It was that simple a change...almost makes you wonder whether this was just to grab headlines

Oh Joy! https://media2.giphy.com/media/xUA7aZeAS091H55u00/giphy.gif

I'm really looking forward to raytracing finally beeing reviewed and also seeing if Nvidia lied about RTX 2000-series capability. Around two months since launch and just now we have a first compatible game. If the 2080Ti was half the price and performed better compared to 1080Ti (which I currently have), I had bought one now and bought Battlefield V. I'll get BF V anyway but have a few other games to deal with before that. 🙂

Loobyluggs:

It was that simple a change...almost makes you wonder whether this was just to grab headlines

Just needed 1809 with the DXR in it.

Cant wait to see the performance with it all settings turned on

Alienwarez567:

Cant wait to see the performance with it all settings turned on

You can toggle between off, low, medium, high, and ultra for DXR detail. Nearly 50% performance hit at 1080p in the ultra setting....see the interwebs for more info

...and stuttering is so bad the game becomes unplayable...hopefully they can "polish" DXR a bit more...

Cool, very much looking forward to the ray tracing performance review! About time some ray tracing actually being used.

How much of the tensor core is being utilized? I wonder if task manager or any other monitoring program shows that.

https://www.techpowerup.com/img/xrYUUUhhEbIsk3b8.jpg https://www.techpowerup.com/249557/battlefield-v-with-rtx-initial-tests-performance-halved Ouch!.

entr0cks:

How much of the tensor core is being utilized? I wonder if task manager or any other monitoring program shows that.

BF5 doesn't use the tensor cores for denoising

L O L 🙄 😕:D

Rich_Guy:

Ouch!.

well not bad can play 60fps expected lower 🙂

[QUOTE="Rich_Guy, post: 5606979, member: 55855" Ouch!. Ouch indeed! As someone that plays his games on a 3440x1440 display (X34A) I can forget about raytracing for the forseeable future. I'm not sure that if even around 60 FPS 1920x1080 is worth it for what ray tracing can deliver. Seen anything at 2560x1440 and above? Single digits, if even that, at 3840x2160 I would guess...

anders190:

Ouch indeed! As someone that plays his games on a 3440x1440 display (X34A) I can forget about raytracing for the forseeable future. I'm not sure that if even around 60 FPS 1920x1080 is worth it for what ray tracing can deliver. Seen anything at 2560x1440 and above? Single digits, if even that, at 3840x2160 I would guess...

It doesn't seem to scale like that. Some posts from reddit at different resolutions:

"I just finished testing this. It tanks frames pretty hard. I was getting anywhere from 50-70 FPS @ 2560x1440. There seemed to be intermittent stutters as well. It was, hum... very underwhelming."

"Just played a round of Rotterdam and it ran like crap with dxr on and ultra settings 40-60fps but mostly in the 40’s mind you this is at 3440x1440"

https://www.twitch.tv/muentzee This guy is playing at 1080p and seems to be getting roughly the same as what those reddit people are reporting. Seems like the raster portion is finishing way faster than the RTX portion and the game is just waiting for RTX to finish to spit the frame out. Because they are completely independent the performance loss doesn't scale with increased resolution.

Denial:

It doesn't seem to scale like that. Some posts from reddit at different resolutions: https://www.twitch.tv/muentzee This guy is playing at 1080p and seems to be getting roughly the same as what those reddit people are reporting.

That does look a lot better actually. For the SP campaign, 50-70 with ray tracing would be acceptable for me. Nothing I would use in MP though.

Buying a thousand dollar gpu to play below 60 fps 🙄 The cards just can't do it, it's a gimmick. How about IQ difference? I wanna see screenshots comparisons.

Silva:

Buying a thousand dollar gpu to play below 60 fps 🙄 The cards just can't do it, it's a gimmick. How about IQ difference? I wanna see screenshots comparisons.

Lol I don't get why you have to be so negative. Like the average FPS is above 60, so I don't know why you're saying below 60. Also the card functions with RTX off better than any card on the market. It's not like people are specifically buying this card to only play RTX games with it enabled. It's a value-add feature. The cards can do it.. you literally see them doing it at 60fps. Plus we have no idea how good DICE's implementation is as it's our only reference currently. We know that they don't make use of the on board tensor cores, they run the denoising in compute - so presumably it's not as optimized as it could be. I also want to point out that people said similar things about tessellation when it came out with DX11 - enabling it at higher amounts considerably impacted performance but now tessellation is almost ubiquitous in games. You have to start somewhere and I honestly don't feel like this is a bad starting point. Granted it's not as great as we'd like - I'd prefer higher performance.. but watching the twitch streams it definitely improves reflections greatly and it's easy to see how in a few generations, with AO/GI/Reflections/Shadows all running through it, that it can greatly increase visual fidelity. If the price we have to pay is a 60fps start to it, I think it's worth it.

They recommended 2070 for BF5 DXR. Silly Dice.

Undying:

They recommended 2070 for BF5 DXR. Silly Dice.

FWIW the 2080 seems to get the exact same performance as the 2080Ti with DXR enabled (I haven't seen anyone mention performance with 2070 and the 2080 numbers are just random reddit people so this might be inaccurate). It's possible the bottleneck isn't the RTX 'cores' themselves but something else inherent to the architecture.