I would guess 3 years is when RT will become mainstream.You're being far, far too optimistic. As it has been pointed out, only the 2080 Ti even offers acceptable (and barely at that) levels of RT performance. Look back at previous generations and it's pretty easy to see how slow the uptake is on the high-end. The 980 Ti makes a pretty good point of comparison because it came out a little over 3 years ago and has about equal performance to a 1070.
If you check the Steam hardware survey, as of June 2018 (the 980 Ti came out in June 2015) there were only 8.5% of users who had something at 980 Ti level or better. It's even worse in this case since the 980 Ti came out at $650, whereas the 2080 Ti is about twice that price. I have no idea to what extent that slows adoption even more, but it's pretty obvious that it isn't going to speed it up.
I think it's cool that NVidia is trying this out, but you're just deluding yourself if you think that it's going to be mainstream and widely accessible in the next 5 years. Even 10 years is probably being generous. I remember when people thought that the Nintendo 64 would be capable of real time ray tracing, so this pipe dream of soon to be ubiquitous ray tracing is hardly new.
I would guess 3 years is when RT will become mainstream.
7nm Touring next year with another 35% performance gain and then 18 month's after that in 2021 another 35% performance gain.
f AMD does become competitive again, NVidia would drop this immediately as the performance is nowhere near good enough at mainstream price points and the amount of silicon dedicated to implementing these features could be much better spent in other ways.
Who said they spent anywhere near that. These are probably broken tesla chips off the factor floor reject binwhere do you come up with this stuff?
Nvidia will not waste a billion dollars on RT and cancel it because AMD becomes competitive.
What games are you basing your evidence with?
There are none.
People do understand the concept of hybrid RT since it is the hybrid FPS numbers they are discussing.It seems like a lot of people don't understand the concept of the hybrid RT that NV is pushing.
People keep acting like this will just be full RT rendering in gaming, and thus have low frame rates and low resolution.
First RTX benchmarks are in.
Great! Now we need to test which one among the two offers greater competitive advantage in a competitive first person shooter - 60 FPS with RTX on or 144 FPS with RTX off.
Great! Now we need to test which one among the two offers greater competitive advantage in a competitive first person shooter - 60 FPS with RTX on or 144 FPS with RTX off.
Depends whether you're assessing enemy movement and positions through mirrors, windows, or puddles. Ray Traced combat will gain far more depth than traditional raster tactics, with emphasis on real time information and measurement. It takes one wrong move to bend light around you in a way that will enable an RTX warrior instantly asses your position, vectorized movement and combat potential. The age of the fast and brutal digital warrior is rapidly fading away.Great! Now we need to test which one among the two offers greater competitive advantage in a competitive first person shooter - 60 FPS with RTX on or 144 FPS with RTX off.
It takes one wrong move to bend light around you in a way that will enable an RTX warrior instantly asses your position
It's now known Turing cards are faulty: https://www.hardocp.com/article/2018/11 ... _failures/
Also performance is cut in half @ 1080p with RTX, and it's an unstable stutter-fest: https://www.techpowerup.com/249557/batt ... nce-halved
But...but...but...we get a glorified upscaling filter that is DLSS! Yep, this excrement is the most expensive video card ever, folks.
I get what you're saying on that over the whole frame time lower refresh rates would produce on average a more accurate colour relative to the input frame, I just don't see why that would be a criteria someone would care about in a fast moving game. Even assuming that it takes the full GTG time, the faster refresh rate should produce more accurate colours relative to the scene. Static images shouldn't matter, but say you take an extreme example of a test object of a fast moving 2x2 pixel black square moving from one side of the monitor to the other side on a white background, say it moves 1 pixel per ms. Say it takes 4ms to go to black, and another 4 back to white. Let's also pick 100 Hz and 200 Hz to make the numbers easier. At t=0, the four pixels on the far left of the monitor turn on, and at t=4ms they're fully black. At this point, both refresh rates are the same, and at t=4ms the squares are full black. Now at t=5ms on the 200Hz monitor the first square will start to fade out and another 5 pixels over will start to turn black. For the 100Hz monitor, the square at the left side of the screen will still be full black. At t=9ms, the 200Hz monitor has a fully black square starting 5 pixels from the edge, and the 100Hz has one at the edge. The leftmost square on the 200Hz has finished fading out. At t=10ms, the 100Hz monitor starts fading out the left edge square and turning on one 10 pixels in, and the 200Hz fades out the square at position 5 and starts turning on the same one at position 10.
You will definitely get ghosting, but the colour is better relative to the actual scene. Sure at the instant of t=10ms the square on the left edge of the screen at 100Hz is nice as black and has been for awhile, as is proper for its input signal, but the color is wrong and it shouldn't be black; that square's been gone 8ms. At 200Hz the pixels might not stay at the colour as long as at 100Hz, but that's because they're rendering the scene more accurately.
Likewise, if you're just looking at one pixel and it's stable red at t=0 when the refresh happens, if the color changes to orange at t=8ms both refresh rates would behave the same; they're start changing it to orange at t=10ms. If the switch to orange would have happened at t=4ms though, the 200Hz one would start changing to the correct colour at t=5ms instead of t=10ms, and would be fully settled long before the 100Hz one even started switching.
If you were comparing two monitors with different response times like a fast TN vs an IPS I could get on board with that, but outside of overclocking a panel faster than it's capable of I don't see how running a monitor a lot slower than it's capable of produces more accurate colours relative to the actual scene, which is what really matters.
Furthermore :It's not just relative to the input frame, it's absolute. Take my example one step further and make your refresh rate even faster. Let's say you have an old 8ms g2g IPS panel and you try and drive it at 165hz so it's 6ms per refresh, that means the pixels cannot even reach the right colour before they switch again. And then imagine an input that was flicking between black and white every refresh, and an 8ms g2g probably some more like 12ms b2w, what your display would be is just grey all the time, you'd never achieve black or white it'd just pulse between varying shades of grey never achieving either of them. The more you dial up the speed the less accurate the colours become, and the more you dial down the speed the more accurate they become, you spend more of every second with an accurate colour.
I know what you're getting at but I think you're confusing latency here, sure if you refresh more times per second then there's less time between what is "real" in the gaming world (that is to say, what exists right now in memory) and your perception of it, that's always true, it's one part of why gamers like faster refreshes because it eliminates lag between your mouse and other inputs, and what your eyes see. My old 12ms IPS is terrible for that, you can quite distinctly feel it, just down to pixel response time.
That's one of the things you get as a benefit of high refresh rates, I don't deny that, but one of the trade offs is that every second of display time your display is spending less and less of that second displayign accurate colours.
You could think of it another way. Every second your display refreshes a number of times, lets say 100hz for easy numbers again. So 100 frames means 100 colour transitions. Each transition takes as long as the monitors pixel response time (well...averages with g2g, and all that) but for sake of simplicity we'll just say the g2g value. So if your monitor takes 4ms to reach the right colour and you do 100 of those a second, then in that 1 second of time you have 4x100 = 400ms of that 1 second not displaying the right colours. If you do 200hz at 4ms then you spend 800ms of that 1 second displaying the wrong colours. You want that number to be as low as possible if you're spending 80% of your time displaying the wrong colours then that's very bad.
Where you draw the line is personal preference and a lot of gamers don't even understand the quality difference between even TN and IPS, they'll just get the cheaper TNs, which is fair enough. But people who appreciate colours generally go for IPS and they spend the extra cash to get it, it's just a bit silly to run those panels at a rate that drives down the colour accuracy. if you don't care about colour and you want to focus on speed then TN is a better deal in large part just because it's an awful lot cheaper.
> mfw you get intel'dNvidia shares down 17% lol
successful launch then.