How many of you actually use ray tracing in the games you play?

[TrunksZero]

I only enable it when honestly feels/looks worth it. If it doesn't off it goes.

 

[Mr. Bluntman]

I only just got a first generation RT GPU. So, with this, I will only enable raytracing so far as to look better but not tank my framerate below console levels (30-60fps depending on title).

 

[crazycrave]

I been using Raytraced Ambient Occlusion set to High in Saints Row on my RTX 3070, my display is only 60hz and it plays fine at these frame rates.

 

[samduhman]

Didn't know what raytracing was. So I looked it up. Very interesting, Assuming my system can handle it I'll most likely start enabling it if it's an option.

 

[madpistol]

If RT is available, I enable it. Simple.

 

[Flogger23m]

I will enable it, if frame rates are bad, turn on DLSS, turn down some ray tracing settings and see what works in terms of performance. Many games and sub ray tracing settings aren't worth the performance hit. But it is like any other graphical setting. You find what gets you an acceptable frame rate/image quality balance.

Since ray tracing is so demanding, it often gets turned down or mostly off.

 

[GameLifter]

I always turn up RT settings to the max. I'll even use mods to increase RT quality if available. If I want extra FPS I use DLSS.

 

[Sycraft]

The poll options suck ass. I turn it on when available but I do play games that don’t have RT.

Agreed, I think OP is trying to push a narrative.

Like you, I enable RT when available, but I will play games without it. As to how much I care, depends on the game. Some games it does barely anything. Dead Space is like that. It is pretty subtle the different between SSAO and RTAO and I'd have no issues turning it off to save FPS is needed. On the other hand, Control is gorgeous with RT. It really elevates the graphics in it. It is worth paying the fairly heavy FPS hit for.

It is just like any other eye candy setting:

--If it doesn't noticeably impact performance and doesn't somehow make things look worse, I'll leave it on regardless, even if it is minor.
--If it hits performance pretty hard, but looks amazing I'll leave it on.
--If it hits performance hard and doesn't really improve visuals I'll turn it down or off.

Same shit with shadow detail or anything else. I'll run shit on UltraMegaSuperExtreme or whatever if I can, but if that costs 10fps and looks the same as High, well then it is getting turned down.

Also just like shadows, SSR, or any other tech that isn't what determines if I play a game. I play the games I wanna play, I don't restrict them based on graphics tech.

 

[THRESHIN]

if it's there and i can run it, sure why not. but the how and why is a little different here.

i have a 6700XT. not exactly the best for RT but it can do it...sort of. but on the other hand i'm quite insensitive to framerate. i literally cannot tell the difference once it's above 45 fps. even at 35 i can tell it's slightly slow but to me it's still playable. i'm also still on older monitors because well i just don't care enough to upgrade. my main one is a samsung 245BW that i've had for over 15 years, 1920x1200. and then factor in that i don't play a lot of new games, not interested in call of modern honor at hogwarts cyber expansion pack. only RT games i have that i like so far are control and the dead space remake.

and yeah have to say it looks pretty nice. the effects are subtle but there. considering what i play not surprising.

so when you factor all that in, this is all working out very well for me so far. one day i'll probably get better monitors....maybe. and then complain that everything runs too slow.

 

[FiveDollarBill]

Agreed, I think OP is trying to push a narrative.

Like you, I enable RT when available, but I will play games without it. As to how much I care, depends on the game. Some games it does barely anything. Dead Space is like that. It is pretty subtle the different between SSAO and RTAO and I'd have no issues turning it off to save FPS is needed. On the other hand, Control is gorgeous with RT. It really elevates the graphics in it. It is worth paying the fairly heavy FPS hit for.

It is just like any other eye candy setting:

--If it doesn't noticeably impact performance and doesn't somehow make things look worse, I'll leave it on regardless, even if it is minor.
--If it hits performance pretty hard, but looks amazing I'll leave it on.
--If it hits performance hard and doesn't really improve visuals I'll turn it down or off.

Same shit with shadow detail or anything else. I'll run shit on UltraMegaSuperExtreme or whatever if I can, but if that costs 10fps and looks the same as High, well then it is getting turned down.

Also just like shadows, SSR, or any other tech that isn't what determines if I play a game. I play the games I wanna play, I don't restrict them based on graphics tech.

What narrative am I trying to push? Is it that the 2020 election was a fraud?

 

[Sycraft]

What narrative am I trying to push? Is it that the 2020 election was a fraud?

What relevance does the election have to anything? No my guess would be that you aren't an RT fan and thus the poll was, on purpose or subconsciously, written to have more negative options than positive ones and to leave out some obvious things like "I like RT and use it when available, but I don't base my game purchases on it."

 

[funkydmunky]

Where is the choice: THE GAME I PLAY DOESN'T HAVE RT.
Shitty poll IMO.
I play VR. Currently not a concern at all.

 

[FiveDollarBill]

Results are in, the poll is no good. Admin please delete thread.

 

[madpistol]

Why is it that every time we have a discussion about Ray Tracing, the convo goes to shit? It’s a cool technology that no one is forcing anyone to use.

 

[Brackle]

Just depends on the game. For any MP games I disable Ray Tracing period. For Single player games it depends how bad the performance hit is.

 

[Sycraft]

Why is it that every time we have a discussion about Ray Tracing, the convo goes to shit? It’s a cool technology that no one is forcing anyone to use.

Because AMD doesn't currently have cards that can do it fast so fanboys have an angy. It also pisses off FPS heads. That's basically what it comes down to. Some people are mad because it is something they actually think is cool, but the hardware they have doesn't have the ability to do it well in realtime, so they instead hate on it. I can almost guarantee that as soon as it changes and they do have hardware that does it well, they'll be crowing about how important it is and how every game should have it. Others hate it because they would like the quality increase, but it tanks FPS and they want all of the FPS all of the time so they are mad about it.

In essence, it tends to be sour grapes hence threads get crapped on.

 

[GoldenTiger]

Because AMD doesn't currently have cards that can do it fast so fanboys have an angy. It also pisses off FPS heads. That's basically what it comes down to. Some people are mad because it is something they actually think is cool, but the hardware they have doesn't have the ability to do it well in realtime, so they instead hate on it. I can almost guarantee that as soon as it changes and they do have hardware that does it well, they'll be crowing about how important it is and how every game should have it. Others hate it because they would like the quality increase, but it tanks FPS and they want all of the FPS all of the time so they are mad about it.

In essence, it tends to be sour grapes hence threads get crapped on.

Well said.

 

[TrunksZero]

Not about AMD fanboys. There are just allot of times, where RT hasn't been added in ways that make it worth enabling. It's not to dis-similar to the reality that Ultra settings are not always worth it.

When RT is well implemented, it's worth it. When it's been tacked on as an after thought... then there is no point in turning it on.

 

[staknhalo]

I don't even care if I can 'notice' the ray tracing or not (if you turn it on and you see the light it's simulating, you're seeing it, whether you think it looks better or not)

It's simulating photons to make the (all/part/subset/one thing of) lighting and that's cool so I click "yes please"

 

[MavericK]

I enable it if it makes sense to do so, i.e. it looks better and gives good framerates still.

 

[DooKey]

Why is it that every time we have a discussion about Ray Tracing, the convo goes to shit? It’s a cool technology that no one is forcing anyone to use.

You know the reason. The loud minority of AMD users don't get the same experience as Nvidia users, so they hate it. Simple as that.

 

[lopoetve]

The poll options suck ass. I turn it on when available but I do play games that don’t have RT.

Yep, bad poll. I do the same.

This. I used it in control - looked cool. I turned it on in Doom eternal - didn't see a difference, ignored it (can't remember if I left it on or off). Tried Portal RTX - laughed at the DLSS artifacts required to make it playable, set it on low and fiddled a bit. Meh.

All depends on the game. Most of the ones I play right now don't support it afaik, and so it's not on. I'm generally a Patient Gamer, so ... I'm currently playing D4 (not patient), and Spec Ops the Line (from... 2013?).

 

[crazycrave]

Metro Exodus is a game that comes to mind when RT is thought of, I do have the game from some past sale for noting, but just never really have played it on my RTX 3070.

 

[MacLeod]

I turned it on in Modern Warfare 2019 the other day. I know that's not the best game for it but I was curious. Frame rate dropped from 140's to 100's and while I could see some cool graphics in some places, overall I really didn't notice much. But it was enought that I think I might use it in single players games if the frame rate penalty isn't too much.

 

[pancing1]

I use ray tracing in all the games i play that have it at 4k 120fps

but most of the time i find myself playing 20 year old games... like ultima online

 

[Nenu]

Cant vote, theres a huge disparity between vote options 1 and 2, I fall between them.

ie
1) I only play games with Ray Tracing options.
2) I will sometimes enable Ray Tracing in games.

I need an option between them:
1b) I play most games with Ray Tracing on but some are turned off when its not viable.

 

[KickAssCop]

How do you even come up with such bad options on a poll? This has to be next level troll attempt.

 

[sethk]

These are really bad options in the poll. Reasonable option would be “I enable it most games where it’s available at playable rates“

 

[OutOfPhase]

How do you even come up with such bad options on a poll? This has to be next level troll attempt.

I assumed it was some attempt to polarize something which can have a very non-polarizing option:

N) If it looks nice and runs reasonably well, of course.

 

[staknhalo]

I assumed it was some attempt to polarize something which can have a very non-polarizing option:

N) If it looks nice and runs reasonably well, of course.

'When did you stop beating your wife?'

A) Never

B) I Haven't

C) You're Next

 

[sjaxkingpin]

I haven't seen any situation where it's worth the FPS hit. Looks "a bit" better but crushes performance

 

[MrPacoPepe]

Not a single game was designed with RT illumination in mind, so there is no reason to use RT in anyone, as any game that have RT, have added it as an "afterthought" without much time invested from the artists.

As RT change a lot of shadows and lights altering the intended artists design from years of development, I see no reason to use it at all on any game.

At the end of the day, raytracing on 2023 is still just a puddle reflection simulator and to play games designed from scratch with RT in mind, we are gonna need to wait until the next console generation, so until them, unless some unicorn in form of game offers using RT much much much more than traditional rendering, I'll push my gpu's to higher fps than to enable RT

 

[M76]

Because AMD doesn't currently have cards that can do it fast so fanboys have an angy. It also pisses off FPS heads. That's basically what it comes down to. Some people are mad because it is something they actually think is cool, but the hardware they have doesn't have the ability to do it well in realtime, so they instead hate on it. I can almost guarantee that as soon as it changes and they do have hardware that does it well, they'll be crowing about how important it is and how every game should have it. Others hate it because they would like the quality increase, but it tanks FPS and they want all of the FPS all of the time so they are mad about it.

In essence, it tends to be sour grapes hence threads get crapped on.

That's the truth.

If you just don't think it looks good, or not worth the FPS hit then turn it off, problem solved. Why seethe and cope in every RT related thread about how worthless it is?

 

[TrunksZero]

That's the truth.

If you just don't think it looks good, or not worth the FPS hit then turn it off, problem solved. Why seethe and cope in every RT related thread about how worthless it is?

Fanboys will be fanboys. But agian, the reality is there is only maybe a half-dozen games where RT is truely worth turning on. The rest use it in ways you ways that range from almost invisable to kinda cool but pointless. And thats with 3 generations of cards having the feature at this point. That is kinda sad.

 

[madpistol]

Fanboys will be fanboys. But agian, the reality is there is only maybe a half-dozen games where RT is truely worth turning on. The rest use it in ways you ways that range from almost invisable to kinda cool but pointless. And thats with 3 generations of cards having the feature at this point. That is kinda sad.

Not really sad. It’s still a new tech. Back when things like ambient occlusion, tessellation, complex shadowing, programmable shaders, AA/AF, etc were implemented, it took years to become mainstream… and it took even longer to become easy to render. We take those items for granted now, but they used to be really difficult to render.

 

[lopoetve]

Not really sad. It’s still a new tech. Back when things like ambient occlusion, tessellation, complex shadowing, programmable shaders, AA/AF, etc were implemented, it took years to become mainstream… and it took even longer to become easy to render. We take those items for granted now, but they used to be really difficult to render.

I remember 32bit color being hard. I remember first generation AF being hard. Never mind early AA.

I remember 1024x768 being hard.

 

[TrunksZero]

Not really sad. It’s still a new tech. Back when things like ambient occlusion, tessellation, complex shadowing, programmable shaders, AA/AF, etc were implemented, it took years to become mainstream… and it took even longer to become easy to render. We take those items for granted now, but they used to be really difficult to render.

Also takes awhile for engine's to have good native implementations. UE4's RT implementation isn't really all that awesome, performance wise, so very very few developers used it at all (Also didn't show up till UE 4.22). UE5's Lumen RT implementation though is awesome, so that will likely speed up adoption.

 

[M76]

Fanboys will be fanboys. But agian, the reality is there is only maybe a half-dozen games where RT is truely worth turning on. The rest use it in ways you ways that range from almost invisable to kinda cool but pointless. And thats with 3 generations of cards having the feature at this point. That is kinda sad.

There was about half-dozen games worth playing in the past few years since RT became a thing anyway. Worth it is such a subjective notion, what makes it worth it? Is it worth playing with Ultra textures instead of High? There are tons of graphical options in games that make barely noticable changes, RT is much more significant than those, yet nobody argues that having those options is not worth it.

And even if there was only one game where RT is "worth it", so what? That changes nothing, I'd still turn it on in that one game.
There was only one game at one point with per pixel shading. Did that make Pixel Shaders worthless? Not in the slightest.

When new graphics features are created there is always a few people mad, either because their HW doesn't support it, or it's too slow on it. So then they cope by trying to argue that it is not worth having anyway.

 

[evhvis]

I always enable it, but in some games it is more of a marketing checkbox. Playing games like Cyberpunk 2077 or Metro Exodus enhanced makes me really look forward to when RT becomes mainstream. Comparing RT on vs off in CP 2077 at night is like comparing dynamic lights on vs off in most games and RT off just feels strange when you are used to playing with RT on almost max in that game. Games like Far-Cry 6, Deathloop etc. are mostly about ticking a marketing box and RT impact on graphics is minor in those. It will probably be another 7-10 years until everything is ray traced, but RT has the potential to be the next big thing.

Unfortunately you need a upper midrange of the current gen or high-end of the previous gen to use meaningful ray-tracing and even then the FPS isn't great unless you have a 4090. Thankfully DLSS works pretty well.

 

[harmattan]

There was about half-dozen games worth playing in the past few years since RT became a thing anyway. Worth it is such a subjective notion, what makes it worth it? Is it worth playing with Ultra textures instead of High? There are tons of graphical options in games that make barely noticable changes, RT is much more significant than those, yet nobody argues that having those options is not worth it.

And even if there was only one game where RT is "worth it", so what? That changes nothing, I'd still turn it on in that one game.
There was only one game at one point with per pixel shading. Did that make Pixel Shaders worthless? Not in the slightest.

When new graphics features are created there is always a few people mad, either because their HW doesn't support it, or it's too slow on it. So then they cope by trying to argue that it is not worth having anyway.

I look at the equation like this...

You can largely quantify at this point how much extra you're paying for RT performance and how many games actually support it in a meaningful way. And you can quantify which of those games where RT makes a notable difference that you yourself plays.

On the other hand, you can't quantify how much enjoyment RT actually offers -- and this is where arguments for/against one card or another fall down, and the gnashing of teeth begins.

For me, there are literally 2-3 games I play that implemented RT in a meaningful way, and even so, I don't really think it makes playing a game materially more enjoyable. Further, considering AMD does do RT (just not at the level an equivalent nV card does), the decision waters are even muddier. For me, ultimate RT performance is not worth paying 10-20% more for. For someone else, the proposition and outcome may be different.