This is actually a really interesting comment / observation. This many gens on and the tech doesn't feel there yet. True, eh?

3 of my friends work in game development and all of them and most of their friends who get drunk around me (I’m always a DD since I don’t drink and want people to be safe) DESPISE ray tracing and wish it was never introduced and I have honestly never heard one positive thing about it from any of them. Most are “code artists” but 1 of them is a graphic designer and she hates it most. BioWare, blizzard, and EA are the companies they work for so maybe it’s better in other companies. My point to this is even the people making the games don’t want this technology so what’s the point?

Bruh interesting little insight, thanks for sharing. Never considered the angle of those who dev games and what RT is like to work with / implement, from work load perspective. @@jimdob6528

@@jimdob6528 The point was that Nvidia was trying to throw a feature at people that it could tout itself as a champion at despite not being good at it. It's like declaring yourself the winner of a race of 2 and the criteria was whatever the victor thought it should be, regardless of objectivity.

@@jimdob6528 I don’t drink either, I never cared for beer. I’ve heard there’s some decent alcohol free drinks nowadays. That is a step forward.

And trolls

​@@fabrb26 As a 4090 owner, I can confirm your statement lol

4080 no problem.

@@jaquestraw1 Yet on CP77 Path Tracing not even the 4090 can get 60fps in 1440p without upscaling let alone 4K, and that's a 4 year old game now

@@fabrb26 That's true.

I got a 4070 super to update my rig that I kitted out to be future proofed at 1080p. At that res, my 4070 super handles Ray tracing in pretty much every game and gets above 60fps. On games like cyberpunk and Alan Wake 2, I can't crank it all the way up, but with the second highest RT setting and DLLS quality, I average north of 70 frames, which is a good experience in story mode games for me.

@@rosswrld1143 1080p on a $600 card and you still can’t crank it up in every title. That’s the problem. The ray traced future is coming but this is not it

@@stebo5562 I get your point, it's still way too unoptimized for most people to invest in it for sure. However, given how unoptimized it is, I'm just happy that I can use it at all lol.

it's been in its infancy for over 5 years now though and should by now know how to stand up by itself.

@@Bunnywitch_Elena That is true. I just feel it was ridiculous to launch ray tracing when it clearly wasn't ready for the masses as Nvidia did with the 20-series card. It was a case of "just because you can, doesn't mean you should." Especially when the tech isn't there yet to sustain it (aside from DLSS).

As a pure fan of Hulkamania and the nWo I would have to say I agree with you there brother.

single player games don't need lowest latency. Also, if you do care about latency, Nvidia REFLEX is the bset in the industry, so you have to buy Nvidia.

so you are playing at 720P at lowest settings?

​@@ugurinanc5177no i just dont turn on dlss and rtx, so i dont need to run at 720p for a reasonable fps with rtx

​@@deivytrajanMan marketing works so good on some of You needy guys. I bet Nvidia reflex won't pass a placebo kind of test to 95/100 gamers. They won't notice any difference in 30 mins of gaming. What they will notice will be the input lag from dlss and fg. Close to 95% players will feel it.

That depends, at least with Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition. This game not only looks 100x times better, but also runs super well. Too bad, this is my ONLY example

I have a 4090 and still leave it off. Ray tracing is a crap gimmick.

@@CasepbX It really depends on the game. There are plenty of games where the visual difference is barely noticeable but it tanks your performance. But Digital Foundry has shown that certain games like Alan Wake 2, Dying Light 2, Cyberpunk 2077, Control, Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition, amongst others look totally different thanks to ray tracing. It's not a gimmick to have lighting be more realistic. Screen Space Reflections disappear when the object being reflected is no longer on the screen and cube maps don't accurately represent what's actually happening in the game world.

I have a RTX 4070ti and the only reason I use it is because GeForce experience enables it and even than I sometimes go into my settings to disable it because in some games like RE Village I was getting 60 to 70fps and the game looked awful. I was able to turn up my other settings and disabled RT and the game looked so much better and was getting over 120fps in 4k with dlss

​@@CasepbX liar lmao

I agree. It might just be me but the difference between ray tracing and path tracing seems really small too. Definitely not worth the fps hit imo.

Have you tried Metro Exodus EE?

I'm using RTX 3080 too but the performance hit is so massive that you just have to use DLSS or FSR to get barely 60FPS which is just dealbreaking for me when I saw minor improvement in visuals. As you said, in some games, the visuals are quite a lot better with RT but in many games, it didn't make much difference. In my honest opinion, if you wanna do RT with max graphics and above 60 FPS steady without DLSS/FSR at 1080p or 1440p, just get RTX 4080 or RTX 4090.

I’m sorry what? Ray tracing in control is incredible compared to raster. Control is full of highly reflective surfaces such as glass and mirrors. The difference in atmosphere alone between Ray tracing and raster is insane. I’ve played through control twice, once when it came out and I had a 1080 and once when it came out and I had a 3080ti and the second time it felt like I was playing a different game. I’ll give you that in some titles Ray tracing isn’t that great, like shadow of the tomb raider where it’s barely implemented but in games with such strong implementation as control the difference is night and day!

@@cardiacresp not played that on pc. Hated it. Might try it out to see how it looks though.

so when they decide to abandon all other lighting mechanics we're gonna be stuck with having to use RT with really bad performance (unless you wanna spend $5k on pc) or really shitty graphics (worse than now) with decent performance. Sounds like a spit in the face to consumers

Nah Man don't feel the missing out. Turn off aall cause there are only 3 games with path tracing in the game. And tbh they are not some piexe of art games.(rdr2 cough)

AMD can't do Ray tracing at all. The 7900xtx runs worse than the 4070 super.

the 6750xt is an amazing 1440p high setting card F* raytracing and enjoy your games mate .

false xtx is at 4080 3090 level so by your logic the 3090 can't do ray tracing at all got it@@grattjer

@potatorigs2155 the 4070 super does raytracing better than the 3090. That is true. You can always run games with settings turned off to get good performance too. AMD makes the best cards if you turn some graphics off. Basically the newest thing is raytracing. AMD cards can't do it and that's fine. Graphics from a few years ago are still pretty good.

Control was the game that kinda sold me on the capabilities of Ray tracing. Imo the best implementation of Ray tracing so far by a decent margin given how good it looks and how well optimized the game is with it on (play with a 4070 super at 1080p, average north of 100fps at native).

Some types of games benefit more from a higher fps than others. Racing games (especially sim racing games), or competitive shooters, both obviously benefit more from a higher fps.

Are you running on 1440p? Also, do you feel any input lag for activating FG?

@@jonascarvalhodearaujo8038 depends on the game. I usually play at 4K especially if I’m going to be using upscaling. For Cyberpunk I have it set to 4K Ultra DLSS performance on RT Overdrive with path tracing on plus FG. I get mostly mid to low 80’s and everything feels smooth to me. The 4080 Super seems a bit overkill for 1440P in most games unless you’re playing at ultra with ray tracing or you have a 200+ hz monitor. I also prefer to use DLSS from a higher resolution because it just looks better. FG does increase latency but so-far it hasn’t been enough for me to feel it. I have only used it in Cyberpunk and Alan Wake 2 though, because most of the games I currently play either don’t have it or don’t require for me to use it.

@@77Asiris Cool! Thanks for the reply ^^ I'm waiting my 4080 super arrive from the store haha can't wait to test it.

Sacred words.

Agree. I have the same card and have turned RT on in Control to see how pretty it looks only to move the mouse and toggle it off.

They still seem to have to hardcode a lot of lights, especially since RT is really only partial ray tracing. Path tracing is actually real ray tracing, but it is even harder to run.

I think the reason why some people don’t like how ray tracing looks is because the game artists have a harder time controlling what the lighting is going to look like with ray tracing. By hard coding the lights in raster, they have more control over the final look

Stable diffusion runs fine on Radeon on Windows. I just installed Shark yesterday and it was just download&run, no need to tweak anything, just works. I chose Shark because according to Puget Systems it runs better with Radeon than Automatic1111 (at least it did half a year ago when they tested it), but I think I read even Automatic1111 should run fine these days, no need for special drivers.

I have no idea why my comment disappeared. I just said I installed stable diffusion on WIndows and used it with my Radeon 6800XT, no problems, just worked with standard latest drivers. I went a little into details but I won`t now, maybe those specifics were why it disappeared?

A lower frame rate typically comes with increased input lag, so that makes sense. And, yes, some people are more sensitive to it than others. It also depends on the control method and type of game that you play. You will likely not notice input lag as much in games where you are using a controller instead of a mouse, though racing games are probably an exception to this, as changes to latency tend to be more noticeable in racing/ driving games.

@syncmonism nah not that kind. I tried limiting to the same frame rate I had with RT on and I still felt some kind of wierd delay/microstutter hitches. I couldn't quite figure out what exactly caused it but the only variable was RT on

Should have went the 6700xt

If only they had made a 16GB version of the 3070. That would have been great. They had a plan to do that, and to call it the 3070 ti, but the 3070 ti just ended up being a slightly faster 3070 with the same amount of vram. They also had a plan to make a 20GB version of the 3080 (and would have called it the 3080 ti), and that also would have been great.

@@syncmonism Miners would have scalped them to hell and back, at least I got my hands on a 3070 back then, not like I could choose much it was either a 3070 for $600, a 6700XT for $650 or a 6800XT for $800.

Exactly what they said: RT is always a compromise. It's either worth it to you or not. And it varies per game of course: both the impact/implementation as well as the fps goal you have. The majority of PC gamers clearly still prefer more FPS without compromising. On my 2070 super (laptop) and RX 7800 XT it never was worth my while in my opinion.

I have played Cyberpunk with an RTX 3080 and I didn't think the visual quality improvement was all that good overall with RT on. I actually found the visuals to be worse in some scenes. More realistic doesn't always mean prettier. In some areas, I found that textures actually looked WORSE when ray tracing was turned on, especially in somewhat dark areas where there wasn't a lot of light. DLSS also was having some weird ghosting, artifacting, and other issues sometimes, and obviously I needed DLSS on to be able to run with decent hardware RT settings at 1440p.

I like the idea, accept that the hardware isn't quite there yet across the board and know that RT capable GPUs are hella overpriced and not worth it from my perspective in life at time of writing.

in blind test some people liked the look of cyberpunk with RT off . I get it rt = realism but some people is not looking for photo realism. I can go outside for that lol

XD @@potatorigs2155

It’s not worth it on most nvidia cards either. Not everyone has a 4090

Why would you turn up DLSS and ruin your quality just for RT. Especially at lower resolution...that makes no damn sense.

You could see yourself in the mirror in Duke Nukem 3D (a game from 1996)

Sure, it's a question for you to ask yourself, the relevance to the rest of us is obviously subjective as you can see in the survey results.

It isn't

@@CasepbXit is

You're not wrong but you're missing a lot with your statement. First off you can't compare VR resolutions to common screen resolutions as VR uses temporal resolution and also foveated rendering in which it really only renders at full resolution small portion on the middle of where your eyes are looking, etc etc, there's a lot of optimizations for VR really, also the reason Alyx managed to look so good despite technically not using RT was because it did use RT, just not in real-time, it used pre calculated lighting which can give you similar results to real time RT BUT comes at the cost of it simply not being dynamic. It is static and doesn't allow for example, for an open world experience with day/night cycles, etc. This is something that's inherent to the kind of game that Alyx is, if we discarded RT altogether we would be limited to this kind of linear, static game and no other option would be available unless you wanted to have way worse lighting, shadows, etc like already happens with open world games like The Witcher 3, GTA V, they all don't really look as good as the best looking games of their era, because they had to compromise in quality to achieve their worldview. That's why in Witcher 3 if you enter a random hut, or a mansion or whatever, there's always light leaking from the corners, that's why sometimes it's hard to tell if an object is on the ground or floating in games since the don't have proper light occlusion, that's also why characters inside cars in cyberpunk with RT off shine way brighter than the rest of the car, because characters can't be lighted by static lighting, they are inherently dynamic so the car has baked-in lighting and looks dark while the character is literally being directly illuminated by the sun and sky instead of the limited reflected light that enters from the windows, simply because the dynamic lightning system cannot account for the car's shadow inside itself because the car walls are too thin and the resolution of the dynamic lighting is so low. You see, there are ways to go around the limitations of raster rendering and there's plenty of games that can be used as an example of this, like Crysis 3, Hellblade, etc, but that means limiting what you can do in your game which means you either don't make the game you wanted and compromise to have a good looking game or you do what you want and become victim of criticisms for having bad graphics in your era. It's a balancing act. In 4 or 5 years once even low end GPUs can do raytracing fast enough it will bring about better games simply because Devs don't need to deal with this bullshit, they don't need to spend months tuning lighting in a single area to make it look good, they don't need to leave small houses or cars with bad lighting because the lighting just works. That's the magic of raytracing, no, it's not going back 15 years, it's introducing a revolutionary new feature that does make all games look better even the ones that had exceptional raster lighting, they still had inaccuracies, what it bring to the table really is, it makes the games quicker to develop, it allows Devs to invest their time into content instead of trying to make the game look good coming up with ways to zig-zag around the limitations of raster. That's not a weird thing the transition from 2D to 3D games also meant a lot of hardware couldn't cope and run the games fast enough. That's normal, that's the cost os a new feature, you need higher end equipment and it takes years to trickle down tl the mid/low-end segments of the market. Alyx took a lot of time to develop and it was an expensive game to develop, Valve could take on this cost, they are literally the most profitable company in gaming, but most Devs won't invest that much time and effort, they can't ,they will just drag themselves to bankruptcy if they do. Having good animations, physics, etc has nothing to do with having raytracing or not, it just has to do with if the developer invested time and money into developing these things, and they don't because they can't, valve can, but then, Valve mostly don't make games anymore, raytracing will allow these developers to maybe justify investing time into those things because they don't need to invest it into making their game good looking, and yes, there will be plenty of Devs who will just continue half-assing their games, take this saved time to Launch more games instead of making better games, but still it accounts as a benefit for all. If you don't have the proper hardware for raytracing, just don't enable it, but also don't demonize raytracing for that, wait for your turn to be able to play those games.

Amd cards are really bad at ray tracing.

​​​@@marcosvictor4935the first rtx cards came out over 5 years ago. The first cards branded as raytracing capable released over half a decade ago, yet the vast majority of people still can't turn raytracing on and get 30+fps. The only way to achieve that is to buy into a $800+ card that will be considered obsolete in raytraced games in one or two years time. Raytracing should be well on its way to the average consumer market by now, not only available to the people with the most money. It's obvious what nvidia is doing, they're squeezing as much money out of people's pockets as possible before the raytracing craze becomes normalized. Is raytracing in general a gimmick? No. But Nvidia have turned it into one. This hurts devs too, what's the point of using raytraced lighting to develop your game if you have to also keep developing typical lighting techniques aswell? As of right now, raytracing techniques in video games absolutely have gimmicky qualities to it.

Companies push ray-tracing for gaming hard, because competence in this technology (RT cores and RT clusters) helps them improve AI computing. Just business.

not bad as such, just 1 gen behind Nvidia. Nvidia push it hard because they have the lead and can market it. But RT does not add any real noticeable difference when I play games with it on or off, I'm just worried that it will never be good enough on lower end hardware. RT will remain a gimmick until your sub $300 card can run full path traced at over 60fps at native resolutions of at least 1440p, and preferably over 4k. This is not going to happen for another 10 years or more.

I also don't know if I agree with the narrative that if you're not playing With Max setting with Rt on at native and getting 60+ FPS then Raytracing is pointless. Basically, telling everyone that their experience is inferior, so it's pointless to consider. I guess not native = terrible experience. That's what I'm understanding.