Nvidia RTX Discussion

btkm8unsl0w5r4

Gee I see the PhysicX logo on a lot of games, control being the latest I have seen. RTX is already open. RTX is only Nvidias way of accelerating DXR so however you want to do it AMD or Intel work away. Your wikipedia page has not been updated since 7 May 2019.

DXR support is in unreal engine, Cryengine, and a bunch of others.

At the end of the day its only a visual thing, it does no preclude people playing the games, thats all it was every supposed to do.

The RTX stuff is taking off really well at the moment, it will take a good few more years, but once the install base is there the games will follow.

jonerkinsella

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

The next gen consoles are going to ram Ray-tracing down the industries throat and it's going to be the way AMD want to do it, not Nvidias solution.

RTX is a lie and it can be seen here (skip to 13.50 for proof of concept... and NV bs)

btkm8unsl0w5r4

You know that RTX is just a way to accelerate ray tracing, ray tracing is open to all, Nvidia even enable it on their non RTX cards. I do hope AMD do something good with it...on PC it will all be through the DXR API so who cares if the frame pusher is green or red.

Anyway...who cares so long as the games look good and are fun to play.

z0oT

Genevieve Disgusting Self-improvement wrote: »

Gee I see the PhysicX logo on a lot of games, control being the latest I have seen. RTX is already open. RTX is only Nvidias way of accelerating DXR so however you want to do it AMD or Intel work away. Your wikipedia page has not been updated since 7 May 2019.

DXR support is in unreal engine, Cryengine, and a bunch of others.

At the end of the day its only a visual thing, it does no preclude people playing the games, thats all it was every supposed to do.

The RTX stuff is taking off really well at the moment, it will take a good few more years, but once the install base is there the games will follow.

Yeah sure, PhysX is found on the odd game here and there, but it's not the game changer Nvidia drummed it up to be (10 years?) ago. I'd be suprized if RTX doesn't end up the same.

Anyway, the better reason to go for one of the RTX cards (2070 super and above) at the minute is its performance rather than the RTX stuff is the point I was trying to make I guess.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

z0oT wrote: »

Yeah sure, PhysX is found on the odd game here and there, but it's not the game changer Nvidia drummed it up to be (10 years?) ago. I'd be suprized if RTX doesn't end up the same.

Sorry here, but you are mistaken on this one. PhysiX is used in every UE4 game on earth, most Unity games, CryENGINE, Project Cars...its become so ubiquitous you dont even notice it anymore.

I do agree that Ray-tracing will go the same.

EoinHef

Man the AMD bias is so feckin strong on this forum now. Its actually getting to cult like levels now.

Ray tracing is here to stay,Nvidia will always have some sort of solution for it.

If people think AMD are gonna come up with some magical solution that will be great and super cheap keep dreaming.

The truth is Nvidia were able to price gouge this gen because AMD had exactly zero in their lineup to go against them. Even the 5700 series makes no sense if you can get equivalent raster performance and the the RTX cores for similar money.

Even if there was €50 in the difference why would you not go for the card with ray tracing even if its limited?

Please keep the cult to to the AMD threads at least.

Skerries

K.O.Kiki

Genevieve Disgusting Self-improvement wrote: »

Sorry here, but you are mistaken on this one. PhysiX is used in every UE4 game on earth, most Unity games, CryENGINE, Project Cars...its become so ubiquitous you dont even notice it anymore.

I do agree that Ray-tracing will go the same.

I think another thing we're forgetting with all the ray-tracing talk is that RTX 2070 Super (€549) is faster than GTX 1080 Ti (€830).

Even discounting the 1080 Ti's FE-tax, it's good to see better prices in the mid/high-end now.

Cina

Who is Ray Tracing and why is everybody in here obsessed with him?

deceit

jonerkinsella wrote: »

The next gen consoles are going to ram Ray-tracing down the industries throat and it's going to be the way AMD want to do it, not Nvidias solution.

RTX is a lie and it can be seen here (skip to 13.50 for proof of concept... and NV bs)

Why does it prove its a lie? I watched the video as you recommended and it shows AMD has degraded performance with Raytracing?
The Nvidia cores where only ever used to accelerate it, they never said only they can do it. Even their old cards could do raytracing without the cores? Maybe I'm missing something though?

deceit

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

I think another thing we're forgetting with all the ray-tracing talk is that RTX 2070 Super (€549) is faster than GTX 1080 Ti (€830).

Even discounting the 1080 Ti's FE-tax, it's good to see better prices in the mid/high-end now.

Don't forget you can get a 2080 for 550 (I bought one the other day at this price)

K.O.Kiki

deceit wrote: »

Don't forget you can get a 2080 for 550 (I bought one the other day at this price)

The only 2080 I've seen go that low is the MSI Aero (blower) and frankly I'd rather take the slightly lower performance of 2070S with dual-fan :pac:

z0oT

Genevieve Disgusting Self-improvement wrote: »

Sorry here, but you are mistaken on this one. PhysiX is used in every UE4 game on earth, most Unity games, CryENGINE, Project Cars...its become so ubiquitous you dont even notice it anymore.

I do agree that Ray-tracing will go the same.

I wasn't aware of that I'll admit. I'm wrong on it being irrelevant so.

I was more referring to hardware accelerated PhysX on the GPU which has always been Nvidia only? From that list that I posted it doesn't seem to be a thing anymore. Having it in the game engines is probably why we seldom hear of it anymore.

Anyway regarding PhysX, as you've said it's become a GPU vendor agnostic feature now. When it started off it was Nvidia only just like Ray Tracing now.

If Ray Tracing is to really take off it will likely end up in a number of game engines and will end up being GPU vendor agnostic aswell.

I think we're actually agreeing on that one.

Cordell

PhysX does not need a special hardware component anymore, but it needs a Nvidia card (it's CUDA based when running on GPU).

Cuddlesworth

Cordell wrote: »

PhysX does not need a special hardware component anymore, but it needs a Nvidia card (it's CUDA based when running on GPU).

My understanding is that most current implementations are CPU based.

tuxy

z0oT wrote: »

I wasn't aware of that I'll admit. I'm wrong on it being irrelevant so.

I was more referring to hardware accelerated PhysX on the GPU which has always been Nvidia only? From that list that I posted it doesn't seem to be a thing anymore. Having it in the game engines is probably why we seldom hear of it anymore.

It's become a GPU vendor agnostic feature now. When it started off it was Nvidia only just like Ray Tracing now.

If Ray Tracing is to really take off it will likely end up in a number of game engines and will end up being GPU vendor agnostic aswell.

I think we're actually agreeing on that one.

Before PhysX was baought by Nvidia it was software sold to run on a physic processor unit(card) sold for around €300
When Nvida tookover they accelerated it using the standard GPU core, it lowered rasterisation perforformance when enabled.
Now it's open source that any game engine can use and can be calculted easily on the multicore CPUs available now, no need for a dedicated card or for it to tax your GPU.

The seperate physics card didn't do well in sales or reviews and perhaps that's why Nvida felt they much ensure a sizable number of their customers have no choice but buy it. How many people would buy RTX if it was an optional card?

The future for ray tracing will probably be some open standard but for now we have RTX.

deceit

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

The only 2080 I've seen go that low is the MSI Aero (blower) and frankly I'd rather take the slightly lower performance of 2070S with dual-fan :pac:

For me reference is best as I always watercool . I have my ek block/backplate in the post as we speak which makes it better noise wise than any fan option available

Cordell

tuxy wrote: »

The future for ray tracing will probably be some open standard but for now we have RTX.

There is one, it's a DX12 component called DXR. The standard is there, nothing stops AMD to have a competing solution. At least nothing technical, there may be legal/IP implications.

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

My understanding is that most current implementations are CPU based.

AFAIK the game developer can enable CUDA if they want to. They may choose not to as to avoid the hassle, the performance boost does not happen automatically, if the workload is not suitable for a GPU it will be actually worse - or so is my limited experience with this.

K.O.Kiki

Weekend's nearly here

jonerkinsella

deceit wrote: »

Why does it prove its a lie? I watched the video as you recommended and it shows AMD has degraded performance with Raytracing?
The Nvidia cores where only ever used to accelerate it, they never said only they can do it. Even their old cards could do raytracing without the cores? Maybe I'm missing something though?

" A graphics researcher and expert in ray tracing who has worked with Nvidia for a decade has made quite a startling prediction: that a big-name ‘AAA’ game will need a ray tracing-capable GPU to run by 2023. "
https://www.techradar.com/news/nvidias-rtx-graphics-cards-could-be-a-minimum-requirement-for-some-pc-games-as-soon-as-2023

Lies.

The video I posted above shows an rx580 running RT.

It's all a load of bollox, bull**** marketing.

deceit

jonerkinsella wrote: »

" A graphics researcher and expert in ray tracing who has worked with Nvidia for a decade has made quite a startling prediction: that a big-name ‘AAA’ game will need a ray tracing-capable GPU to run by 2023. "
https://www.techradar.com/news/nvidias-rtx-graphics-cards-could-be-a-minimum-requirement-for-some-pc-games-as-soon-as-2023

Lies.

The video I posted above shows an rx580 running RT.

It's all a load of bollox, bull**** marketing.

Yea an rx580 and a 1060 can run RT but with a large performance penalty.

By 2023 all gpu's would most likely support RT hardware acceleration of some sort (new consoles and AMD/Nvidia GPUs). I'm hoping AMD's next range of new high end GPU's have hardware acceleration for it as I've been holding out for these cards in the hopes of these cards being good for my main rig (Put a 2080 in my backup rig).
If the consoles launch with it and all newer cards do also then old cards without hardware acceleration would not have the performance required to run enforced RT games by 2023.
(Adding more Ray tracing features and higher graphical demands, especially when new consoles come out we wont be limited by what they run so the new benchmark for graphics will be higher which will mean the graphics penalty will be too large for non hardware accelerated cards to run it).
Like back in the days of x800 when older cpu's than that didn't have the correct shaders, performance penalties where too great for them so they couldn't play games that had them built in and where blocked from running the game or being supported.

Homelander

That was real crap back with the X700 and X800 cards. The ultra high-end X850's were only out what, 3 years if even? And couldn't even run some new games. That'd be like a GTX1070 not running a new game now, madness.

Serephucus

To be honest, I'd rather have a reason to upgrade after 3 years than what we have now; market stagnation and price-gouging.

deceit

Homelander wrote: »

That was real crap back with the X700 and X800 cards. The ultra high-end X850's were only out what, 3 years if even? And couldn't even run some new games. That'd be like a GTX1070 not running a new game now, madness.

I'd rather deal with that and get less stagnation. I want graphics to constantly improve.

K.O.Kiki

jonerkinsella wrote: »

" A graphics researcher and expert in ray tracing who has worked with Nvidia for a decade has made quite a startling prediction: that a big-name ‘AAA’ game will need a ray tracing-capable GPU to run by 2023. "
https://www.techradar.com/news/nvidias-rtx-graphics-cards-could-be-a-minimum-requirement-for-some-pc-games-as-soon-as-2023

Lies.

The video I posted above shows an rx580 running RT.

It's all a load of bollox, bull**** marketing.

For the last time:
Every GPU can do ray tracing.
Every manufacturer has wanted to be able to do real-time ray tracing for years.
Nvidia RTX is the first hardware solution to do real-time raytracing with good speed.

Venom

deceit wrote: »

I'd rather deal with that and get less stagnation. I want graphics to constantly improve.

Graphic quality in gaming along with GPU power is sadly tied to what the current crop of consoles can handle. Seeing as both of the next generation of consoles are going to be using hardware much closer to current PC setups, the next two years should see a huge improvement in graphics.

BloodBath

The only companies implementing RTX features are ones getting paid by Nvidia to do so.

Nvidias version will be dead withing a year or 2.

Venom

BloodBath wrote: »

The only companies implementing RTX features are ones getting paid by Nvidia to do so.

Nvidias version will be dead withing a year or 2.

It will only require a few of the big AAA games per year to support RTX and to keep the spotlight on Nvidia's offering, unlike AMD's vision of Ray Tracing which as of to date, is nothing more than a few comments made by various staff members. Seeing as how most games take a couple of years to make I can see a lot of devs using RTX as a selling feature, as lets not forget Nvidia has massive market share when it comes to GPU's along with the money to keep paying devs to use RTX, so I wouldn't be so sure it will be dead that soon.

Serephucus

It was the same with PhysX back in the day when they bought it from Ageia. They pumped money into it like made for a couple years, then it fizzled out, and other engines entered the market. The same thing happened with G-Sync too.

deceit

Serephucus wrote: »

It was the same with PhysX back in the day when they bought it from Ageia. They pumped money into it like made for a couple years, then it fizzled out, and other engines entered the market. The same thing happened with G-Sync too.

I'm curious, unlike G-sync is their anything stopping AMD from using their own hardware acceleration on these games?