Battlefield 5 - New Update will improve RayTracing Performance by up to 50% says Nvidia

[TacoSenpai]

2 minutes ago, ThePD said:

Whether people like it or not, Ray Tracing is the future of computer graphics. Yes there was a significant tax for getting that feature with this GPU launch... but it has to be done at some point. The hardware always comes before the software.

Its like anything else when new tech comes out its usually inefficient and expensive but if there is a market for it it gets cheaper and better over time.  Would I recommend the current RTX cards to average or new builders probably not but that doesn't mean next gen and the gens after that it won't be good. 

 

To be fair though unless AMD steps up in the GPU department things could stagnate or get prohibitively expensive with Nvidia being the only guy in town. 

[ThePD]

Just now, LordOTaco said:

Its like anything else when new tech comes out its usually inefficient and expensive but if there is a market for it it gets cheaper and better over time.  Would I recommend the current RTX cards to average or new builders probably not but that doesn't mean next gen and the gens after that it won't be good. 

 

To be fair though unless AMD steps up in the GPU department things could stagnate or get prohibitively expensive with Nvidia being the only guy in town. 

I have faith in AMD, I feel they will come back to the GPU market with something competitive. Lisa Su has been less focused on the Radeon division as it is less of a money maker for AMD.

I believe her reasoning was that Ryzen was generating AMD significant cash flow and investors started to flood the company with investment money. After she was comfortable with how Zen was doing in the market she was going to shift more resources to reworking the Radeon division.

[TacoSenpai]

2 minutes ago, ThePD said:

I have faith in AMD, I feel they will come back to the GPU market with something competitive. Lisa Su has been less focused on the Radeon division as it is less of a money maker for AMD.

I believe her reasoning was that Ryzen was generating AMD significant cash flow and investors started to flood the company with investment money. After she was comfortable with how Zen was doing in the market she was going to shift more resources to reworking the Radeon division.

I hope for consumers sake that you're right lol.  Didn't they lose their top GPU executive/engineer to Intel though?

[ThePD]

2 minutes ago, LordOTaco said:

I hope for consumers sake that you're right lol.  Didn't they lose their top GPU executive/engineer to Intel though?

Raja yes. But during his time at Radeon he really liked to do rebranding.

[TacoSenpai]

3 minutes ago, ThePD said:

Raja yes. But during his time at Radeon he really liked to do not much other than rebranding.

I mean all things considered from what I've heard the RX580 series which is mid-high mid range cards were actually quite good.  They just need to get on their game on (pun not intended) when it comes to the higher end (GTX 1070/1080 caliber).

[ThePD]

Just now, LordOTaco said:

I mean all things considered from what I've heard the RX580 series which is mid-high mid range cards were actually quite good.  They just need to get on their game when it comes to the higher end (GTX 1070/1080 caliber).

For the value they are decent for sure. Given the amount of years they have had time to mature. If we get a nice 2060-2080 competitor for AMD that is priced below Nvidia (shouldn't be hard) then I see the RTX 2000 series sales going down the drain. The other problem is AMD needs a halo product like threadripper in the GPU division. Everyone talks about the 1080ti/2080ti but less than 1% of gamers use those cards. Just like people love talking about threadripper, AMD needs some GPU that is just pure power. 

[3 Lions]

38 minutes ago, IWannaBeUniqueMom said:

Define "too little"

Not getting enough investment for the development of the technology, you don't need to be a mathematician to know this. It's pretty clear with RTX that the money just wasn't there to develop the technology or else if there was RTX would perform way better when ray-tracing is enabled. 

 

Simple as that really...

[jasonvp]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

Yes, I  enjoy paying 1200+ for a rushed product that isn't meeting the performance to justify said price tag.  I'm just a h8er.

Either a hater or ignorant in thinking that it's going to work perfectly right out of the door when massive internal infrastructure changes would be needed to the software.  Which is it?

[D13H4RD]

Guys, it's up to 50%.

 

That "up to" needs to be taken into consideration 

[jasonvp]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Or, just not kissing a company's ass with blind faith and getting ripped off.

See now you're just digging, and that's fine.  You've lost your footing in the debate and can't do anything but make lame personal attacks.

 

If your 1080 is serving you well, then by all means keep it an enjoy it!  A 1080 can't do what I want from a GPU, which is why I upgraded to the Turing cards.

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 hour ago, firelighter487 said:

50%? with a software update? 

When new technology comes out, the first cut is often just to prove the theory works. The subsequent cuts are to refine on the theory to make it run better.

 

And sometimes you can do things like this.

 

17 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

No, I'm using logic here. I've seen the failing 2080 Tis, I have yet to see performance justifications for the price tag, and so on.

Logic based on your personal tastes and opinions. Ideal price/performance is not a science.

[jasonvp]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

1)  The failure rate was not an opinion or taste.

And it was also blown way out of proportion.  That's already been proven multiple times by multiple sources.  It sucks for those that had problems, but it wasn't the epidemic that the Internet (meaning: Reddit) made it out to be.

 

Quote

2) Not a lot of games support it at the moment, and the ones that do have not so great performance with it at the moment.  One game getting an increase doesn't' justify the price tag.

 

Emphasis added by me.  It doesn't justify it to you.  That's not logic, it's just opinion.  And that's perfectly OK.

 

By the way, for higher resolution games, the 2080Ti curb-stomps the Pascal-series cards in just about every manner when it comes to rasterized graphics.  They simply operate faster and throw more cores at the problem.  That increase in performance, along with the new tech never seen before on a consumer-level device does come at a cost premium.  I'm not arguing that point in the least.  But to say that the cards don't perform is just incorrect.

 

[Mira Yurizaki]

7 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

1)  The failure rate was not an opinion or taste.  2) Not a lot of games support it at the moment, and the ones that do have not so great performance with it at the moment.  One game getting an increase doesn't' justify the price tag.

1) The failures were limited to the first production run and from what I seem to gather, the FE cards. It's also unlikely the failure rate is really that high

2) It's still a substantial upgrade over my current video card even without the RTX features

 

And again, these are all subject to opinion. Things fail all the time, your threshold of buying it still depends on your beliefs and opinion. And one game using the feature may be enough for someone to buy it. For example, lots of people buy consoles for one game and hope whatever comes along is fun. You can call them stupid, but that's still your opinion.

 

So again, logic based on your beliefs and opinions, not actual hard science.

 

EDIT: You're entitled to your opinion based on facts. But those opinions just that.

[D13H4RD]

8 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Without the RTX on you probably could have gotten a Pascal card and saved money.  I didn't say the second one was "hard science"  I said the first one was.

Well, there's always that option if price:performance is what you're primarily after. 

[illegalwater]

12 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

2)  Without the RTX on you probably could have gotten a Pascal card and saved money.

That's not an option anymore for those that want the fastest card on the market.

[Kibelok]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

But, you'd be paying 550+ more for 10-20 frames.  I guess some people enjoy doing that, but I don't.

You're also getting a newer card instead of a 2 year old one. 
You're also getting longer warranty and driver updates.
You're also getting new tecnology. 

Yes it's expensive but you get what you pay for. Nvidia is not scamming you.

[jasonvp]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

I saw more than reddit complaining about it.  GN, LTT, and quit a few others too.
 

Most of it was parroted right from Reddit.  The retail return and support numbers just didn't justify the "scare" that was created out of it.  At this point in time it has a similar return/failure rate as any other GPU.  Again: it sucks if it happens to you.  No question!

 

Quote

It does not "curb stomp" it at higher resolutions.  It's just the only one that can keep closer to 60 at 4k.  140 would be a curb stomp, so please stop exaggerating.  The 1080ti can keep up to within 10-20 frames of the 2080 Ti at 4k

Are you speaking from direct experience on the matter?  I actually am.  I was gaming with a pair of Titan X Pascals in SLI since they were launched over 2 years ago.  I can tell you for a fact that they worked their asses off to hold 4K/140 in games like BFV and Siege.  In fact they couldn't even maintain 140 reliably in BFV.

 

The 2080Ti GPUs in SLI?  Nearly easy-mode in Siege.  BFV does work them a bit more, but they're mostly sleeping.  Meaning there's a lot of room to push them.

 

Seriously.  Curb-stompage.  It's real.  These are fantastic cards.

[Kibelok]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

We're talking about with the new tech/rtx stuff off, though.  10-20 frames at 4k+warranty+driver updates aren't worth 550+ imo.

Considering the fact that Nvidia has basically no competition? Yes It's totally worth it.

[illegalwater]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

We're talking about with the new tech/rtx stuff off, though.  10-20 frames at 4k+warranty+driver updates aren't worth 550+ imo.

And that's your opinion. But anyone that values maximum performance more than price:performance is going to strongly disagree.

[bcredeur97]

inb4 50% performance improvement with 50% of the effects removed from the game

 

haha. jokes aside, I do like raytracing its really cool. I'll give it a few years tho. still early

[illegalwater]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

Um, I was watching Gamer Nexus, and Tech Jesus personally inspected the cards.  I don't see how that is parroting.  

I was watching benchmarks on youtube at 4k between the 2080, 2080 Ti, 1080, and 1080 Ti.  I didn't see a curb stomp I saw mostly 10-20 frame differences at ultras.  Now, I will be fair and state that it is possible that the RTX was being held back due to early drivers.  I would just like to see an update performance at 4k with a 2080 Ti pushing 140 frames at ultras in extremely demanding games without RTX on.

10-20 FPS is a huge gain at 4K Ultra settings.

[D13H4RD]

Just now, System32.exe said:

And that's your opinion. But anyone that values maximum performance more than price:performance is going to strongly disagree.

And that's the thing. 

 

There are people out there who have deep pockets and want the single fastest graphics processor out there. 

 

It's not the best value (I still think RTX pricing is a bit of a troll), but value probably isn't the prime concern for those people, especially since someone like Jason can apparently afford at least two of them. 

[CarlBar]

2 hours ago, LinusTechTipsFanFromDarlo said:

The problem isn't with drivers I'm afraid, it's the hardware. I've just said this on another thread and I'll say it again, it's like Nvidia wanted RTX to be technically advanced in terms of being able to run ray-tracing but spent way too little on the development of it. 

 

And you know this how? Oh right you don't.

 

2 hours ago, ThePD said:

If this is true this is rather exciting news.

 

Whilst teh 50% may very well be overblown DICE did release some info on where the issues where with the first pass implementation and basically large parts of the GPU where sitting there doing nothing a large percentage of the time. So a 50% overall improvement is definitely possibble. And it should be noted till NVIDIA updates their drivers to remove a specific lockout there's still room for more beyond this.

 

1 hour ago, Quantom said:

Here's some info I gleaned from an interviews with some DICE devs. I'll dig up the link.

As someone who does a lot of work with GPUs. NVIDIA does a great job of supporting their technology with well written drivers CUDA, any of the GPU acceleration libraries.

 

Basically, DICE had implemented BF5's raytracing passes with NVIDIA's lower level libraries, and from what I heard they're able to push the same FPS with RTX. However, in order to release this to a wide platform and integration with DX12, they had to use DX12's version of NVIDIA's RTX implementation. Essentially, they're waiting on MSFT devs to update DX12 backend. I was able to get my hand on an nvidia debug profile while running RTX in BF5 and it's clear that the "RTX" cores are severely underutilized.

 

Interesting. Is DICE's denoising algorithm running on the Tensor cores or not, (i.e are they being used), as i couldn;t find hard info on this...

 

55 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

No, I'm using logic here. I've seen the failing 2080 Tis, I have yet to see performance justifications for the price tag, and so on.  When there are more games that can actually make the cards useful, and they stop with the rushed bs then maybe I would see a point to turing.  I'm just not going to put blind faith into any company then get ripped off.  I prefer price to performance rather than investing with blind faith.  It wasn't a dig at you it was at Nvidia who clearly rushed this line.

 

If i want top end performance the 20 series are my only option, and guess what, release day UK pricing was such that they were better than the pascal cards in value per performance terms. In the Uk we got nothing but ++'s out o RTX.

[illegalwater]

8 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

That's subjective and still not worth 550+ to me.

???

We're talking about math at that point, it's absolutely not subjective that a 10-20 FPS gain is huge at 4K.

 

Whether or not it's worth is is the only subjective part.

[D13H4RD]

6 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

So a 50% overall improvement is definitely possibble. 

It's not a 50% overall improvement. 

 

It's an improvement of up to 50%

 

Quite a difference there, because it means the gains will vary depending on various conditions, and 50% is the absolute best result depending on the condition. 

 

An improvement is still an improvement. Just don't expect too much.