Why are people hating on RT

[Smackaroy]

recently I have seem more and more comments hating on RT calling it a gimmick. I don't get it RT has enabled near photo realistic lighting. This could just be a coincidence but this seems to have mostly come from when people relized rx6000 loses in RT, are people just getting extra fanboyey 

[svmlegacy]

RT will be a gimmick, just like PhysX, until it sees mainstream game adoption.

[Jurrunio]

people just dont like the fact that we're going backwards in terms of frame rates and resolutions when we spend more on graphics cards each year just to run RT. Same happened before, when Nvidia made tesellation (via Gameworks) overused in so many games.

[The_russian]

5 minutes ago, Smackaroy said:

This could just be a coincidence but this seems to have mostly come from when people relized rx6000 loses in RT, are people just getting extra fanboyey 

It's probably a combination of that, it being a new thing and people not liking change, people not actually knowing what it is, and Nvidia's crappy launch of the RTX series. 

[dilpickle]

In some games ray tracing makes no visible difference but puts a massive hit on fps.

[Xaring]

It is a gimmick. Sure, its cool and all, but the performance loss for both AMD and NVIDIA is just too expensive. 
If i need to play a game competively, I'm not gonna use RT on any of the platforms and most of the RT implementations on games is just... Not awesome. Sure, the shadows are a little bit more realistic or whatever - If I'm gonna be playing a game where I care about it (lets say, maybe Cyberpunk when it releases?), I'll have to find a balance between visual fidelity, quality and framerate.
Give it 5+ years, when all of the GPUs can push 144hz+ in RT and the implementation of the technology is better (I think one of the best is Star Citizen's volumetric fog, which can't be done in real time without heavy use of Raytracing). 
Until then, it'll be a gimmick.

 

The only "legit" use in my opinion is in professional workloads, same as CUDA.

 

Edit: And I bought a RX 6800 KNOWING RT was a gimmick. I didn't self-convince. The 16GB VRAM and higher performance is a greater selling point than Nvidias propietary technologies for me, as I'm not gonna be using them and I much rather have the extra rasterization performance.

[.Apex.]

8 minutes ago, svmlegacy said:

RT will be a gimmick, just like PhysX, until it sees mainstream game adoption.

It did gain mainstream adoption though, with both AMD and the new consoles having support for it, what other mainstream gaming platforms out there other than Nintendo that doesn't have it?

 

I think people don't understand that this technology is still in its infancy and its potential is not even fully realized, it will take time before a full transformation to happen until all games and every aspect of lightning is Ray Traced with no option for rasterization methods, but it will happen eventually, it also allows developers to focus on other aspects of the game rather than having to work on lighting with baking lights and such.

[Heliian]

Meh, don't get an rt card then. 

 

I like the versatility of the cards and the lighting effects can be a real step up when designed for it.  Cp2077 might look pretty good, we'll see.  

 

 

[Blademaster91]

RT in games is mostly a gimmick, it isn't worth it in most games as it just makes a few things more shiny, or adds some more realistic shadows. Until developers can agree on a standard, not just Nvidia's proprietary RTX vs AMD RT using DXR, I don't see the feature being used enough to have mainstream adoption.

it isn't worth the performance impact to me in games, I care more about better performance in games and game quality more than the RT effects. I also don't like how it has caused the price of graphics cards to increase, while also having to pay more for a feature I won't have a use for.

[.Apex.]

The fact you don't see much change between Ray Tracing and traditional Rasterization is because the latter method has been perfected and meticulously worked on, but it does require a lot of work to achieve that and the lighting isn't dynamic, Ray Tracing makes that process much simpler, it might be slower to run now but it will keep getting better, and once GPUs with Ray Tracing are standard among the common population then rasterization isn't required anymore.

 

It really is more of a Developer feature rather than a Customer feature, you likely won't notice much change when the industry fully switches to it, though the main advantage is that it is dynamic which makes the world feel more realistic, though people likely won't care much and that's understandable, but it is happening regardless imo.

[VeganJoy]

2 hours ago, .Apex. said:

The fact you don't see much change between Ray Tracing and traditional Rasterization is because the latter method has been perfected and meticulously worked on, but it does require a lot of work to achieve that and the lighting isn't dynamic, Ray Tracing makes that process much simpler, it might be slower to run now but it will keep getting better, and once GPUs with Ray Tracing are standard among the common population then rasterization isn't required anymore.

 

It really is more of a Developer feature rather than a Customer feature, you likely won't notice much change when the industry fully switches to it, though the main advantage is that it is dynamic which makes the world feel more realistic, though people likely won't care much and that's understandable, but it is happening regardless imo.

it does seem to be a bit of a crutch at the moment, i feel like in games that have rtx effects, the devs dont put as much effort into the rasterized visuals so turning rtx on looks particularly better, but if you compare current rtx implementations to good rasterization implementations, rasterization looks pretty damn good and runs twice as fast. some effects just arent feasible with rasterization like @gabrielcarvfer said. as for the realism part, raytraced effects help but npc/character model quality and game physics in general hurt so much more. like in wd legion, aside from the laughably terrible optimization, it actually looks pretty decent scene-wise. but the npcs running around break any sort of immersion with how they look in comparison, lol.

 

i may wait to see how cyberpunk handles rtx before buying a new card. also, interested in seeing how amd's rtx hardware performs in upcoming releases that will presumably be optimized for consoles/rdna 2. might just get a 2080ti and call it a day, i dunno. it's a weird time for gpus right now  

[geo3]

It's a gimmick because it utterly destroys performance.  When they can figure out how to do it with only sub 10% performance hit then it will be viable. 

[SkilledRebuilds]

Its OPTIONAL anyway guys...

Always has been, people are upset over having more finer control. You can disable it or enable it.

As Humans you have the right to use your brain and disable or enable it. Tweak and Tune, or not do so...

 

The lighting is genuinely nice, reflections (done well) are nice in campaign titles.

The shadows are not my priority, I disable those.

Its USER choice.

Want Frames, Disable that you do not want to use.

 

Is it your brain telling you its no longer MAXED out when RTX disabled..that bothers you?

Treat THAT as your Ultra then right?

[BTGbullseye]

5 hours ago, Smackaroy said:

rx6000 loses in RT

Only in existing games, which have either no optimizations at all, or are only optimized for RTX. In the upcoming Dirt 5, it has AMD optimizations for raytracing, making even the 6800 non-XT outperform the 3090 in raytracing. Look to see more of that in the future since AMD has a console raytracing monopoly.

[SAVE-12-HK]

who watches the mirrors , watter paddles while gaming?

 

old game shadows are fine, most player dont care and lower / disable shadows

[shaz2sxy]

RT is not a gimmick, it is new in gaming so will take tie to adapt. Its always like this with any new tech coming into gaming.  

 

especially now the PC in a box i mean consoles are advertising RT as a selling point game developers will use it more.

 

[Action_Johnson]

Ray tracing today is like pixel shaders on the GeForce 3 Ti. Remember that? How great was pixel shading on the GeForce 3? 

It was fucking awful.

 

Morrowind had a massive performance penalty to use it for strictly water effects.

 

 

In 15 years, RT will be where pixel shading is now. Just an expected function that will be past its current garish super-shine days, and it'll run super smooth on even the cheapest of cards.  

[Reytime]

It's a gimmick until properly implemented and less of a hit to performance.

 

I could care less about the ray tracing in Watch Dogs Legion tbh.

[Smackaroy]

 so what I understand is that people thinks it's a gimmick because of the performance loss as jurrunio pointed out. Personally I thinks it's not a gimmick because in a game like spider man where the city is  reflected in the building really looks amazing, but i can understand people not thinking it's enough of an improvement for the loss of fps

[Smackaroy]

3 hours ago, BTGbullseye said:

Only in existing games, which have either no optimizations at all, or are only optimized for RTX. In the upcoming Dirt 5, it has AMD optimizations for raytracing, making even the 6800 non-XT outperform the 3090 in raytracing. Look to see more of that in the future since AMD has a console raytracing monopoly.

Quess we will find out but I do expect nvidia to pull ahead because of the extra generation of implementing it

[Smackaroy]

9 hours ago, Xaring said:

It is a gimmick. Sure, its cool and all, but the performance loss for both AMD and NVIDIA is just too expensive. 
If i need to play a game competively, I'm not gonna use RT on any of the platforms and most of the RT implementations on games is just... Not awesome. Sure, the shadows are a little bit more realistic or whatever - If I'm gonna be playing a game where I care about it (lets say, maybe Cyberpunk when it releases?), I'll have to find a balance between visual fidelity, quality and framerate.
Give it 5+ years, when all of the GPUs can push 144hz+ in RT and the implementation of the technology is better (I think one of the best is Star Citizen's volumetric fog, which can't be done in real time without heavy use of Raytracing). 
Until then, it'll be a gimmick.

 

The only "legit" use in my opinion is in professional workloads, same as CUDA.

 

Edit: And I bought a RX 6800 KNOWING RT was a gimmick. I didn't self-convince. The 16GB VRAM and higher performance is a greater selling point than Nvidias propietary technologies for me, as I'm not gonna be using them and I much rather have the extra rasterization performance.

It doesn't have extra performance it trades blows in 4k with the 3080 slightly pulling ahead where as in 1440p the 6800xt pulls slightly ahead.  Oh you got the non xt and are comparing it to the 3070 nevermind 

Edited November 20, 2020 by Smackaroy
not reading his message correctly

[PriitM]

10 hours ago, Smackaroy said:

recently I have seem more and more comments hating on RT calling it a gimmick. I don't get it RT has enabled near photo realistic lighting. This could just be a coincidence but this seems to have mostly come from when people relized rx6000 loses in RT, are people just getting extra fanboyey 

Real reason why RT is still a "gimmick" is that its still in development. You have Nvidias RT cores and API, you have AMDs baked in RT chunks in the CUs and API. And then you have Microsoft Direct X RT. RT needs standardization for wide adoption, otherwise you will always see a one sided battle: either Nvidia or AMD trading punches. That way game devs wont be bothered to put extra work in optimizing for BOTH APIs but have to choose one. And the un-supported hardware wont work as well. So, if you want RT to get out of its "gimmick" status, you have to hope for a unified standard. And that can come from either Nvidias design of dedicated RT cores or AMDs baked in chunks with highs peed interconnect. I predict there will be a symbiotic middle ground, with dedicated RT/generic compute cores and high speed interconnect for scalability. Or Nvidia will make their own dedicated "gaming" architecture without any specific "cores" for productivity. As AMD did with CGNA and RDNA. 

 

Until then...only time will tell what approach will pan out

[xAcid9]

Simply because the performance drop is horrible and what it give in return is barely noticeable in some cases. 

[ewitte]

ray tracing doesn't always make sense but it does *more often* with DLSS.

[SFFDesigns]

6 hours ago, BTGbullseye said:

it has AMD optimizations for raytracing, making even the 6800 non-XT outperform the 3090 in raytracing

Yeah no. Nvidia simply has much more raytracing horsepower. That'll never happen unless Nvidia cards are intentionally gimped in a certain game.

 

From what I've seen, AMD only does decently okay in certain titles with "lighter" raytracing implementations