RTX is a joke

Status
Not open for further replies.
erek said:
i was considering Atomic Hearts, but now i'm not. They was supposed to be an RTX enabled game through and through

"Super Flower Leadex Titanium 1600W | Western Digital Black 6TB | NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 FE | LG 27GN950-B UltraGear 144 Hz 4K IPS | Corsair H115i RGB AIO | Inland 1TB NVMe M.2 (Phison E12 Controller) | G.SKILL Trident Z Neo (For AMD Ryzen) Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) | Fractal Define R6 | Asus ROG X570 Crosshair VIII Hero | Ryzen 9 5950X"

https://valid.x86.fr/w62tde

View attachment 550970
View attachment 550971
Click to expand...
drool.
 
Wat said:
Does it add to gameplay in any way? Does it change the way the game is played in any way?

When the answer to those questions is "yes" then raytracing will be a must-have. If it just makes things prettier... meh.
Click to expand...
lol. This thread is great. And we are on [H].

I, for one, love better graphics - whether it’s enabled by a newer Intel, AMD, or NVIDIA card. Sign me up for every thing. Hair works, PhysX, Anti-lag, Chill…

I am guessing most people haven’t experienced RT with a high end card with a great screen. Only wow moment I’ve had recently and I always have the latest gear.
 
sk3tch said:
lol. This thread is great. And we are on [H].

I, for one, love better graphics - whether it’s enabled by a newer Intel, AMD, or NVIDIA card. Sign me up for every thing. Hair works, PhysX, Anti-lag, Chill…
Click to expand...
I got into PC gaming because I saw Crysis in a gaming magazine. Never thought a game could look like that.
The XBOX 360 already had games with amazing gameplay. I switched to PC because of visuals/framerate.

Cyberpunk with RT is my current Crysis of today.
 
Wat said:
Does it add to gameplay in any way? Does it change the way the game is played in any way?

When the answer to those questions is "yes" then raytracing will be a must-have. If it just makes things prettier... meh.
Click to expand...
so you still playing Zork I and other text based games? I mean why have graphics at all?

Ray Tracing is still new (as far as main stream game development goes) and it will take time for developers to utilize it efficiently. DirectX 12 was launched in 2015 and 8 years later AAA games released almost 8 years later still don't fully utilize it.

I upgraded from a 1080 to a 3090 right before Christmas and find that Ray Tracing really is wonderful eye candy and am excited to see what games will look like over the next several years.
 
III_Slyflyer_III said:
Uhhhhh.... what about those of us who absolutely find it fun to crank the settings to the absolute max and enjoy all of the graphics WHILE still gaming? I don't enjoy my games looking like they fell out of 1995... I have a retro build for those type of games.
Click to expand...
11-084440-nicolas_cage_life_lessons.jpg
 
RT can be great, when it's well implemented. However, when the raster is really well done... especially when it uses tech that really isn't far off RT or is pre-calculated RT based, then it's benefits can feel very not worth it. Imho it really depends on the game. Not everything is going to benefit from it.
 
Last edited:
Bowman15 said:
Ah the good ole "whataboutism" excuse where even 4K Ultra quality with AA isn't good enough anymore. Not like those effects can be done without RT any other way or no other graphical enhancements have been made? Nvidia thanks your for your patronage and AMD is still second class. Those peasant $700 and under cards are worthless now, only good for Word or Youtube. If we don't fall in line we aren't hardforum worthy is quite a stretch.
Click to expand...
No, this isn't whataboutism. This is pointing out that gaming has a history of continual new developments in graphics hardware (other hardware too) that make it prettier. It didn't NEED any of them to exist, but they have all made things nicer. This is just another step in that.

To me it sounds like YOU just have a case of fanboy sour grapes. At the moment, AMD doesn't do raytracing as fast as nVidia so you hate it because you are an AMD fanboy and clearly if it is something your team doesn't do well, it is bad.

The thing is raytracing is NOT an nVidia thing, it predates all of this by decades. The basic concept predates computers, early simple ray casting algorithms are done in the 80s and are still often done as a project by CS students today. Full path tracing was used by Hollywood since around 2006. nVidia is hardly the only company that has played with doing it in realtime, they are just the first to get cards that can begin to handle it, though they still struggle when you do a full path traced game.

This is not some nVidia-only club and you don't need a GPU to do it at all. You can do ray tracing on CPUs, it is just slow. It is 100% possible AMD will introduce cards that will accelerate it and do an even better job than nVidia at some point. They can put on their own RT cores, their own tensor cores. AMD already has logic on their cards for this, just not as much or as advanced as what nVidia has.

While nVidia has their "RTX" branding that is theirs, raytracing itself is not proprietary and is something anyone can implement.
 
Sycraft said:
No, this isn't whataboutism. This is pointing out that gaming has a history of continual new developments in graphics hardware (other hardware too) that make it prettier. It didn't NEED any of them to exist, but they have all made things nicer. This is just another step in that.

To me it sounds like YOU just have a case of fanboy sour grapes. At the moment, AMD doesn't do raytracing as fast as nVidia so you hate it because you are an AMD fanboy and clearly if it is something your team doesn't do well, it is bad.

The thing is raytracing is NOT an nVidia thing, it predates all of this by decades. The basic concept predates computers, early simple ray casting algorithms are done in the 80s and are still often done as a project by CS students today. Full path tracing was used by Hollywood since around 2006. nVidia is hardly the only company that has played with doing it in realtime, they are just the first to get cards that can begin to handle it, though they still struggle when you do a full path traced game.

This is not some nVidia-only club and you don't need a GPU to do it at all. You can do ray tracing on CPUs, it is just slow. It is 100% possible AMD will introduce cards that will accelerate it and do an even better job than nVidia at some point. They can put on their own RT cores, their own tensor cores. AMD already has logic on their cards for this, just not as much or as advanced as what nVidia has.

While nVidia has their "RTX" branding that is theirs, raytracing itself is not proprietary and is something anyone can implement.
Click to expand...

This isn't a green or red issue issue. Keep pushing the corporate agenda of greed and the next shiny thing that keeps prices skyrocketing. When all your hear is "yeah but what about RT scores" the color of your card has nothing to do with it. Industry marketing everything RT has you hooked but good.
 
Bowman15 said:
This isn't a green or red issue issue. Keep pushing the corporate agenda of greed and the next shiny thing that keeps prices skyrocketing. When all your hear is "yeah but what about RT scores" the color of your card has nothing to do with it. Industry marketing everything RT has you hooked but good.
Click to expand...
...or maybe I just like it? I've played a few games with good hybrid rasterization/RT Control and RE: Village being my favorites. I like what I see, I like what RT adds. While I don't think it is necessary, I think it is nice and I enjoy it. Same deal with other graphics technologies. Same shit as new graphics technologies in the past. I liked when things got nifty stuff like SSR and HBAO, I liked when shaders became a thing, I liked when 3D graphics started doing 32-bit color instead of 16-bit and so on. None were "necessary" as in "I can't play the game without it," but I enjoyed the increase in visual fidelity. This is the same.
 
Sycraft said:
...or maybe I just like it? I've played a few games with good hybrid rasterization/RT Control and RE: Village being my favorites. I like what I see, I like what RT adds. While I don't think it is necessary, I think it is nice and I enjoy it. Same deal with other graphics technologies. Same shit as new graphics technologies in the past. I liked when things got nifty stuff like SSR and HBAO, I liked when shaders became a thing, I liked when 3D graphics started doing 32-bit color instead of 16-bit and so on. None were "necessary" as in "I can't play the game without it," but I enjoyed the increase in visual fidelity. This is the same.
Click to expand...

I can't speak to Village as I haven't played it - but the RT versions of the RE2 and RE3 engines are shit, I stand by this - constant crashes unless texture memory set to very low and even then it's still when it crashes not if - meanwhile before the ray tracing update both the games could go maxed 120FPS no issue - in terms of looks the ray tracing looks OK nothing stunning but better reflections

Not a fan of Capcom's RT so far
 
kac77 said:
If people didn't point out what was ray-traced and what wasn't I'm 100% sure you wouldn't know what was unless someone told you. Furthermore, it's still not that realistic because it's not full scene RT'd. It's a reflection here a puddle there. Then to get it to perform well we send it through DLSS / FSR to reduce the impact of having it. It's just not that useful all in all and most people really wouldn't know the difference.
Click to expand...
Most people would know the difference between RT on and off in a side by side comparison. (Unless they are being wilfully blind like some of the present company) But they probably would not between DLSS on Quality mode and native resolution.
 
Bigbacon said:
"Supports" is the key word...doesn't mean it works well. RT on a 3050???
Click to expand...

SmokeRngs said:
And the moment you turn on RT with most of those cards the framerate drops to shit and the game is unplayable. "Support" means jack shit when the hardware can't actually perform well enough to be used.
Click to expand...
Those goalposts are racing. When did you ever expect to max out graphics on low end video cards?

I have never seen so many panties in a bunch over an optional graphical feature included in some games.

Games also had 8xMSAA, yet nobody complained that it was unwise to enable it on a GTX1050.
 
M76 said:
Most people would know the difference between RT on and off in a side by side comparison. (Unless they are being wilfully blind like some of the present company) But they probably would not between DLSS on Quality mode and native resolution.
Click to expand...


Again, meh?

Stuff like this in Cyberpunk:

Asjmfrs4w06VmTrKQpvOqcM7rdmKPQXjANKIM0c2MtU.jpg


Yes, they look different.

The RT on version has more ambient lighting.

Does one look better than the other? I don't know. I guess everyone has their preferences.

If they weren't labeled, I would probably have guessed the first one was RT, because it looks like they are trying to get fancier with the effects lighting in the dark. The second one just looks like any game ever.

To me it really does look like the top one was artificially darkened to try to create more of a difference than there is.

I do prefer the bottom one, but not because of RT effects, but rather because it is lighter and has better visibility, and that could totally have been done in raster.

Again here:

maxresdefault.jpg


The RT side is more saturated. That is not an RT thing. You can saturate raster graphics if you want to.

The reflections are stronger and closer to what they are reflecting, but if that is more realistic or not, I couldn't tell you. They are also being sneaky and turning on the cars lights in the RT on scene, and keeping them off in the RT off one.

So, again, to me this looks like n intentionally sabotaged raster screenshot, to make the saturated RT one look better, and the supposed RT effects to me look bad. Like they are too perfectly reflective.

Saturate the left pic a little more, and I think I might actually prefer it.
 
Last edited:
Zarathustra[H] said:
Again, meh?

Stuff like this in Cyberpunk:

View attachment 551170

Yes, they look different.

The RT on version has more ambient lighting.

Does one look better than the other? I don't know. I guess everyone has their preferences.

If they weren't labeled, I would probably have guessed the first one was RT, because it looks like they are trying to get fancier with the effects lighting in the dark. The second one just looks like any game ever.

To me it really does look like the top one was artificially darkened to try to create more of a difference than there is.

I do prefer the bottom one, but not because of RT effects, but rather because it is lighter and has better visibility, and that could totally have been done in raster.
Click to expand...

BUT... non-RTX suxorz


lmao


based on those comparisons... RTX is "currently" overrated
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Again, meh?

Stuff like this in Cyberpunk:

View attachment 551170

Yes, they look different.

The RT on version has more ambient lighting.

Does one look better than the other? I don't know. I guess everyone has their preferences.

If they weren't labeled, I would probably have guessed the first one was RT, because it looks like they are trying to get fancier with the effects lighting in the dark. The second one just looks like any game ever.

To me it really does look like the top one was artificially darkened to try to create more of a difference than there is.

I do prefer the bottom one, but not because of RT effects, but rather because it is lighter and has better visibility, and that could totally have been done in raster.
Click to expand...
I remember those pics, they were around maybe even before the game released I don't remember the details. But on a static image of course dynamic lights are not so apparent. If they were moving it would be instantly obvious which one is the real deal. I could screenshot a thousand counter examples from multiple games, while you need to cherry pick when it is not obviously superior on a screenshot.

Are games enjoyable without RT? Sure, it is not necessary, it doesn't change games fundamentally. Still, nobody gave me an explanation for the RT hate when it is optional in every game so far. If you can and want to you turn it on, if you don't want it you can play games without it. Why do you want it to not exist at all? What is it that is so offensive about it?
 
Last edited:
Zarathustra[H] said:
Again, meh?

Stuff like this in Cyberpunk:

View attachment 551170

Yes, they look different.

The RT on version has more ambient lighting.

Does one look better than the other? I don't know. I guess everyone has their preferences.

If they weren't labeled, I would probably have guessed the first one was RT, because it looks like they are trying to get fancier with the effects lighting in the dark. The second one just looks like any game ever.

To me it really does look like the top one was artificially darkened to try to create more of a difference than there is.

I do prefer the bottom one, but not because of RT effects, but rather because it is lighter and has better visibility, and that could totally have been done in raster.

Again here:

View attachment 551171

The RT side is more saturated. That is not an RT thing. You can saturate raster graphics if you want to.

The reflections are stronger and closer to what they are reflecting, but if that is more realistic or not, I couldn't tell you. They are also being sneaky and turning on the cars lights in the RT on scene, and keeping them off in the RT off one.

So, again, to me this looks like n intentionally sabotaged raster screenshot, to make the saturated RT one look better, and the supposed RT effects to me look bad. Like they are too perfectly reflective.

Saturate the left pic a little more, and I think I might actually prefer it.
Click to expand...
The hallway lighting looking so very different is a failure on the developer's part to correctly color and balance their light sources they put an art team on giving the hallway the correct lighting feel but failed to bother with checking it over Raytraced.
I agree outside is generally better because it adds more depth to the environment and doesn't look so flat.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Again, meh?

Stuff like this in Cyberpunk:



Again here:

View attachment 551171

The RT side is more saturated. That is not an RT thing. You can saturate raster graphics if you want to.

The reflections are stronger and closer to what they are reflecting, but if that is more realistic or not, I couldn't tell you. They are also being sneaky and turning on the cars lights in the RT on scene, and keeping them off in the RT off one.

So, again, to me this looks like n intentionally sabotaged raster screenshot, to make the saturated RT one look better, and the supposed RT effects to me look bad. Like they are too perfectly reflective.

Saturate the left pic a little more, and I think I might actually prefer it.
Click to expand...
The worst offense to me is that the left one does not have a shadow under the car. But again, with the theme, shadows under objects are not path-tracing specific. Mario in Mario64 even had a shadow (a terrible one, but it did the job good enough)
 
serpretetsky said:
The worst offense to me is that the left one does not have a shadow under the car. But again, with the theme, shadows under objects are not path-tracing specific. Mario in Mario64 even had a shadow (a terrible one, but it did the job good enough)
Click to expand...

Yeah. That to me is further indication of a potential "sabotage" of raster in order to make RT more impressive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kac77
like this
polonyc2 said:
I posted a video earlier in this thread of Dying Light 2 RT On/Off and the differences are pretty big
Click to expand...

To be fair though... in some ways Dyinglight 1 looks better than Dying Light 2 in non-RT mode. They skimped on the non-RT version in Dyinglight 2. Which can be ok, if thats what makes sense for their development and the game.(and I would say DylingLight 2 is a good game for RT given it's setting)

I don't think it's fair to say it's a waste of time to do RT. It will vary game to game, engine to engine. It's a really good way to do allot of things. But as I stated before, it's not for everything. We shouldn't see a switch to where everything just use's RT and full blown pathtracing. As that would be a stupidly inefficient thing to do.
 
staknhalo said:
I can't speak to Village as I haven't played it - but the RT versions of the RE2 and RE3 engines are shit, I stand by this - constant crashes unless texture memory set to very low and even then it's still when it crashes not if - meanwhile before the ray tracing update both the games could go maxed 120FPS no issue - in terms of looks the ray tracing looks OK nothing stunning but better reflections

Not a fan of Capcom's RT so far
Click to expand...
I don't find it does a whole lot for the look in RE2 and RE3 but I'm not seeing any crashes. I just played through RE2 and have started RE3. It also doesn't seem to be a big issue performance wise, at least with a 3090. My guess is that it isn't as useful to them since it was bolted on later, rather than some design with it in mind. In Village I found that it was a nice enhancement. It wasn't a drastic "the whole thing looks different" kind of deal, just making the existing aesthetic look that much better.
 
Sycraft said:
I don't find it does a whole lot for the look in RE2 and RE3 but I'm not seeing any crashes. I just played through RE2 and have started RE3. It also doesn't seem to be a big issue performance wise, at least with a 3090. My guess is that it isn't as useful to them since it was bolted on later, rather than some design with it in mind. In Village I found that it was a nice enhancement. It wasn't a drastic "the whole thing looks different" kind of deal, just making the existing aesthetic look that much better.
Click to expand...

It occurs less in RE2 than 3, and the most reproducible place in 3 is the zombies crashing through the fence at the start (even with just the first RT option set to low and the other set to off IIRC)

You can see so many people complained on Steam/Steam forums they released the old non-RT DX11 versions as beta updates to fallback to

Edit: and the game is telling me I'm only at like ~3.5GB VRAM in settings IIRC even and it will still crash
 
staknhalo said:
It occurs less in RE2 than 3, and the most reproducible place in 3 is the zombies crashing through the fence at the start (even with just the first RT option set to low and the other set to off IIRC)

You can see so many people complained on Steam/Steam forums they released the old non-RT DX11 versions as beta updates to fallback to

Edit: and the game is telling me I'm only at like ~3.5GB VRAM in settings IIRC even and it will still crash
Click to expand...
I'll see if I see it as I play RE3 more. So far it hasn't happened. I also have a 3090 though so it have loads o' VRAM. If I do, I'll turn it off. As I said it seems much more minor in RE2 and RE3. Mostly I notice it in reflections in water and the like. The SSR they use is not great, the RT cleans it up pretty nice. Village I noticed it in more areas. There were lots of things that were somewhat reflective, like marble floors, that it gave a very nice subtle realistic effect. Kind of thing that looks so good you don't notice it right away, but then if you turn it off you go "oh wow". I still think Control is my overall favorite for RT (I haven't played Cyberpunk yet). It looks damn good without it, but RT just elevates the aesthetic in that game nicely, especially all the black rock surfaces.
 
socK said:
It's an huge difference in Metro as well.

AND it saves huge amounts of developer time.
Click to expand...
It only saves dev time in a theoretical game which only uses RT for certain effects, for which they do not program an alternate, non-RT version of that effect. And even then...it would probably have to be at least that dev's second such RT only title. For a first RT only title, they would probably eat up a lot of time doing R&D on how RT works and how to reach their goals.

Currently, it adds development time; simply because they have to make non-RT versions of games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this
The more I read this thread, the more confused I am on what is going on here... some like RT, some don't... cool story, but the evolution of graphics in games is built by hardware pushing the edge every generation and you can thank your 144+ FPS in games to a lot of that development.

I for one will continue to spend big $$$ on the best hardware to run the best graphics and enjoy every damn minute of it. Like methods of the past, I don't see RT going away, it will continue to grow and will be less of a performance hit on mid-range cards as time goes on. I'm not sure everyone understands how mathamtically intensive those calculations can be for a GPU. These video cards are pushing the consumer limits of speed and features and the R&D is not cheap.

Don't like RT, fine, save your money and get a mid-range or low-end card and enjoy your games with features turned off. Love RT and want to push high resolutions with eye candy? Then you are going to spend the money to be on the forefront of graphics and technology. No one here should be surprised by this; it's been that way in the PC gaming realm for as long as I can remember. I didn't buy a Voodoo 3 3000 AGP card when I was saving pennies in high school when that was a ton of money because I could just "run games on CPU software graphics". I did it because at the time I wanted the best graphics and speed I could personally afford.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Once the developers use RT the in the game - however - GPU requirements go through the roof and Nvidia profits, as kids feel they NEED an RTX GPU to get the most out of their games.
Click to expand...
IIRC, game boxes used to have:
MMX - intel inside
3dfx

All about marketing.
 
chameleoneel said:
It only saves dev time in a theoretical game which only uses RT for certain effects. And even then...it would probably have to be at least that dev's second such RT only title. For a first RT only title, they would probably eat up a lot of time doing R&D on how RT works and how to reach their goals.

Currently, it adds development time; simply because they have to make non-RT versions of games.
Click to expand...

The developers themselves literally said this and showed video of exactly why this was this case

There is no non-rt version of the enhanced edition. It ships ray tracing only on consoles and PC. PC minspec on their future games is probably RT.
 
socK said:
The developers themselves literally said this and showed video of exactly why this was this case

There is no non-rt version of the enhanced edition. It ships ray tracing only on consoles and PC. PC minspec on their future games is probably RT.
Click to expand...
Metro Enhanced was made basically as their R&D on RT. And it was fairly low risk, because its a remaster of an existing, recent game.

It would be a big risk right now, for a developer to release an original, RT only, AA/AAA game. This is why virtually all other games right now, are developed with RT as a fun add-on**which is often delayed for a later patch** But the game otherwise has a full suite of effects, without it.

* I don't doubt they had fun with it. And that it made lighting scenes easier.
 
Last edited:
M76 said:
Most people would know the difference between RT on and off in a side by side comparison. (Unless they are being wilfully blind like some of the present company) But they probably would not between DLSS on Quality mode and native resolution.
Click to expand...
Pick out differences? Sure. What was raytraced and what wasn't? Nope. The human brain is notorious for being bad at depth and lighting and is easily fooled.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top