Battlefield V with DXR on tested from Techspot(Hardware Unboxed)

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

If that's the case than to me that sounds like intentional gimping of that GPU so that the next generation has an easy fix, more power OR smaller node (first easy, second in the works) or a combination of both.

Why would it be intentional?  The whole AI side of the card might just use less power in total and already be pushing as hard as it can, or it might be more sensitive to heat and have to be kept at a lower power level to prevent errors.

1 minute ago, PhantomHawk11 said:

It doesn't really matter if it's hard to render or not, when paying that much for a GPU people expect more than ~50 frames, and no amount of special shadows is going to change that. The fact is it's an exciting new development, but it hasn't been refined enough

That would indicate an error with expectation and lack of understanding of the product more than the inherent challenges of the problem it is solving.

[Tristerin]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Why would it be intentional?  The whole AI side of the card might just use less power in total and already be pushing as hard as it can, or it might be more sensitive to heat and have to be kept at a lower power level to prevent errors.

That would indicate an error with expectation and lack of understanding of the product more than the inherent challenges of the problem it is solving.

Because if it did everything and its mother on initial release you would not need to upgrade for quite some time which is not in line with profit margin growth...this is a Corporation we are talking about.

 

Beyond that, its because we need to pay for the research leading up to the next next generation that's already in development while they release Turing, a small margin of performance above its aged predecessor.  The RT cores and Tensor cores are doing their job no?  If the Turing is losing the power it needs to run for that to happen, well it leads me to believe this is intentional - there are plenty of high TPD GPUs in existence so this wouldn't be a first

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

Because if it did everything and its mother on initial release you would not need to upgrade for quite some time which is not in line with profit margin growth...this is a Corporation we are talking about.

 

Beyond that, its because we need to pay for the research leading up to the next next generation that's already in development while they release Turing, a small margin of performance above its aged predecessor.  The RT cores and Tensor cores are doing their job no?  If the Turing is losing the power it needs to run for that to happen, well it leads me to believe this is intentional - there are plenty of high TPD GPUs in existence so this wouldn't be a first

So, no actual technical reason just accusations of sandbagging?

[CarlBar]

5 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

Because if it did everything and its mother on initial release you would not need to upgrade for quite some time which is not in line with profit margin growth...this is a Corporation we are talking about.

 

Beyond that, its because we need to pay for the research leading up to the next next generation that's already in development while they release Turing, a small margin of performance above its aged predecessor.  The RT cores and Tensor cores are doing their job no?  If the Turing is losing the power it needs to run for that to happen, well it leads me to believe this is intentional - there are plenty of high TPD GPUs in existence so this wouldn't be a first

 

Or you know it's drawing less power because it's doping less work. Remember the traditional rasterization side is only running at about 40% of what it was previously. I'm still digging for the video i watched alas.

[CarlBar]

 

Yoink, 9:30 if the link fails.

[Tristerin]

16 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So, no actual technical reason just accusations of sandbagging?

This is a Corporation - whose at the top - so of course accusations of sandbagging lol.  The same one giving you 2 2070 chips.  They are doing this for money not fun.

9 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

Yoink, 9:30 if the link fails.

There is a HUGE delta between what I understand and how it actually works so Ill have to take smarter peoples words as truth - if it doesn't need that power, because it cant render the frame because its waiting on RT and Tensor cores (correct me if I am wrong, Im just a newb) to be able to do that is the reason for its power consumption (CUDA cores mentioned in the video) to go down that makes sense.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Tristerin said:

This is a Corporation - whose at the top - so of course accusations of sandbagging lol.  The same one giving you 2 2070 chips.  They are doing this for money not fun.

 

If being a corporation that does things for money and not for fun is the only metric you need, then we don't have to concern ourselves with facts, because we can just jump to any conclusion regarding their motive and ignore the fact we don't even know why the condition exists.  And that is before we even establish if the condition does exist. 

 

 

[jasonc_01]

RTX on these cards is snake oil marketing to justify a big premium for 20 series cards.

 

Is it impressive? Yes without a doubt, that can't be argued.

 

However they marketed on ray tracing, and your best case scenario is around 60ish FPS...at 1080p. which is amazing until you put it in context with pricing and product tier.

 

Buy an RTX 2080ti for $1199.99+ to be able to ray trace at the lowest setting at 1080p. 

 

I don't get it, and i am the target market for the 2080ti. Why would I spend $1199.99 on a graphics card and run @ 1080p60fps ish? 

 

 

[79wjd]

4 minutes ago, jasonc_01 said:

RTX on these cards is snake oil marketing to justify a big premium for 20 series cards.

 

Is it impressive? Yes without a doubt, that can't be argued.

 

However they marketed on ray tracing, and your best case scenario is around 60ish FPS...at 1080p. which is amazing until you put it in context with pricing and product tier.

 

Buy an RTX 2080ti for $1199.99+ to be able to ray trace at the lowest setting at 1080p. 

 

I don't get it, and i am the target market for the 2080ti. Why would I spend $1199.99 on a graphics card and run @ 1080p60fps ish? 

 

 

Why pay $700 to play at 144hz 4k ultra with no RT rather than paying $300 and play at low settings to the same effect. 

 

Ray tracing is just as much a reason as resolution or texture quality. Just because YOU see things differently doesn't change reality.

[CarlBar]

15 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

This is a Corporation - whose at the top - so of course accusations of sandbagging lol.  The same one giving you 2 2070 chips.  They are doing this for money not fun.

There is a HUGE delta between what I understand and how it actually works so Ill have to take smarter peoples words as truth - if it doesn't need that power, because it cant render the frame because its waiting on RT and Tensor cores (correct me if I am wrong, Im just a newb) to be able to do that is the reason for its power consumption (CUDA cores mentioned in the video) to go down that makes sense.

 

Modern microarchitectures turn off stuff when it's not in use, so if it's done rendering the rasterization part the entire rasterization part can literally power off for however many clock cycles it takes for the ray tracing to do it's thing.

[samcool55]

Well, those results are not great, what's even the point of having it on the 2070 when it can't reach 1080p60 with RTX set to low...

Like, yea G-sync could help but still, that's not a good result.

[Tenelia]

After looking at the video closely, I've to say that it's not a major difference compared to physics and textures. I was looking at the scene with the big pond and a tree branch falling smack onto it. Expected a more realistic rendering and physics reaction, but nothing happened.

[jasonc_01]

4 hours ago, 79wjd said:

Why pay $700 to play at 144hz 4k ultra with no RT rather than paying $300 and play at low settings to the same effect. 

 

Ray tracing is just as much a reason as resolution or texture quality. Just because YOU see things differently doesn't change reality.

I just think its counter intuitive. A Halo product for the high end market with the key feature DXR needing to be run at the mid to low end range resolution on the lowest DXR setting to hit 60fps.

 

It just doesn't make sense. Especially when you bring the 2080 and 2070 into the equation. Whats the point of RTX features on the 2080 and 2070 when the 2080ti is around 60fps on DXR low? Are we talking around 45fps and 30fps respectively DXR low at 1080p? We are one generation away from an 80ti hitting 1080p60 DXR ultra and two away from 1440p60fps DXR ultra. 

 

Ray tracing is great, its the future. RTX today though is just marketing to justify the price increase.  

[Curufinwe_wins]

31 minutes ago, jasonc_01 said:

I just think its counter intuitive. A Halo product for the high end market with the key feature DXR needing to be run at the mid to low end range resolution on the lowest DXR setting to hit 60fps.

 

It just doesn't make sense. Especially when you bring the 2080 and 2070 into the equation. Whats the point of RTX features on the 2080 and 2070 when the 2080ti is around 60fps on DXR low? Are we talking around 45fps and 30fps respectively DXR low at 1080p? We are one generation away from an 80ti hitting 1080p60 DXR ultra and two away from 1440p60fps DXR ultra. 

 

Ray tracing is great, its the future. RTX today though is just marketing to justify the price increase.  

RTX probably is yes. But you need hardware to drive interest in developers to drive interest in consumers and hardware etc etc. Its really hard getting that stuff off the ground.

 

On the plus side, the ideas and performance improvements behind DLSS should be a pretty big deal once games support it.

[D13H4RD]

That's.....actually not that bad. 

 

I wouldn't ever enable it for multiplayer because I need the FPS but for single player games, it's actually somewhat playable. 

[RejZoR]

Oh god, this looks absolutely horrible. And I'm not even going to touch ray tracing. People running through puddles of shiny water, tree parts falling into puddles of water. And what happens? NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. No ripples, no splashes, no water movement. I've seen more dynamic water in freaking Unreal based games from 1999... How someone at EA signed as ready to go out to gamers. HOW!? I'm more bothered by how static water is than fancy reflections which frankly look perfectly fine even if entirely faked. At least water there is dynamic, reflections are still realistic enough to fool you when action is happening and performance was superb with old rasterization. As predicted before, RTX is a gimmick and it will remain this way until we're actually ray tracing entire games. See you then. Now get us back the fast rasterizing graphic cards, thank you very much.

[Salv8 (sam)]

RTX looks to be nvidia's next Physx

not really a good idea now, maybe in the future when the tech has improved to allow ray tracing to be done in a quarter of the time then real time...

i bet nvidia may revert to the old GTX branding because of the problems and controversy that it's had since it's announcement

not to mention that users who bought it had to wait untill their OS and games supported it, which took a couple of months, then just when it was ready. Microsoft pulled the update due to issues.. those who didn't get it had to wait another month, even though their game supported it, they couldn't use it....

to be fair thats more Microsoft fault, but they could of released a downloadable patch that allowed this without having to upgrade windows. but they didn't...

[79wjd]

9 hours ago, jasonc_01 said:

I just think its counter intuitive. A Halo product for the high end market with the key feature DXR needing to be run at the mid to low end range resolution on the lowest DXR setting to hit 60fps.

 

It just doesn't make sense. Especially when you bring the 2080 and 2070 into the equation. Whats the point of RTX features on the 2080 and 2070 when the 2080ti is around 60fps on DXR low? Are we talking around 45fps and 30fps respectively DXR low at 1080p? We are one generation away from an 80ti hitting 1080p60 DXR ultra and two away from 1440p60fps DXR ultra. 

 

Ray tracing is great, its the future. RTX today though is just marketing to justify the price increase.  

It doesn't make sense if you view resolution as being the only important factor. That's an opinion; that's not a universal truth. Some people favor resolution, others favor texture quality, and others only care about frame rate. That doesn't make any of them wrong. Ray tracing is no different.

[RejZoR]

I have 3 out of 4 things with my setup.

 

+ great details because I can run anything at Ultra

+ high framerate

+ high refresh rate

- resolution

 

Frankly, resolution really isn't an issue, because slamming anything with even crappy FXAA and image is smooth enough at 1080p that individual pixels aren't an issue. If game gives me SMAA, then even better. And frankly, real-time reflections are so convincing in modern rasterized games that I really don't see any point in ray tracing until it's ready to be used full scale at high framerates. This now is great for a tech demo under ideal conditions, but not really usable. Maybe in a slow paced horror game where action is slow and lighting and shadows plays more important role.

 

Eventually I'll be running 4K monitor, but that'll probably happen like 5 years in the future if not further, when 4K becomes as mainstream as 1080p is right now.

[Taf the Ghost]

https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/rx-vega-owners-thread-tests-mods-bios-tweaks.416287/page-48#post-5607107

 

Quote

BF V MS RTX first look (Todays patch)
I need to dig into Rotterdam Map  (Multi w/RTX is very unstable)

RayTrace Enabled & Working on Vega at 1440p 70FPS (RTX at High preset, screens from Campaign Mission 1)
I can Play the Game NP.

In BFV Directory in MyDocuments -> PROFSAVE_profile
GstRender.Dx12Enabled 1
GstRender.DxREnabled 1
GstRender.RaytraceReflectionQuality 2

Note:
Im not sure if this is IT -> But with those settings game is looking a little better on reflections.

Can see the link for the pictures posted. The Ray Tracing in BFV is a DX12 feature, not explicitly a RTX function, and it's really an Async Compute calculation. Not sure if it's actually working, but this might get really interesting if AMD hardware is working as well.

[RejZoR]

14 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/rx-vega-owners-thread-tests-mods-bios-tweaks.416287/page-48#post-5607107

 

Can see the link for the pictures posted. The Ray Tracing in BFV is a DX12 feature, not explicitly a RTX function, and it's really an Async Compute calculation. Not sure if it's actually working, but this might get really interesting if AMD hardware is working as well.

Would be hilarious if Vega 64 ends up being faster at it hehe

[Taf the Ghost]

13 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Would be hilarious if Vega 64 ends up being faster at it hehe

It actually wouldn't surprise me. Any tech that's based on either DX12 or Vulkan tends to favor AMD's GPUs due to being designed around them more. AMD was significantly involved in all of the low-level API work. Hybrid Rendering Ray Tracing is an Asynchronous Computation.  Given the very early, unoptimized state that RT Core utilization is in, AMD's much more mature Async Compute driver handling and, at least it seemed to me, some sort of bottleneck with the Denoiser on the RTX cards, it is entirely possible that the BFV ray tracing, if working roughly the same, works better on RX Vega cards at the moment.

 

Now, that isn't to say it is and it definitely needs to be tested, but we saw games get upwards of 20% performance improvements on Ryzen from some very minor patches just because of the nature of the way the cores were handled was adjusted. Weird things happen.

[williamcll]

apparently you can force Ray tracing on any GPU by editing the .ini files even when using a vega gpu.

 

I wonder how the performance hold up.

[PhantomHawk11]

23 hours ago, mr moose said:

That would indicate an error with expectation and lack of understanding of the product more than the inherent challenges of the problem it is solving.

People expected a sizable increase in performance, if not from ray tracing (since it is so hard in real time) then from normal rendering. What they got was RTX 2080 performance being similar to 1080ti performance for the same price, and the RTX 2080ti being so expensive that it's not viable for the majority of consumers.

[S w a t s o n]

I must admit, based on the digital foundry video DICE did, where they explained it was built on the old titan v and not even using RT cores and already running up to 60 FPS I was expecting much better.