The State of Nvidia RTX Ray Tracing: One Year Later

grumblguts

TS Addict
Jup seems like Nvidia reflections are rendered in higher quality there (just play the clips at 0.25 speed), thus the bullet casing reflection are sharper and more distorted due to the water surface's imperfections. While the water puddles in AMD are just flat and no impurity at all.
Furthermore
AMD


Nvidia


AMD's reflections are less detailed and suffer from some quite jarring render error there. I also check the rain part, every Nvidia gpu it's right to left and for AMD it's left to right.
glad you pointed that out because it only did it in 1080p not 2560x1440.
sooooooo yeahhhhhhh
 

grumblguts

TS Addict
Good eyes there, the rain in my clip is right to left while in yours it's left to right. With Youtube compression it's harder to spot but in my original clip the rain drops are very obvious.
Busted, im so glad I checked made me think you had the upper hand when you didnt.
nice try tho keep it up
 

Shigawire

TS Enthusiast
Preamble: I've worked with numerous 3d graphics apps, 3dsmax, modo, terragen, v-ray etc. So I know a thing or two about ray tracing in its various forms.

First, I'll post a very general and positive thought about this. I'm glad that *some form* of raytracing is being pushed forth as tech used in game development. And these "fringe/pioneer" technologies have to start somewhere, if it should emerge at all. And yes, only the very wealthy will buy this tech, in the beginning of the tech being adopted. Just a general thought.

Now the negatives, which are more numerous:
1.As almost everyone else has already mentioned, they aren't utilizing full ray tracing approach to the entire render pipeline. All of the games are using a quasi-ray tracing method, blended with traditional rendering methods. So, we are not seeing the benefits that a holistic approach to ray tracing would grant. You have to squint your eyes to tell the differences at times. Mostly you can tell by shadows and light reflections of diffuse surfaces (radiosity), especially in corners. But due to the quality of standard rendering methods when RTX is off, the difference in experience is negligible.
2.The high price compared to the negligible experiential difference, combined with lower performance, is not conducive to mass appeal and adoption of the product.
3.The above shows us the equations of "tech-to-vision" and "tech-to-market" are premature.

I still have a regular Geforce 1080. And what I personally would want in a GPU, is *still* raw power. I won't care about ray tracing until it becomes widely adopted everywhere. And before such time that ray tracing becomes important to me, I'll care far more about being able to render +80fps in 2x4K VR screens (Pimax 8KX). I have no trouble being motivated to buy a very expensive high end card, but I would want a card *without* the RTX with the same raw power - at a lower price. Nvidia should make a version of the next 3080 Ti that does not contain the RTX core, at a lower price. I also hope AMD straddles on the stage with a killer GPU to beat the 3080 Ti, as they are killing it with their high-end CPUs recently (despite high watt usage). If AMD is able to deliver a cheaper competitor to the 3080 Ti in terms of raw power, without the Ray Tracing, I'll go for AMD.