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

[RejZoR]

@mr moose

 

Well, apparently yelling shit at you is the only way for you to somewhat get it. When something costs basically 400€ more than last gen by offering virtually nothing useful, I'd say that qualifies for stupid expensive for most rational people. But hey, whatever boats your float.

 

The fact mid range won't have RTX has already told me how well it'll do with adoption and how long it took them to finally get just 1 game which doens't even fully uses ray tracing capability. One game for which we had to wait months and only uses it for reflections is exactly that. I can't help you if you can't see that.

 

You also seem to really like shoving those DLSS numbers to make things more spectacular, an overglorified "Ai" upscaling resampling algorithm. If only people knew 99% of shit companies advertise as "Ai" are literally algorithms we've used for decades. Having few IF statements in the code doesn't make an "Ai"...

 

Insults? If you see yourself as stupid, then it's not really an insult anymore... I've said don't act like you're stupid because I'm assuming you aren't... When you buy an already riidiculously priced card and you're not sure if it's going to shoot flames out of its side, I'd say that's a freaking big deal.

 

I'm not projecting my opinions on anything. It's called observation and prediction. So far in 15+ years, I've only cocked up prediction for RX Vega. And even that was its performance speculations without actually having a silicon at hand. I do for RTX 2080Ti. Not to mention literally entire reviewing world complained over pricing and recommends GTX 1080Ti instead, but somehow I'M projecting. LOL

 

Again, "getting traction". ONE title. Other 8 still entirely unknown when they'll even arrive.

[mr moose]

Just now, RejZoR said:

@mr moose

 

Well, apparently yelling shit at you is the only way for you to somewhat get it. When something costs basically 400€ more than last gen by offering virtually nothing useful, I'd say that qualifies for stupid expensive for most rational people. But hey, whatever boats your float.

Again with the derision.  Is it possible for you to write post without thinking you are superior.  It really looks bad on you when you only supporting evidence it a personal opinion.

Just now, RejZoR said:

The fact mid range won't have RTX has already told me how well it'll do with adoption and how long it took them to finally get just 1 game which doens't even fully uses ray tracing capability. One game for which we had to wait months and only uses it for reflections is exactly that. I can't help you if you can't see that.

"Finally get just 1 game"?  The tech making it possible has only just been released and you use the term "finally" as if you have been waiting years for it.  That's golden.   Again you don't understand how long these things take if you think 1 game on release is a long time.

 

Just now, RejZoR said:

You also seem to really like shoving those DLSS numbers to make things more spectacular, an overglorified "Ai" upscaling resampling algorithm. If only people knew 99% of shit companies advertise as "Ai" are literally algorithms we've used for decades. Having few IF statements in the code doesn't make an "Ai"...

Not shoving DLSS numbers anywhere, just letting you know it has more support than you make it out to have.  Whether the tech is good or not cannot be concluded from ignoring the fact the game devs are working to incorporate it in there titles.

Just now, RejZoR said:

Insults? If you see yourself as stupid, then it's not really an insult anymore... I've said don't act like you're stupid because I'm assuming you aren't... When you buy an already riidiculously priced card and you're not sure if it's going to shoot flames out of its side, I'd say that's a freaking big deal.

You used the word stupid, you have used a lot of derisory terms to describe me and my comments.  Don't try to weasel out of that with more insults.

 

Just now, RejZoR said:

 

I'm not projecting my opinions on anything. It's called observation and prediction. So far in 15+ years, I've only cocked up prediction for RX Vega. And even that was its performance speculations without actually having a silicon at hand. I do for RTX 2080Ti. Not to mention literally entire reviewing world complained over pricing and recommends GTX 1080Ti instead, but somehow I'M projecting. LOL

Oh I see, it's called "prediction" now.  I call it having a crystal ball. And because your observations are majority just personal opinion alongside the fact you refuse to accept any of the obvious evidence I have posted and stick to "it only got 1 game" means that your understanding is what is the problem and yes you are projection when you claim adamantly that "it will take years" to be adopted.  It already is being adopted!

Just now, RejZoR said:

Again, "getting traction". ONE title. Other 8 still entirely unknown when they'll even arrive.

Are you intentionally ignoring everything else, you keep harping on that like it has some major meaning.  It doesn't in fact it has quite the opposite meaning you are trying to use it to exemplify, we ALREADY have one game within weeks of the hardware becoming available, and commitments for games devs on many more.  That has never happened to any other new GPU tech in the history of computing.   If it has I'd like to hear about it.

 

 

 

 

[Carclis]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

"Finally get just 1 game"?  The tech making it possible has only just been released and you use the term "finally" as if you have been waiting years for it.  That's golden.   Again you don't understand how long these things take if you think 1 game on release is a long time.

You have to admit that the "it just works" claim seems to be disconnected from reality when it comes to how easy it is to actually implement. If that really were the case then wouldn't Tomb Raider already have support by now as well? Wasn't the claim that ray tracing was up and running within a day using Nvidia's supplied code?

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Carclis said:

You have to admit that the "it just works" claim seems to be disconnected from reality when it comes to how easy it is to actually implement. If that really were the case then wouldn't Tomb Raider already have support by now as well? Wasn't the claim that ray tracing was up and running within a day using Nvidia's supplied code?

"It just works", and "it just works well" I believe are two terms only separated by marketing.   I am not saying this is a awesome performance for the end user, far from it.  But the reality is it is still a major achievement, and to claim it will take years to develop or adopt is to ignore what all the game devs and animators are saying about it.  Let alone make claims about its value while ignoring a major part of what it is.

 

 

[RejZoR]

Lol @mr moose , it's not that you don't understand something, you seem to refuse to understand. @Carclis for example gets it. You just don't. People just think that if you have ray tracing, everything just magically renders into existence with zero work. Guess what, it doesn't work that way. Through that and the fact how long it takes to implement any of it tells me (see, prediction!) it's not that easy. Reason for it being, even if ray tracing materializes lighting, shadows and reflection by itself, you need to define physical properties of materials, something which rasterization doesn't use in same form. Ray tracing engine needs to know what kind of properties materials have. Their reflectivity, refractivity, texture, all this affects how things are then sent to output. Otherwise ray tracing will just output everything at 100% reflectivity, making everything stupendously shiny and reflective regardless of material used. Source: I've worked with offline ray tracers for years. Even when tool was literally based around ray tracing as the only method of rendering things it took ages to fiddle with materials to make them look right in the end.

 

"Crystal ball" was when I was making predictions for RX Vega before it even came out and failed at prediction. For R9 390X I only missed the naming scheme. Prediction is when you actually have a functioning GPU in front of you and you see how it fares. That's not "crystal ball", that IS prediction, because I'm basing it on measurable parameters.

 

And DLSS isn't superior. I see you're gobbling up NVIDIA's PR material like mad. It's just an advanced upscaler. It makes alright results. But really, it makes image almost more blurry than FXAA. And we all know how people hate FXAA in general... They also missed the opportunity of making it a generic feature that would work with any game out of the box without special code. Because it could, but they've decided not to.

[mr moose]

13 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Lol @mr moose , it's not that you don't understand something, you seem to refuse to understand. @Carclis for example gets it. You just don't. People just think that if you have ray tracing, everything just magically renders into existence with zero work. Guess what, it doesn't work that way. Through that and the fact how long it takes to implement any of it tells me (see, prediction!) it's not that easy. Reason for it being, even if ray tracing materializes lighting, shadows and reflection by itself, you need to define physical properties of materials, something which rasterization doesn't use in same form. Ray tracing engine needs to know what kind of properties materials have. Their reflectivity, refractivity, texture, all this affects how things are then sent to output. Otherwise ray tracing will just output everything at 100% reflectivity, making everything stupendously shiny and reflective regardless of material used. Source: I've worked with offline ray tracers for years. Even when tool was literally based around ray tracing as the only method of rendering things it took ages to fiddle with materials to make them look right in the end.

 

"Crystal ball" was when I was making predictions for RX Vega before it even came out and failed at prediction. For R9 390X I only missed the naming scheme. Prediction is when you actually have a functioning GPU in front of you and you see how it fares. That's not "crystal ball", that IS prediction, because I'm basing it on measurable parameters.

 

And DLSS isn't superior. I see you're gobbling up NVIDIA's PR material like mad. It's just an advanced upscaler. It makes alright results. But really, it makes image almost more blurry than FXAA. And we all know how people hate FXAA in general... They also missed the opportunity of making it a generic feature that would work with any game out of the box without special code. Because it could, but they've decided not to.

You claim I don't get it but you haven't been able to counter any of my points.  You post a lot of irrelevant  stuff and make many derisory claims, but at the end of the day I have posted to several articles, 1 video and explained the difference between a personal preference and a universal truth.  You refuse to accept the basics of reality here.

 

Just repeating yourself and not actually addressing what I have said does not mean I don't understand, it means you are failing to provide a compelling argument.  It means that if you wish to claim RTX will take years to become a thing, then you need to explain why the current level of enthusiasm from game developers is not real and why they won't. Just claiming they won't is not good enough (in fact your opinions of why aren't good enough either, you need to link to a developer or industry member who has said something similar). It also means you need to show how only one game on launch means it is slow when the fact is that's the fastest any new GPU product has seen support.

 

So before you go on another rampage about time bombs and waiting years for anything, pleases evidence, link me to something, anything that makes your personal opinions more than just that.  I have linked to articles showing developers that are eager to make this a thing and do it soon. I have linked to a video of the head engineer for renderman saying how great it is to have this tech in the hands of their customers and how they are really enjoying it.  So far all you have said is "I feel" and "it's overpriced".  Two very unqualified arguments.

[RejZoR]

Counter what points you've made!? You didn't state bloody anything other than repeatedly mentioning crystal ball and number of promised games using ray tracing. Jesus. How many times I have to repeat all of its characteristics for you to get it? Physical measurable characteristics that I've stated several times already. Price and performance are both quantifiable because we know both of them. This isn't a prediction or discussion about unreleased product. We're talking about actual card.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Counter what points you've made!? You didn't state bloody anything other than repeatedly mentioning crystal ball and number of promised games using ray tracing.

Comprehension not your thing?

2 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Jesus. How many times I have to repeat all of its characteristics for you to get it?

If you repeat "all trucks are overpriced cars" a thousand times, no one is going to understand what you are trying to say.  Your just repeating a personal opinion and making absolute statements claiming it to be a universal truth.   Stop repeating your self and actually back up your claims.

 

2 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Physical measurable characteristics that I've stated several times already. Price and performance are both quantifiable because we know both of them. This isn't a prediction or discussion about unreleased product. We're talking about actual card.

Price and performance are quantifiable,  what you personally are willing to pay and why is not transferable to anyone else though.  That's where you are projecting.  You are ignoring that other people have different views and some of those people are game developers and animators.

 

[RejZoR]

You're a helpless case. If basing a verdict on quantifiable metrics isn't objective thinking, then I don't know what else to even say to you.

 

Wtf "all trucks are overpriced cars" even means? RTX 2080Ti is an overpriced truck even when you compare it to other trucks lol

[Carclis]

44 minutes ago, mr moose said:

If you repeat "all trucks are overpriced cars" a thousand times, no one is going to understand what you are trying to say.  Your just repeating a personal opinion and making absolute statements claiming it to be a universal truth.   Stop repeating your self and actually back up your claims.

It's hard to say with any reliability but I think GN had some excellent statistics to back up that claim. I suppose it's only limited to a very well informed community too but those who purchased GPU's were VERY heavily in favour of the Pascal cards. I'd consider the numbers significant enough to say that the market is currently rejecting the new products.

[Tech Enthusiast]

25 minutes ago, Carclis said:

It's hard to say with any reliability but I think GN had some excellent statistics to back up that claim. I suppose it's only limited to a very well informed community too but those who purchased GPU's were VERY heavily in favour of the Pascal cards. I'd consider the numbers significant enough to say that the market is currently rejecting the new products.

 

Keep in mind, that this sample size is basically US only. Which is about 1/25th of the world population, not like some US peeps claim "the majority".

He could not include germany for example (one of the bigger tech countries, almost on par with the US alone) since Amazon did not offer any RTX cards for preorder there.

 

And, to make this less of a number thing and more of a "money talks" thing:

In germany there is almost zero reason to favour any Pascal cards if you are buying something new. 

The 2080 is faster than 1080ti AND cheaper, plus the new features.

The 2070 is faster than 1080 AND cheaper, plus the new features.

 

All the fuss about 1080ti being cheaper is not true all around the world. It may be in some regeions, but it most definitely is not in germany.

All the 1080ti has over the 2080 is 3gb of memory. And while that is nice indeed, it does not make up for the performance and added features. 

Don't forget how bad Pascal is at DX12 and Vulkan. Turing fixed those issues. And both do win market share compared to DX11, so this is an added bonus as well.

 

Reviews hated on the price and unexpected low performance gains, but if you buy something new, you don't care if it is only slightly faster. If it is the same price, is slightly faster, slightly better at DX12 and Vulkan and has more features coming, why would you buy a 1080ti? Only those that think a game can actually use 11gb of vram at once would do that. And not even skyrim with all mods you can find will be able to use 11gb at once. It will however make the 11gb appear "full". And that is where most people miss the point: Full memory is not indentical to "it uses all that textures at once".

 

So bottom line:

That chart shows only one market and also shows how reviews skewed sales in favour of Pascal, even when there is no real reason (for most countries at least).

[daimonie]

8 minutes ago, Tech Enthusiast said:

 

Keep in mind, that this sample size is basically US only. Which is about 1/25th of the world population, not like some US peeps claim "the majority".

He could not include germany for example (one of the bigger tech countries, almost on par with the US alone) since Amazon did not offer any RTX cards for preorder there.

 

And, to make this less of a number thing and more of a "money talks" thing:

In germany there is almost zero reason to favour any Pascal cards if you are buying something new. 

The 2080 is faster than 1080ti AND cheaper, plus the new features.

The 2070 is faster than 1080 AND cheaper, plus the new features.

 

All the fuss about 1080ti being cheaper is not true all around the world. It may be in some regeions, but it most definitely is not in germany.

All the 1080ti has over the 2080 is 3gb of memory. And while that is nice indeed, it does not make up for the performance and added features. 

Don't forget how bad Pascal is at DX12 and Vulkan. Turing fixed those issues. And both do win market share compared to DX11, so this is an added bonus as well.

 

Reviews hated on the price and unexpected low performance gains, but if you buy something new, you don't care if it is only slightly faster. If it is the same price, is slightly faster, slightly better at DX12 and Vulkan and has more features coming, why would you buy a 1080ti? Only those that think a game can actually use 11gb of vram at once would do that. And not even skyrim with all mods you can find will be able to use 11gb at once. It will however make the 11gb appear "full". And that is where most people miss the point: Full memory is not indentical to "it uses all that textures at once".

 

So bottom line:

That chart shows only one market and also shows how reviews skewed sales in favour of Pascal, even when there is no real reason (for most countries at least).

Just to illustrate that difference, over in the Netherlands the prices (new) are now:

1080TI's (min and max, neglecting water cooled): 

GV-N108TAORUS11GD at eur. 742 

ROG-STRIX-GTX1080TI-11G-GAMING at eur. 1060

RTX 2080:
N20802-08D6-1180633 at eur. 749

ZT-T20800B-10P at 976

 

[RejZoR]

@Carclis

That's because GTX 1080Ti had abnormal performance to price ratio at costing around 200€ more than vanilla GTX 1080 while delivering around 45% more performance. That's huge difference for small premium. I can only recall such "abnormality" during Radeon HD4000 and HD5000 series that actually doubled the performance of last generation while costing about the same as last card on launch.

 

@daimonie

GTX 1080Ti prices are absurd right now because everyone was saying "take GTX 1080Ti instead of overpriced RTX2080". Since production has stopped or is limited, prices increased. When GTX 1080Ti was released, it was 800€ in top aftermarket designs (like Strix or AORUS) and their price dropped to around 600€ not long ago.

[daimonie]

12 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

@Carclis

That's because GTX 1080Ti had abnormal performance to price ratio at costing around 200€ more than vanilla GTX 1080 while delivering around 45% more performance. That's huge difference for small premium. I can only recall such "abnormality" during Radeon HD4000 and HD5000 series that actually doubled the performance of last generation while costing about the same as last card on launch.

 

@daimonie

GTX 1080Ti prices are absurd right now because everyone was saying "take GTX 1080Ti instead of overpriced RTX2080". Since production has stopped or is limited, prices increased. When GTX 1080Ti was released, it was 800€ in top aftermarket designs (like Strix or AORUS) and their price dropped to around 600€ not long ago.

Yes, I know. The Aorus waterforce WB went from 850 to 1300, and people are trying to resell for 850 now.

Point is, with a small price difference the 2080 is rather attractive. (The 2080Ti isn't as much to me. But I'm guessing NVidia plans to put something at 1k in the future..)

 

[Carclis]

5 hours ago, Tech Enthusiast said:

So bottom line:

That chart shows only one market and also shows how reviews skewed sales in favour of Pascal, even when there is no real reason (for most countries at least).

I did mention this. That said I think the US does make for a very significant portion of the high end market. I can also say that the same pricing was observed here in Australia. GTX 1080ti's were available for as little as $1000 with 2080 cards starting at $1200. From my own observations and and what I've heard from some sellers themselves, the 2070 and 2080 cards are pretty much impossible to move right now whilst the 2080ti is quite the opposite. Combine that with the fact that our stores are unable to purchase 2080ti stock unless it is accompanied by a large number of 2080 and 2070 cards and you've got yourself a problem. Given that the 2070 and 2080 are the only cards that aren't selling it's pretty obvious that at least those two markets have no interest in the new ray tracing and DLSS features. As a result there is only one 1080ti card left in stock with the Turing inventory looking like this.

Spoiler

 

4 hours ago, RejZoR said:

That's because GTX 1080Ti had abnormal performance to price ratio at costing around 200€ more than vanilla GTX 1080 while delivering around 45% more performance. That's huge difference for small premium. I can only recall such "abnormality" during Radeon HD4000 and HD5000 series that actually doubled the performance of last generation while costing about the same as last card on launch.

That may well be the case. Except even in the case of the 2070 it is being outsold by the 1080 at an almost 2:1 ratio, despite having the same performance/dollar here. My point is that people are not considering RT and DLSS performance in many cases. Only when the RTX actually become better priced than the Pascal cards are people buying them here.

[CarlBar]

On 11/18/2018 at 4:22 PM, Tech Enthusiast said:

So, how would anything slow whatever down, without being calculated? 

If you think RT just reduces FPS, without doing anything, then i don't really know what to say. I guess you could play around with it in the unreal engine. You can turn on RT there and see if it reduces FPS without adding any RT effects.

 

BF:V has reflections on everything, like really, everything. Stuff reflects off cloths, weapons, everything. It is so much over the top. You can turn every slider far enough right untill no GPU can handle above 5 fps. Not claiming Reflections with RT are not a FPS tanking feature, but you could easily get stable and solid fps with just a little more thought on what objects really need reflections.

 

As far as GI goes: Why would slowing down the game improve fps? It remains frames per second, no matter if you pause after said second, you still have the same number. Unless the engine was tuned to render frames before they are shown of course. Which would be a crazy thing to do, just for a demo.

 

Whilst note my response to the below, the thing you have to understand about ray tracing is different to preceding render systems.Previously the Card only did the work on the stuff that actually needs normal; rasterization based rendering only renders what the engine tells it to render. It knows in advance what needs to be done and what doesn't. Ray-tracing isn't quite so simple. Because it shoots rays through the pixels and thus starts at the camera, not at the thing being rendered it literally has no idea at first what it need to. SO it has to shoot rays through every pixel on the screen to see what's behind. So even if there's zero reflective surfaces it still has to trace a lot of rays. This whole having to raytrace every pixel regardless of weather it needs it is a big part of why raytracing is so computationally expensive.

 

In addition the raytracing is done on a second modified render image of the scene meaning the rasterization engine is having to render each scene twice. Now there are optimisation in play on both versions that can save some performance, but it's still rougher on the rasterization engine even with no ray being traced to run in ray tracing mode.

 

Also the reason the slow simulation speed matters is that at least on the rasterization side GPU's have various tricks that mean if somthing remains physically the same frame to frame and dosen;t move too much in relation to the camera it can reuse some or all of the data from the preceding frame meaning it doesn't have to render it at all. When it's having to render an entire second raster for the rays to bounce around in that becomes an even bigger deal as the ray tracing can't even start bouncing rays until thats complete and it can't even start denoising until the rays have finished bouncing. You can help this by doing the ray trace raster first and the standard one second but it still remains the case that the GPU can end up waiting on the ray-trace to finish despite rendering two raster scene's per frame instead of 1.

 

And thats the big reason i find the performance laughable. 100-150FPS variable would be 50%+ higher without ray tracing just from the computational cost of the second render. That means a 4k performance north of 200fps. And thats just a laughable idea.

 

On 11/18/2018 at 4:31 PM, Blademaster91 said:

The slowdowns and FPS hiccups are there even with RTX off, some Battlefield Youtubers and people in r/Battlefield have been commenting there being weird performance issues even with high end GPU's, and AA being forced on doesn't help.  I think testing for RTX slowdowns isn't going to be totally accurate in BFV until EA makes bug fixes.

 

My understanding was that without RT DX12 BFV was subject to micro-stutter but not low FPS. Micro-Stutter does not = low FPS>

 

4 hours ago, RejZoR said:

@Carclis

That's because GTX 1080Ti had abnormal performance to price ratio at costing around 200€ more than vanilla GTX 1080 while delivering around 45% more performance. That's huge difference for small premium. I can only recall such "abnormality" during Radeon HD4000 and HD5000 series that actually doubled the performance of last generation while costing about the same as last card on launch.

 

@daimonie

GTX 1080Ti prices are absurd right now because everyone was saying "take GTX 1080Ti instead of overpriced RTX2080". Since production has stopped or is limited, prices increased. When GTX 1080Ti was released, it was 800€ in top aftermarket designs (like Strix or AORUS) and their price dropped to around 600€ not long ago.

 

1080Ti's where not priced competitively at release here in the UK, never mind now.

 

6 minutes ago, Carclis said:

I did mention this. That said I think the US does make for a very significant portion of the high end market. I can also say that the same pricing was observed here in Australia. GTX 1080ti's were available for as little as $1000 with 2080 cards starting at $1200. From my own observations and and what I've heard from some sellers themselves, the 2070 and 2080 cards are pretty much impossible to move right now whilst the 2080ti is quite the opposite. Combine that with the fact that our stores are unable to purchase 2080ti stock unless it is accompanied by a large number of 2080 and 2070 cards and you've got yourself a problem. Given that the 2070 and 2080 are the only cards that aren't selling it's pretty obvious that at least those two markets have no interest in the new ray tracing and DLSS features. As a result there is only one 1080ti card left in stock with the Turing inventory looking like this.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

That may well be the case. Except even in the case of the 2070 it is being outsold by the 1080 at an almost 2:1 ratio, despite having the same performance/dollar here. My point is that people are not considering RT and DLSS performance in many cases. Only when the RTX actually become better priced than the Pascal cards are people buying them here.

 

Don't mistake herd mentality for inform,med purchasing. Most reviewers really panned the RTX launch so a lot of people took that as gospel truth and are buying based on that.

 

 

11 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Which part of "THE CARD IS STUPID EXPENSIVE, ISN'T REALLY ALL THAT FASTER IN RASTERIZED RENDERING, IS STILL REALLY SLOW AT RAY TRACING, HAS 1 GAME AVAILABLE WITH ONLY PARTIAL RTX AFTER MONTHS OF WAITING AND TOTAL 9 PLANNED SOMEDAY" don't you understand?

 

 

I understand all of it, it's just that all of it is either wrong or personal opinion not fact.

 

 

1. The price to performance in non-RTX games of the RTX cards has been steller in the UK since day one. It isn't enough of a jump over the last generation that i'd consider getting it if i owned a 10XX series card, but i'm not made of money, i do upgrade every several years. Which is what i'm doing now. Going from a GTX970 to an RTX card is entirely worthwhile for me personally.

 

2. So the 2080Ti doesn't have a huge edge over the 1080Ti in raster rendering. Really? Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

 

3. True it's slow now, guess what, when DX12 was new almost no card could run DX12 mode either. Ditto when DX11, DX10, and even DX9 launched. I wasn;t really into the PC community during DX11 and DX12, but i remember DX 9 and DX10 very clearly.

 

4. It took 6 months for a non-microsoft, (and therefore non-insider info possessing), AAA game to come out that supported DX12. And 18 months later there were still only 13 games total that weren't microsoft published. RTX got a ame the day the DXR update hit, and has a dozen more announced for the next 12 months allready. Developers are jumping all over RTX with wild abbadon by the standards of past graphical feature releases. 

 

So yes i understand all your points. Unfortunately they are wrong. As i allready pointed out 2 goddamned pages ago. 

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

9 hours ago, RejZoR said:

I never said ray tracing is stupid or pointless. It just happens that the statement is correct for this moment. Ray tracing is CURRENTLY a pointless gimmick. Hardware,

Every thing was at one point in time when software was constricted by hardware.

 

9 hours ago, RejZoR said:

And yeah, I'd rather play a game with "faked" effects that runs at basically locked 144fps than have real effects that run like a turd down a mild hill... Reason for this being the fact that "faked" effects are so convincing 90% of people wouldn't even be able to tell a difference.

and no one is forcing you to buy the game or play it, and weather people could tell or not has nothing to do with it, and probably the reason its not as revleaing as its still new to games, i'm sure BF5 was already mostly done before Rtx was implemented but i digress. 

 

9 hours ago, RejZoR said:

The way top of the line 1200€ card runs it now is what one would expect from a 400€ graphic card...

 again no one is forcing you to get it, get the 400€ card and play without Rtx, what's your point with this ? the fact RTX is even rendered in realtime to play games at even 40 FPS is a huge deal, and the fact there literally is no AMD card that can even let alone match 1080ti and the newer RTX performers way above it, so you'd be paying for the horse power to run Ray-tracing alone, which you could just not buy.
 

9 hours ago, RejZoR said:

 So, yeah, fake it till we can actually run it across all cards, making it a default technique. Until then, faked ones all the way.

rome wasn't build in one day.

[IceCold008]

Im lost for words. Matter of fact im so lost for words its hard getting the words out. Its like playing Battlefield 5 with DXR on its soooooo sllllloooooowwwwwww. 

[RejZoR]

@Rohith_Kumar_Sp

Yeah, you're right, no one is forcing me to buy and/or play that one single game that even supports ray tracing and even that only for reflections XD

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, RejZoR said:

You're a helpless case. If basing a verdict on quantifiable metrics isn't objective thinking, then I don't know what else to even say to you.

 

Wtf "all trucks are overpriced cars" even means? RTX 2080Ti is an overpriced truck even when you compare it to other trucks lol

 

I'm helpless? you claim I made no points even though I have specifically asked you for evidence to back up your claims, let me remind you of what you have claimed and what I have repeatedly asked for but you can't seem to supply:

 

On 11/18/2018 at 1:50 AM, RejZoR said:

 

 Who gives a crap if RTX cards can do ray tracing. It's useless gimmick as no game supports it, next to none are planned and by the time it'll actually be useful, it'll be too slow anyway.

 

Also, drop the attitude I'm saying ray tracing is stupid. I never said that. I have and will repeat that it's stupid in current form as it just isn't mature enough on any level.

 

In one post you call it a useless gimmick, but claim you're not calling it stupid?  I am asking you to qualify what makes it a useless gimmick, link me to a game dev or animator who shares your opinion that it is a useless gimmick in it's current form.  Because until you do that you are just presenting an opinion, not a universal truth.  I have presented both game devs and animators who have expressly said it is exciting and a game changer for them.  So put up (and prove me wrong) or accept it's just your somewhat blinkered opinion.

 

Note here you also claim by the time it is usable the card will be too slow.  That is quite the statement on how long you think it will take to get working effectively.  It's also quite a claim that you can know that without having a crystal ball.

 

 

On 11/17/2018 at 7:53 PM, RejZoR said:

Which means devs won't have an incentive to bother with it. Especially not with RTX tech specifically. Which means we won't see any real change for several more years. It's not crystal ball, it's literally observation.

Here you claim devs have no incentive to bother with it, when the devs have been the loudest proponents of RTX for years.  you can;t seem to explain this one either.  Please link me to an article explaining why the devs aren't doing "bothering" with it after saying they love it and already are working on releasing games with it.

 

 

13 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Which part of "THE CARD IS STUPID EXPENSIVE, ISN'T REALLY ALL THAT FASTER IN RASTERIZED RENDERING, IS STILL REALLY SLOW AT RAY TRACING, HAS 1 GAME AVAILABLE WITH ONLY PARTIAL RTX AFTER MONTHS OF WAITING AND TOTAL 9 PLANNED SOMEDAY" don't you understand? Oh and they are a ticking bomb as well apparently because if you bought Founders Edition or one based on its reference design, chances are it'll go in flames. Come on dude, don't act like you're stupid...

I already addressed this and asked for the numbers but you don't seem to be able to give me any.  Until you can prove that they have a higher failure rate than any other card then calling me stupid for pointing out that is not a universal reason RTX is going to take until the 4000 series.:

 

13 hours ago, RejZoR said:

 Expect it to gain traction with RTX 4060 cards when they come out... RTX 3060 just won't be it yet when it comes sometime in following 1-2 years.

 

Crystal ball again? As I have already shown you there are 9 titles posted for next year and you claim that because the first title is having teething issues it will take longer than 2 years for anything else to adopt it?  come on.  As I have already asked many times before,  either link me to some evidence to support your claims are more than just personal opinion or accept that they are not in line with current industry discussion.

 

 

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, Carclis said:

It's hard to say with any reliability but I think GN had some excellent statistics to back up that claim. I suppose it's only limited to a very well informed community too but those who purchased GPU's were VERY heavily in favour of the Pascal cards. I'd consider the numbers significant enough to say that the market is currently rejecting the new products.

I wouldn't call that rejecting,  they still sold out in many places including pre order.  But it does strike me as strange they are selling so many 1080ti's when everyone keeps arguing the 1060 is the best seller and the market sweet spot. 

[TOMPPIX]

Nvidia got some balls for releasing this product, and they also have a bunch of loyal fools buying it.

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, TOMPPIX said:

Nvidia got some balls for releasing this product, and they also have a bunch of loyal fools buying it.

you could argue the same for every AMD card released since the vega. 

[TOMPPIX]

13 minutes ago, mr moose said:

you could argue the same for every AMD card released since the vega. 

not to the same level as this, Amd has never released a card with a new feature that cut the frame rate by 60% when you use the new feature.

and if you can afford this card you probably also game at 4k, gaming in 1080p on a 4k screen is a really shitty experience.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, TOMPPIX said:

not to the same level as this, Amd has never released a card with a new feature that cut the frame rate by 60% when you use the new feature.

Exactly to the same rate as this if you want to use the metrics some do.  Shit on nvidia all you want, but don't go ignoring half of reality to justify it.