RTX is a joke

[UnknownSouljer]

Anybody with a sense of the GPU market and development can see RTX investment by Nvidia over the past five years far exceeds any ONE EQUIVALENT RASTER EFFECT. Stop comparing the entire raster development stack to RT - that's not a valid comparison.

Considering that people who are proponents of RT say that:
1.) it's the future
2.) the goal is to render games purely in RT and no raster at all

I wouldn't call an evolution of RT "just one raster effect". It is every raster effect. It is all visuals combined. We simply don't have the cards and rendering prowess to do that yet. You know how we get there? By having crap first that has to mature. That's how tech works.

Even ignoring tech evolution, being "one effect" also isn't true. Watch Epic's Unreal 5 demo about Fortnite. There are quite a few very different enhancements being added through RT. You can't really say RT is "just one raster effect" when RT is doing far more than "one thing".

Jensen called - he wants his RTX development money back.. Oldest marketing trick in the book. The first couple hits are discounted. Once you're hooked - jack the price.

Okay. And how is that literally different from any other GPU tech? Or CPU tech? Or anything at all related to computers? Again, say something unique to RT.

Significant visual benefit from RT? Fantasy land again. Please stop.

Yes. And also: "no yuo". *shrug*

It has EVERYTHING to to with RTX. That is Nvidia's only selling point over AMD cards. And everyone including you ate it up. When a company owns 80% of the market, yeah they have some pricing control to say the least. This is what happens.

As the other thread has noted, nVidia and AMD have a similar amount of GPU profit.

But also to that end and to your complaint: if all you want is raster, just buy a 7900XTX. It has similiar and sometimes better raster performance than the 4090 and it costs $500+ less. No one is forcing you to buy an nVidia card. No one is forcing you to buy any card. Again, maybe you should just stop buying computer hardware. You'll be happier.

You can say it has everything to do with RTX because that's a convenient excuse for nVidia. Again: if RTX never existed, they would find another reason to charge you $1500 for a 4090. This has nothing to do with RT and everything to do with nVidia being dicks and being greedy. They're loving the fact that nerds are fighting over this though and taking the heat off them.

Again you are comparing the development cost of one lame sprinkle lighting effect over 5 years to the entire raster development stack over 20 or more. WTF?

Yes. Your point is that RT costs a bunch of money. Compared to what? The only other tech is raster. Did you even know what nVidia Gameworks is? That's 100% raster tech that they developed in 2014 using millions of lines of code (as you love to bring up) in order to accelerate certain effects and make development easier using their SDK's. There is literally no difference between RT development and raster development. It's the same stuff. Or actually even worse. Gameworks wasn't open source. RT at least is part of Vulkan and DX12. Gameworks being proprietary made it so acceleration on nVidia vs AMD cards was uneven forcing AMD to have to make open solutions to compete with Gameworks. Now THAT is a waste of code, development, and money. All for raster I might add.

Your false dichotomy is the part that's laughable.

RT is an entirely different rendering paradigm. For the time being we're combining RT and raster, but we don't need raster to run RT. At some point there will be games that are 100% RT and 0% raster. That's the dream.

 

[Deleted member 162929]

3D games are just a gimmick, how can people not see that!?

2D games are all that matters

That's what the anti-RT crowd sounds like lol

edit: a lot just fail to admit they only hate it because because Nvidia leads in that area and AMD is behind. If it were the other way around they'd sing the praises of RT like it was the second coming of Jesus.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

3D games are just a gimmick, how can people not see that!?

2D games are all that matters

That's what the anti-RT crowd sounds like lol

edit: a lot just fail to admit they only hate it because because Nvidia leads in that area and AMD is behind. If it were the other way around they'd sing the praises of RT like it was the second coming of Jesus.

In a very real way 2D is to 3D as Raster is to RT.

There are a lot of similarities there. First there were build engine games that were literally 2d sprites lined up edge to edge to look 3D (Doom, Duke 3D, Rise of the Triad, etc) as well as pre-rendered (Myst), or isometric games (Fallout, and a lot of RPGs). Then there was the combination between 2d and 3d. Tons of games would use explosions or ammo/health that was still 2d inside of the first 3d engine games (I remember Shogo most vividly, but Half-Life, SiN, Quake 1, etc all were like this). Then it was 3d only.

Raster to raytracing I suspect will have a similar trajectory. Right now we're somewhere in the middle where we use raster and raytracing together. It will likely be a 15 year time period though unless we have some significant breakthrough in RT rendering to get to RT only engines/games. I better not catch Mega6 or kac77 playing any pure RT games though; as it's pointless and doesn't look better.

 

[Mega6]

Considering that people who are proponents of RT say that:
1.) it's the future
2.) the goal is to render games purely by RT and no raster at all

You mean your "like minded people" that spent too much for too little and now want to rationalize that expenditure? OK It's the future you all say? Maybe. Right now it's half baked and cost/performance prohibitive. Pure RT game? Not in your lifetime more than likely. Raster can do more than enough so we don't need pure RT.

I wouldn't call an evolution of RT "just one raster effect". It is every raster effect. It is all visuals combined. We simply don't have the cards and rendering prowess to do that yet. You know how we get there? By having crap first that has to mature. That's how tech works.

RTX/RT is not "all visuals combined". In it's current state it is a sliver of lighting effect(s). In the grand scale of current game rendering - not much.

Even ignoring that part, that also isn't true. Watch Epic's Unreal 5 demo about Fortnite. There are quite a few very different enhancements being added through RT. You can't really say RT is "just one raster effect" when RT is doing far more than "one thing".

How much of an overall effect does RTX/RT have on a game. Especially a fast action FPS like fortnite? Not a lot really. A little eye candy. Wow.

Okay. And how is that literally different from any other GPU tech? Again, say something unique to RT.

What is unique to RT/RTX is (as I've stated over and over) it stagnated, distracted the GPU industry from any other avenues of improvement and has increased GPU costs tremendously.

Yes. And also: "no yuo". *shrug*

Make up your mind.

As the other thread has noted, nVidia and AMD are selling a similar amount of cards.

Right now? Maybe. Nvidia still owns 80% of the market - my point stands.,

But also to that end and to your complaint: if all you want is raster, just buy a 7900XTX. It has similiar and sometimes better raster performance than the 4090 and it costs $500+ less. No one is forcing you to buy an nVidia card. No one is forcing you to buy any card. Again, maybe you should just stop buying computer hardware. You'll be happier.

The 7900 series also has RT costs associated with it. Just like EVERY OTHER GPU nowadays. Don't skip around the point.

Yes. Your point is that RT costs a bunch of money. Compared to what? The only other tech is raster. Did you even know what nVidia Gameworks is? That's 100% raster tech that they developed in 2014 using millions of lines of code (as you love to bring up) in order to accelerate certain effects and make development easier using their SDK's.

Nvidia Gameworks was developed for Nvidia devs. Not for raster devlopment per se - just to promote development on Nvidia cards. That is irrelevant to the argument.

There is literally no difference between RT development and raster development. It's the same stuff.

Really? Do you even read what you type? That statement is laughable. Tell that to the embedded Nvidia devs for RTX games and to Nvidia as they run RTX optimizations on their supercomputers for EACH game.

 

[Deleted member 162929]

It will likely be a 15 year time period though unless we have some significant breakthrough in RT rendering.

At first I was gonna disagree but it's already been ~5 years since RTX 2K series released

 

[Mega6]

3D games are just a gimmick, how can people not see that!?

2D games are all that matters

That's what the anti-RT crowd sounds like lol

edit: a lot just fail to admit they only hate it because because Nvidia leads in that area and AMD is behind. If it were the other way around they'd sing the praises of RT like it was the second coming of Jesus.

There is absolutely no substance to your post other than to try an invoke a reactionary follow up. Really a pointless endeavor.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

You mean your "like minded people" that spent too much for too little and now want to rationalize that expenditure? OK It's the future you all say? Maybe. Right now it's half baked and cost/performance prohibitive. Pure RT game? Not in your lifetime more than likely. Raster can do more than enough so we don't need pure RT.

We don't need 3d period. Let's go back to 3d pre-rendered games. We can make them photo realistic and run on cards with much less RAM and have them only cost $50.

RTX/RT is not "all visuals combined". In it's current state it is a sliver of lighting effect(s). In the grand scale of current game rendering - not much.



How much of an overall effect does RTX/RT have on a game. Especially a fast action FPS like fortnite? Not a lot really. A little eye candy. Wow.



What is unique to RT/RTX is (as I've stated over and over) it stagnated, distracted the GPU industry from any other avenues of improvement and has increased GPU costs tremendously.

This is all tech. Why'd we spend time on FSAA? All for lines to be straight. Wow.

Make up your mind.

Reading comprehension.

Right now? Maybe. Nvidia still owns 80% of the market - my point stands.,

And? Again, you only care about Raster right? Then you shouldn't buy an nVidia card when the other competitor already is winning there for less.

The 7900 series also has RT costs associated with it. Just like EVERY OTHER GPU nowadays. Don't skip around the point.

And? Try having a point.

Nvidia Gameworks was developed for Nvidia devs. Not for raster devlopment per se - just to promote development on Nvidia cards. That is irrelevant to the argument.

You're joking right? You make up your mind. Does coding and dev time matter or not?

Really? Do you even read what you type? That statement is laughable. Tell that to the embedded Nvidia devs for RTX games and to Nvidia as they run RTX optimizations on their supercomputers for EACH game.

In the sense that this is the nature of how tech progresses? Yeah, it's not any different at all. Saying RT requries tools that are different is obvious.

 

[kac77]

I didn't assign any dollar value to any of this. But how do you know how much you paid for any given piece of tech. To a large degree you did if you ever bought a flagship card.
The difference between "Ultra" settings and not at every resolution has always been a cost. Maxing out Quake 3 took years. Crysis was literally a meme. I suppose you could conveniently also forget every flagship game for 20+ years.

You don't have to. That's how much extra it costs. We aren't really talking about FPS here. We're talking about if a feature is even usable. RT isn't usable for midrange in a lot of cases. No other feature was like that generation after generation after generation. None of them required you to buy flagship or close enough to it in the same generation just to experience something that could be replicated through other means.

You definitely skipped people buying 2x-4x Crossfire/SLI in order to run triple monitors. In those times folks were paying literally additional thousands to increase resolution and have ultra settings. I don't see how the situation we're in now is any different.

Because extra FPS / performance by itself is just that. It's not really a feature. I guess if you ever see "tons of FPS" as a feature let me know.

 

[Deleted member 162929]

There is absolutely no substance to your post other than to try an invoke a reactionary follow up. Really a pointless endeavor.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

You don't have to. That's how much extra it costs. We aren't really talking about FPS here. We're talking about if a feature is even usable. RT isn't usable for midrange in a lot of cases. No other feature was like that generation after generation after generation.

That has happened repeatedly. Feel free to ask Kyle or Dan for a history lesson if you don't remember. (Does it run Crysis?)

None of them required you to buy flagship or close enough to it in the same generation just to experience something that could be replicated through other means.

Rastering cannot replicate ray tracing period. They're fundamentally different technologies. Is the whole reason you have a problem with RT is that you don't understand the core concept?

Because extra FPS / performance by itself is just that. It's not really a feature. I guess if you ever see "tons of FPS" as a feature let me know.

In the nicest way possible: I don't see how you can ignore that in order to run games at the highest settings with the highest frame rates at the highest resolutions has always costed money. If you don't understand that then what the hell are we actually talking about here?
It wasn't just about "having a bunch of FPS", it was also to allow ultra settings and immersive resolutions. A lot of those systems in the beginning still were struggling to hit 60fps. You repeatedly have no memory of history. So "tons of fps" wasn't even the feature". Just being able to run those games with those graphics was the feature. Shock, that is the exact same situation we're in now.

 

[Mega6]

Confirmed - you have nothing

 

[Deleted member 162929]

Confirmed - you have nothing

Nothing except enjoying ray tracing in my games that have it (edit: and looking forward to more!), while you cry about it even existing

hope you enjoy it, I will

 

[Mega6]

Nothing except enjoying ray tracing in my games that have it, while you cry about it even existing

hope you enjoy it, I will

If RTX makes your life in those handful of RTX games, it's a pretty empty life. I enjoy any and every game I care to without having to extol the virtues of RTX and the Church of the Leather Jacket. Plus not having to pay $1000 plus for a little eyecandy.

 

[Deleted member 162929]

If RTX makes your life in those handful of RTX games, it's a pretty empty life.

keep crying

 

[kac77]

That has happened repeatedly. Feel free to ask Kyle or Dan for a history lesson if you don't remember. (Does it run Crysis?)

Does it run Crysis was conquered within a few generations. But was largely a problem because of how poorly it was programed. How's RT coming?

Rastering cannot replicate ray tracing period. They're fundamentally different technologies. Is the whole reason you have a problem with RT is that you don't understand the core concept?

The human brain can't tell the difference in motion not with today's engines it can't. Thinking that it can is laughable.

In the nicest way possible: I don't see how you can ignore that in order to run games at the highest settings with the highest frame rates at the highest resolutions has always costed money. If you don't understand that then what the hell are we actually talking about here?

I'm not ignoring it. I just understand that FPS isn't a graphical effect.

"immersive resolutions"

Oh lord it's a marketing slick.

 

[Mega6]

keep crying

View attachment 551599

Keep posting .. nothing.

 

[Deleted member 162929]

Keep posting .. nothing.

 

[Bankie]

It has EVERYTHING to to with RTX. That is Nvidia's only selling point over AMD cards. And everyone including you ate it up. When a company owns 80% of the market, yeah they have some pricing control to say the least. This is what happens.

RTX is Nvidia's ONLY selling point over AMD? lol. By the same token the only reason to choose AMD is price and the fanboy's 'A vote for AMD is a vote for freedom' bs.

There are a lot of reasons to choose NV over AMD: NVENC, DLSS, CUDA, power usage, the fact that AMD uses 100W while idling with multiple monitors when NV uses less than 20w, etc. That doesn't even include the general consensus on AMD's drivers. If you want to save a few bucks or 'support the underdog multi-billion dollar company' then by all means go ahead. But acting like AMD and NV are at perfect parity solely based on raster performance is laughable.

 

[DukenukemX]

Do you honestly believe that if RTX didn't exist they would not have increased prices? It sure has nothing to do with the crypto bubble and AI buzz, it is that damn RTX why we can't have a 4090 for $700.

I believe RTX was created by Nvidia because after the 2017 crypto crash they needed a reason to justify the high prices that were pumped up during the 2016 crypto boom. Nvidia increased prices with their RTX 4000 series and the reception is overwhelming negative, where as back when they released the RTX 2000 series the excuse was Ray-Tracing, and even Toms Hardware said to get it because of RTX. So yea, it's the damn RTX is why you can't have a 4090 for $700. Plus as a bonus, a lot of engineering and silicon went into Ray-Tracing, which means todays 4090 could have been even faster.

Not really worth arguing over it. Fact is ray tracing is going to be the future, whether they want to believe it or not. It won't became standard for a long time though. Not until another 2 GPUs generations at least and the next console generation. Hopefully the next consoles are more comparable to higher end GPUs next go around, because games will be built around them.

Is Ray-Tracing the future? I'd hate say it but no. Fact is Rasterization fakes a lot of stuff really well, to the point where we might one day fake Ray-Tracing so well that it hardly effects the performance of the game. As it is right now Ray-Tracing is mostly used for lightening and reflections. For a game to truly use 100% Ray-Tracing would need to be a game as old as Quake 2, or a game that can run on a potato like Minecraft. Don't be surprised if someone in the near future develops a Ray-Tracing game engine that doesn't use GPU's and instead focuses on creative shortcuts and the CPU.

I feel like this is similar to Physx when it first came out. Overdone particle effects and debris flying around. Was it technologically better? Yes, but it looked over done.

Game physics was a thing long before Physx. Most games that used Nvidia's Physx also used Intel's Havok as an alternative, which ended up being the superior winner in modern games today. So now most games will do physics on the CPU and not the GPU unless Nvidia pays them money, which they don't because Nvidia is now pushing for Ray-Tracing. Half Life 2 made the most use of physics and it was never demanding on systems made in 2004. Nvidia's Physx was just them trying to push the market into their exclusive club, because as far as I know Physx was never able to run on ATI/AMD/Intel GPU's.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Does it run Crysis was conquered within a few generations. How's RT coming?

Your argument is based around mid-tier hardware for RT. I'll take that bet, how long did it take for a mid-tier card to play max settings at "just" 1080p in Crysis?

The human brain can't tell the difference in motion not with today's engines it can't. Thinking that it can is laughable.

I honestly don't have anything to say to this. Saying an entire rendering paradigm is "not noticeable" doesn't make sense to me.

I'm not ignoring it. I just understand that FPS isn't a graphical effect.

To run those games with all the graphical effects on at those resolutions required gpu power. Do I have to go through and find all the period specific games during quad-SLI games and give you a list of raster tech? Literally every generation has struggled to produce 60fps on some title. There has never been a card launch where that was not the case. SLi/Crossfire was the way to play games with all the eye-candy on at high resolutions.

Again, exactly what we're talking about here? If we're not talking about turning any effects on then SLI/Crossfire wouldn't even be necessary. Play 240x180 with potato graphics. 10 year old cards have always been able to keep up with modern titles by that standard. "High fps isn't an effect".

You're either ignoring or ignorant. Take your pick.

Oh lord it's a marketing slick.

I guess you could call triple monitors that if you want. Now we just buy ultra-wides instead.
However it seems like you care more about semantics here than an actual conversation.

 

[Mega6]

RTX is Nvidia's ONLY selling point over AMD? lol. By the same token the only reason to choose AMD is price and the fanboy's 'A vote for AMD is a vote for freedom' bs.

There are a lot of reasons to choose NV over AMD. NVENC, DLSS, CUDA, power usage, the fact that AMD still uses 100W while idling with multiple monitors when NV uses less than 20w, etc. That doesn't even include the general consensus on AMD's drivers.

I have found the first people to scream "fanboi" are the fanbois themselves. DLSS was created to make RTX doable with reasonable framerates. Nvidia is just solving the problems it created itself. NVEC vs amd's solution is so close that it's hardly a deal breaker ether way.

 

[Bankie]

I honestly don't have anything to say to this. Saying an entire rendering paradigm is "not noticeable" doesn't make sense to me.

That's seriously at the level of the old, "The human eye can't see more than 30fps" argument.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

I believe RTX was created by Nvidia because after the 2017 crypto crash they needed a reason to justify the high prices that were pumped up during the 2016 crypto boom. Nvidia increased prices with their RTX 4000 series and the reception is overwhelming negative, where as back when they released the RTX 2000 series the excuse was Ray-Tracing, and even Toms Hardware said to get it because of RTX. So yea, it's the damn RTX is why you can't have a 4090 for $700. Plus as a bonus, a lot of engineering and silicon went into Ray-Tracing, which means todays 4090 could have been even faster.

They would just R&D other tech on there die and use that to justify the cost.

Is Ray-Tracing the future? I'd hate say it but no. Fact is Rasterization fakes a lot of stuff really well, to the point where we might one day fake Ray-Tracing so well that it hardly effects the performance of the game. As it is right now Ray-Tracing is mostly used for lightening and reflections. For a game to truly use 100% Ray-Tracing would need to be a game as old as Quake 2, or a game that can run on a potato like Minecraft. Don't be surprised if someone in the near future develops a Ray-Tracing game engine that doesn't use GPU's and instead focuses on creative shortcuts and the CPU.

Forever is a long time. 1000 years from now we won't have the GPU power to run RT in realtime? Obviously that is hyperbole, but there is zero industries where using a superior tech isn't the way forward. Even if it's extremely costly at first. In fact that is the way of all tech in general.

Before the transistor, a computer was a mainframe the size of a room. We went through 30 years of Moore's Law. Now we have cellphones with processors faster than computers. The M2 in iPad's destroyes desktop computers from 2014 and before, while being portable, and having all day battery life. I think everyone saying RT is going to take a bazillion years to get to being fast enough is incredibly short sighted. Even on the "extreme long end" I give it 20 years tops. By then we'll be operating with chips >10x the performance of today.

Game physics was a thing long before Physx. Most games that used Nvidia's Physx also used Intel's Havok as an alternative, which ended up being the superior winner in modern games today. So now most games will do physics on the CPU and not the GPU unless Nvidia pays them money, which they don't because Nvidia is now pushing for Ray-Tracing. Half Life 2 made the most use of physics and it was never demanding on systems made in 2004. Nvidia's Physx was just them trying to push the market into their exclusive club, because as far as I know Physx was never able to run on ATI/AMD/Intel GPU's.

PhysX was absolutely the better way to do physics, but the inferior format won. That was also the case in VHS vs Betamax. Sometimes politics win over what is better.

Having something that can actually do realtime physicis calculations was an incredible distinguishing advantage. We've actually taken a large step back in regards to game physics as a result of nVidia buying them as well as locking up their APIs and patents.

I think PhysX vs Havok is a really great example of though of choosing what is "easier and less system intensive" (Havok) over "superior but requiring specific hardware" (PhysX). I would much prefer the latter in both cases. RT matters, it's probably the most significant change to rendering in my 40 years of lifetime, other than perhaps the move from 2d to true 3d rendering in real time.

 

[Armenius]

I have found the first people to scream "fanboi" are the fanbois themselves. DLSS was created to make RTX doable with reasonable framerates. Nvidia is just solving the problems it created itself. NVEC vs amd's solution is so close that it's hardly a deal breaker ether way.

I guess AMD created FSR just for the hell of it. I wonder why they're also working on their own frame generation tech.

 

[Bankie]

I have found the first people to scream "fanboi" are the fanbois themselves. DLSS was created to make RTX doable with reasonable framerates. Nvidia is just solving the problems it created itself. NVEC vs amd's solution is so close that it's hardly a deal breaker ether way.

I didn't scream "fanboi", I stated a standard "fanboi" argument. Does it matter why it was created if it make things better? Guess they should just disable object culling / 'free' AA / FSR / etc. since they were only created to improve FPS. If you've used them both you'd know that AMD only recently reduced the NVENC gap with RDNA3.

 

[Mega6]

I guess AMD created FSR just for the hell of it. I wonder why they're also working on their own frame generation tech.

Marking sells, the RTX/RT helper stack runs deep.

 

[erek]

Haters gonna hate.

Not sure what all of the fuss over Raytracing is really about... Soon after the AI sexbots revolutionize pleasure, we will all get ported into a raytraced virtual reality indistinguishable from real life (see Caprica).

So, you want that tech to get better, which requires interative improvements over X number of generations. Pay up.

Ray and path tracing is good but RTX on top of rasterization is largely proprietary junk with only maybe a few actual wins

I’m calling out nVidia rtx and not ray tracing generally

 

[Mega6]

I didn't scream "fanboi", I stated a standard "fanboi" argument. Does it matter why it was created if it make things better? Guess they should just disable object culling / 'free' AA / FSR / etc. since they were only created to improve FPS. If you've used them both you'd know that AMD only recently reduced the NVENC gap with RDNA3.

Thanks for confirming. I know very well what to disable and avoid to improve my FPS, starting with RTX/RT.

 

[Deleted member 162929]

PhysX is still used today, and runs on CPU...

 

[FrgMstr]

You are the epitome of adult conversation.