Intel confirms that its discrete Xe GPUs will release in 2020

[Unixsystem]

3 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

It's more fascinating how now everyone that was pushing against Raytracing are backtracking and saying that it was always "NVidia's RTX is just a gimmick that'll die out! Everyone else doing RayTracingmis right! Don't look at my reply history!"

I think there was always a pretty clear divide. Anyone who follows tech and the industry knows that RT has been the holy grail of graphics for decades. The problem is that modern AAA games have gotten really, really good at faking realistic lighting to look great while minimizing performance hit.

 

So you've got one group who looks at the RTX launch and goes "it looks exactly the same, Ray tracing is stupid". Then you've got another group that looks at it and goes "that's super technologically impressive, but it seems really rushed, too expensive, there's not enough game support, etc." 

 

And then you've got Tom's Hardware who just want you to buy the product and ask no questions, sheep. 

 

Honestly, I think that the biggest problem in retrospect was that the intital launch presentation was super cringey and showed barely anything to really justify the first gen of RTX. If they could have delayed another 3-6 months they could have come out the gate with several games at launch and a whole bunch more in the wings, and made a much better case for why RT is a net positive in the long run, and not just a gimmick. 

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, Waffles13 said:

So you've got one group who looks at the RTX launch and goes "it looks exactly the same, Ray tracing is stupid". Then you've got another group that looks at it and goes "that's super technologically impressive, but it seems really rushed, too expensive, there's not enough game support, etc." 

 

The first group vastly outweighs the second.

[mr moose]

On 10/11/2019 at 9:43 PM, RejZoR said:

Because proprietary shit is good mkay? Coz PhysX worked out so well right? Or anything NVIDIA has churned out as proprietary junk. Right? Yeah, Ray tracing that only works on RTX is bad. Ray tracing that works on any DXR capable graphic card is good.

What titles currently only work on RTX and are there any future titles listed as only being supported by RTX?  Because I think you have confused DXR with RTX as you did in our last discussion on this.

 

11 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Is it proprietary? AFAIK anyone can program for it /implement it. AMD/intel or Nvidia.

DX is proprietary, but it is proprietary in the same way USB is excepot there are no fees or licensing dues for DX (as far as I know).

 

[Unixsystem]

2 hours ago, Drak3 said:

The first group vastly outweighs the second.

The uninformed, casual group always outweighs the knowledgeable group. I think the backtracking you were talking about was just that casual group who only knew about RTX because of the RTX On memes completely losing interest. That, and the fact that we have started to slowly see more and more actual games supporting RT (along with official confirmation from the console makers), so it's become apparent that it's not just something that Nvidia is pushing while they waited for 7nm to become viable, and it may in fact be approaching real feasibility. 

 

I personally still think they pushed it too soon, but at the end of the day my 1080ti still works just fine so I can wait another gen or two and by the time I upgrade I get to reap the benefits without the early adopter tax. 

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, Waffles13 said:

Hopefully, once AMD and Intel have RT cards on the market, you can plug one in and load up BF or Tomb Raider and it'll Just Work™, with maybe a handful of RTX optimized effects missing. 

They won't, there isn't near enough standardization of the RT hardware for that to work like there is with Shader Cores. Any games out now won't get support without a game update to enable it which would be quite an effort to do so so I doubt it'll happen.

 

That's why I said there will be a few generations of dual stack support while that standardization happens, or at least a minimum of all the tools having inbuilt support for both so it's more a matter of enabling DXR then general optimization for each vendor as is standard for Shader/Rasterization.

 

This is why being second to market is such a problem, you don't get to dictate how things get done. Nobody was forced to use RTX it was just the only option there was, many choose to just not use it as well. 

[mr moose]

28 minutes ago, leadeater said:

This is why being second to market is such a problem, you don't get to dictate how things get done. Nobody was forced to use RTX it was just the only option there was, many choose to just not use it as well. 

 

Except for situations like memory stick, they had other issues though.

[Kisai]

On 10/10/2019 at 8:34 PM, DrMacintosh said:

The hardest thing for the Intel Graphics devision is going to be drivers. I don't think Intel will have trouble getting OEMs to come on board and use their chips, it's the consumers that Intel has to worry about. 

Intel has dropped the ball on Graphics so many times (Remember i740? Remember Larabee?), and the end result has always been something too weak, too little, too late. I'm almost certain that any dedicated GPU they put out would be met with "meh" and completely disregarded as a gaming part.

 

Now on the other hand, the entire FireGL/Quadro competition is a bit more interesting. These parts, by any definition are super-overpriced, and if Intel is aiming for any market, it would be the one that makes the most money. Imagine for a minute that OEM's could sell a Laptop workstation without the POS Intel "iGPU" part and just sell it with a scalable Intel GPU that has the performance of a Quadro P3000 out of the box. Or in a server that can switch "GPU" cores on and turn off CPU cores to stay within a TDP depending on needs. So maybe a quadcore with Quadro P6000 tier is appropriate for one scenario and then a 24 core CPU with a Quadro P1000 level performance is appropriate for another.

 

I don't really think it's possible to put more than a P1000 level performance into a CPU, but this is also the "minimum suitable" tier for business laptops, with AutoCAD still recommending a P3000 tier chip for all products.

[TechyBen]

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

What titles currently only work on RTX and are there any future titles listed as only being supported by RTX?  Because I think you have confused DXR with RTX as you did in our last discussion on this.

 

DX is proprietary, but it is proprietary in the same way USB is excepot there are no fees or licensing dues for DX (as far as I know).

 

Not the titles. The featureset. I mentioned Hairworks. So not fanboyism. I mentioned it's a common thing (PhysX + G-Sync) vs other options (Havok + Freesync).

Intel don't often do it. Sometimes are first to market or only providers (Thunderbolt IIRC was only theirs, but 4k DRM was just first to market).

 

Why lock the users/customers out of software that's universal (math), to hardware only your brand has? As a user, I don't support it, as it'd be stupid buying an AMD card for the AMD locked out features (hairworks) and a Nvidia card for their (PhysX) and now an Intel card (if they invent something just for them).

 

If RTX is a break from Nvidia's trend (G-sync, PhysX etc Oh, just remembered, also 3D stereoscopic mode!  ), then that's refreshing. If it's not, then I hope Intel don't follow suit.

[TechyBen]

8 hours ago, leadeater said:

They won't, there isn't near enough standardization of the RT hardware for that to work like there is with Shader Cores. Any games out now won't get support without a game update to enable it which would be quite an effort to do so so I doubt it'll happen.

 

That's why I said there will be a few generations of dual stack support while that standardization happens, or at least a minimum of all the tools having inbuilt support for both so it's more a matter of enabling DXR then general optimization for each vendor as is standard for Shader/Rasterization.

 

This is why being second to market is such a problem, you don't get to dictate how things get done. Nobody was forced to use RTX it was just the only option there was, many choose to just not use it as well. 

DX12 already has Raytracing support right? So is RTX proprietary, and is BF 5/TR locked down to Nvidia only cards for ray tracing?

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Not the titles. The featureset. I mentioned Hairworks. So not fanboyism. I mentioned it's a common thing (PhysX + G-Sync) vs other options (Havok + Freesync).

Intel don't often do it. Sometimes are first to market or only providers (Thunderbolt IIRC was only theirs, but 4k DRM was just first to market).

 

Why lock the users/customers out of software that's universal (math), to hardware only your brand has? As a user, I don't support it, as it'd be stupid buying an AMD card for the AMD locked out features (hairworks) and a Nvidia card for their (PhysX) and now an Intel card (if they invent something just for them).

 

If RTX is a break from Nvidias trend (G-sync, PhysX etc), then that's refreshing. If it's not, then I hope Intel don't follow suit.

I don't know what you are responding to,  only the last part of my post was directed at you (regarding the proprietary nature of DX). 

 

The other part is about games being DXR compliant as opposed to RTX specific.   There is literally nothing I can see that says when AMD enable RT that all the current titles wont work with them or that the games will be somehow intentionally gimped if running on AMD hardware.  

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

DX12 already has Raytracing support right? So is RTX proprietary, and is BF 5/TR locked down to Nvidia only cards for ray tracing?

RTX is proprietary, but it being proprietary does not change or effect DXR.    BF5 is not locked to nvidia. In fact Dice aren't even using gameworks for RT, it is completely DXR and thus GPU brand agnostic.

 

 

[leadeater]

22 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

DX12 already has Raytracing support right? So is RTX proprietary, and is BF 5/TR locked down to Nvidia only cards for ray tracing?

No DX12 did not have Ray Tracking support, DXR was added after the fact by Microsoft working with Nvidia, AMD and Intel to create an extension to DX12 to allow it to be a thing.

 

BF5 and TR only support Nvidia RTX because it's literally the only thing on the market that supports it. I mean are you ignoring the other news topic about AMD adding DXR support to Navi drivers soon? AMD drivers don't support DXR so was impossible for BF5 and TR to have supported it (without software emulation layer).

 

It's not locked, it's literally the only option.

[leadeater]

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

RTX is proprietary, but it being proprietary does not change or effect DXR.    BF5 is not locked to nvidia. In fact Dice aren't even using gameworks for RT, it is completely DXR and thus GPU brand agnostic.

Even then I doubt it's a simple process of enabling DXR for Navi once the drivers allow/support it. BF5 still uses the RT cores but doesn't use the RTX Tensor core denoiser technology.

[RejZoR]

28 minutes ago, leadeater said:

No DX12 did not have Ray Tracking support, DXR was added after the fact by Microsoft working with Nvidia, AMD and Intel to create an extension to DX12 to allow it to be a thing.

 

BF5 and TR only support Nvidia RTX because it's literally the only thing on the market that supports it. I mean are you ignoring the other news topic about AMD adding DXR support to Navi drivers soon? AMD drivers don't support DXR so was impossible for BF5 and TR to have supported it (without software emulation layer).

 

It's not locked, it's literally the only option.

No, BF5 uses straight DXR. The reason other graphic cards don't run any of it is because they are too slow since they have no dedicated RT logic. It's literally disabled on purpose (RX Vega supported DXR for a short time and then got disabled in driver). For Navi, there was no real info, only speculations about RT capability. AMD did say they won't go full on with it. At first only for basic things like shadows and reflections, then something more and later through cloud compute. Though I'm not buying any of that crap. Cloud cannot ever work with things like this. You need fast local rendering.

 

What I've always questioned it is whether games that brag with RTX now will use effects on other DXR capable cards when they come out. BF5 will work for sure since it's DXR. No one managed to confirm it for games that say RTX tho.

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

No, BF5 uses straight DXR

By Nvidia RTX I mean the products, yea don't blame me for Nvidia naming GPU products, a technology stack and a development framework all the same thing. Nvidia 

[TechyBen]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

No DX12 did not have Ray Tracking support, DXR was added after the fact by Microsoft working with Nvidia, AMD and Intel to create an extension to DX12 to allow it to be a thing.

 

BF5 and TR only support Nvidia RTX because it's literally the only thing on the market that supports it. I mean are you ignoring the other news topic about AMD adding DXR support to Navi drivers soon? AMD drivers don't support DXR so was impossible for BF5 and TR to have supported it (without software emulation layer).

 

It's not locked, it's literally the only option.

"Did not have" is not "does not have"? If Nvidia was first to market, that's different than being proprietary (PhysX). Oh, I just remembered, Cuda too (vs OpenCL), right? Those kind of limits get annoying. Because I'd then have to buy an Nvidia for my Cuda only software and PhysX only games, and an AMD for my Hairworks games and my... well, what else does AMD do?

 

Competition is great. But if Intel also does this...  If they all use open raytracing apis etc, then it might be great for users!

 

Quote

BF5 and TR only support Nvidia RTX because it's literally the only thing on the market that supports it.

AAAnnnndddd... is RTX an open API call that AMD can plug into? AFAIK Freesync is not locked to only AMD cards... This is what people don't seem to be getting. Is RTX closing down the competition, or just being first? AFAIK Freesync don't stop anyone else from adding support (hint, Nvidia did for a while!!!).

 

AH! Rexonor has just said it IS DXR, so it's not proprietary in BF5? That's better then. AS said, Nvidia's past actions have clouded this a lot.

 

As for Intel, its really really hard to call. I hope they do well.

 

[leadeater]

3 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

AAAnnnndddd... is RTX an open API call that AMD can plug into?

Don't need to, DXR. RTX != DXR. RTX doesn't effect DXR in any way. RTX is to DXR as is ROCm is to OpenCL. RTX is just an implementation of DXR with a brand name.

 

RTX has zero effect on AMD. What has an effect on AMD is having NO DXR support.

[TechyBen]

Just now, leadeater said:

Don't need to, DXR. RTX != DXR. RTX doesn't effect DXR in any way. RTX is to DXR as is ROCm is to OpenCL. RTX is just an implementation of DXR with a brand name.

 

RTX has zero effect on AMD. What has an effect on AMD is having NO DXR support.

Yeah, Reznor put it better. Sorry.

Intel was partially restrictive on Optane, I hope they don't do the same for their GPU!

 

There is a reason I don't by games consoles. To avoid this hassle!

[Crowbar]

On 10/11/2019 at 2:33 AM, mr moose said:

Whats wrong with directx?

A lot. I'd go into more detail but you'd fly into a rant about standards and how everyone should bow down to microshaft for gracing the human race with such a feature despite all it's flaws.

 

The more important question is: what's wrong with Vulkan?

 

Completely open and therefore utilized and compatible across the board. Even unoptimized games run better on it but adoption is slow because microshaft...

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, Crowbar said:

A lot. I'd go into more detail but you'd fly into a rant about standards and how everyone should bow down to microshaft for gracing the human race with such a feature despite all it's flaws.

 

The more important question is: what's wrong with Vulkan?

 

Completely open and therefore utilized and compatible across the board. Even unoptimized games run better on it but adoption is slow because microshaft...

I'll ignore the trolling,  there is nothing wrong with vulcan, or openGL or any of the other options out there.  Just pointing out there is nothing intrinsically wrong with DX in this topic.

[mr moose]

11 hours ago, leadeater said:

Even then I doubt it's a simple process of enabling DXR for Navi once the drivers allow/support it. BF5 still uses the RT cores but doesn't use the RTX Tensor core denoiser technology.

Why?

[leadeater]

15 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Why?

Typically you'll need to do a lot of optimization and QA testing and unless the developer is willing to do that it won't get done, large post release efforts is quite an ask unless the game model itself is built around long term support and development i.e Fortnite.

 

More cost effective to do it in the next release of the game.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Typically you'll need to do a lot of optimization and QA testing and unless the developer is willing to do that it won't get done, large post release efforts is quite an ask unless the game model itself is built around long term support and development i.e Fortnite.

 

More cost effective to do it in the next release of the game.

Historically AMD have had great post game release optimization for their drivers.  For me it was one of the points that made richard huddies childish rants so hard to swallow, that he kept blaming nvidia for lining the pockets of game devs to gimp AMD then two weeks later an update would come out and everything is in spec again.

 

 

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Historically AMD have had great post game release optimization for their drivers.  For me it was one of the points that made richard huddies childish rants so hard to swallow, that he kept blaming nvidia for lining the pockets of game devs to gimp AMD then two weeks later an update would come out and everything is in spec again.

Not really saying it's an AMD issue or driver problem, it's just like most things not just a process of going "driver supports it now so game setting is available". So basically unless AMD approaches the development studio to get it added in a patch to the game it's more likely going to be available in a future game where the implementation is less of a direct cost with no return. AMD RT support in BF5 won't really boost sales anymore. 

[mr moose]

Just now, leadeater said:

Not really saying it's an AMD issue or driver problem, it's just like most things not just a process of going "driver supports it now so game setting is available". So basically unless AMD approaches the development studio to get it added in a patch to the game it's more likely going to be available in a future game where the implementation is less of a direct cost with no return. AMD RT support in BF5 won't really boost sales anymore. 

Be that as it may it raises two very important points:

 

1. it hasn't happened yet with RT so people shouldn't be claiming it is.

2. if that does happen then we should find out why first as It may have nothing to do with RTX.