Nvidia RTX Discussion

Thought I read somewhere lastnight only 20% increase roughly in performance over their 10 series counterparts is expected? Non ray tracing content that ? I was expecting more.

Cuddlesworth

Genevieve Disgusting Self-improvement wrote: »

What has me excited is that PUBG, Battlefield, Tomb raider, Vulcan API and UE4 all support RTX. This means if you are not checking that box your not seeing the game at its best.

Two things,
Enabling Ray tracing is going to tank your FPS. I'm going to make a safe assumption of 50% performance drop.
Second thing, most gamers don't care how it looks. They care about how much fun it is to play.

keffiyeh

Hopefully there will be an AMD solution soon. After GPP I'm done with nVidia's anti-consumer, anti-competition nonsense. It's bad for the platform.

Seems they are pushing this ray tracing to smoke screen the lacklustre performance gains.
Quite a few outlets reckon the RTX 2080 will be slower than a GTX 1080ti :eek:

I wouldnt mind if ray tracing was actually mind blowing to justify the outlandish cost but its not for me atleast it doesnt come anywhere near justifying the premium.
You can clearly see a big perfomance hit in the tomb raider demo between ray tracing on/off , the BFV demo clearly had stuttering issues along with dodgy looking low res textures going on.

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Second thing, most gamers don't care how it looks. They care about how much fun it is to play.

Dont think these games are the target market. I can seem to remember similar things being said about per pixel shaders 10 years ago. Seeing as the 1080ti and 2080ti have similar clocks, a 12u manufacture process, and the 2080 has 25% more shaders and faster memory I dont see it being slower.

The graphics of games (the fun of them is a different topic of conversation) has not improved in 5 years or so. Frostbite engine and Cryengine 3 are the best around and are anchient at this stage. Its nice to see some progress.

Obviously early demos are not going to be the finished product. But if you cannot see how reflections of things no on the screen is going to make games better, and proper global illumination then your not really into the whole graphical fidelity thing, and your indy platformers will not benefit.:p

[Deleted User]

Would i be mad to order a 1080ti? Think i just might. Have a buyer for my 1070 so will cost me €400 instead of €600 for a 2080.

Deleted User wrote: »

Would i be mad to order a 1080ti? Think i just might. Have a buyer for my 1070 so will cost me €400 instead of €600 for a 2080.

Im thinking along the same lines.

I will be flogging a Factory overclocked Palit 1080ti for around 500 euro once my RTX arrives, I would hold off, the early adopters will be liquidating their old card and the prices will be real low.

Sierra Oscar

I'm looking to upgrade from a 980GTX. It's been holding it's own for now but it's starting to show its age a bit. I reckon I'll settle on the RTX 2080. I can't really justify dropping well over a grand on a Ti!

Going to wait for some benchmarks before making a decision either way.

Shlippery

Torn between a 1080 or 2070, (coming from an RX480 4gb) either would be massive, but I've just picked up an Oculus rift so a bit torn.

I'll remain patient..

Buttros

Bought a 1080ti last week from evga. They have a step up program that if you buy a card and a newer one comes out within 90 days you can return the card and pay the difference for the upgrade. Was reading about it on the evga site. It's an option if your caught inbetween and unsure. Not 100% on the details but worth looking into maybe

I'll be watching the new benchmarks when they are released although can't see myself changing and paying extra

What were you expecting? The card has 3 separate cores doing different functions. They could have jumped regular rasterised performance by a lot more by utilising all of that massive die for it but they decided to change how they design gpus completely. It should still be at least 30% faster with all the new tech as well and you expect it to be the same price?

Ray tracing is the future and Nvidia brought it now. Will wait to see benchmarks but performance will be entirely dependent on how heavily it is used. There will be quality settings for ray tracing as well. More rays = more quality/definition and more performance cost.

It's a game changer. Proper reflections, proper global illumination, proper shadows and a multitude of other uses like ray traced sounds for proper 3d audio. While it's possible to fake all of those things with rasterisation they don't look anywhere near as good and it's a pain in ass to develop. Ray tracing makes the dev process way easier and it looks/sounds a lot better. The biggest graphical jump we're gonna have in about a decade.

Just buy a 10 series if you don't care about RT. These cards aren't for you if you don't. As I said before these cards are for developers who really want to use RT and early adopters who don't mind dropping a grand on a gpu.

I don't understand the butthurt. These cards are crammed with completely new technology. Would they be cheaper if AMD had something? Probably. But they don't so just wait a gen if you don't like these cards but I feel all future cards will be like these. Traditional rendering methods are coming to the end of the line.

This isn't just some proprietary crap to try and shut AMD out of the market. It's DX12 based. AMD can do the same if they want but they have had their fingers in their asses on the gpu side for about 5 years now.

Thats all well and good but what happens when 10 series stock runs out, we will be forced into this new tech.

By the time 10 series inventory dries up the GTX 2060 and below series will be out to replace it and won't include the additional cores to get the cost down.

10 series is still great. 4k and high fps users might have wanted just a much faster card to drive frames/resolution but the last 3-4 series of cards have done that. This is an actual revolution in graphics quality outside of frames or resolution. On top of that it will still be around 30% faster with like for like cards. Nothing wrong with that.

Can't have it all in 1 gen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ww8DlOkpqEQ

Imagine a game where you can use reflective surfaces like car mirrors, metal to view around corners, that changes the way you play. Global illumination that leaves areas in dark shadow without making the entire room dark like doom 3. And the thing seems to be that the devs dont need to specifically code this in. If they make their models properly and give the surfaces physical properties the ray tracing will do the work itself, making development times much quicker. In VR the weird way rasterisation deals with light is more noticeable.

I agree Bloodbath, people are loosing their **** that there is not a 2070 that is twice as fast as the 1080ti for 400 euro...No there wont be a bunch of games at launch that work with RTX, yes its expensive, yes there is a hype train, no it wont have huge increase in performance (chaps will spend 1000 euro on watercooling parts for a 10% overclock but thats none of my business). But is a strong step towards photorealism, or movie CGI quality games. Games devs are super excited

The design process is identical except it cuts out some seriously tedious work. In unreal engine it's as simple as changing your light sources from static to dynamic and enabling the various ray tracing options and then it just works. You get to see what you will see in game in real time in the editor. No making lightmaps for every single model, no long ass light/shadow baking times, no placing reflection captures all over the map to try and fake reflections. On top of that it looks a lot better. It will in the long run massively speed up development times.

For now devs will still have to use both methods until it transitions completely. There is a not a single game dev out there who is not excited by these cards. That's good news for gamers because this will be heavily adopted and become the norm in a few years.

30% ? Most of the hardware outlets are suggesting max of 20% and as low as 10% add in the performance hit from RT and the cost and you can understand the annoyance from some.

If the performance hit is as expected then the cards are no faster than what we currently have in raw non RT gaming performance but your paying for the new tech and little or anything more.

Im no expert im purely relaying what im reading from the usual outlets from guys in the know and know a lot more than i do.

Waiting for the benchmarks with keen interest.

I don't know. Based on the core count increase and speeds it should be around 30%

There should be no performance hit from RT. That's the point of the RT core. It's up to the devs to optimise their scenes to not exceed it's limitations.

Really the games where you want maximum visual quality you won't mind taking a small fps hit anyway. You're not going to be enabling all of this stuff in some high fps multi player shooter.

ginger_hammer

It's a lot more interesting than the usual speed bumps. Will take a while for games to be released fully utilizing rays but it's about time a new technology was released to the masses.

ginger_hammer wrote: »

It's a lot more interesting than the usual speed bumps. Will take a while for games to be released fully utilizing rays but it's about time a new technology was released to the masses.

Well that is a fair pint, its of more interest for sure.
Plus for non multiplayer shooters that require massive fps to really enjoy it will be very interesting, still doubt ill buy into it though.

The ray tracing core is getting all the hype. There is also the tensor core which can do a lot of grunt work.

It can be used for advanced ai in games as well as advanced AA methods while taking that load off of the main gpu core.

It's really up to the devs how they use this. All these specialist cores when used properly should give big improvements in lots of areas.

keffiyeh wrote: »

God in heaven the cringe, I think I just cracked a molar...

Consoles are also not €2500 ...

... they're also the lead platforms with PC waiting months for ports which then come lumped with denuvo...

... let's keep the small man syndrome talk to a minimum shall we. Every platform has its pros and cons...

... and let's not even try for the 'it's a joke bruh' angle considering your sincere yet misguided breakdown as to why you feel this way.

It was just a joke I'm sure. The guy likes PC's as do most of us here. Hence the forum. Also PC has many exclusives and consoles wait for many months for ports from PC. There's entire genres missing from consoles that PC has many games for like RTS/Moba, MMO, Simulation and the entire indie scene + modding.

It doesn't take a €2500 PC to beat a consoles graphical quality/performance either. A €600 one will do that just fine.

Consoles are what they are. Great plug and play relatively cheap entry points with some great exclusives. There's no reason why you can't have both.

Vicxas

I seen theres no prices for the 2070 yet, i'm assuming they're coming at a later date?

Spear

Vicxas wrote: »

I seen theres no prices for the 2070 yet, i'm assuming they're coming at a later date?

Not till November.

Venom

BloodBath wrote: »

The ray tracing core is getting all the hype. There is also the tensor core which can do a lot of grunt work.

It can be used for advanced ai in games as well as advanced AA methods while taking that load off of the main gpu core.

It's really up to the devs how they use this. All these specialist cores when used properly should give big improvements in lots of areas.

The ray tracing stuff looks interesting in theory but it will live or die by its real world performance. The various game demo's used to show the tech in action, looked very stuttery and while the overall effect looked impressive with each scene broke down, I do have to wonder if it's something players will really notice in fast-paced games.

There is also the fact that dev teams may not spend the time or effort implementing this tech due to how small a percentage of the customer base will even be able to take advantage of this tech, seeing it won't available to the console market and even on PC the RTX cards will make up a very small portion of users.

https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

Venom wrote: »

The ray tracing stuff looks interesting in theory but it will live or die by its real world performance. The various game demo's used to show the tech in action, looked very stuttery and while the overall effect looked impressive with each scene broke down, I do have to wonder if it's something players will really notice in fast-paced games.

There is also the fact that dev teams may not spend the time or effort implementing this tech due to how small a percentage of the customer base will even be able to take advantage of this tech, seeing it won't available to the console market and even on PC the RTX cards will make up a very small portion of users.

https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

If that were the consensus then innovation would be dead. I remember Crysis 1, that ran like a dog on even good hardware. VR was meant to push hardware forward, but the general lack of uptake of that has not been what the industry hopped for. When you have battlefield support RTX and Unreal engine (vulcan is coming soon I hear) then I think that uptake is pretty good. Battlefield is second biggest AAA title out there.

Inquitus

Long live my R9 290X! When will there ever be a replacement that's a performance improvement at a decent price! Maybe a second hand 1080 late this year!

Venom

Genevieve Disgusting Self-improvement wrote: »

If that were the consensus then innovation would be dead. I remember Crysis 1, that ran like a dog on even good hardware. VR was meant to push hardware forward, but the general lack of uptake of that has not been what the industry hopped for. When you have battlefield support RTX and Unreal engine (vulcan is coming soon I hear) then I think that uptake is pretty good. Battlefield is second biggest AAA title out there.

Innovations that people want or that will make a noticeable improvement in their lives will and have always thrived in the marketplace. You only have to look at the likes of the Walkman, MP3 players, DVD and smartphones to name just a few, to see how fast consumers will adopt new tech and duds like smartwatches and 3D TV's just fade away.

VR has yet to really take off as it stills lacks killer games that make people want to invest in the cost. This new raytracing tech looks cool but to me its an expensive sidegrade over what's always most important in a GPU, pushing lots and lots of frames per second around my screen at high refresh rates.

I wouldn't put much faith in the upcoming Battlefront pushing anything seeing how badly it's doing in pre-orders right now and the complete mess it's made with its fanbase.