Quake II looks better than ever with ray tracing

[FPSChris]

If you want to play quake 2, I highly suggest quake 2 xp:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/quake-2-xp

 

[Kibaruk]

And that is exactly why it is not brag worthy.

Thats exactly why it is.

If you could've added Crisis in there, something tells me people would've gone your side lol.

With that said. It's almost unbelievable that we are in tech forum.

 

[Someone8MyPosts]

You guys obviously do not understand how visually complex and demanding this technology is, or have an educated history of what happens to GPU's when they push new tech.

I worked in the gaming industry for a while, so I absolutely do. You have to look at it from a viability standpoint. Ray tracing is nothing new...we were doing it in the 90s. The fact that it's real-time is the kicker here and it's not worth the $$ for consumers at this point. The cost far outweighs the benefit, because let's face it...if it doesn't make money for AMD or NVidia, it's not viable for them either.

 

[Kibaruk]

The fact that it's real-time is the kicker here and it's not worth the $$ for consumers at this point. The cost far outweighs the benefit, because let's face it...if it doesn't make money for AMD or NVidia, it's not viable for them either.

In other words...

All new technologies for graphic enhancement go through this phase, its not crappy, its in its infancy.

lol

 

[Someone8MyPosts]

In other words...
lol

Tell that to the people buying it on the premise that it's so amazing until they get it home and realize they need to stop bothering with hyped marketing. It's no different from the AAA games industry pulling the same tactic of calling their games amazing only to disappoint. Hence the rise of indie gaming popularity. It's put a lot of AAA game companies on notice and caused quite a few people to lose their jobs. Many have gone on to do their own thing. Your tech can be amazing like the everyday announcement of new battery tech, but if you can't make it reasonably affordable, no one really cares.

 

[Kibaruk]

Tell that to the people buying it on the premise that it's so amazing until they get it home and realize they need to stop bothering with hyped marketing. It's no different from the AAA games industry pulling the same tactic of calling their games amazing only to disappoint. Hence the rise of indie gaming popularity. It's put a lot of AAA game companies on notice and caused quite a few people to lose their jobs. Many have gone on to do their own thing. Your tech can be amazing like the everyday announcement of new battery tech, but if you can't make it reasonably affordable, no one really cares.

I'm sorry buddy but you are derailing huge time from the actual topic and initial comments.
The technology is awesome, looks fabulous but it's still on it's infancy, heck it was announced a couple of months ago that the RTX 2000 series would have real time tracing. Infancy stage.
If anyone goes out to buy something based on hype without looking at the reviews or FPS that the games are outputting, they probably have enough money to throw away and won't matter. I can't imagine anyone spending over $500 on a video card that won't do the proper research.

 

[amstech]

Visually complex and demanding doesn't suddenly make it good. .

This comment makes no sense, nor does it apply to this article.
.

Nvidia did the former. My first boss always told me to work smarter, not harder.

This example has absolutely zero correlation with this topic.

Nor is it traditional to nearly double the price of the top end graphics card for a single small graphical improvement that was used in 0 games at launch.

The RTX 2080 is much faster then the GTX 1080.
Trying to shame Nvidia's new technology because its so new does nothing to support any negative comment you have made. It's exciting new tech in its infancy, nothing more. Because current cards cannot run it well does nothing to discredit them.

 

[Evernessince]

This comment makes no sense, nor does it apply to this article.
.

This example has absolutely zero correlation with this topic.


The RTX 2080 is much faster then the GTX 1080.
Trying to shame Nvidia's new technology because its so new does nothing to support any negative comment you have made. It's exciting new tech in its infancy, nothing more. Because current cards cannot run it well does nothing to discredit them.

Wait, my comment has nothing to do with this article? Then by association that means the comment I was replying to (yours) isn't on topic as well.

Your comment:

"You guys obviously do not understand how visually complex and demanding this technology is, or have an educated history of what happens to GPU's when they push new tech."

My response

"Visually complex and demanding doesn't suddenly make it good. The reason modern graphics look as good as they do is because many current technologies are shortcuts to the way light actually behaves in real life. You can brute force a small improvement in visual fidelity or you can be smart about it. Nvidia did the former. My first boss always told me to work smarter, not harder.

Nor is it traditional to nearly double the price of the top end graphics card for a single small graphical improvement that was used in 0 games at launch."


Clearly my comment replies directly to what you were saying so either you are admitting you were off topic by making that post in the first place or you are trying to derail the argument you started because you are loosing.

The RTX 2080 is much faster then the GTX 1080.
Trying to shame Nvidia's new technology because its so new does nothing to support any negative comment you have made. It's exciting new tech in its infancy, nothing more. Because current cards cannot run it well does nothing to discredit them.

For a guy who spent a comment insulting people's knowledge of GPUs that subsequently got deleted for personal attacks, you should know that when I said

"Nor is it traditional to nearly double the price of the top end graphics card for a single small graphical improvement that was used in 0 games at launch."

I was clearly referring to of course the top end 2080 Ti. The 2080 is not Nvidia's flagship card. Those who live in glass houses should not cast stones.

Now the meat of my comment criticizes the price of the 2080 Ti specifically and Nvidia clearly deserves it. Around less then half the performance improvement of Pascal for, as I stated, nearly double the price. I could care less about the newness of RTX and more about Nvidia price hiking their GPUs. Likewise your comment has done nothing to show me what exactly makes this card worth the money. Let me use your words to sum up my feelings about the card, "It's exciting new tech in its infancy, nothing more.". If that is your sole justification for the card's poor rasterization performance in comparison to previous generational jumps and it's near doubling in price, I think you'll convince very few.

Also could you for a second stop calling everyone who doesn't agree with you uneducated. You've done it at least 3 times in this comment section alone. It's petty off topic remarks like that which completely ruin any chance you had of others wanting to give your comment a fair shake.

 

[Kibaruk]

Nor is it traditional to nearly double the price of the top end graphics card for a single small graphical improvement that was used in 0 games at launch.

Diminishing returns anyone? And even then, neither your comment on pricing nor games that use the technology is relevant to the technology or the news. Nor the comment on what your boss told you, however the technology was developed, it's there, newly available and optimizations are bound to come.