT, but not in non-RT?Objects don't cast shadows all the time in real life depending on the lighting. I am sitting in my artificially lit office right now and I'm not casting any shadow.
Objects don't cast shadows all the time in real life depending on the lighting. I am sitting in my artificially lit office right now and I'm not casting any shadow.
I mean, you do, it's just very diffuse. Light isn't going through you.Objects don't cast shadows all the time in real life depending on the lighting. I am sitting in my artificially lit office right now and I'm not casting any shadow.
You were insinuating that a car casting no shadow was nonsense, that NVIDIA was gimping the non-RT screenshot to make the RT screenshot look better. A better explanation is probably due to the limit of how many point and directional lights there is in DirectX rasterization, and the light that is being cast at the car isn't generating a shadow computationally.What does that have to do with a shadow existing in RT, but not in non-RT?
It's an office with walls going up to the ceiling, a door, and everything.office?...you mean you're sitting in your artificially lit cubicle right?
Right, but the light accumulation is such that the area around you isn't visually distinctI mean, you do, it's just very diffuse. Light isn't going through you.
Yes, it is. If the RT image IS casting a shadow. The object should have a shadow. Now I really wish I could find that image lol. Really can't remember if it was for CP2077, and if so if it was thread for it here. Was a while ago.You were insinuating that a car casting no shadow was nonsense
And you cut out the rest of my reply giving possible explanations. I know the limit for lights in DX10 and prior was 7 point lights and 1 global light. I have not worked with DX11 and DX12, so I don't know if that has changed. That said, I would like to see what you're referring to.Yes, it is. If the RT image IS casting a shadow. The object should have a shadow. Now I really wish I could find that image lol. Really can't remember if it was for CP2077, and if so if it was thread for it here. Was a while ago.
Eh, because those are fine, no ill intent. Still, using it as an image to display the differences is a bit...odd. I just went forum searching to try and find it with no luck. Could have also been in the 1 of 100+ news articles that mention RT in one way or another and someone used it in a post, so eh, it ain't worth nitpicking about and I could very well be remembering wrong.And you cut out the rest of my reply giving possible explanations
Stopgap may be the more accurate term for combining RT with AI/DL frame-generation. And it would only be absurd if they did NOT enable the combination of these two techs so that RT can be used at acceptable framerates and enjoyed on a sliding-scale, rather than RT being an all-or-nothing toggle to 15FPS.I'm definitely guilty of throwing "gimmick" around when really "shortcut" is the proper term.
This one?Yes, it is. If the RT image IS casting a shadow. The object should have a shadow. Now I really wish I could find that image lol. Really can't remember if it was for CP2077, and if so if it was thread for it here. Was a while ago.