Crytek reveals real time raytracing that works with both Nvidia and AMD hardware.

[poochyena]

I'm kinda worried about ray tracing. All the demos I have seen have made everything look like freshly polished chrome. Its over done/exaggerated. I feel like future games are going to look like this to show off their "new ray tracing technology"

[Mira Yurizaki]

2 minutes ago, poochyena said:

I'm kinda worried about ray tracing. All the demos I have seen have made everything look like freshly polished chrome. Its over done/exaggerated. I feel like future games are going to look like this to show off their "new ray tracing technology"

It's just the easiest way to show it off. 

 

I'd argue Metro Exodus is one of the better ways to use it. But it's like 144hz, until you actually see it and compare it against 60Hz, you'll never know what you're missing. And then when you find out what you're missing, you get annoyed by not having it.

[poochyena]

8 minutes ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

It's just the easiest way to show it off. 

 

I'd argue Metro Exodus is one of the better ways to use it. But it's like 144hz, until you actually see it and compare it against 60Hz, you'll never know what you're missing. And then when you find out what you're missing, you get annoyed by not having it.

I'm not saying its bad, i'm sure ray tracing is great, i'm just worried that at first its going to be way over done.

[Mira Yurizaki]

10 minutes ago, poochyena said:

I'm not saying its bad, i'm sure ray tracing is great, i'm just worried that at first its going to be way over done.

I get your sentiment, like how bloom was overdone in the mid 2000s. But I'd like to think with everyone going towards physically based shading that the mindset had changed from "what looks good to some artist" to "what it actually should look like"

[Skanky Sylveon]

9 hours ago, laminutederire said:

Your example is irrelevant for comparison.

My example's purpose was to show the difference between a small amount of light bounces between a large amount of light bounces on an otherwise identical render.  I even stated that Blender was using a different technique all together. 

So no, it's not irrelevant. 

8 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

 

And with Async Compute, there is no reason to assume that AMD is not able to implement it, especially since they already talked about it and that in theory all more modern cards can be enabled for Raytracing (My guess would be Polaris and VEGA, but also Tahiti is posible as well, though with higher performance impact).

Nvidia themselves stated that their GTX lineup can use the same raytracing techniques that their RTX lineup is capable of,  just that the lack of Tensor cores means that the framerate would tank (well, tank more then the RTX cards do) if it was enabled.  With that knowledge in mind, I can't see why AMD wouldn't be capable of the same thing.

7 hours ago, colonel_mortis said:

You're welcome to post the video - it's just posting your own videos that isn't allowed, and even then it's not as strict as "never except in status updates".

Oh, ok.  I wasn't super sure so I decided to be safe, I will update the topic to include the video. 

6 hours ago, VegetableStu said:

if it's already committed to cryengine's next release it'll probably be out by the next game that uses it ._.

The question is, how long until a commercial game includes it?

4 hours ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

Because at some point if you're going to spend as much effort to cheat on the effect as it does to do the effect itself, you may as well do the effect.

Having actual hardware may allow for more impressive rtrt effects down the line as well.

 

[TeaDrinkingMaximus]

I think AMD or ATi depending how old this is was trying this before? ATi also did tessellation a long time before it was a thing.

 

[Mira Yurizaki]

I found a ray marching demo at http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=66748

 

What it shows reflection wise keeps me wanting to think Crytek did ray marching as their algorithm. Though the demo doesn't have mirror-like reflections and two-bounces may not be there, but it feels like it has similar quality to it.

[laminutederire]

1 hour ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

My example's purpose was to show the difference between a small amount of light bounces between a large amount of light bounces on an otherwise identical render.  I even stated that Blender was using a different technique all together. 

So no, it's not irrelevant. 

Nvidia themselves stated that their GTX lineup can use the same raytracing techniques that their RTX lineup is capable of,  just that the lack of Tensor cores means that the framerate would tank (well, tank more then the RTX cards do) if it was enabled.  With that knowledge in mind, I can't see why AMD wouldn't be capable of the same thing.

Oh, ok.  I wasn't super sure so I decided to be safe, I will update the topic to include the video. 

The question is, how long until a commercial game includes it?

Having actual hardware may allow for more impressive rtrt effects down the line as well.

 

My point was bounce number for reflections is not much of a performance impact and explained why.

[cj09beira]

9 hours ago, BuckGup said:

Wouldn't it have been so much cheaper for NVIDIA to spend the R&D developing software over hardware? There have also been ASICs that have done real time ray tracing a couples years before the 2000 series were even announced. Well that's NVIDIA for you. They simply brute force everything. Need a new GPU? Shrink Maxwell and brute force clock speeds and sell it as new called Pascal. Need to sell GDDR5X? OC some GDDR5 and call it good. 

gddr5x is not oced GDDR5, its name should be GQDR5 because its actually quad data rate instead of the normal double data rate

[BuckGup]

13 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

gddr5x is not oced GDDR5, its name should be GQDR5 because its actually quad data rate instead of the normal double data rate

Interesting, you can still OC GDDR5 to match the speed of GDDR5X though

[CarlBar]

28 minutes ago, BuckGup said:

Interesting, you can still OC GDDR5 to match the speed of GDDR5X though

 

You got proof of that as that sounds pretty unlikely given you'd have to double the clock speed.

[AntonChigurh]

7 hours ago, poochyena said:

I'm kinda worried about ray tracing. All the demos I have seen have made everything look like freshly polished chrome. Its over done/exaggerated. I feel like future games are going to look like this to show off their "new ray tracing technology"

LET'S ALL LAUGH AT AN INDUSTRY THAT NEVER LEARNS ANYTHING TEE HEE HEE

[Stefan Payne]

34 minutes ago, BuckGup said:

Interesting, you can still OC GDDR5 to match the speed of GDDR5X though

 Its not about OC; its about what is available.

And there you only have max 2GHz GDDR5 and faster GDDR5X...

[BuckGup]

38 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

 Its not about OC; its about what is available.

And there you only have max 2GHz GDDR5 and faster GDDR5X...

What do you mean max 2Ghz?

[BuckGup]

51 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

You got proof of that as that sounds pretty unlikely given you'd have to double the clock speed.

Yeah it's the effective clock speed. So if it says 5600Mhz it's 11.2Ghz

[Beskamir]

20 hours ago, The Benjamins said:

I feel sad for people that paid extra for this tech, lol

This "tech" has been around for years, (as an example here's two made in vulkan using compute or fragment shaders: https://github.com/mwalczyk/flow https://github.com/SaschaWillems/Vulkan ), what's new and why I'm more than happy to "pay extra" is hardware accelerated ray tracing.

 

Meaning I as a developer don't have to worry about ray-triangle intersections since that's basically done by the hardware and all I need to do is tell it where the ray is being sent from, and what happens when it hits or misses something. Since this is done with dedicated hardware it's obviously faster than if it was done using regular compute/fragment shaders. Now with that said it's awesome that Crytek made a compute or fragment shader implementation to be used in games and it's something that should exist on an API level in DX12 or Vulkan. Where if your gpu doesn't support rtx it defaults to using default compute shaders so that the dev can basically write ray hit/miss shaders just like when rtx is supported without having to make that entire pipeline themselves. Knowing Vulkan that's probably too much to ask and at best they might make it slightly easier to make that pipeline yourself.

[CarlBar]

1 hour ago, BuckGup said:

Yeah it's the effective clock speed. So if it says 5600Mhz it's 11.2Ghz

 

That dosen't answer my question. Source please.

[AntonChigurh]

57 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

That dosen't answer my question. Source please.

a GALAX 1070 HOF runs at 8000mhz and it's GDDR5. With some tweaking you could probably push it further. A MSI 1080 armor OC runs at ~10,000mhz and it's GDDR5X. For sure it's not viable for your average joe to OC their card's memory to match GDDR5X but it definitely can be done.

 

http://www.galax.com/en/graphics-card/hof/galax-geforcer-gtx-1070-hof.html

[CarlBar]

1 hour ago, HingaDingaDurgen said:

a GALAX 1070 HOF runs at 8000mhz and it's GDDR5. With some tweaking you could probably push it further. A MSI 1080 armor OC runs at ~10,000mhz and it's GDDR5X. For sure it's not viable for your average joe to OC their card's memory to match GDDR5X but it definitely can be done.

 

http://www.galax.com/en/graphics-card/hof/galax-geforcer-gtx-1070-hof.html

 

An >2Ghz difference in transfer speed translates to over a 1000mhz base clock rise. I'd be amazed if you could do that on ambient cooling, (it's also an >25% clock speed uptick). Certainly i think someone with a full custom cooling solution (likely chilled water or sub zero), but thats a long way from a consumer releasable card example.

[Mira Yurizaki]

6 hours ago, BuckGup said:

Interesting, you can still OC GDDR5 to match the speed of GDDR5X though

The only way to do that against a GDDR5X chip running in 16n prefetch mode is to double the base clock speed. Or dumb the GDDR5X down to 8n prefetch mode. At which point, that's not really saying much.

[leadeater]

6 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

 Its not about OC; its about what is available.

And there you only have max 2GHz GDDR5 and faster GDDR5X...

 

5 hours ago, BuckGup said:

What do you mean max 2Ghz?

 

5 hours ago, BuckGup said:

Yeah it's the effective clock speed. So if it says 5600Mhz it's 11.2Ghz

 

You would have to use the best GDDR5 possible and the worst GDDR5X to get close, though you kind of have to consider both can be memory over clocked so isn't it basically moot? The GPU only needs as much bandwidth as it needs, more won't do anything so if cheaper high end GDDR5 can do it then why not. You could even go for a wider bus using more memory chips and surpass a narrower GDDR5X implementation even with better clocked chips, it's all about balance.

 

No matter how you cut it it's a losing battle for GDDR5 bandwidth wise, easily:

https://wccftech.com/jedec-publishes-gddr5x-specification-double-bandwidth/

[laminutederire]

12 hours ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

I found a ray marching demo at http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=66748

 

What it shows reflection wise keeps me wanting to think Crytek did ray marching as their algorithm. Though the demo doesn't have mirror-like reflections and two-bounces may not be there, but it feels like it has similar quality to it.

They certainly have not implemented ray marching. First of all because it's still a rather expensive technique in the path tracing world, but mostly and secondly because Ray marching is a technique only made to render volumetric effects. It is called marching, because they sample events on the ray moving through the fog/whatever other volumetric data, so it is like you do marching along said Ray, hence the name.

[colonel_mortis]

3 hours ago, laminutederire said:

They certainly have not implemented ray marching. First of all because it's still a rather expensive technique in the path tracing world, but mostly and secondly because Ray marching is a technique only made to render volumetric effects. It is called marching, because they sample events on the ray moving through the fog/whatever other volumetric data, so it is like you do marching along said Ray, hence the name.

You can use ray marching as an alternative to ray tracing, especially when computing the intersection of a ray with an object is expensive. That's not usually the case for games, where the shapes are made up of triangles, but when using mathematical models of shapes it can make sense. When optimised with signed distance fields, you also get some other benefits, like cheap ambient occlusion and fuzzy shadows, which would require lots of rays when ray tracing.

I don't think ray marching was used here, but it's not only useful for volumetric effects.

[Mira Yurizaki]

5 hours ago, laminutederire said:

They certainly have not implemented ray marching. First of all because it's still a rather expensive technique in the path tracing world, but mostly and secondly because Ray marching is a technique only made to render volumetric effects. It is called marching, because they sample events on the ray moving through the fog/whatever other volumetric data, so it is like you do marching along said Ray, hence the name.

For one thing, the demo wasn't trying to do path tracing (path tracing is also its own thing from ray marching).

 

For another, I don't think it's as expensive to do as you think, since it's possible to do it on WebGL with good performance: https://github.com/nopjia/WebGL-RayMarch and https://reindernijhoff.net/2015/03/tokyo-breakdown-of-a-webgl-fragment-shader/. And it was used in Killzone: Shadow Fall for the reflection system.

 

You're free to tell me these aren't ray marching techniques, but you'd have to back it up with something, because everything else I've been scouring the web on says you can do reflections with ray marching.

[RejZoR]

Like I've said, I don't care if they fake the shit out of it, if it looks convincing enough in the end that even advanced users can't really differenciate it from "real" thing, then who cares? You don't need dedicated hardware and runs stupid fast apparently. That's enough for me. There will be time for "real" thing in the future. Hell, for most casual players, you'd have to specifically point out the flaws of screen space reflections and how they are off compared to actual objects in the world at certain angles. When you need to do that, you know it's convincing enough as it is.

 

Overwatch for example, despite age and cartoonish graphics, it does shadowing, lighting and even SSAO mindblowingly well. It's almost a shame it's such a fast paced game because you don't have any time to appreciate the visuals enough. But the engine is just amazing visually and on audio front which is again a shame because you don't have time to appreciate amazing environmental audio effects. Everything just looks so amazing, you only spot reflections are off because they are not aligning with actual world perfectly at all angles. Something which isn't the case with CryEngine.

 

Who wouldn't buy a Crysis bundle (Crysis 1, 2 and 3) again if they redesigned them with this new engine utilizing this real time ray tracing technique. I know my curious mind would want that. Not only to re-experience them because they were damn cool games, but also to experience them in different light. Literally. Games often feel entirely differently with all new engines even if they hardly change anything else.