The gamers happily want to beta test and be guinea pigsOr maybe they shouldn't release $90AUD games that are broken on for a couple of months and require multiple patches to get to stable.
Out of all the AAA games to launch in the last couple of years, this one deserves the most lenience with respect to bugs on launch and patience to fix. AFAIK the studio who worked on this had to run from a war. Some of them didn't even make it.Or maybe they shouldn't release $90AUD games that are broken on for a couple of months and require multiple patches to get to stable.
Such is the AAA industry these days
Nvidia's $350 RTX 2060 Was Never Fast Enough for Ray Tracing (loses to a $200 RX 6600)
Base GeForce RTX 20 vs. 6 Years of Ray Tracing
Nvidia's RTX 2060 Was Never Fast Enough for Ray Tracing
We revisit the GeForce RTX 2060 and Nvidia's promise of ray tracing from its base GPU some 6 years ago. Did this $350 GPU deliver on its potential?www.techspot.com
I’m really disliking HUB lately. Bunch of rubbish. Everyone with a brain thought that RT on the 20 series was bad and it’s bad today on the 40 series.Written version of Tim's video? Nice to have confirmation in written form so I don't have to watch the video.
Edit: Ok, read through some of this and got a good laugh. Did HUB really think the 2060 was a 1440p card in 2019? His own slides at the start show it really wasn't any better than a 1070 for 1440p.
"The reality is that as mid-range GPUs age, they quickly become entry-level in the modern gaming landscape and struggle to run games at decent resolutions and quality settings. The RTX 2060 was originally designed as a 1440p 60 FPS GPU, which made sense at $350 in 2019."
There were gtx 1080's at times available for $350 or less in 2018/19 in the US.
I only saw 2 slides. The 2060 tied a 1080 in Shadow of the Tomb Raider and beat the 1070 Ti by 3fps in Battlefield V at 1440p.Edit: Ok, read through some of this and got a good laugh. Did HUB really think the 2060 was a 1440p card in 2019? His own slides at the start show it really wasn't any better than a 1070 for 1440p.
I’m really disliking HUB lately. Bunch of rubbish. Everyone with a brain thought that RT on the 20 series was bad and it’s bad today on the 40 series.
Looks not bad but not worth spending $2000+ on. But who is to say that they didn't deliberately make the normal graphics look uglier to prop up the Path Tracing visuals?Found this RT vs Path Indiana
That’s for the devs to answer lol.Looks not bad but not worth spending $2000+ on. But who is to say that they didn't deliberately make the normal graphics look uglier to prop up the Path Tracing visuals?
Looking at 4090 results, it’s better it’s disabled. Not worth the PowerPoint drama lolSaid on AMD option is disabled
I think maybe for 7900XT and XTX should be enabled, but NV think "we need sell 4070\4080"Looking at 4090 results
true, AMD should have paid more then. Like they did for star field. They likely didn’t because devs wanted to focus on RT. Hopefully with RDNA4 we see AMD sponsor more RT games.I think maybe for 7900XT and XTX should be enabled, but NV think "we need sell 4070\4080"
I don't think AMD paid for starfieldtrue, AMD should have paid more then. Like they did for star field. They likely didn’t because devs wanted to focus on RT. Hopefully with RDNA4 we see AMD sponsor more RT games.
They definitely did. They gave the game for free when you brought AMD GPUs. This is usually the indicator if the game is sponsored or not. When this happens AMD/Nvidia pay the publisher, in this case Bethesda.I don't think AMD paid for starfield
What likely happened was that the game was a disaster on consoles & AMD had to pitch in with free devs to optimize the game
The first image looks very realistic, can pass as a photo.
It came with my Hellhound 7800XT. I bet AMD would like us all to forget they sponsored it. The graphics to performance is among the worst.They definitely did. They gave the game for free when you brought AMD GPUs. This is usually the indicator if the game is sponsored or not. When this happens AMD/Nvidia pay the publisher, in this case Bethesda.
OK this is it: Indiana Jones is the game that sold me on Path Tracing. My next GPU will have to be one that can run this with acceptable performance.
First the objective reason: This looks leaps and bounds superior to previous PT games. Let me detail.
Indy is spectacularly beautiful. I just moved to the Egypt section but so far it's one of those games I can't spend enough time just looking at things. I have visited modern Rome & Vatican, love the history and art, and the game makes justice to it which is frankly unbelievable.
The PT implementation seems amazing technically. It has some flaws that look like bugs that might be fixed, minor stuff for me. And it seems the perf cost is much lower than previous big PT games, so the tradeoff is wildly positive to me if you can run this at least at 60fps.
One could write a thesis about this game's tradeoffs in rendering. For example no top-grade hair rendering. Important in something like Wukong, but here, who cares? With or without PT, this game only puts GPU cycles in things that matter. Runs unbelievably well for how it looks.
P.S.: I only wish NVidia would drop the "Full RT", obvious play on Full HD before for displays. Nah, this is a big fucking lie, there's still a lot of raster tech mixed-in with all these games. We're still orders of magnitude away from pure RT, in real time, on a single GPU.
Another forum comment on noise in RT
Skip to around 5 minutes to see the Indiana Jones section. Otherwise a good video that shows off the noise that seems to be present in all ray tracing games. Some are worse than others.
It still looks good but this has always been something I did not like when enabling it in most games. Alan Wake 2 is another example they show. Dark spots can look unstable, which at times can look a bit odd.