RTX continues to seriously disappoint me

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
21,489
381
126
who said "hardware accelerated PhysX"?
Nobody had an issue with software PhysX. Software PhysX is actually pretty good and is comparable to Havok.

The issue was with hardware accelerated PhysX, where we were repeatedly told flying debris and blowing clothes running at a teen framerate was the "future of gaming" and a "game changer".

In that sense it's a lot like RTX is now: a colossal performance impact for an incremental IQ gain over current approximated solutions.
 

MajinCry

Platinum Member
Jul 28, 2015
2,469
548
136
Nobody had an issue with software PhysX. Software PhysX is actually pretty good and is comparable to Havok.

The issue was with hardware accelerated PhysX, where we were repeatedly told flying debris and blowing clothes running at a teen framerate was the "future of gaming" and a "game changer".

In that sense it's a lot like RTX is now: a colossal performance impact for an incremental IQ gain over current approximated solutions.
For an arguably incremental IQ gain*. Look at the debris that was added to Fallout 4, it just looks terrible.

GPU accelerated physics would be a game changer. But even with hardware accelerated physics, the bulk of it is still handled by the CPU. That is, object collisions. The GPU PhysX is just used for tacky eye candy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: guachi

Glo.

Diamond Member
Apr 25, 2015
3,178
1,513
136
In that sense it's a lot like RTX is now: a colossal performance impact for an incremental IQ gain over current approximated solutions.
Is it only me, or anyone else find Ray Traced Minecraft looking very good, and showing the future of lighning and shadows and reflections?

Overall I agree. Apart from MInecraft(!) I have yet to see Ray Tracing done that completely changes the Quality of graphics in a way that is uncomparable to previous techniques. Ray Tracing in Minecraft is genuinely fantastic, IMO. But this is first game that RT implementation blew me away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tup3x

BenSkywalker

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,044
40
91
Fallout 4 uses Havok, not PhysX. I personally haven't actually seen a game where Havok was anything other than terrible no matter how it's used. Al's discount barn game engine probably has better physics than Havok. For the record, PhysX is open source, AMD opted not to support hardware physics and I don't blame them as it isn't a standard controlled by a third party.

Quake 2 RTX is comparable to Minecraft in terms of ray tracing impact from what I've seen. Obviously talking about the official DXR build with massively improved textures, not the path traced build which is really cool, but not nearly as completely different feeling.
 

Muhammed

Senior member
Jul 8, 2009
418
190
116
Sure, sure, just like they were rushing to support hardware PhysX.
PhysX was not a standard, DXR is.
So far we have a crazy 20 games pledging to support RTX and DXR and counting. That's way more than PhysX or any other thing.

Next generation consoles will support 8K. In your own words explain if all such console AAA games will run at 8K native. Also explain why or why not.
8K output is not 8K native render, and you know it.
Current consoles already support 4K. 4K works in any API and is a far bigger standard than RTX/DXR will ever be.

So demonstrate to us how every current console AAA game supports 4K natively.
You are mixing cards, 4K is a resolution, DXR is a far better alternative to that, it adds lighting, shadows, refections, it's a graphics paradigm, not a dumb resolution! Who compares a 720p resolution to Shadows and Lighting? Are you numb on purpose?
Why would a "tight ship" make a difference to flipping a simple switch that "automatically works everywhere with no developer effort?"
They have to support DX12 first, which is not an easy feat, and they have to maintain that DX12 code at a comparable speed to their DX11 code.
 
  • Like
Reactions: happy medium

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
13,040
2,705
136
Is it only me, or anyone else find Ray Traced Minecraft looking very good, and showing the future of lighning and shadows and reflections?
It really shows how little work was done in Minecraft to handle lighting in a realistic fashion. I've seen very good lighting in non-RT games. It's kind of weird seeing so much attention go to lighting and shadows in Minecraft RTX while the world is still made of pixelated blocks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psolord

Tup3x

Senior member
Dec 31, 2016
234
106
86
It really shows how little work was done in Minecraft to handle lighting in a realistic fashion. I've seen very good lighting in non-RT games. It's kind of weird seeing so much attention go to lighting and shadows in Minecraft RTX while the world is still made of pixelated blocks.
In games that have fully dynamic environments? Prebaked lighting looks nice and all (Mirror's Edge) but it means rather static level design.
 

MajinCry

Platinum Member
Jul 28, 2015
2,469
548
136
Fallout 4 uses Havok, not PhysX. I personally haven't actually seen a game where Havok was anything other than terrible no matter how it's used. Al's discount barn game engine probably has better physics than Havok. For the record, PhysX is open source, AMD opted not to support hardware physics and I don't blame them as it isn't a standard controlled by a third party.

Quake 2 RTX is comparable to Minecraft in terms of ray tracing impact from what I've seen. Obviously talking about the official DXR build with massively improved textures, not the path traced build which is really cool, but not nearly as completely different feeling.
I had it confused for Flex, which is PhysX but with a new name. Still looks like shit, and is only usable for superficial effects.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
13,040
2,705
136
In games that have fully dynamic environments? Prebaked lighting looks nice and all (Mirror's Edge) but it means rather static level design.
Interesting point (though Mirror's Edge is now ancient). It would be more difficult to use anything but the simplistic lighting of Minecraft in a dynamic environment.
 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
21,489
381
126
Is it only me, or anyone else find Ray Traced Minecraft looking very good, and showing the future of lighning and shadows and reflections?
Like Quake 2, ray tracing Minecraft includes new HD content. Also the surfaces and some of the shaders were modified to make ray tracing look better.

So what you're actually seeing is raytracing + HD content.

As for Quake 2, here's the side-by-side. You can see what a massive difference the HD content alone is making which has nothing to do with raytracing.

 
  • Like
Reactions: guachi and psolord

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
21,489
381
126
PhysX was not a standard, DXR is.
4K is a standard too.

So far we have a crazy 20 games pledging to support RTX and DXR and counting. That's way more than PhysX or any other thing
Oooooh, 20. Less than the number of DX12 and Vulkan games in total, tho. So I guess something simply being a standard doesn't guarantee support, debunking your argument.

8K output is not 8K native render, and you know it.
The GPU will support an 8K frame buffer. According to you, the presence of support is enough to guarantee AAA games will use it, as long as it's a standard.

You are mixing cards, 4K is a resolution, DXR is a far better alternative to that, it adds lighting, shadows, refections, it's a graphics paradigm, not a dumb resolution! Who compares a 720p resolution to Shadows and Lighting? Are you numb on purpose?
What are you babbling about? Your argument was that if something is a standard and the hardware supports it, all AAA games will automatically support it.

That's your argument about ray tracing.

4K resolution is a standard: check.
4K resolution is supported as a hardware frame buffer on current consoles: check.

So demonstrate to us how all current console AAA games run at 4K native, or retract your nonsensical argument about ray tracing.

Once you've done that, show us the same thing with 4xMSAA which is also a supported standard on the consoles. Demonstrate to us how all current console AAA games use 4xMSAA.

Put up or retract.

They have to support DX12 first, which is not an easy feat, and they have to maintain that DX12 code at a comparable speed to their DX11 code.
But JHH told us "it just works".

It was never a part of DirectX or Vulkan/OpenGL.
4K and 4xMSAA are part of DX/Vulkan/OpenGL.

Ray Tracing is. And ALL GPU manufacturer will have no choice but to support it.
All GPU manufacturers already support 4K and 4xMSAA.
 

Muhammed

Senior member
Jul 8, 2009
418
190
116
4K is a standard too.
LOL! Is it a DX standard by any chance? What version of DX? 7? All PC games already support 4K since the dawn of time!
Oooooh, 20. Less than the number of DX12 and Vulkan games in total, tho. So I guess something simply being a standard doesn't guarantee support, debunking your argument.
In less than a year, DX12 has been out for like what? 6 years now? how many games did it have? 30? DXR is outpacing it by an order of magnitude, just wait when next gen consoles with their ray traced games hit the street, the number will be tripled!


4K resolution is a standard: check.
4K resolution is supported as a hardware frame buffer on current consoles: check
I won't argue this point any further as you appear to lack any basic understanding of ABC graphics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: happy medium

Dribble

Golden Member
Aug 9, 2005
1,724
286
126
So..whatever happened to PhysX and 3D Vision?
You realise that the reason we got ultra sharp low latency 120hz monitors was 3d vision - that's the tech that pushed that mainsteam - monitor makers are lazy, it was only because Nvidia demanded it if you wanted to certify a monitor as 3d and charge a fortune for it that they bothered. So if you love how high your monitors refresh rate and how little blur it has you can in part thank 3d vision for that. Same with freesync - that appeared because of gsync, and it will be the same for whatever ray tracing tech rules the world - Nvidia pushing it through (while charging a fortune to early adopters) will be the reason we all ray trace everything in 5 years and all this arguing will be forgotten because it's so ubiquitous any arguing will seem silly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Muhammed

mv2devnull

Golden Member
Apr 13, 2010
1,248
31
91
You realise that the reason we got ultra sharp low latency 120hz monitors was 3d vision - that's the tech that pushed that mainsteam - monitor makers are lazy, it was only because Nvidia demanded it if you wanted to certify a monitor as 3d and charge a fortune for it that they bothered.
There was also a short-lived attempt to sell 3D TVs for watching 3D movies etc (and TVs are more "mainstream displays" than PCs). Therefore, I agree that the 3D tech did push panel makers for a while, but hardly NVidia alone.
 

Spjut

Senior member
Apr 9, 2011
840
44
91
Even though the next-gen consoles will support raytracing, the question is if their solution will be enough to run next-gen raytracing to a usable degree. I'm certainly not expecting Nvidia's next-gen RTX to be more exciting than activating Gameworks has been this generation, where most engines have been tailored to what's good for GCN, that's just setting myself up for a big disappointment.
Having dedicated raytracing hardware for raytracing that is too limited anyway and the risk is it will end up like tessellation did on the Xbox 360.

The big games right now aren't using raytracing for everything, it's still rasterization for the most part and only some aspects that get raytraced. And people probably won't be impressed if games are fully raytraced but look like Quake 2.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Arkaign Graphics Cards 70

ASK THE COMMUNITY