Nvidia RTX Discussion

Shlippery

Genevieve Disgusting Self-improvement wrote: »

I think raytracing is very much integral to the entire lighting process, and the data it need to transfer from memory and to the main core might be too fast for PCIe 16x. The PCI pathway is quite long and would degrade performance. SLI works well becuause most of the time the certainly with AFR only the finished frame needs to be transfered to the primary card.

What seems better to me would be handing off some of the processing to the spare CPU cores seeing as we seem to be heading into a core count war at the moment with very little to do with them except run cine-bench.

On a side note, playing the new battlefield V ( got the origin subscription for 100 euro and there are some good games there, is this the way PC gaming is going to go....netflix for games? )...graphics without ray-tracing are very good but the DX12 is stuttery as all hell...on a 5ghz 8700 and a 2080ti...so some optimization needed of that area. I would say the dx12 update will be along in the next couple of months, but its EA so I am not expecting a well optimmised experiance. Game itself is the usual fair, same as BF1 but re-skinned. Serious SJW content.

'
In Battlefield V on PC RTX ray tracing can now be enabled with graphics cards that support this function!'

Give it a whirl now and see the RTX at last!

https://twitter.com/EA_DICE

btkm8unsl0w5r4

Shlippery wrote: »

Give it a whirl now and see the RTX at last!

https://twitter.com/EA_DICE

Flip...in work and left my gaming machine off so cant log in to get it updates. Well this will create a news cycle, all the tech youtubers will have hard ons now to get benchmarking.


****** update ***
Manged to log in and get it patched, install the latest Nvidia drivers, I already had the 1809 windows update. Seems to work but cannot tell about performance as on internet log in. Will report back this evening. *********

btkm8unsl0w5r4

So a little testing over lunch via log in....1080p getting 70 - 100 fps. Some stuttering but dont know if that my internet connection or the game. Certainly looks fantastic. I usually game ultrawide 3440x1440 but da internet is not up to that, I am guessing 30-60 fps up there....which to me is acceptable with gsync turned on. Card not getting hotter than without rtx on.....will test properly later, but certainly not the tragedy that was expected. Now its a 1400 euro gpu so I would expect it to deliver. What a supprise today, at long flippin last. Alls quiet on the internet regarding this suppose the yanks are asleep.

seems the stuttering is gone https://www.pcgamesn.com/battlefield-5-ray-tracing-dx12-performance

L

When you have some decent data on it, send it on. I'm pretty curious.

K.O.Kiki

I honestly forgot you spent more on your GPU than most of us spent on our whole system.

TerrorFirmer

Genevieve Disgusting Self-improvement wrote: »

So a little testing over lunch via log in....1080p getting 70 - 100 fps. .....will test properly later, but certainly not the tragedy that was expected.
[/url]

It's certainly interesting. The performance hit is absolutely enourmous though and makes RTX an impractical novelty.

Guru3D say at 1080p ultra with RTX, 2080Ti averages just around 60fps. Visually impressive as RTX is, we are talking about a €1,400 card here.

The RTX2080, around 44fps at 1080p ultra.

I would say it's about what we expected, visually impressive results but it does essentially renders RTX largely obsolete on these cards in major games.

This is not me 'attacking' the RTX before I'm accused of that, just being realistic. I think the range will have a pretty short lifespan.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

Maybe for a competative shooter you need high FPS but 60 average is plenty good for me. I will take fidelity any day. Hell I used to play Cyrsis at 20 FPS. Horses for courses mind you so whatever floats your boat. Those with an RTX card have choice. Those without do not.

Inquitus

I would assume people buying the RTX2080/2080TI have done so with the intention of gaming at 1440p and higher, I am not sure dropping resolution in return for getting ray tracing is a good trade off.

I don't understand why anyone would buy a 2080/Ti to play games at 1080p with or without Ray Tracing.

L

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't understand why anyone would buy a 2080/Ti to play games at 1080p with or without Ray Tracing.

Well, I can understand it as a curiosity. Sometimes the benefit of new technology is seeing it do something new - regardless of whether it's strictly useful.

Dcully

Performance according to 3d Guru is what i expected all along, cant see it change dramatically anytime soon.

Ofcourse it looks great and all , some nice thumbnails on the 3d guru article but for me personally ill take the 100-200 fps @1440P ultra settings im seeing on my 1080TI any day for half the cost than 60fps 1080P ultra settings for double the cost.

Horses for courses and all that ofcourse

L

L wrote: »

Well, I can understand it as a curiosity. Sometimes the benefit of new technology is seeing it do something new - regardless of whether it's strictly useful.

That's a big outlay of cash to feed your curiosity.

L

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's a big outlay of cash to feed your curiosity.

Oh agreed but each to their own. That's the early adopter's choice.

Xenoronin

We've already had this discussion. Bashing early adopters isn't progressive, go scroll back a few pages in this thread if you want to relive that circlejerk.

I'm still really impressed that we can get playable frames with raytracing enabled, even at the 2080 level. Remember that these results are all ultra settings. At 1440p, PCGamesN is still getting 30fps min on the 2080ti. There is a good chance that having everything at ultra is pointless with RTX on, so I'm eager to see some real world numbers coming in.

Anima

That's a bit short sighted I feel. It's definitely a technology that will be the norm in the future. It's always difficult for a new technology to gain traction and it will improve. As a starting base, it's not in a bad spot and could improve with software optimisation, possibly.

Admittedly, I don't see the point of having anything less than a 2080TI right now. 60 fps is grand for a single player game but no less.

However, fair play to Nvidia for taking a punt on it and pushing the boundaries. There hasn't been any real increase in visual fidelity for a while. It would be a real shame if they abandoned it due to poor sales.

K.O.Kiki

Battlefield V with RTX Initial Tests: Performance Halved (at RTX: Ultra)

tuxy

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Battlefield V with RTX Initial Tests: Performance Halved (at RTX: Ultra)

Better than I expected so. Things are progressing nicely.

Inquitus

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Battlefield V with RTX Initial Tests: Performance Halved (at RTX: Ultra)

Key takeaway from that seems to be the performance hit is there even if the map has little to no reflective surfaces. It is also an implementation limited to providing Raytracing for reflective surfaces only, not for light and shadows outside of that.

tuxy

Perhaps a game engine that can't get dx12 working correctly is not the best test for this. We may have to wait until an engine is built from the ground up with DXR support. By then we will be on another generation of cards.
I suspect most 2080 ti owners will disable DXR after a quick test to play at 140hz on their 1440p monitors.

Shlippery

https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/battlefield-v-rtx-ray-tracing-out-now/



Well, that's Nvidias targets for the 'first release'

.G.

I'd really like Nvidia to give me a card that has 35% performance increase on a 1080ti and doesn't have all the RTX stuff in it that I don't want for a sensible price. Shame they won't. Over a grand to game at 1080P :rolleyes:

tuxy

superg wrote: »

I'd really like Nvidia to give me a card that has 35% performance increase on a 1080ti and doesn't have all the RTX stuff in it that I don't want for a sensible price. Shame they won't. Over a grand to game at 1080P :rolleyes:

No, over a grand to play all the latest games 4k ultra 60 fps+
With the added bonus that you can test experimental ray tracing implementations.
Yes the prices is too high(for me anyway) but obviously it's in the right price bracket for some people.

.G.

tuxy wrote: »

No, over a grand to play all the latest games 4k ultra 60 fps+
With the added bonus that you can test experimental ray tracing implementations.
Yes the prices is too high(for me anyway) but obviously it's in the right price bracket for some people.

If you've bought one you're not supposed to be testing it, you're supposed to be using it, that's why you bought it. Not much point buying it for that tech then deciding not to use it cos you've to game at 1080p having spent all that wedge.

As everyone says, each to their own, I'd just liked to have had an option for the 4k 60fps ultra without the ridiculous price increase for the other tech I don't want. Make a titan RTX card for those that want it, give the rest us normal stuff.

tuxy

superg wrote: »

If you've bought one you're not supposed to be testing it, you're supposed to be using it, that's why you bought it. Not much point buying it for that tech then deciding not to use it cos you've to game at 1080p having spent all that wedge.

But even at the conference where Nvidia announced the cards it was well know that if you wanted to use these features at 60 fps it would be at lower resolutions.
If you buy a 2080 ti you get the fastest gaming GPU money can buy. You help fund Nvidia's research into RTX and you get to try the experimental features.
I know Nvida won't come out and say it like that but everything pointed to that being the case and now it's confirmed that's what we got.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't understand why anyone would buy a 2080/Ti to play games at 1080p with or without Ray Tracing.

Quite agree, here is ultrawide resolution, ultra settings, ultra dxr settings, screen capture on in the background, stock not overclocked 2080t on my machinei. Perfectly playable, butter smooth with gsync on (finally gsync has something to do). Holds good frame-rate (counter in corner high average around 50), a good playing experiance and looks fantastic. I specifically chose scenes with a lot of explosions so as not to cherry pick easy areas. A supprising vindication of RTX out of the blue....

Its one performance update away from a solid 60 fps, an overclock might even bring it there. There we have it boys. Perfectly playable with all the bells and whistles at good resolutions, or turn it off and play faster than your eyes can see or your monitor can draw....all for a princly sum. The visuals are stunning on your own screen, all very cinematic and full of little details that you never knew were not there, but once seen cannot be unseen. My enthusiasm tank runneth over again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12RtDk0G78s

Dcully

That doesnt look butter smooth to me at all, plus its single player, i imagine it will be worse in multiplayer which is why people buy BF games for.
I just find it a bit mad to think thats a €1200 GPU running that at 1080P and not able to sustain 60fps in single player small map, no real draw distance or anything.


Just to add despite what some here would like to think not all are here to criticize the early adopters.
Its their hobby afterall so whats the problem? Its just too expensive for me personally.

tuxy

Dcully wrote: »

I just find it a bit mad to think thats a €1200 GPU running that at 1080P and not able to sustain 60fps in single player small map, no real draw distance or anything.

But it does get 60 FPS at 1080p much to my surprise. fitzgeme didn't give the exact resolution but he said it was one of the ultrawide resolutions.

This is the first time I've seen anyone post a video of single player BF V so it makes it difficult for comparison.
Is it just me or do the new video with DXR today look nothing like the videos that were shown for the RTX launch? It's like most the features were removed to make it playable.

Dcully

I missed the 3440X1440 at the start if thats the case then its better than i thought.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

Dcully wrote: »

That doesnt look butter smooth to me at all, plus its single player, i imagine it will be worse in multiplayer which is why people buy BF games for.
I just find it a bit mad to think thats a €1200 GPU running that at 1080P and not able to sustain 60fps in single player small map, no real draw distance or anything.


Just to add despite what some here would like to think not all are here to criticize the early adopters.
Its their hobby afterall so whats the problem? Its just too expensive for me personally.

Its is very smooth, youtube and capturing it is not, its also not at 1080p, far from it, is 3440x1440...2.5 times the pixels. 1080p is a doddle runs high 80's to 110's.

Dcully wrote: »

I missed the 3440X1440 at the start if thats the case then its better than i thought.

Its like you were in a rush to make a point If you playing fast multiplayer turn it off, you dont have time to admire the world anyway. I shall overclock and see can I get a solid 60 on ultra.....

Dcully

Nope just scrolled to the gameplay.