Neo Cyrus:

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Doom runs at 9001 fps at 32K res on a potato from the Irish famine. It'll run fine on a Radeon card, the issue is that these mythic Radeon cards don't actually exist outside of review samples. It's now commonly called a vapour launch.

yes but what is your target for a game like eternal ? im playing on 1070 1440p nightmare,and while it's generally good,you do feel when 100-130 range drops down to mid-70/mid-80s better keep it as close to 100 as possible at all times.we'll see,but I'll tell you what - wolfenstein youngblood ran like crazy on my 2070 Super @mein lieben,but once you enabled rt reflections it was like 80-100 with drops down to 60.Only after enabling dlss I got a steady +100fps again.Luckily this time dlss implementation in youngblood was absolutely astonishing or I'd go back to playing rt off for sure. With radeon cards taking more of a performance hit the higher the reflection resolution is,no dlss - you're gonna wanna play RT off/low on rx6000 to have the same butter smooth fluidity.

I love the Intel and XP spike at the beginning of COVID that lasted for 3 months maybe before people realize their old XP intel computer was just too slow to play any games 🙂

AlmondMan:

RT is like that story about the fox and the grapes. All these people going "Reeeee RT is not good not something we want" etc., can't use it and think it's somehow less because 1 company does it better than anyone else. I wouldn't guess that the audience on this forum are too young to remember when the same arguments were rolled out about Glide accelleration, OpenGL, Direct3D, graphics cards with Hardware T&L... "reee we don't want any of this it looks bad, it looks not good enough for the performance impact, it doesn't look good enough for the price". Amazing how history repeats itself.

You could not be more right. I remember the early shaders where everything looked like it was coated with Vaseline. Probably the darkest era of PC gaming. Lasted for a good 2 years from what i can remember. Man i hated it with a passion. People are not wrong. Most RT games don't look better than their shaders counterpart. It doesn't mean the tech is bad and wont be awesome in 2-3 years. It just means most devs don't know how to properly use it. By the time it will evolve into something clearly better than shaders most enthusiast will have likely replaced their current GPU.

Until mainstream GPUs can push 100% ray-traced visuals in games at high framerates on day one of the title release, hardware RT will continue to be delegated as an afterthought by game devs, being an addon to the conventional rasterization, and even the well financed push by Nvidia of RTX won't do much beyond the current situation. No wonder NV is driving DLSS even harder than RTX, because we all know the only way to get some acceptable RT performance now is to upscale the framebuffer from a lower resolution. Heck, even newly minted UE5 is using its own RT solution for the dynamic GI approximation.

fellix:

No wonder NV is driving DLSS even harder than RTX, because we all know the only way to get some acceptable RT performance now is to upscale the framebuffer from a lower resolution.

We knew from the beginning DLSS was always intended to be used with RTX for increased performance. It's not a new idea to promote DLSS, and it seems DLSS works perfectly in games without RT.

fellix:

Heck, even newly minted UE5 is using its own RT solution for the dynamic GI approximation.

True, but even UE5 provides support for hardware RT to get higher quality.

Lumen uses Software Ray Tracing through Signed Distance Fields by default, but can achieve higher quality on supporting video cards when Hardware Ray Tracing is enabled.

https://docs.unrealengine.com/5.0/en-US/RenderingFeatures/Lumen/TechOverview/

cucaulay malkin:

yes but what is your target for a game like eternal ? im playing on 1070 1440p nightmare,and while it's generally good,you do feel when 100-130 range drops down to mid-70/mid-80s better keep it as close to 100 as possible at all times.we'll see,but I'll tell you what - wolfenstein youngblood ran like crazy on my 2070 Super @mein lieben,but once you enabled rt reflections it was like 80-100 with drops down to 60.Only after enabling dlss I got a steady +100fps again.Luckily this time dlss implementation in youngblood was absolutely astonishing or I'd go back to playing rt off for sure. With radeon cards taking more of a performance hit the higher the reflection resolution is,no dlss - you're gonna wanna play RT off/low on rx6000 to have the same butter smooth fluidity.

It's not hard to get high FPS even with an old card in Doom Eternal. Keep in mind that the 1070 gets absolutely dumpstered by the 1080 Ti from its own generation. A 1080 gets absolutely dumpstered by a 1080 Ti; not the same chip. As a reminder a 1080 Ti is anywhere from 2070 to 2080 performance... and nVidia were surprised their sales that generation, which offered a literal 0% performance improvement per dollar from the previous generation, were not good. Edit: Incomplete sentence.

AsiJu:

Also what is this "AMD cards can't do RT"? For the record I'm playing Control, Metro Exodus EE, Quake 2 RTX to name a few, all with RT and with good framerates with little bit of settings tweaking. And when I say good framerates I mean at least 90 or higher, for me 60 fps is a slideshow.

Personally I wouldn't waste 50~ fps to decrease into the 90s (instead of solid140s fps). Not at least now, in 2021. In the future we will probably end up activating something like RT as we now enable AA and any other lighter feature. Just without blinking. But today, I still think the extra FPS providing a smoother experience, are a much better choice. (Unless of course we're talking about a game running at 250 fps and we have a 144Hz monitor. Then I'd enable it without blinking). I think a lot of people exaggerate a lot with RT. It's still an expensive feature even for the best RTX 3XXX card. The time to shine will arrive. RT is in a much better place than it was before. But come on people, it still needs more time. We will probably be with a newer gpu gen, all of us, when that time arrives.

itpro:

If I knew I cannot play latest games with raytracing on I would not buy radeon. No dlss. No opportunity for high end gaming. Enthusiasts want maximum visuals enabled. With the least issues also. Radeon was and still supposed to be the cheap alternative. Now with global crisis due to crypto and corona, even radeon gpus are expensive. It was bound to happen. Amd should deliver more!

Complete idiot. With a 6800xt, I can play ray tracing extremely well. And on a 49 inch monitor. And their DLSS option is about to drop anyways. But Id rather play 60fps ray traced then upscaled lower res crap at 100fps.

RT is great, AMD's performance is one gen back and that's it. The unfortunate thing about ray tracing is that the best examples of it are subtle. They affect the mood of scenes and how a scene gets "absorbed" from the viewer. I noticed this with Control, with RT at max the place felt almost like a real office. With it off, it felt like a "game". Flatter and more fake. Usually the better the game implementation, the more subtle the effect, and the hardest to "prove" its worth in forum wars. Anger against DLSS is typical butthurt. AMD has had so long to innovate with anything being considered desirable, that people have forgotten how that is from the other side of the fence. The market being what it is, it's completely fair for someone owning a 6800XT to consider someone owning a 3080 an idiot for getting a top end GPU with only 10GB of memory, and the reverse for DLSS/Vsync/OpenGL and they would both be right. AMD needs a real answer to DLSS, and they don't have it, this is unfortunately pretty clear. @Denial said at a point that checkerbording plus DirectML might have been too slow for AMD to implement as a DLSS competitor, but what we've been shown is terrible and has no temporal component on top, which means it doesn't even replace TAA. My hope is in Khronos and Microsoft to implement generic Upsampling methods that each vendor can seamlessly combine with whatever hardware or software trick they want, without the developers having to care or implement per vendor. In that case, all games implementing that would work with all vendors supporting that method/extension and each vendor could innovate however they liked. PS: AMD is open sourcing because they have no alternative. To see how nice they are, they blocked 400 series cards from this, despite them being identical cards to the 500 series. I'm getting VSR flashbacks. They are not the good guys, they're just losing.

Well if Ampere weren't so good at mining AMD GPU marketshare would have been plummeting. Despite being gobbled up by miners Ampere are still making big strides on Steam Hardware Survey while not even one RX6000 could make it into the list.

Ray tracing sucks, biggest joke to gaming ever. the only people that like it are the ones that paid for it and need a reason to like that they paid huge amounts of money on something that when enabled gets you maybe 60fps which probably looks really good on that enthusiast monitor of 165hz plus. you are not an enthusiast playing on less than 144hz and you cant get 144fps with ray tracing. ray tracing has NOTHING to do with being an enthusiast. It just means you know nothing. do not worry ray tracing will be the next physx apu lmfao hahahahahaha who still has their physx cards and how are they doing today?

FookDat:

Ray tracing sucks, biggest joke to gaming ever. the only people that like it are the ones that paid for it and need a reason to like that they paid huge amounts of money on something that when enabled gets you maybe 60fps which probably looks really good on that enthusiast monitor of 165hz plus. you are not an enthusiast playing on less than 144hz and you cant get 144fps with ray tracing. ray tracing has NOTHING to do with being an enthusiast. It just means you know nothing. do not worry ray tracing will be the next physx apu lmfao hahahahahaha who still has their physx cards and how are they doing today?

So just turn it off? Lol - what a dumb post.

FookDat:

you are not an enthusiast playing on less than 144hz

This is one of the stupidest things I've read online in a while.

Xendance:

This is one of the stupidest things I've read online in a while.

"bRo iF YoU'Re nOt pLaYiNg aN RtS At 200 oR 300 FpS YoU CaN'T CaLl yOuRsElF An eNtHuSiAsT!" Jokes aside, High FPS are nice but really not needed for most games. If you're playing some fast paced game 90 to 120 FPS would be optimal. Competitive, I'd say 144 and above (although you'd hit diminishing returns fast). That said, most single player and slow paced games can be played at 60 to 90 FPS without issue.

Silva:

"bRo iF YoU'Re nOt pLaYiNg aN RtS At 200 oR 300 FpS YoU CaN'T CaLl yOuRsElF An eNtHuSiAsT!" Jokes aside, High FPS are nice but really not needed for most games. If you're playing some fast paced game 90 to 120 FPS would be optimal. Competitive, I'd say 144 and above (although you'd hit diminishing returns fast). That said, most single player and slow paced games can be played at 60 to 90 FPS without issue.

The problem with 60fps is enough is it implies you are running at a steady 60 fps which we all know is never ever the case. If your average fps is 60 then you are dipping below it for sure. I would agree 60 fps is enough for most simple player games out there. But i would agree only if you can maintain it most of the time when there's heavy action which usually from my experience require an average fps of around 80 in lot of the games out there. I think when you dip below or around 50 it's starting to be noticeable enough to dither from the experience and if your average fps is only 60 and the game involve action then you'll likely dip below or around 50 here and there.

I would rather play at 60fps highest possible fidelity and raytracing than trying to reach that 120fps+ by using resolution scaling and reduced quality. Im talking about singleplayer ofcourse.

PrMinisterGR:

RT is great, AMD's performance is one gen back and that's it. The unfortunate thing about ray tracing is that the best examples of it are subtle. They affect the mood of scenes and how a scene gets "absorbed" from the viewer. I noticed this with Control, with RT at max the place felt almost like a real office. With it off, it felt like a "game". Flatter and more fake. Usually the better the game implementation, the more subtle the effect, and the hardest to "prove" its worth in forum wars. Anger against DLSS is typical butthurt. AMD has had so long to innovate with anything being considered desirable, that people have forgotten how that is from the other side of the fence. The market being what it is, it's completely fair for someone owning a 6800XT to consider someone owning a 3080 an idiot for getting a top end GPU with only 10GB of memory, and the reverse for DLSS/Vsync/OpenGL and they would both be right. AMD needs a real answer to DLSS, and they don't have it, this is unfortunately pretty clear. @Denial said at a point that checkerbording plus DirectML might have been too slow for AMD to implement as a DLSS competitor, but what we've been shown is terrible and has no temporal component on top, which means it doesn't even replace TAA. My hope is in Khronos and Microsoft to implement generic Upsampling methods that each vendor can seamlessly combine with whatever hardware or software trick they want, without the developers having to care or implement per vendor. In that case, all games implementing that would work with all vendors supporting that method/extension and each vendor could innovate however they liked. PS: AMD is open sourcing because they have no alternative. To see how nice they are, they blocked 400 series cards from this, despite them being identical cards to the 500 series. I'm getting VSR flashbacks. They are not the good guys, they're just losing.

There was no damn reason to have VSR on cards that old anyways. Im more irritated with no VSR for 32:9 but its aspect ratio and resolution that maybe 1% of gamers use. So I deal with it. Ill state this. I hate DLSS. RT is useless in multiplayer games anyways. I have it turned off in BFV. I dont need 144fps in most SP games either. Cyperpunk feels totally smooth at 75fps with RT on. I have very good eyesight, if not perfect. I see everything. And DLSS looks like complete shit too me. Its easy to spot. In fact I prefer to try and downsample games. BF1, online I have game set to ultra, and 150% resolution and it looks very crisp with reshade.

schmidtbag:

I agree, though it is worth pointing out that early adoption of technologies is often a poor choice - you pay a high premium for an underwhelming and slow experience. I was confident from the beginning that RT is important and poses a great future for gaming (and developers), but I think it's perfectly reasonable to not want to get invested in it now. I still think it needs another couple years until it's polished and worthwhile. This is a much more advanced technology than what we've seen before, coming at a time when people demand more detail at higher resolutions and higher refresh rates. That being said, even though AMD basically just checked a box saying "yeah we have this feature" despite being mostly unusable, Nvidia's performance with RT doesn't convince me to buy their product either. You pretty much need a 3070 to get a reliably good RT experience at 1080p, and I'm just not spending an MSRP of $500+ (let alone scalper prices) in 2021 for a 1080p experience. If I were willing to use a higher resolution with DLSS, I'd rather just turn off RT.

Certainly agree. Buying a 1000$ gpu is not in my budget. When 1 component alone costs the same as a full system used to, it's just too expensive. I know we had the Intel Extreme Edition 1000$ CPUs in the past, but "noone" bought those either. Sadly now the 1000$ GPU is not a product that noone buys, it's kind of the norm for highend. But, highend is also completely changed now. It used to be that we'd be happy with 60FPS, but now we need 144hz 4k before we're happy.

Agonist:

There was no damn reason to have VSR on cards that old anyways. Im more irritated with no VSR for 32:9 but its aspect ratio and resolution that maybe 1% of gamers use. So I deal with it.

You're upset that it doesn't contain a feature, I was upset because the only reason for the cutoff was to push consumers with identical hardware to use the "new" hardware. These are two separate issues.

Agonist:

Ill state this. I hate DLSS. RT is useless in multiplayer games anyways. I have it turned off in BFV. I dont need 144fps in most SP games either. Cyperpunk feels totally smooth at 75fps with RT on. I have very good eyesight, if not perfect. I see everything. And DLSS looks like complete crap too me. Its easy to spot. In fact I prefer to try and downsample games. BF1, online I have game set to ultra, and 150% resolution and it looks very crisp with reshade.

DLSS in BFV is horrible, as is the RT implementation. It is to be expected, it was literally the first iteration of everything. What other games have you seen with DLSS, except BF1 and Cyberpunk? Cyberpunk is a smearfest by itself, so it doesn't help a lot.

MonstroMart:

The problem with 60fps is enough is it implies you are running at a steady 60 fps which we all know is never ever the case. If your average fps is 60 then you are dipping below it for sure. I would agree 60 fps is enough for most simple player games out there. But i would agree only if you can maintain it most of the time when there's heavy action which usually from my experience require an average fps of around 80 in lot of the games out there. I think when you dip below or around 50 it's starting to be noticeable enough to dither from the experience and if your average fps is only 60 and the game involve action then you'll likely dip below or around 50 here and there.

That's why I said 60 to 90. I remember playing Rage 2 and setting up the minimum fps to 60, then the game engine would reduce resolution to maintain a stable frame rate. Neat feature that should be on more games!

mike2299:

This does not mean that AMD gaming gets better. It only means that 30% of gamers who use Steam cannot afford Intel products (they are poor).

Don't know about that brother, lets see: Ryzen 5000 kicks Intel ass on top end of gaming. If you can't afford the best, you have Ryzen 3000 that trades respectable blows versus Intel counterparts, you just have to look for the best price. At low end, Intel is surprisingly cheap: 10400F is 170€ and 11400F 200€. Meanwhile, at same shop, Ryzen 3600 is 196€. For the same price, Intel is superior for gaming. So I don't see your "they are poor" logic. That said, I paid 135€ for my Ryzen 2600 in August 2019, we don't know how much of those 30% are witch Ryzen gen.