• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

RTX continues to seriously disappoint me

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BenSkywalker

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,044
40
91
The 'creator' for Quake2RTX, I know whom you mean, but that isn't Quake2 RTX, that was what nVidia used as a base and then rewrote some and added a ton of stuff. My understanding is they are using Optix for denoising which AFAIK is utilizing tensor cores. Maybe my information is wrong, but I double checked and that's what I have. BFV I have no clue on, Tomb Raider is shadows only and only some of those so no clue there, Metro is using GI and it's very clean so they have to be using something for denoising, my assumption would be Optix since it's turn key but maybe not.

1600p with highest settings is going to be a bit much, but if you take it to medium for GI you should be fairly steady 60ish with a 2080Ti, the gameplay is still Quake2 but the lighting trounced any other game released by a comfortable margin.
 

Hitman928

Platinum Member
Apr 15, 2012
2,031
880
136
The 'creator' for Quake2RTX, I know whom you mean, but that isn't Quake2 RTX, that was what nVidia used as a base and then rewrote some and added a ton of stuff. My understanding is they are using Optix for denoising which AFAIK is utilizing tensor cores. Maybe my information is wrong, but I double checked and that's what I have. BFV I have no clue on, Tomb Raider is shadows only and only some of those so no clue there, Metro is using GI and it's very clean so they have to be using something for denoising, my assumption would be Optix since it's turn key but maybe not.

1600p with highest settings is going to be a bit much, but if you take it to medium for GI you should be fairly steady 60ish with a 2080Ti, the gameplay is still Quake2 but the lighting trounced any other game released by a comfortable margin.
Here's someone from Nvidia describing Quake 2 RTX. Denoising part makes no mention of tensor or ML being used and mentions temporal and spatial denoisers which were also implemented by the original Quake 2 ray tracing demo creator. Doesn't look like tensor cores are used for Quake2 RTX. Battliefield 5 devs we already know isn't using them. The only one I don't know really is Metro Exodus but everything I find online says it doesn't use tensor for denoise either.

 

Yotsugi

Golden Member
Oct 16, 2017
1,029
469
106
The only one I don't know really is Metro Exodus but everything I find online says it doesn't use tensor for denoise either.
No one is using tensors for denoising because NN denoisers are still ass.
 

Nox51

Senior member
Jul 4, 2009
375
13
81
Guys, we're talking about playing a 1997 game with raytracing on in 2019 on +500$ (or worse the 2060S/2070 are +800$ in local currency) at 1080p to get acceptable framerates (let's not consider any of the actual "holy grails" of 120+hz or 4k or combination thereof). Frankly this is just pisspoor and underwhelming.

As a tech concept raytracing is awesome, as a current implementation it is meh at best considering the amount of money vs result.
 

Dribble

Golden Member
Aug 9, 2005
1,744
293
126
This is quite interesting - tiny dev team, got some money from epic, then some support from nvidia, enabled RTX:
Obviously you can argue about whether you like it, performance and so on but my point it how easy RTX must be to implement. If it can be done by very small indy studios it bodes well for the future - unlike say DX12 which has been attempted by AAA games and still seems to provide very little.
 

DeathReborn

Platinum Member
Oct 11, 2005
2,067
82
91
Isn't DXR an extension to DX12?
Yes, just like DX12 is tied to Windows10... until they relax the artificial limitations they impose. Ray Tracing is entirely possible without DX12, but with Microsoft you won't get it on DX11 as that doesn't sell Windows 10. You can use RTX on Vulkan though.
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
3,404
2,598
136
So how can DXR be easy to implement compared to DX12... when a DX12 engine is currently a prerequisite for DXR? :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: beginner99

Stuka87

Diamond Member
Dec 10, 2010
4,351
350
126
This is quite interesting - tiny dev team, got some money from epic, then some support from nvidia, enabled RTX:
Obviously you can argue about whether you like it, performance and so on but my point it how easy RTX must be to implement. If it can be done by very small indy studios it bodes well for the future - unlike say DX12 which has been attempted by AAA games and still seems to provide very little.
This video shows one of my main pet peeves with DXR as it is currently used. Most of the things we see in this video can be done using traditional methods. Will it be as exact, no. But it would be very close. In this demo especially, the non-RTX was purposely left to be bland to make for a larger difference between the before and after shots. Hell games like Unreal from 1999 had better looking reflections than the non-RTX in this demo.
 

BenSkywalker

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,044
40
91
Ray tracing is easier and quicker to use than traditional effects that are remotely close once the engine has support built in.

In UE4, turn ray tracing on for a light source, lighting, shadows and reflections all taken care of(slightly oversimplified, but not much).

Applying traditional effects one by one is far more labor intensive. Some of the hard core anti ray tracing propagandists use examples where doing both takes more time than just one and then act like ray tracing is more labor intensive but it really isn't.

In the short term, until the industry can drag AMD into supporting the industry standard, Indy devs are probably going to be the ones to use it most often.
 

DeathReborn

Platinum Member
Oct 11, 2005
2,067
82
91
So how can DXR be easy to implement compared to DX12... when a DX12 engine is currently a prerequisite for DXR? :)
Perhaps because like DX11 most of the work for DXR/RTX is currently done by Nvidia and not the developers. DXR is done by Microsoft & thereby locked to DirectX whereas Ray Tracing is NOT tied to Microsoft and Nvidia has enabled RTX for Vulkan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maddie

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
3,404
2,598
136
Perhaps because like DX11 most of the work for DXR/RTX is currently done by Nvidia and not the developers. DXR is done by Microsoft & thereby locked to DirectX whereas Ray Tracing is NOT tied to Microsoft and Nvidia has enabled RTX for Vulkan.
The same applies to Vulkan though. How can it be easy to implement RTX as a feature when a modern API render path is a prerequisite?

If you already target DX12 or Vulkan, I can see the point: the effort is solely focused on RT and with proper support it may become trivial. But if you're targeting DX11 to start with, enabling RT requires the complete package (RT+API), not just RTX.
 

DeathReborn

Platinum Member
Oct 11, 2005
2,067
82
91
The same applies to Vulkan though. How can it be easy to implement RTX as a feature when a modern API render path is a prerequisite?

If you already target DX12 or Vulkan, I can see the point: the effort is solely focused on RT and with proper support it may become trivial. But if you're targeting DX11 to start with, enabling RT requires the complete package (RT+API), not just RTX.
It's only because they have moved onto "newer" API's that we won't be getting DXR on DX11, 10, 9 etc or OpenGL it's purely a case of not updating those API's in favour of their new ones. It's a simple premise, surely you can figure that out by now. Last time I checked Caustic did Hardware Ray Tracing without DX12 or Vulkan, it wasn't great but proves you don't need the modern API for it to function.
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
3,404
2,598
136
It's only because they have moved onto "newer" API's that we won't be getting DXR on DX11, 10, 9 etc or OpenGL it's purely a case of not updating those API's in favour of their new ones. It's a simple premise, surely you can figure that out by now. Last time I checked Caustic did Hardware Ray Tracing without DX12 or Vulkan, it wasn't great but proves you don't need the modern API for it to function.
That doesn't change the reality in the field. Enabling RT in a game today means going through a modern API, and the complex work it requires. It's a simple premise, surely you can figure that out by now.
 

BenSkywalker

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,044
40
91
A large percentage of games coming out now are using one of the engines that make low level API something of an abstract idea.

You can release a game using DX12 and DXR without touching any low level code.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Midwayman

joesiv

Member
Mar 21, 2019
41
14
41
This video shows one of my main pet peeves with DXR as it is currently used. Most of the things we see in this video can be done using traditional methods. Will it be as exact, no. But it would be very close. In this demo especially, the non-RTX was purposely left to be bland to make for a larger difference between the before and after shots. Hell games like Unreal from 1999 had better looking reflections than the non-RTX in this demo.
I figured Unreal Engine would have mimized this, as they have been on the forefront of graphical features (without ray tracing), so having the equivalent faked reflections/effects should have made the difference minimal, unless the effects weren't enabled for some reason.
 

Dribble

Golden Member
Aug 9, 2005
1,744
293
126
I figured Unreal Engine would have mimized this, as they have been on the forefront of graphical features (without ray tracing), so having the equivalent faked reflections/effects should have made the difference minimal, unless the effects weren't enabled for some reason.
That Quake 2 video at the start was interesting. Faked effects don't just happen - you've got to manually add them and do a lot of tweaking to get them to look right. It looks like it's actually quicker and easier to do it properly with ray tracing.
 

DeathReborn

Platinum Member
Oct 11, 2005
2,067
82
91
Nvidia say around 2023 a AAA game will require RT support so calling it defunct now is a bit premature, it's not perfect but neither was any other innovation in graphics rendering, it always takes time to bed in (DirectX, Physics etc) or die out (3D, SLI/CF etc).

That doesn't change the reality in the field. Enabling RT in a game today means going through a modern API, and the complex work it requires. It's a simple premise, surely you can figure that out by now.
If Microsoft or Khronos wanted to they could enable Ray Tracing support on DX11 or OpenGL but they have no desire to do so, that is my point, the limitation is ARTIFICIAL, purely a business decision. Whether the performance would be there, if you are like the OP then it won't be until someone other than Nvidia does it. That's the end of my attempts to educate you, take it or leave it but I won't reply further.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
13,671
3,047
136
Nvidia say around 2023 a AAA game will require RT support so calling it defunct now is a bit premature, it's not perfect but neither was any other innovation in graphics rendering, it always takes time to bed in (DirectX, Physics etc) or die out (3D, SLI/CF etc).
Eh.

Objectively speaking, thus far, RTX (in particular; DXR in general) has been nothing like DirectX. DirectX was inevitable because of the juggernaut that controlled your OS pushing it. nVidia has no place in the desktop of anyone who refuses to buy their cards. NV is just signaling to any dev shop that wants a GameWorks money hat that they need to support RT "or else". Here's the timeline, get with the program.

Realistically-speaking, few users will notice/care about RT unless they are actively looking for it. It's just not THAT interesting. Sorry.

If Microsoft or Khronos wanted to they could enable Ray Tracing support on DX11 or OpenGL but they have no desire to do so, that is my point, the limitation is ARTIFICIAL, purely a business decision.
Money is never artificial. Khronos in particular is not going to waste any more hours working on OpenGL.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
65,768
1,840
126
By 2023 we should have Cards in most Price Points that are adequately capable of running RT at some quality level.
 

Stuka87

Diamond Member
Dec 10, 2010
4,351
350
126
nVidia would love it if they could force every gamer on earth to buy a new GPU. I have no doubt that they will pressure devs into requiring ray tracing support. But we as consumers, should hope this remains optional. At least until even low end GPU's can run RT at acceptable frame rates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: darkswordsman17

BenSkywalker

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,044
40
91
UE4 makes adding different effects very easy, but you have to do them all one by one versus ray tracing where you apply it to a light source. You can download the dev kit for free and check it out yourself.

Now as far as nVidia pushing ray tracing to force people to buy their cards, AMD could support the industry standard if they wanted to. Not only is nothing stopping them but Sony and Microsoft made them add support for their next APUs anyway.

If the industry standard was being supported by AMD we could be having a very different and far, far more honest conversation about how ray tracing is the biggest shift in real time graphics since the original raterizers.
 

Glo.

Diamond Member
Apr 25, 2015
3,303
1,522
136
UE4 makes adding different effects very easy, but you have to do them all one by one versus ray tracing where you apply it to a light source. You can download the dev kit for free and check it out yourself.

Now as far as nVidia pushing ray tracing to force people to buy their cards, AMD could support the industry standard if they wanted to. Not only is nothing stopping them but Sony and Microsoft made them add support for their next APUs anyway.

If the industry standard was being supported by AMD we could be having a very different and far, far more honest conversation about how ray tracing is the biggest shift in real time graphics since the original raterizers.
RTX is NOT industry standard. Unless you want to say that Proprietary standards are industry standard.

AMD supported Ray Tracing for much longer than Nvidia. With their own, AMD Radeon ProRender. Who cared about it? Nobody, despite it being OPEN SOURCE. So yes, AMD is supporting Ray Tracing.

RTX is proprietary Nvidia solution for stuff that should not be proprietary. Which also tells you one more thing. Why it is not ready for prime time, yet. Every single industry standard always is open, BECAUSE it is ready for prime time in mainstream.
 

Yotsugi

Golden Member
Oct 16, 2017
1,029
469
106
RTX is NOT industry standard
It's a DXR backend so uhhh.
AMD supported Ray Tracing for much longer than Nvidia. With their own, AMD Radeon ProRender.
Should I count all the CUDA-based RT/PT renderers?
Also isn't OptiX the same stuff?
RTX is proprietary Nvidia solution for stuff that should not be proprietary
DXR is DX12-stuff, which is the same for all vendors.
RTX also has Vulkan extensions but that's Vulkan in a nutshell.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Arkaign Graphics Cards 70

ASK THE COMMUNITY