Discussion in 'Video Cards & Monitors' started by SnooP-WiggleS, Mar 6, 2020.
It would be funny and strange if NVidia patented a process that runs on Navi
Something like Cyberpunk 2077.. Won't have AMD compatible ray tracing at launch. But will likely get it within 12 months.
Its a real thing. Often game engines get around it using tricks. Reflections in most games are tricks. So don't quite behave right..
But there are other ways to achieve this.. And have been for a long time. The way it renders it, its not a reflection it is infact just a duplicate of what you are seeing, so you won't see your characters face, you see the back of their head in the mirror, which is why they warp/blur it.
Duke Nukem for MS DOS had mirrors.
But Ray tracing means they don't have to use those bodges and tricks. They can just turn it on, and if you don't have it, then they will say, get a better video card.
Water is another.. We have had water for a long time.. Check out Expendable on Matrox G400..
But it gets harder to do these in premade engines, and developing the workarounds are time consuming.
Real time ray tracing is a newish thing. Particularly in games.
If it was industry standard, then it would run the same on AMD as it does on Nvidia. It doesn't because Nvidia doesn't want to to run the same.
They Added it to Vulkan, which essentially is an AMD API made open source. It runs, just very slowly. Nvidia's secret herbs and spices is how they have sped the process up.
Nvidia is being very very tricky with it.. Ray tracing only works with DLSS for example. so well you can't enable it on AMD gpus, yet. Or They use Ray tracing in a way that works very slowly on AMD GPUs. Nvidia has a clear lead in their raytracing processors. So making a scene use way more rays than really needs to means, OK performance on Nvidia, crap on AMD.
If you are wondering why ray tracing is so slow on even Nvidia GPU's is because they are really saturating it.
Raytracing you are seeing in games isn't drawing a scene by full ray tracing either. That would still be way to slow. They are just tracing a small amount of rays and then interpolate it and using hybrid pipelines to fill the rest of the scene.
"But even shadows and reflections can destroy performance in certain games. Upcoming nuclear adventure Atomic Heart only hits about 15fps on 1080 Ti, but it gets above 50fps on 2080 Ti (or 71fps with DLSS). This difference in performance comes down the number of rays a game needs to send out into the environment. It also fluctuates depending on the number of bounces those rays make. Finally, if the rays intersect with complicated materials, like a dirty mirror, that makes it even more challenging."
Also people should be aware of what is actually going on and the range of technologies that are in fact being used and where the real innovation is. Its not in the ray tracing exactly. Its in using as few rays as possible to get the effect you want as quickly as you can. ANd by doing your ray casting as fast as possible by limiting how many full ray traces you really need to do every scene.
Anandtech has a good tech section on this..
"The specific implementation is ultimately in the hands of developers, and NVIDIA naturally has their raytracing development ecosystem, which we’ll go over in a later section. But because of the computational intensity, it simply isn’t possible to use real-time raytracing for the complete rendering workload. And higher resolutions, more complex scenes, and numerous graphical effects also compound the difficulty. So for performance reasons, developers will be utilizing raytracing in a deliberate and targeted manner for specific effects, such as global illumination, ambient occlusion, realistic shadows, reflections, and refractions. Likewise, raytracing may be limited to specific objects in a scene, and rasterization and z-buffering may replace primary ray casting while only secondary rays are raytraced. Thus, the goal of developers is to use raytracing for the most noticeable and realistic effects that rasterization cannot accomplish."
DLSS also only works at high GPU loads and low frame rates. So you can see where Nvidia is trying to push things.
That said, ray tracing absolutely can provide image quality improvements. It is progress. It isn't a level playing field, and nvidia is playing to their advantage.
AMD has chosen not to really optimize their design for ray tracing, and to be honest that is probably a reasonable bet. Few games support it. Those that do, really you require more than a 3090, maybe things will be much more viable with a 4090.
On an AMD card, you may only get lower lesser reflections, shadows in games, but to be honest, if your only get 30-40 FPS in Ultra ray tracing mode is it worth it?
AMD will have loads more memory, so will be better suited to open world games with lots of models and textures. Nvidia will suit small scenes with ray tracing. Nvidia will likely play faster at 4k and higher most of the time. AMD will likely be optimized for fast 1440 play.
I do wonder if AMD may tune it ray tracing driver to work its beefier CPU's. Ray tracing is one of those things that can parallels easily, and having direct access to GPU memory would make that easier to implement at a driver level. SAM may be best in RT games when AMD puts more effort into their drivers.
Probably a bit in depth, most people just think about their GPU as a thing that plays games, not worry about how it works.
No I posted this earlier in the thread. Its quite clear that raytracing doesn't need DLSS.
Source for this please? To be honest this statement makes no sense at all
Sorry I should add context to what I was saying..
You can have ray tracing with out DLSS. There is no technical reason why you "have to have them both". Obviously from Nvidia's point of view that would be dumb not to force both, because if you are going to spend Nvidia's money to implement Ray tracing, you implement both to make it harder to work on AMD systems and make Nvidia's look much better. Also DLSS helps mitigate the performance loss of RT.
This one comes from Nvidia..
DLSS is designed to boost frame rates at high GPU workloads (i.e. when your framerate is low and your GPU is working to its full capacity without bottlenecks or other limitations). If your game is already running at high frame rates, your GPU’s frame rendering time may be shorter than the DLSS execution time. In this case, DLSS is not available because it would not improve your framerate. However, if your game is heavily utilizing the GPU (e.g. FPS is below ~60), DLSS provides an optimal performance boost.
DLSS is specifically only going to work when you are at lower frame rates (ie raytracing). It will likely slow down performance in high performance situations.
Raytracing is awesome and it is a game changer. However, I don't think anyone has really perfected it yet. It may rely on combinations of technologies. Nvidia is leading this push, but AMD has console power, so ultimately consoles will back enough implementation to make AMD useful in this space.
Most games don't support ray tracing. It will take a year or two before (min) you see it rolled out widely. Even then, due to AMD tech in the consoles it not likely to be a huge handicap for AMD, things will still play fine without it or without as much of it.
somebody think of the minecraft players lmfao
ray tracing is not suited to gpus. to anything really. thats why we have tricks in the first place.
those pixar movies still take a long time to render even in the gpu era.
Because the movies have god awful amounts of time to render their frames to ensure it's accurate, versus the inconceivably small alotted time budget GPUs have by comparison.
I think that we can even implement a form ray tracing via either software or hardware in something that is 'playable' shows how far technology has come in such a short time.
if by technology you mean brute force power. the ideas have been there for a long time. there is nothing new besides excess flops.
now that there is a market for RTX, you will start to see more tricks employed to speed up RT. But these are old tricks known for decades. but we crossed a gpu processing threshold to make them practicable.
machine learning and path tracing have a lot in common actually. both approximations of infinite calculations. both crossing thresholds of power to make them pracical, both getting there by brute force, both nothing new under the hood.
Nvidia raytracing doesn't need DLSS to work and you can also enabled AMD raytracing using DXR with current Raytracing games AFIK there's a couple of games that you can't run RT on AMD.
ill try to make an easy choice from that. if i play any of those 12 games listed i'd be leaning toward nvidia. IF they are playable with those features turned on, and worth the performance hit for the eye candy.
if neither, i'd take the cheaper option that gives me fps.
plus there's the driver wars for which games run better on nv or amd.
...so it is rx6800xt versus rtx 3080. with approx. 300$ aud difference?
a 3070 is the same price as a 6800xt?
3090? @~3kaud? that's relevant to 1% of buyers? less?
The way I see it is RT on is essentially going to Ultra graphics quality settings, and currently hardware struggles just like on Crysis back in the day.
Whether RT is nothing new or not, it's new to games, and nvidia kills it at RT performance. AMD may catch up with drivers or console optimisation, but right nvidia spanks them.
Does that matter? If you want to play the limited number of games with it on, at full fidelity, yeah probably. You'll have sub 60 frames from both teams most likely, and you need to decide whether that important to you or not. I've been gaming on a 4gb rx 480 so sub 60 frames is normal to me... lol on medium settings.
AMD is still relevant for 90% of people who either don't play those games or would prefer higher framerates over max fidelity, and they provide better perf/$.
Realtime RT at the moment can be a nice additive but only when done well and not tanking the game.
Also, with the performance at the moment on AMD hardware it's simply down to the vastly different approaches Nvidia and AMD have gone with how they do it, not trying to be AMD centric but I do feel their solution will be the better way in the long term, but Nvidia have the money to really push RTX and their own way of doing it.
AMD will benefit from devs getting it working well on the consoles and that coming directly over to PC. Also, as you will see with Dirt 5 (DXR) and Shadow of the TR (RTX), games made for RTX wont run well on AMD hardware but those made using DXR and the other standard with AMD in mind will.
Nvidia is very far from "killing it at RT performance", if they were, no DLSS would be required
DLSS is a feature
Ray tracing is a feature
DLSS is designed to boost frame rate when your GPU is struggling (ie ray tracing). DLSS will not work and in fact can not be enabled in some resolutions and combinations. Do not think DLSS will allow you to play games at 100FPS+ at 4k. That is not what it does. It is designed to boost 30-40 FPS to 60 FPS.
The 6000 series can do Ray tracing. It doesn't yet have a DLSS equivalent.
Some games you can turn them on separately some games they are linked because the performance tanks when turning ray tracing on. Obviously in that case you can't enable ray tracing on platforms that don't have DLSS.
AMD can beat Nvidia in some ray tracing titles at lower resolutions
Battlefield V 1080p, 6800xt beat 3080
There are situations where Nvidia has a massive lead.
Notice its not just the 6800xt that struggles, the 3070 struggles too. 3070 and 6800xt get the same performance. Here we may be limited by raw memory performance more than anything.
Given the 6800xt is about the same price as 3070 locally,
As far as I know it could be enabled for any resolution they chose to do the Deep Learning work on.
What? I think you need to do some more reading. That kind of performance increase is exactly what DLSS is designed to do.
Its important to note that the pricing comparison here is based on AIB 3070 pricing and unicorn unobtanium reference radeon pricing, this is something that is being overlooked A LOT when discussing these graphics cards. A fair comparison will be able to be made when the AIB custom radeon cards drop, or even just with the MSRP of $809 for the 3070 and $1049 for the 8600xt, this price gap I think is realistic for when the AIB cards are released, as generally the custom cards are significantly more available (these are the cards people will be buying) and come with a significant price hike.
Also dlss can definitely boost your fps when you're at higher fps but still gpu bound, its not strictly limited to boosting low fps, i think it largely depends on how its implemented, so it varies game to game. I'd say its primary function is usually to boost fps at high res and high details though.
Yeah the pricing doesn't matter if the product can't be bought. I might cancel my reference RX 6800 XT pre-order from PC Byte and try again when the AIBs hit. I don't think they got any stock.
i feel for you dude, how many next gen gpu orders have you placed to date? Lol
4 or 5. I've lost count