| Soundwave said: The AMD chips inside the PS5/XBSX don't even do ray tracing very well. I mean shit, they don't even do 4K very well (lol). The reason Sony/MS use them is because they're cheap, Nvidia GPUs and architecture is superior but Sony/MS can't afford to use them. The reason Nintendo gets Nvidia tech is because the Tegra line hasn't taken off the way Nvidia hoped so Nintendo is kind of the only major customer, so the tech has to be affordable for Nintendo, but Nintendo reaps the benefits of the better architecture. Ultimately if tech really matters to you, a PC GPU is going to blow the shit out of a Playstation 5, it's just not even close. |
Tegra is big in Industrial/Automation/Signage/Embedded and most of all, Cars.
It's also positioned to be a big driver of A.I as well.
But you are right, Tegra didn't take off how nVidia originally envisaged, it was meant to be big in Phones and Tablets, but nVidia found that mobile is far more competitive than PC and Console and just couldn't iterate fast enough to keep up.
However, they did do the right thing and leveraged PC technology to find high-growth markets, which they are now capitalising on.
...The fact Nintendo can piggyback off those designs is just a massive bonus.
| Kakadu18 said: Super Mario Odyssey runs at 60 fps. |
Quick check... And my mistake, so it does.
Either way, doesn't really change my point.
| Kakadu18 said: Regardless of that, raytracing would lower the framerate and not provide any gameplay improvement to any of these games or their sequels. Making a specific type of game slightly more immersive is not worth implementing raytracing. It's drawbacks are a 100 times bigger than those that DLSS could have. DLSS can make games run and look better throughout. Raytracing only makes the lighting and shadows look better and needs way more powerful hardware. After like 10 minutes I'd literally stop noticing it. |
The evidence we have currently is that it's up to the developers on whether they have Ray Tracing PLUS 60fps. It's achievable. - Which I have proven prior.
Just like 30fps without Ray Tracing is a thing, it's entirely up to the developer.
Conventional methods of rendering, like screen-space effects tend to introduce artifacts into the rendered scene, which I find extremely noticeable, Ray Tracing resolves it completely.
Ray Traced lighting is stupidly impactful to a scene, if you "stop noticing it" then you need your eyeballs checked.
One thing to also keep in mind is that many games that *do* have Ray Tracing, also usually have the option to turn it off if you don't care for it.
It's good having choice.
Taking the option of Ray Tracing away because on the off chance a developer *might* (Again, no guarantees) provide 60fps? You aren't doing anyone a favor.
Having the hardware capability there literally hurts no one, but opens up possibilities and choice.
| Slownenberg said: You lost the argument when you decided to way over hype ray tracing, and meanwhile passed off DLSS as "doesn't mean crap." lol. And I dunno if you've noticed, but games have had real time lighting for a long time, and stealth games have existed for a long time. Ray tracing is a cool graphical effect, but it definitely is not "hardware generation defining", nor does it allow all sorts of new games to be made as you suggest. Games can have ray tracing turned off and you just lose some cool effects. DLSS on the other hand allows the same game to be played at less expense, meaning games with higher level graphics can be played with fewer resources. Ray tracing isn't remotely comparable to DLSS. For a handheld like Switch 2, ray tracing is an entirely skippable feature considering it would require more resources on a platform that by definition must be resource constrained. Whereas DLSS will do the opposite, make games take less resources. DLSS is a huge technology for next gen Nintendo, ray tracing is a cool to have but not needed feature, and when Switch 2 gets ports of console games they can just turn off the ray tracing. |
I never asserted that DLSS "doesn't mean crap" - Don't put words in my mouth and don't lie.
Real time lighting is not the same as hardware based ray traced lighting or even global illumination.
Real-time lighting existed on the Playstation 1/Nintendo 64. - The Nintendo 64 used hardware Transform and Lighting for it's real-time lighting effects for instance... Which meant when you fired say... A rocket down a hallway, the walls would light up.
The original Xbox also had games that used Ray Tracing, albeit software based and often only a single bounce light, Conker is a notable title for this... As was Shrek with it's Deferred Renderer.
Many games from the 7th generation used baked lighting in it's assets, which are pre-computed lighting passes on a scene, which you guessed it, was done using a ray tracing algorithm.
Games have literally benefited from Ray Tracing for years and you didn't even know it... But somehow you think it's unimportant? Give me a break.
Ray Tracing can also reduce hardware demand, because instead of doing your Global Illumination pass on the GPU's pipelines via software, you can now do it on the dedicated RT cores, meaning you can use those pipelines for non-lighting tasks.
This can be done in Unreal Engine 5 where you can offload Lumens GI operations from software... Into hardware, providing a speedup or a visual boost, entirely up to the developer.
Slownenberg said:
Ummm we're 3 months away from Xbox Series and PS5 being 3 years old. Saying developers haven't even started (lol) to cut their teeth on the hardware yet is beyond ridiculous. These systems are probably 40% into their lifecycle. You could have made this claim TWO years ago, definitely not now. |
And yet... Many games, game engines and technology are still cross-platform... So we are still being held back by last gen hardware.
Remember for years people struggled to get a PS5, so development had to include 8th gen hardware or risk alienating your userbase.
And you are right, we are almost at the half way point of the generation, but it doesn't conflict with the above.
| Slownenberg said: Exactly. NOT having ray tracing is going to be a big feature for Switch 2 in terms of getting ports. Console games with ray tracing won't be nearly as maxed out graphically as they would be without ray tracing. Thus you turn off ray tracing for Switch 2 and you immediately close the power gap between Nintendo's handheld and the consoles. You then combine this 'anti-feature' with DLSS so you can drop the console resolution from 4k or whatever it is down to like 540p or 700p or something, then jack it back up on the cheap to some higher resolution. |
Aren't you going to be upset when it includes hardware RT cores then? Or will you be one of those turncoats who will start supporting RT because your favorite platform has it?
Nintendo will -never- close the power-gap with Microsoft or Sony, they gave up on that decades ago, anyone who believes otherwise is literally delusional.
Nintendo is building it's console technology around handhelds, you are limited on TDP, Power and cost. It's that simple.
| Chrkeller said: Whatever happened to the new age hair thing in gaming? I remember it being a big deal around the TR reboot but haven't heard much since. I kind of forgot all about it. Either way the switch 2 will be a hybrid which will limit its power. RT us power hungry, DSLL works better with less power.... pretty simple. |
Fidelity FX. And it is still a thing, just not heavily promoted anymore as the industry has moved on.
Slownenberg said:
Uh what??? That makes no sense. You say Switch 2 is going to be low-end (of course because its a portable) but it "needs" to have hardware feature set parity with the consoles...that doesn't make sense. Those two things are contradictory. Especially when what we're talking about is a special effect that can easily just be turned off without affecting the game play. |
Makes perfect sense, you just can't look at the bigger picture and discern the difference. That is okay, I am here to assist.
Hardware feature set parity pertains to the functional hardware blocks that enable specific techniques. - This is NOT to be confused with performance, but rather capability.
For example Tessellation is done on nVidia's Polymorph engines, which has feature set parity with AMD's tessellation units. - That means when a developer develops it's game leveraging tessellation, they be sure it will function correctly regardless if it's AMD or nVidia... Because they have hardware feature set parity.
Before Direct X 11 standardised Tessellation, this didn't occur... AMD's tessellation units relied on a thing called "N-Patches" which were pieces of data that told the tessellator where to tessellate, how much and when... Which meant that it wasn't compatible with nVidia's implementation of that rendering technique.
Hardware feature set parity means that those techniques are present and compatible, so games don't need to be overhauled at a base technical level to make them run.
| Slownenberg said: I think permalite just bought hard into the marketing hype of the current gen consoles that was trying to sell ray tracing as this generation defining thing to get people excited about another generation of consoles in which the graphical difference is obviously shrinking between generations (as it naturally will over time). With PS4 Pro and Xbox 1X you had realistic looking games at 4k (or I think maybe they were just upscaled to 4k and not native but whatever the average person doesn't care about that), now with PS5 and Xbox Series you have moderately more realistic looking games at 4k....but we have this really cool new lighting effect so everyone get suuuuper excited for cool lighting this gen and start believing it totally changes games! haha. This is what permalite clearly bought into and is sticking with even 3 years later. |
I am a PC Gamer.
I have seen what Ray Tracing can do. Clearly you have not.
The fact you don't understand "hardware feature set parity" or whether games were upscaled/rendered at 4k on 8th gen consoles is just reinforcing my point that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Try harder and try to keep up.
If you just want more of the same, just stick to the current Switch, lets not let progress get in the way of enabling new experiences, shall we?
| Oneeee-Chan!!! said: Wasn't Ampere GPU's ray tracing performance much better than RDNA2 ? |
Yes.
Amperes RT cores can work independently of the SM cores, so while they're doing BVH traversal or ray-primitive intersection math, the rest of the SM can still be processing shader operations.
nVidia's RT is simply more efficient than AMD.
| Slownenberg said: The generational leap from Switch to next gen will obviously be a lot more than "better lighting and resolution". Generational leaps are a lot smaller these days than they were 20+ years ago, but at least don't downplay the fact that Switch 2 is gonna be much more powerful than Switch. Next gen Nintendo games will do stuff that the Switch could not remotely do. Switch 2 will likely all together be a bit more capable than PS4/XB1 given likely similar specs but new techniques and stuff like DLSS. Sure its no N64 to GC leap haha, cuz leaps like that are long gone, but its a gonna be a hell of a lot more than lighting and resolution. Lighting and resolution (and probably framerate) woulda been a Switch Pro type update, not a new system. |
Some of the best selling Switch games were just old WiiU games at a higher resolution and/or framerate.
From a hardware perspective, the Switch 2 will likely have less functional hardware units than the Playstation 4, but likely see massive gains in efficiency and technology which will make up the difference in a big way.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
Essay Pro