![]() ![]() AMD is, of course, supplying the hardware for both machines. I’ve talked about this before, in front-page news posts, but both Sony and Microsoft have made mention of ray-tracing in hype sessions for their next-generation consoles. There’s also AMD’s position to consider currently, Nvidia’s only real competitor in the PC graphics card space has no ray-tracing-specific hardware despite the existence of a vendor-agnostic accelerated ray-tracing standard in Microsoft’s DXR. ![]() Instead, it seems more likely that we will see another modest gain in RTX performance while significant portions of the chips’ die area are devoted to more tensor cores. If Nvidia is to remain a “one-architecture company,” it’s difficult to imagine the next generation of GeForce cards offering the kind of leap in performance we saw between the GeForce 3 and the GeForce 4 Ti 4600, or between the GeForce FX 5800 and GeForce 6800 Ultra. However, R/T cores don’t perform AI inferencing. In this comparison, the implication is that the next RTX-capable architecture will offer dramatic gains in terms of ray-tracing performance. The idea behind the comparison is that current GeForce cards’ relatively-poor RTX performance (compared to non-RTX performance) is essentially a matter of “growing pains” as we move into a new, hybrid rendering paradigm. Hardware-savvy persons that I respect have drawn parallels between GeForce RTX and the technologies introduced by the old GeForce FX and GeForce 3 GPUs. The concept of lopping off half your framerate for improved image quality does seem to run contrary to the trend toward high-refresh monitors. The question of whether those end results are worth kneecapping your game’s performance is a matter of taste, but judging from the buzz around the web, it seems like a significant portion of gamers aren’t exactly enthusiastic about the idea. Personally, I think the end product looks great, more often than not. Despite all that, enabling RTX still has an enormous performance penalty in every game so far. RTX games also make heavy use of an AI-powered de-noising filter to smooth out the grainy results. Contemporary implementations of RTX cast rather meager amounts of rays that bounce relatively few times, compared to offline ray-tracers. Of course, some folks say that it still isn’t computationally feasible. ![]() It simply wasn’t computationally feasible to use for games-at least, until now. Rendering professionals always knew ray-tracing offered superior quality compared to rasterization. Regardless of what screeching fanboys will insist, ray-tracing in some form is almost certainly the next big step in real-time computer graphics. I do own Chinese indie title Bright Memory (which was recently announced to be getting RTX support in an upcoming patch) as well as Remedy’s Control (releasing August 27), so perhaps I can investigate RTX performance some other time.Įven still, I have a fair bit to say on the topic of RTX. Nevermind that it mostly uses assets from 1997. Where Battlefield V uses RTX to simulate realistic reflections and Shadow of the Tomb Raider uses RTX for lifelike lighting and shadows, Quake II RTX relies on RTX entirely to light and shade the scenes. Quake II RTX is difficult to appreciate from screenshots alone. The only RTX game I have right now is Quake II RTX, and while I’m rather taken with Nvidia’s modification of the classic Id Software title, it operates in a radically different fashion from other RTX games. I’d like to do some additional experimentation with Nvidia’s RTX ray-tracing, but, even more than Radeon Anti-Lag, I don’t really have a satisfactory set-up for RTX testing.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |