![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
What does that even mean?
It's AdoredTV. He is reaching for anything to bad mouth NVIDIA.
You are a gentlemen and a scholar. Thank you sir!
Because with RT, culling is much less meaning more objects, shaders, compute -> more draw calls -> CPU usage is higher.
The performance loss with ray tracing is never going to significantly improve.
this is what was said about FSAA in the first 5-7 years it was around too. And I'd say its been something people dont even think about turning off or on for, hmmm, maybe at least 6 years now? More? I definitely stopped thinking about it with the 1080Ti...
FSAA isn't ray tracing. FSAA performance can be improved by simply upping the pixel fill rate and memory bandwidth. While both metrics are massive compared to times of yore, nobody uses FSAA anymore because it is basically useless with how dependent rasterization is on the pixel pipeline for at least the last decade. FSAA can't anti-alias transparent textures or post-process effects.
Which begs the question, Is RT the right solution for games? As games get more complex in geometry, you need more rays to bounce around to get a lighting calculation and current RT rays injected is actually extremely low for a high quality RT solution. All models for lighting are gross approximations to begin with, a real candle in a dark room has virtually an infinity number of photons bouncing around in a dark room. Something that any foreseeable GPU will never be able to duplicate to that level of lighting detail. So RT or the hybrid approach used for today games have real limitations -> there are other ways to calculate lighting that can be faster and maybe even being more realistic in the end. More like a combination of techniques in the end:
From my complete lag of understanding, not really, if extreme RT you throw say 4 sample by monitor pixel and the scene having 14,000 triangle humans or 30,000 triangle humans does not change much for it, creating more of a log versus complexity versus linear for traditional affair, to the point that enough complexity could have the RT be faster, you do not need to make sure all triangle get hit by rays, you will naturally get what you need and you still just threw just 4 sample by camera pixel and they will still all bounce say a max of 2 time in the scene and so on regardless of the triangle counts, I could just read that the case. The nature of the triangle (mirror like versus complex lighting bounce versus semi transparent being more important), maybe it make the collision work a bit more complex but I am not sure you need more rays, the rays you have will just make contact with small and better representation of the world triangles.
For RT, it is more then just your viewpoint, objects off screen also have to have rays cast which can interact with the items on the screen. Especially reflections but also lighting in general. When you are dealing with 10's of millions of triangles which block rays, more rays are needed for any accurate lighting calculation for those triangles. RT is really just an approximation, more rays the more realistic the lighting becomes but it is affected by the complexity of the scene. Simple walls and textures, few objects compared to thousands of objects current RT probably can handle decently, hundreds of moving people, 10's of million of triangles and vast distances makes RT very performance heavy and limiting. HDRI lighting was a realistic, more fix system of lighting where a light map pixel brightness would used to calculate the pixel brightness if exposed to it, just not very dynamic. Lightmaps generated from actual ray tracing gave that very realistic look which is still used today augmented by RT. Still at 4K rendering, CyberPunk 2077 with the fastest RT card, 4090, is 42 fps. RT in that game is made for who? How many can really take advantage of that? For me with the 3090 using balance DLSS and some settings I get like 51fps - lol. Other games seem to be way smarter when using RT, look great etc. but then some games don't even use RT and can look even better.
Now instead of rendering at a higher resolution and down sampling, we render at a lower resolution and upsample. Progress. Then add non rendered frames in between, moving forward. Maybe the move to RT is not the best path
It depends on which direction you go, if you start with the eyes to do your raytracing it will not care about visilibity, it will reach anything that emit light.
| Ratio triangle | Ratio time | triangle | Render time (s) | triangle per second |
1 | 1.00 | 141,446 | 3.68 | 38,436.41 |
4 | 1.03 | 565,784 | 3.78 | 149,678.31 |
16 | 1.29 | 2,263,136 | 4.74 | 477,454.85 |
64 | 2.05 | 9,052,544 | 7.55 | 1,199,012.45 |
With your tests, increase the triangles with increasing the number of objects, not necessarily just more triangles on an object, each with their own separate materials and properties. When light bounce, color bleed, diffusion, reflections, shadows has to be calculated for each pixel. Just rendering one material, one object with nothing around it is very much different. Put a bounding box around it or limit the distance for the rays. Complex objects with different materials, crevices, different light sources would also contribute to increase work load if those added triangles add significant dimensions to the object.
Yes that a specific element of complexity, i.e. triangle count.
Interesting, now that was from 2013 before current hardware, 16 bounces of light for slightly glossy surfaces was an interesting comment. People with the majority of RT cards, when they put on RT will they have a good experience? or should I say a better experience? I would say no. Even 3090 owners turn off RT due to the performance hit at times in games and not worth the other compromises that wreck IQ, increase lag, performance more then what RT adds if even noticed. Current RT games speaks loudly on gamers experience with and without. Anyways playing Crysis 2 Remaster now, nice improvement over the old and it is only using software raytracing and performing well on the 3090 at 4K, of course with quality DLSS.
It does more then reflections, global illumination or lighting, color bleed and shadows.
A typo and you meant less ? Not necessarily.
This is based on what, it seem to have exploded in that regard:
I said it wrong, yes.
Not sure what these tests test but yeah, it might be possible that some things related to RT are much faster and it just doesn't translate that well to today's games eg. they are barely shooting any rays and other steps (note: ray tracing has few steps to it and not only finding ray-geometry intersections) still take proportionally the same time as they were so overall improvements seem less than some aspects of it are.
4090 has more cores and faster clocks vs whatever card you like from RTX 3000 series you pick.
That seem to be 2 different things, if you not RT workload ms time by frame diminished you need a massive jump in RT performance for RT effect to keep up the same relative performance decrease no ?
I am not sure what size of a die you need to fit that amount of core with Samsung 8 and how many thousand watt it would have been, but I can imagine.
I feel there is 2 different conversation, one rather obvious RT performance relative to raster performance does not seem to have a significant change from Lovelace to Ampere that get shifted too RT performance does not differ in a significant way from Ampere (despite showing a massive gain in pretty much pure path traced scenario...)
Going from eg. 3060 to 3090Ti we see nice performance improvement across the board. RT performance improves as much as rasterization performance.
That RT performance exploded at least has much as raster did ? Like it does if we go to a 3090TI from a 3060 ?
If RT performance increased as much as raster performance and by a chance it is exactly as much as increase in core count times clock then it means there is actually no improvement in RT core design.
