Carzy Zarx’s PC Gaming Emporium - Catch Up on All the Latest PC Gaming Related News

[Bofferbrauer2]

Captain_Yuri said:

Bofferbrauer2 said:

Is it, though?

Raytracing is the future, nobody is denying that. But that's just it, it's the future.

Right now, the performance loss with RT stands in no relation to the increase in visuals it brings. It's like 4x/8xSSAA 20 years ago: It was a much clearer picture, but it absolutely tanked the performance and thus was seldom really used. For me, RT is exactly the same right now. Today's hardware is not yet powerful enough to make RT truly shine, but in a couple years, it will be, and then RT will truly be the game-changer it wants to be right now. To go back to the 8xSSAA, we got that for a while now; 4K is a larger frame than 1024x768 was with 8x Supersampling and actually pretty close to 1440p in size, while 4xSSAA is just slightly more than Full HD. It just took a while for the hardware to be at the level calculating such large frames making sense.

In other words, Rasterisation is still king. Plus, the games with an RT implementation are still few and far between, let alone those with anywhere near a good implementation.

It is because they aren't giving the consumer any choice and instead just pushing their own agenda. Ray Tracing is 110% doable right now. Not to it's full potential sure and there is a large performance hit sure but the visual advantages are very clear and DLSS lessens the performance hit significantly. There is an increasing number of games that can do Ray Tracing just fine with DLSS. Minecraft with Ray Tracing makes a world of difference and Cyberpunk with Ray Tracing on looks noticeably better. Sometimes night and day difference with things such as reflections. Even Hardware Unboxed says so.

No one is saying don't do Raster. No one is also saying do more Ray Tracing than Raster either. But to not include Ray Tracing at all or dismiss it is nonsense. At a minimum, reviewers should be doing what Gamers Nexus is doing where they have mostly raster performances as well as 3 games that show off different levels of ray tracing. Tomb Raider where they show off just shadows, Control that show off hybrid and Minecraft that show off path tracing. A reviewers job should be presenting choices to the consumer, especially in the PC space and especially on $600+ GPUs. Not dictate how consumers should play their games based on nonsense opinions.

So was SSAA. But like SSAA, Raytracing isn't worth it yet, the visual uplift just is too small to for it's performance hit. And again, only very few games actually make use of RT right now, and even much fewer still in any meaningful way. Using Raytracing right now as main value to define how good a GPU is, is like what Intel is trying to pull with their real life performance crap on CPUs. It's just too early for RT to be the be-all, end-all. Give it a year or two for the tech and it's implementations in games to mature and then RT should be on the frontpage of the benchmarks. But right now? No, not yet.

I do agree that the Gamers Nexus route is a good one to show where RT is right now, though. But it also shows where RT is right now with Minecraft RT, and that current hardware won't be nearly powerful enough for more graphically extensive games to not totally tank the performance with RT.