Overhauled NVIDIA RTX 50 "Blackwell" GPUs reportedly up to 2.6x faster vs RTX 40 cards courtesy of revised Streaming Multiprocessors and 3 GHz+ clock

sharknice said:
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.
Click to expand...
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... :p.
 
schoolslave said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

We'll have to see how AMD's stacks up, but it'll be awhile seeing as how they just announced it was too early for them to demo... Despite a promised launch in H1 when they launched their 7xxx series. I somehow doubt they'll make their own deadline.

https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-fsr2-vs-nvidia-dlss2-comparison-shows-only-one-winner

FSR has fallen somewhat flat on terms of quality per mega game comparisons in that link. Hopefully fsr3 is an improvement and not just bringing frame generation only.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DPI
like this
schoolslave said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
staknhalo said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
GoldenTiger said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's why I mentioned it. It was dumb to complain about AA then, just like it's dumb to complain about RT now. When I couldn't run TressFX well on my Nvidia card, I didn't complain. I didn't call it a gimmick. I turned it on to see what it looked like (at 11 FPS) and said "Oh, cool". Then turned it off and played my game. When I got an Nvidia card that could run it well, I turned it on. Advocating against that would have been just as dumb. But that's what a fanboi would say, or so I'm told.
 
GoldenTiger said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's not an argument it's merely an observation.
staknhalo said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
schoolslave said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Edit: Ray-tracing, frame generation, anti aliasing, baked textures - all the same just a different day and name.
 
Last edited:
staknhalo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Fair enough - I think we're just looking at this from different perspectives: practical application (you) and ray/path tracing fundamentals (me).
 
schoolslave said:
Fair enough - I think we're just looking at this from different perspectives: practical application (you) and ray/path tracing fundamentals (me).
Click to expand...

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.
 
GoldenTiger said:
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... :p.
Click to expand...
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.

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.
 
staknhalo said:
"lol fake frames to show real lighting"
Click to expand...
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.
 
staknhalo said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm definitely guilty of throwing "gimmick" around when really "shortcut" is the proper term.
 
LukeTbk said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly, even all the raster only performance in the world is just 'lol fake' if we wanna go down that path.

Sir Beregond said:
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.
Click to expand...

You know what they say, garbage in = garbage out
 
Sir Beregond said:
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.
Click to expand...
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).
 
LukeTbk said:
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).
Click to expand...

Aside from how well the frame generation works itself, there's always going to be a personal subjective component to it as well.

I personally have a hard time differentiating from native 45FPS-60FPS when playing a game. Yet when it dips below 45FPS it instantly feels like whatever I'm controlling, it's as if I'm trying to walk through jello so-to-speak. I can notice visually more smoothness in panning and motion when playing over 60FPS (only when higher like 120+ do I really notice it), but it doesn't 'feel' that much different than 45FPS+ to me. I fully understand and accept human response times and framerate and how there can be/is an actual difference in playing (especially with twitch FPS shooters, which I admittedly haven't played in years and is probably why I don't have the exposure/practice/experience to notice an immense difference - if I even could).

You got people who literally can't see a difference between 480p and 1080p when watching TV, or 30FPS or 60FPS when playing a game (and obviously some of those who just say they can't to protect their console identity), or those who the second it drops below 240FPS they genuinely can tell and are all
giphy.gif


And then most similar, people who can't tell the difference between soap-opera effect (frame generation) and not when watching TV as well.
 
NightReaver said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nope. I actually play games and easily notice they have fake lighting and shadows.
It's very easy to make fake lighting look good in a screenshot, but when you're actually playing a game and controlling the camera it's easy to tell the difference.

I think it's more that you're enjoying the blissful ignorance.

I've actually worked on games and worked on reflections and shadows. Knowing the shortcomings of those techniques makes it very easy to notice them in games. But you really don't need that kind of experience to identify them, you just need to look closely and pay attention to the details.

Just look at any reflection in a game, get closer, move around so you see it from different angles, high, low, left, right. Fake as fuck and extremely obvious. It's a set reflection not reacting to moving objects in the world, not showing you the correct thing being reflected when you aren't at the right angle.
Same for lighting. Have a light on a wall. Move your character so it obscures more and more of the light from the rest of the room. IRL your shadow doesn't just change, the entire room becomes dimmer, things will actually change color depending on the light.


With ray tracing this can be done wayyyyyyy more realistically. And it isn't just about looks. It can have real affects on game play.
Someone's shadow is sticking around a corner so you know they're camping.
You see someone's reflection and can tell they're camping around a corner.
Then there are tons of the subtle things like it being darker than normal in a spot because the door is closed around the corner, but you would even be able to see a difference if the door was closed, or a player, or a huge monster was standing int he doorway. Or one of the lights down the hallway was broken, but the closer ones aren't, or someone switched the flag around in the room from red to blue and there's a slight hue change. There's tons and tons of things that would change. Horror games could be insanely more engaging utilizing ray tracing. There are all sorts of cool things that could be done in games that actually change gameplay.


I'm excited for the future of games that actually utilize ray tracing for gameplay. Raster improvemetns are great, but improving it isn't going to have nearly as significant effect on games as ray tracing improvements will. We're well into diminishing returns for raster performance, but we have inadequate ray tracing performance.
 
NightReaver said:
*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.
Click to expand...
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.

Even Unreal 5 RT-Lumen system in software mode will not have shadows under all cars, look at 21:49


And Lumen is a really impressive new lighting system from a giant engine company with a giant budget that is extremely hard to run hardware wise, Cyberpunk was made with an in house engine with significantly harder issue to fix-handle than some missing shadows that was developped mostly during the playtation 4 era.
 
Sir Beregond said:
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".
Click to expand...
I said "or a whole new settings bump", which isn't so dramatic but is noticeable. Also said in most games, not all :).
 
Last edited:
NightReaver said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
polonyc2 said:
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
Click to expand...

I'm assuming they'll deliver improvements/updates to DLSS 3 (particularly the Reflex part, that deals with latency) similar to how they updated DLSS 2.x over time
 
Armenius said:
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.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with a shadow existing in RT, but not in non-RT?
 
Armenius said:
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.
Click to expand...

office?...you mean you're sitting in your artificially lit cubicle right? :D
 
Armenius said:
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.
Click to expand...
I mean, you do, it's just very diffuse. Light isn't going through you.
 
NightReaver said:
What does that have to do with a shadow existing in RT, but not in non-RT?
Click to expand...
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.
polonyc2 said:
office?...you mean you're sitting in your artificially lit cubicle right? :D
Click to expand...
It's an office with walls going up to the ceiling, a door, and everything.
socK said:
I mean, you do, it's just very diffuse. Light isn't going through you.
Click to expand...
Right, but the light accumulation is such that the area around you isn't visually distinct
 
Armenius said:
You were insinuating that a car casting no shadow was nonsense
Click to expand...
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.
 
NightReaver said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Armenius said:
And you cut out the rest of my reply giving possible explanations
Click to expand...
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.

If I happen to see it I'll post it along to you in a pm.
 
schoolslave said:
I'm definitely guilty of throwing "gimmick" around when really "shortcut" is the proper term.
Click to expand...
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.

Zooming out for a moment, different things are happening with the weird bickering about Nvidia heavily pursuing and investing into RT to begin with. A lot of it just seems to stem from unrelated resentment of Nvidia's market position, or price of GPUs, or whatever personal axe to grind some people have.

RT has ALWAYS been the holy grail for computer graphics, stretching back to 1968, and even further to the 1600s in physics and conceptually. My sorry GenX ass first played with raytraced single scenes in 1990 when it took days to render a single scene and was amazing for the time.

Some GenZ and GenAlpha gamers seem to believe Nvidia invented RT, and simply to make GPUs more expensive. This isn't what's happening.
 
Last edited:
NightReaver said:
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.
Click to expand...
This one?
813057_maxresdefault.jpg


Although now that I look at it a second time realize it's not just a shadow problem, it's also a reflection problem. For example, specular reflection of puddle directly under the front tire should be very dark (because the reflected tire is dark). Still... it is also a shadow problem too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top