3 ms·
The RT hardware takes up a small fraction of die area based on some articles I read a year ago. Furthermore, RT isn’t a gimmick: it’s literally the holy grail o
by QuixoticQuibit 7y ago
The RT hardware takes up a small fraction of die area based on some articles I read a year ago. Furthermore, RT isn’t a gimmick: it’s literally the holy grail of graphics. Ask yourself why AMD, Intel, and consoles are all moving to it this year.
- alkonaut 7y agoIt is the holy grail, but in current games it’s mostly a high cost effect that offers very little. In many games you pay a huge fps penalty for something you basically need circled in screenshots to notice. I don’t doubt it will be fantastic once it’s actually usable in the sense that people will choose to enable it. I fear next gen consoles, like current top end PCs, will have settings where you choose 4K/60fps/raytracing and you can enable two of them, or possibly just one. In priority order, raytracing is a distant third of those. I think they are all moving to it because they know they need to get there eventually, and they need consumers to pay for it all the way.
- ahartmetz 7y agoRegarding the holy grail point, I like to exagerrate and say that rasterization is based on glorified sprite rotoscalers. It is not used because it models how light works, it is used because it allows fast hardware implementations. On the software side, it's lots of hacks until it looks mostly believable.