Nvidia RTX Discussion

L

Genevieve Disgusting Self-improvement wrote: »

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.



Its like you were in a rush to make a point

Any chance of you posting a video of the ray tracing version Fitz? Quite curious now.

Dcully

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.

If this is the case then would you think 1440 could be a sweetspot?

BloodBath

Fairly pointless uploading a dark scene to youtube at 1080p. All details will be lost always. Their compression is terrible.

Is there any sign of DLSS support? The 2 were meant to go hand in hand so you could increase your frames/resolution with some fancy up-scaling.

Either that or using it for AA with DLSSx2 instead of the terrible T-AA that's become the norm since most games don't use forward renderers anymore so they can't use MSAA.

tuxy

BloodBath wrote: »

Fairly pointless uploading a dark scene to youtube at 1080p. All details will be lost always. Their compression is terrible.

I tried to make out what resolution he has playing at and couldn't read anything in the menu, good to hear that it's not my eyesight that's failing.
A day time multiplayer scene shows it off better as all this implementation of
DXR does is greatly enhance reflections I think( correct me if I'm wrong)
There are videos on youtube of this already.

This video show a good comparison of the difference, unfortunately it is only a 1080p video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxTtL78c4HE

awec

Genevieve Disgusting Self-improvement wrote: »

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.



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.....

It's hardly "very smooth" when your FPS counter is showing 40-50 FPS. Nothing to do with youtube.

Dunno, still seems like something that's a waste of money still for now. Either you have to accept a stupidly low resolution for the money you've paid, or a stupidly low frame rate for the money you've paid.

Think the smart money is on waiting another iteration or two.

tuxy

awec wrote: »

It's hardly "very smooth" when your FPS counter is showing 40-50 FPS. Nothing to do with youtube.

30 fps is the gold standard at console level maybe it's time PC gamers were more realistic with their expectations.

That said I expect the vast majority of people who got BF V to actually play the game and not just check out DXR to disable it after a few games.

awec

tuxy wrote: »

30 fps is the gold standard at console level maybe it's time PC gamers were more realistic with their expectations.

That said I expect the vast majority of people who got BF V to actually play the game and not just check out DXR to disable it after a few games.

Yea I think you're going to have a hard time trying to spin 1080p or 40-50fps as something good when you fork out over a grand on your card alone.

Looks lovely, runs like crap.

Like buying a top of the range BMW and choosing between 1 mile to the gallon or a top speed of 40. But it's lovely to sit in!

It'll come good eventually, just doesn't seem like a wise investment right now.

tuxy

awec wrote: »

Yea I think you're going to have a hard time trying to spin 1080p or 40-50fps as something good when you fork out over a grand on your card alone.

They already have, it was clear this would be the case with the 2080 ti, it still sold in reasonable quantities with most models out of stock as I speak.

awec wrote: »

It'll come good eventually, just doesn't seem like a wise investment right now.

Of course and people with large disposable incomes will fund it along the way.
At the same time the rest of us can sit back, happy that we are not missing out on anything.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

Lads you mother warned you would go blind if you didnt stop tugging at it all the time....
thats perfectly legible..turn up your youtube resolution....



Will post different scene in a little while, this time with a light overclock 500 memory, 100 clock and 130% power target. That keeps the card under 70.

---- here --

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwhAUc8uvxc

Inviere

tuxy wrote: »

30 fps is the gold standard at console level maybe it's time PC gamers were more realistic with their expectations.

Seriously?

tuxy

Inviere wrote: »

Seriously?

Yes just look at any big release on the console platforms.
Visual quality does take priority over frame rate, it's not something I particularly like but it's a decision that has been made by the the big games devs and has been embraced by the majority of gamers.

TitianGerm

tuxy wrote: »

30 fps is the gold standard at console level maybe it's time PC gamers were more realistic with their expectations.
.

A 2080TI costs a little bit more than a console in fairness.

Dcully

30 fps is the gold standard at console level maybe it's time PC gamers were more realistic with their expectations.

Ah come off it man, no way ill go back to that after experienceing 144hz 1440 gaming,doubt anybody will, you must be trolling man? wtf?

awec

tuxy wrote: »

Yes just look at any big release on the console platforms.
Visual quality does take priority over frame rate, it's not something I particularly like but it's a decision that has been made by the the big games devs and has been embraced by the majority of gamers.

When your entire hardware bundle costs less than 500 quid you can get away with that.

tuxy

awec wrote: »

When your entire hardware bundle costs less than 500 quid you can get away with that.

Yes but you won't get your hands on experimental technology with that budget.

tuxy

Dcully wrote: »

Ah come off it man, no way ill go back to that after experienceing 144hz 1440 gaming,doubt anybody will, you must be trolling man? wtf?

I know, that's why you went for a pascal card. You had no interest in paying to try out features that are still in the testing phase, which is fair enough but some people made a different decision.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

awec wrote: »

Like buying a top of the range BMW and choosing between 1 mile to the gallon or a top speed of 40. But it's lovely to sit in!
.

No with RTX you can have speed, resolution and RTX, just you can only pick two at a time at the expense of the third.. Thats the only compromise, which you choose at the time is up to you. Wait a few generations if you like but then it will be nothing special and the next big thing will be just around the corner. Its like waiting ten years cause you know a family car will be as fast as a ten year old ferrari, makes sense but you never get your ferrari and a family car will never be special.

I dont find any difficulty playing at anything above 30 FPS, yes 60 is nicer, but there is no screen tearing and so long as frame times are consistent its a good experiance for single player games. I have no doubt that you could get a 60+ FPS at my resolution ultra-wide 1440p by tweaking the setting and leaving RTX on, I just refuse to turn down settings. I am tolerant of low FPS maybe others are not.

Consoles dont just cost 500 euro. The games are an obnoxious price, PC gaming almost pays for itself with the Steam sales and the newer subscription library services. Also a console is just a console a PC is multi-functional, so comparing them is like comparing a screw driver to a swiss army knife.

144htz gaming never got my attention. Sure just turn down settings if thats the aim of the game. AAA titles wont get that at 1440p these days anyway, and to be honest the CPU has a lot to do with pushing out that many frames, texture quality is a big player and memory bandwidth. If you playing overwatch is doesnt matter, but a 1080ti wont push pubg or doom (at nightmare textures) at 144htz. Again the point is, if you have RTX you can choose what is important to you. If you dont you cant. If that choice was not worth the 50 - 100 euro difference between a 2080 and 1080ti then you have nailed your flag to the mast and I respect that, but It not what I would have done, I would have saved a few weeks longer, got better performance to push my high refresh rate monitor in newer games, and the option to RTX on if I so felt like it, that the point I have been making for 18 pages.

Interesting day in GPU land, be interested to see the media's take on this.

Dcully

Joker is not impresed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lurzL-D3yV8

Dcully

I cant believe PC gamers are now suddenly deciding 30 fps is acceptable lol wtf guys yer a gas bunch

tuxy

Dcully wrote: »

I cant believe PC gamers are now suddenly deciding 30 fps is acceptable lol wtf guys yer a gas bunch

You're looking at it from the point of view that it's something like the useless hair-works technology and not something that will be developing and progressing over the years.

Blazer

Bfv runs like a pig anyway so it obviously requires further optimization especially on the cpu side which is getting hammered regardless of the CPU you have.
Hopefully once dice tweak it a bit it will improve things.
Make sure future rendering is turned on. Helps improve FPS by nearly 50% for little input lag

Dcully

tuxy wrote: »

You're looking at it from the point of view that it's something like the useless hair-works technology and not something that will be developing and progressing over the years.

No im wondering why you think we should embrace 30 fps as gold standard.

tuxy

They will possibly need a new game engine for good dx12 support never mind dxr. I've no idea how unity and unreal engine will do with their patches for DXR.
Again we may have to wait for Unreal engine 5 or whatever, which of course is years away.
By the time it's ready for wide-scale use I know I can pick up an RTX card that's much more refined at a much cheaper price.

tuxy

Dcully wrote: »

No im wondering why you think we should embrace 30 fps as gold standard.

I didn't say we. I said the majority of gamers. If they can embrace it what can't people who want to test DXR?

Dcully

For single player games that you can play at your leisure i get it but not for a fast paced multiplayer shooter,,, im looking forward to all the rtx users looking at puddles and windows while the rest of us just shoot them :P

Dcully

Nah you said PC gamers mate.

30 fps is the gold standard at console level maybe it's time PC gamers were more realistic with their expectations.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

Dcully wrote: »

For single player games that you can play at your leisure i get it but not for a fast paced multiplayer shooter,,, im looking forward to all the rtx users looking at puddles and windows while the rest of us just shoot them :P

i am going to blow your mind here......they can turn it off if they want and the cards are faster than yours if they do............welcome to the matrix.

This was my 8000 post on boards....a life wasted.

Dcully

We all know that lol but arent we talking rtx here.

awec

Genevieve Disgusting Self-improvement wrote: »

No with RTX you can have speed, resolution and RTX, just you can only pick two at a time at the expense of the third.. Thats the only compromise, which you choose at the time is up to you. Wait a few generations if you like but then it will be nothing special and the next big thing will be just around the corner. Its like waiting ten years cause you know a family car will be as fast as a ten year old ferrari, makes sense but you never get your ferrari and a family car will never be special.

I dont find any difficulty playing at anything above 30 FPS, yes 60 is nicer, but there is no screen tearing and so long as frame times are consistent its a good experiance for single player games. I have no doubt that you could get a 60+ FPS at my resolution ultra-wide 1440p by tweaking the setting and leaving RTX on, I just refuse to turn down settings. I am tolerant of low FPS maybe others are not.

Consoles dont just cost 500 euro. The games are an obnoxious price, PC gaming almost pays for itself with the Steam sales and the newer subscription library services. Also a console is just a console a PC is multi-functional, so comparing them is like comparing a screw driver to a swiss army knife.

144htz gaming never got my attention. Sure just turn down settings if thats the aim of the game. AAA titles wont get that at 1440p these days anyway, and to be honest the CPU has a lot to do with pushing out that many frames, texture quality is a big player and memory bandwidth. If you playing overwatch is doesnt matter, but a 1080ti wont push pubg or doom (at nightmare textures) at 144htz. Again the point is, if you have RTX you can choose what is important to you. If you dont you cant. If that choice was not worth the 50 - 100 euro difference between a 2080 and 1080ti then you have nailed your flag to the mast and I respect that, but It not what I would have done, I would have saved a few weeks longer, got better performance to push my high refresh rate monitor in newer games, and the option to RTX on if I so felt like it, that the point I have been making for 18 pages.

Interesting day in GPU land, be interested to see the media's take on this.

"That's the only compromise" he says, as if it's not a ridiculously huge compromise to make when you shell out over 1000 euro for a card.

To be honest, it just sounds like you are trying to overly justify this at this stage with this talk of not caring about anything over 30fps or high refresh rates etc etc. I don't really get why you think you have to do this. You're happy with it, there's no need to try spin it into something it's not.

But I still think the overwhelming majority are yet to be impressed and see it still as just a huge waste of money at this stage. Which it is, really. You're paying a premium for a glorified gimmick. But if that's what you want, that's what you want.

tuxy

Well I guess there are three main types of people who got the 2080 ti.
Those that blindly buy the latest fastest card at any price, people who actully needed that level of rasterization performance
and those who know it's not good value but want to test RTX early.
I believe fitzgeme fits in to the latter(correct me if I'm wrong fitz)

No one was duped, I believe only one person on here decided to buy an RTX card and he got it for the right reasons or what was right for him at least.