3 ms·

I meant to say with RTX disabled. Turning on RTX (and let's call DLSS free at this point) costs a performance penalty that's equivalent to meaningfully upping r

I meant to say with RTX disabled. Turning on RTX (and let's call DLSS free at this point) costs a performance penalty that's equivalent to meaningfully upping resolution or AA settings without RTX. And people prefer the latter. This might change as games start making better use of RTX functionality, but this is where things are today. For n=1 I've played Metro with RTX on lower settings and without RTX on higher settings, and I prefer without. I think realtime raytracing came out a hw generation too soon. https://au.ign.com/articles/2019/04/17/what-is-ray-tracing-and-should-you-care https://au.ign.com/articles/2019/04/17/what-is-ray-tracing-a... https://www.techradar.com/au/news/we-tested-ray-tracing-in-control-on-pc-on-every-nvidia-rtx-super-card https://www.techradar.com/au/news/we-tested-ray-tracing-in-c...

Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
> And people prefer the latter You prefer the latter. Many people prefer ray tracing on. In fact the main complaint online is about the cost of cards, very few people seem to contest that scenes where ray tracing is properly artistically used, have superior aesthetic quality to them and superior realism. (assuming that's what you mean, since you keep using the term "RTX" and it's unclear what you talk about, whether it's ray tracing or DLSS etc.)
- missosoup 7y ago
  And yet I cite 3 unrelated sources that all corroborate what I said with detailed analysis and you cite.. Opinion? > assuming that's what you mean, since you keep using the term "RTX" and it's unclear what you talk about, whether it's ray tracing or DLSS etc. I use the term the same way NVIDIA uses it. RTX is anything an RTX core accelerates. Still confused? I think that might have been the intention of their marketing team. > very few people seem to contest that scenes where ray tracing is properly artistically used, have superior aesthetic quality This is quantifiable bs. Ray tracing as a technique is superior to rasterisation, but only with sufficient flops. And the current generation of hardware does not yield that critical number. So we get 'ray tracing', but so subdued and limited that existing approaches just flat out look better and also perform better. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuoER1DwYLY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuoER1DwYLY Or if you want a more approachable comparison of RTX vs. not-RTX. consider Minecraft+RTX[1] vs. Minecraft+PTGI[2] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91kxRGeg9wQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91kxRGeg9wQ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2WqX6Iu6cU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2WqX6Iu6cU
  - phonypc 7y ago
    You linked a performance analysis of RTX cards in Control, a general overview of ray tracing and how it applies to gaming and some youtube video from almost a year ago about DLSS not being implemented very well in one game (which has since been much improved). None of these corroborate the idea of RTX effects being aesthetically inferior, or that this is a widely held opinion. Consider watching these for an up-to-date take on the subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blbu0g9DAGA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blbu0g9DAGA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG5NLl85pPo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG5NLl85pPo

Erlich_Bachman 7y ago

> And people prefer the latter You prefer the latter. Many people prefer ray tracing on. In fact the main complaint online is about the cost of cards, very few people seem to contest that scenes where ray tracing is properly artistically used, have superior aesthetic quality to them and superior realism. (assuming that's what you mean, since you keep using the term "RTX" and it's unclear what you talk about, whether it's ray tracing or DLSS etc.)

missosoup 7y ago
And yet I cite 3 unrelated sources that all corroborate what I said with detailed analysis and you cite.. Opinion? > assuming that's what you mean, since you keep using the term "RTX" and it's unclear what you talk about, whether it's ray tracing or DLSS etc. I use the term the same way NVIDIA uses it. RTX is anything an RTX core accelerates. Still confused? I think that might have been the intention of their marketing team. > very few people seem to contest that scenes where ray tracing is properly artistically used, have superior aesthetic quality This is quantifiable bs. Ray tracing as a technique is superior to rasterisation, but only with sufficient flops. And the current generation of hardware does not yield that critical number. So we get 'ray tracing', but so subdued and limited that existing approaches just flat out look better and also perform better. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuoER1DwYLY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuoER1DwYLY Or if you want a more approachable comparison of RTX vs. not-RTX. consider Minecraft+RTX[1] vs. Minecraft+PTGI[2] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91kxRGeg9wQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91kxRGeg9wQ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2WqX6Iu6cU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2WqX6Iu6cU
- phonypc 7y ago
  You linked a performance analysis of RTX cards in Control, a general overview of ray tracing and how it applies to gaming and some youtube video from almost a year ago about DLSS not being implemented very well in one game (which has since been much improved). None of these corroborate the idea of RTX effects being aesthetically inferior, or that this is a widely held opinion. Consider watching these for an up-to-date take on the subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blbu0g9DAGA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blbu0g9DAGA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG5NLl85pPo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG5NLl85pPo