Ray Tracing - Game Changer or Overhyped?

[Dayaks]

That increase is probably from running the raytraced parts at lower than native resolution - which is probably perfectly fine because they are not used for things that need to be completely sharp in the first place. In future GPU generations we will start to see more uses for realtime raytracing but for now I think many games will stick with shadows and reflections.

No the increase was from just grouping objects differently. No difference in IQ and they expected 30%.

Traditional games see huge increases on release and for some reason people can’t fathom RT getting better when DICE had RTX cards for a total of two weeks before Gamescon...

 

[MangoSeed]

No, that's pretty much how anyone would play the game. Once the action starts you just can't admire all the detail.

Sure you don’t necessarily stop to admire high res textures but wouldn’t you notice ugly low res textures no matter how fast you’re moving? How is this any different. The real difference is you’re accustomed to not seeing accurate reflections so your brain thinks it’s ok. That will change.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

In future GPU generations we will start to see more uses for realtime raytracing but for now I think many games will stick with shadows and reflections.

It's looking like implementations may be variable. Well, they can be variable already, but developers have to expose these options. So we could see lightweight options that just inform current lighting routines up to fully ray traced scenes. Different profiles for fast action parts and realtime cutscenes. Maybe an overkill profile for 'photo mode' that pushes into cinematic detail levels.

And we should also see games with exposed variable implementations make use of future hardware. It's always a blast to play older games maxed out!

 

[Gideon]

The last thing I saw on BFV was an interview with DICE and appeared they were at 40-50FPS at 1440p and could easily get 30% more out of it. Along with working on split rendering (scene at 4k and RT at lower res, ect.)

You can’t even use RT until the October DirectX update. There’s still a bit of time before it’s even possible to turn it on. You talk about the 1080p nonsense like it’s fact. Not that it matters as it seems to have zero impact on preorders.... but I am wondering if initial reviews will even feature RT.

Oh look you spout out about possible increases like they are fact from a developer. Look I know your trying hard to justify to yourself why you just had to run out and pre purchase a 1200 dollar card and your scrambling to justify it to yourself. If it turns out better then I expect then thats good, but so far it's not looking good, you on the other hand are white knighting it to death and challenging anyone that dares to say otherwise with Nvidia marketing quotes. Your putting yourself in a position to be majorly disappointed and I am sure you will continue your crusade across the forum anyway.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

...and I am sure you will continue your crusade across the forum anyway.

I see you don't like handling the idea that both the performance numbers you're quoting are from an unoptimized early alpha and that the same source can be quoted as saying that there's performance on the table. Are you going to continue your crusade across the forum?

 

[Dayaks]

Oh look you spout out about possible increases like they are fact from a developer. Look I know your trying hard to justify to yourself why you just had to run out and pre purchase a 1200 dollar card and your scrambling to justify it to yourself. If it turns out better then I expect then thats good, but so far it's not looking good, you on the other hand are white knighting it to death and challenging anyone that dares to say otherwise with Nvidia marketing quotes. Your putting yourself in a position to be majorly disappointed and I am sure you will continue your crusade across the forum anyway.

I haven’t preordered the card. I also didn’t state it as fact. I state what we know and where it came from.

I state data from actual sources. Sorry all the sources available with actual charts/data/interviews aren’t your preferred. In this instance the actual developers of the game.

I find it hilarious you’re borderline attacking the poster. You know the conversation is based on solid information when that happens.

Here’s the DICE interview recap I love talking about. I actually didn’t care about RT until I watched it and realized how much is actually being done with it:

 

[Gideon]

I haven’t preordered the card. I also didn’t state it as fact. I state what we know and where it came from.

I state data from actual sources. Sorry all the sources available with actual charts/data/interviews aren’t your preferred. In this instance the actual developers of the game.

I find it hilarious you’re borderline attacking the poster. You know the conversation is based on solid information when that happens.

Here’s the DICE interview recap I love talking about. I actually didn’t care about RT until I watched it and realized how much is actually being done with it:

You act like you pre ordered it and yes this quote looks like you stating it as fact

The last thing I saw on BFV was an interview with DICE and appeared they were at 40-50FPS at 1440p and could easily get 30% more out of it.

Easily get 30% more yet you really have no clue other then a developer stating they think they can get 30% more performance. We call that speculation normally. Heck you remind me of JFAMD that went around telling everyone how great Bulldozer was going to be.

https://hothardware.com/news/battlefield-v-ray-tracing-hitting-sub-30fps-4k-geforce-rtx-2080-ti

• 1080p: >60 fps
• 1440p: 40-50 fps
• 4K: <30 fps

Expected FPS on BFV with Ray Tracing, so lets say they hit 30% number that would make it 52 fps at the minimum at 1440p which is less then 60 almost everyone shoots for and thats with the damn TI. If you get a 2080 or 2070 I guess it's 1080p or nothing. Now it's possible they might have a breakthrough and up their performance by far more but right now with what we have seen, it's not looking as rosy. Reality is we have to little information yet to know for sure, but what has been seen is not looking good in the fps department. https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2018/08/22/nvidia-turing-rtx-2080-performance-target-metro-exodus/

If thats the best developers can do then yeah Ray Tracing is just not ready for prime time yet, unless the developers find a breakthrough in using it. Also you figure Nvidia is going to demo what is working best as well.

 

[Armenius]

You act like you pre ordered it and yes this quote looks like you stating it as fact



Easily get 30% more yet you really have no clue other then a developer stating they think they can get 30% more performance. We call that speculation normally. Heck you remind me of JFAMD that went around telling everyone how great Bulldozer was going to be.

https://hothardware.com/news/battlefield-v-ray-tracing-hitting-sub-30fps-4k-geforce-rtx-2080-ti

• 1080p: >60 fps
• 1440p: 40-50 fps
• 4K: <30 fps

Expected FPS on BFV with Ray Tracing, so lets say they hit 30% number that would make it 52 fps at the minimum at 1440p which is less then 60 almost everyone shoots for and thats with the damn TI. If you get a 2080 or 2070 I guess it's 1080p or nothing. Now it's possible they might have a breakthrough and up their performance by far more but right now with what we have seen, it's not looking as rosy. Reality is we have to little information yet to know for sure, but what has been seen is not looking good in the fps department. https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2018/08/22/nvidia-turing-rtx-2080-performance-target-metro-exodus/

If thats the best developers can do then yeah Ray Tracing is just not ready for prime time yet, unless the developers find a breakthrough in using it. Also you figure Nvidia is going to demo what is working best as well.

I'll take the word of the developer (you know, the people actually working the code base for the game) over an internet armchair analyst.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

Expected FPS on BFV with Ray Tracing, so lets say they hit 30% number that would make it 52 fps at the minimum at 1440p

I'd fucking take it. With variable V-Sync, supposing that there aren't regular long frametimes mixed in, it'll be smooth enough for nearly any single-player game.

If it's not smooth enough for multi-player, just turn it off and go to work.

I really don't see what the problem is.

 

[Gideon]

I'd fucking take it. With variable V-Sync, supposing that there aren't regular long frametimes mixed in, it'll be smooth enough for nearly any single-player game.

If it's not smooth enough for multi-player, just turn it off and go to work.

I really don't see what the problem is.

With you that cry you need maximum frame rate for 144Hz game play or higher. You go around the cpu forum and tout that all the time, but now sub 60 fps is fine with you. I guess whatever it takes to float your argument of the day. I mean how many times did you say thats why the 8700k was the best gaming choice, man I am dying from laughter over here. Also no one is playing battlefield V in single player and you know it.

 

[Pieter3dnow]

I'll take the word of the developer (you know, the people actually working the code base for the game) over an internet armchair analyst.

I would argue that you should wait until you see the final version of Battlefield V and Nvidia hardware. Then you can always discuss on how much of an impact ray tracing has on the title.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

With you that cry you need maximum frame rate for 144Hz game play or higher.

Who are 'you'?

You go around the cpu forum and tout that all the time, but now sub 60 fps is fine with you. I guess whatever it takes to float your argument of the day. I mean how many times did you say thats why the 8700k was the best gaming choice, man I am dying from laughter over here. Also no one is playing battlefield V in single player and you know it.

The 8700k is still the best gaming choice, and framerate preferences depend on the game.

Do you only play one game?

Why would you argue as if that's what others do?

 

[Hagrid]

Who are 'you'?



The 8700k is still the best gaming choice, and framerate preferences depend on the game.

Do you only play one game?

Why would you argue as if that's what others do?

Is the 8700k still the best choice even after all the fixes and stuff?

I think rtx will be really sweet but not sure if the cpu will affect it much. 60 fps at 1080 is not ideal unless it is the minumum.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

Is the 8700k still the best choice even after all the fixes and stuff?

For just gaming?

Yes.

Anything else should be evaluated on an per-application-workload basis as the problems and their fixes are very specific.

I think rtx will be really sweet but not sure if the cpu will affect it much. 60 fps at 1080 is not ideal unless it is the minumum.

It's what a developer mentioned as where they got with very little implementation lead, in the same setting as it was mentioned that performance improvements are still on the table. Basically it's being taken out of context so that detractors have an argument.

 

[cybereality]

I like how everyone conveniently ignores Enlisted, running at 4K 100fps+ with ray tracing.

 

[Hagrid]

I like how everyone conveniently ignores Enlisted, running at 4K 100fps+ with ray tracing.

What were the other settings?

 

[Armenius]

I like how everyone conveniently ignores Enlisted, running at 4K 100fps+ with ray tracing.

That's what I'm talking about. Real time GI is the thing about ray tracing that I think will have the biggest impact and is what I am most impressed by.