[Digital Foundry] Battlefield 5 vs RTX 2060: Is 1080p60 Ray Tracing Really Possible?

Nov 24, 2018
1,463
915
210
#6
what a joke
targeting 1080p 60 with a 350 dollar card
How's that bad for the latest/most demanding games and tech like ray tracing? Did you want maxed 4K60 or something? What would the more expensive cards do then, make coffee and massage your sore feet? Disable ray tracing or play games without such technology implemented and it can likely pull its weight much more, though it always depends, it's mid range and not top of the line, not in pricing either.
 
Last edited:
Jan 24, 2015
6,922
1,502
325
#9
How's that bad for the latest/most demanding games and tech like ray tracing? Did you want maxed 4K60 or something? What would the more expensive cards do then, make coffee and massage your sore feet? Disable ray tracing or play games without such technology implemented and it can likely pull its weight much more, though it always depends, it's mid range and not top of the line, not in pricing either.
i understand why i just think the trade off is wank
my gtx 1060 does 3440x1440 at 60 fps with most settings on ultra
 
Last edited:

JohnnyFootball

The Last of Us may be third person, but it is hardly third person.
Jan 20, 2014
7,877
902
545
#10
The 2060 is intended to give you the absolute bare minimum as far as ray tracing. I wouldn't be surprised if Shadow of the Tomb Raider struggles to get 1080p/30 fps

If you pick up the 2060 expecting to do serious gaming with RT enabled, you will be disappointed as the 2080 can barely do it justice.

We are probably two XX60 generations away from RT being playable at 1440p / 60 fps.
 
Last edited:
Nov 24, 2018
1,463
915
210
#11
i understand why i just think the trade off is wank
my gtx 1060 does 3440x1440 at 60 fps with most settings on ultra
The 2060 will beat in every aspect by a given margin (20-30%? I forget, could be way off). Unless you enable demanding tech like ray tracing 1060 can't have. It's the same type of card a year or whatever later, it's not like they grow to 200% performance with every product launch. It's not really for you (well I'm sure NV would love you to buy a new thing every year lol), it's for whoever didn't upgrade when you did, but may now. Although they really should have gone with 8GB on this card, and even more on the higher end models, idk why NV's cheaping out on that with the RTX line and still charging a premium.
 
Last edited:
Jan 24, 2015
6,922
1,502
325
#13
Holy grail? all i see is reflections in puddles the tech is nice just 6 years too early.
The trade of is a joke at its current state.
I have been using raytracing in 3dsmax for about 12 years. This raytracing in games is NOTHING like the real thing. All i see is some dumb pr statements to push a shitty new gen of cards that are overpriced and not worth it compared to the older cards.
This is that nvidia hairworks BS all over again.

Just calling out the bullshit
 
Last edited:
Mar 26, 2015
841
182
265
Brazil
#14
I mean, he just reduced the texture from Ultra to High and set Ray tracing at high.

At 1080p he obtained 60+FPS. All of this without DSLL, which is supposed to increase performance. Since the vast majority plays at 1080p anyway this is not that bad.

Im looking forward to see their video of this game with Ray Tracing+ DSLL.
 
Likes: GoldenEye98

Leonidas

"Ask me about computers"
Mar 6, 2007
1,171
630
1,090
#16
Looking good for a $349 card. In terms of ray-tracing it's doing things that only a $1200 card could do a few months ago. 2060 is the best GPU to come out in a while.
Can't wait to see the DLSS results at 1440p, mostly concerned about image quality but if it can do ~1440p60 with DLSS and it looks better than 1080p I'd be happy with that.
 
Last edited:
Oct 17, 2011
8,718
488
585
#17
Holy grail? all i see is reflections in puddles the tech is nice just 6 years too early.
The trade of is a joke at its current state.
I have been using raytracing in 3dsmax for about 12 years. This raytracing in games is NOTHING like the real thing. All i see is some dumb pr statements to push a shitty new gen of cards that are overpriced and not worth it compared to the older cards.
This is that nvidia hairworks BS all over again.

Just calling out the bullshit
I kind of agree here when it comes to ray tracing. It's nice looking, but not really worth the hype in my opinion, especially when compared to actual ray tracing in 3D rendering. It's cool to see the extra detail in lighting and real time reflection (is it also real time refraction or just reflection?), but I don't think it's enough to get that hyped over and if the GTX 1160 is real and cheaper by $50 to $100, I'd probably choose it over the RTX 2060.
 
Oct 13, 2014
1,432
90
310
Germany
#18
No way I would drop texture quality for this. I'd rather stick to 1600p-ish@60fps with everything on high/ultra.

I see what this feature could mean in the feature, but right now it's like a SSAO-to-HBAO difference with tenfold the performance cost. I also get the feeling that screenspace reflections seem to be a bit toned down in BF V... don't wanna sound like making up conspiracy theories but I wouldn't be surprised when it's dialed back on purpose – because I've seen great screenspace reflections in video games to which BF V sometimes isn't on par (at least according to comparison videos and screenshots, where there could also be the problem on the user's end not having everything maxed, etc.).
 
Nov 12, 2018
75
49
160
#19
Holy grail? all i see is reflections in puddles the tech is nice just 6 years too early.
The trade of is a joke at its current state.
I have been using raytracing in 3dsmax for about 12 years. This raytracing in games is NOTHING like the real thing. All i see is some dumb pr statements to push a shitty new gen of cards that are overpriced and not worth it compared to the older cards.
This is that nvidia hairworks BS all over again.

Just calling out the bullshit

''Raytracing''. They're not even close to it yet, not in even in reflections but neither in global illumination.
Arnold, vRay, Renderman, Cycles and hell even Redshift which uses GPU cores are silently laughing at this pathetic attempt.
 
Likes: thelastword

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
2,420
1,924
395
Unknown Body, Proxima Centauri, 4th O.B.
#20
Holy grail? all i see is reflections in puddles the tech is nice just 6 years too early.
The trade of is a joke at its current state.
I have been using raytracing in 3dsmax for about 12 years. This raytracing in games is NOTHING like the real thing. All i see is some dumb pr statements to push a shitty new gen of cards that are overpriced and not worth it compared to the older cards.
This is that nvidia hairworks BS all over again.

Just calling out the bullshit
Your 3DS Max stuff usually isnt real-time.

And this is very much the real thing, the difference being that in 3DS Max (Using a render engine, not a game engine) scenes are rendered in full-scene and with Metropolis Light Transport.

By comparison, DXR/Vulkan RTX only raytraces a subset effectively, in this case, reflections. Its far from cinematic raytracing, but it is raytracing nonetheless, just a subset of it.

I kind of agree here when it comes to ray tracing. It's nice looking, but not really worth the hype in my opinion, especially when compared to actual ray tracing in 3D rendering. It's cool to see the extra detail in lighting and real time reflection (is it also real time refraction or just reflection?), but I don't think it's enough to get that hyped over and if the GTX 1160 is real and cheaper by $50 to $100, I'd probably choose it over the RTX 2060.
BFV only does reflection. Atomic Heart also uses raytraced shadows and adds refraction.
 
Likes: nikolino840

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
2,420
1,924
395
Unknown Body, Proxima Centauri, 4th O.B.
#21
''Raytracing''. They're not even close to it yet, not in even in reflections but neither in global illumination.
Arnold, vRay, Renderman, Cycles and hell even Redshift which uses GPU cores are silently laughing at this pathetic attempt.
DP, but this post demonstrates exactly why render engines and game engines should not be compared, but also how silly it is to look down upon this from a game engine perspective.

Its very much raytracing, just a part of it. Hence why it is mixed rendering. All those render engines aren't laughing at RTX because they know its not in the same bracket. RTX, to them, is like their little cousin getting accustomed to walking/raytracing.
 
Mar 16, 2009
5,242
156
690
#22
Or just wait for DLSS.
I'm confused. How does dlss help anything in this scenario. Nvidia misleading marketing in action?

Looking good for a $349 card. In terms of ray-tracing it's doing things that only a $1200 card could do a few months ago. 2060 is the best GPU to come out in a while.
Can't wait to see the DLSS results at 1440p, mostly concerned about image quality but if it can do ~1440p60 with DLSS and it looks better than 1080p I'd be happy with that.

I'm assuming you mean dlss without rtx? There's still some overhead from dlss above running 1440p.
 

Pey.

Neo Member
Jul 27, 2018
12
23
105
#23
I'm confused. How does dlss help anything in this scenario. Nvidia misleading marketing in action?

I'm assuming you mean dlss without rtx? There's still some overhead from dlss above running 1440p.
Nvidia already announced they'll be adding DLSS to Battlefield V and that it will work on all resolutions, not just 4K.
 
Likes: Ivellios

Leonidas

"Ask me about computers"
Mar 6, 2007
1,171
630
1,090
#24
6gb makes it useless when next gen launches. You're throwing 350 down the drain.
Based on what?

Current gen has 8 GB since 2013 and even the 3 GB 1060 destroy the current gen base consoles...
RTX 2060 is a 1080p/1440p card it will be fine. GTX 1060 6 GB will be viable for many years to come as well.
 

Pey.

Neo Member
Jul 27, 2018
12
23
105
#25
6GB is more than enough for 2k, but not for 4K. Resident Evil 2 Remake demo on PC uses up to 12gb of VRAM at 4k/max settings.
 
Mar 16, 2009
5,242
156
690
#29
Nvidia already announced they'll be adding DLSS to Battlefield V and that it will work on all resolutions, not just 4K.
yeah I see now, having watched the whole video. 1080p dlss seems like a bad idea to me (to get the 60fps they want to optimize for in the video) but I suppose it might be ok for someone who who wanted to play in 1440p on a 2060 if they don't mind shitty frame rates.
 
Jan 28, 2010
2,270
104
550
#31
I
DP, but this post demonstrates exactly why render engines and game engines should not be compared, but also how silly it is to look down upon this from a game engine perspective.

Its very much raytracing, just a part of it. Hence why it is mixed rendering. All those render engines aren't laughing at RTX because they know its not in the same bracket. RTX, to them, is like their little cousin getting accustomed to walking/raytracing.
I mean you can't really blame people. nVidia are selling RTX without explaining its massively limited in scope(for obvious reasons). Why anyone gives a fuck about enhanced reflections in a multiplayer fps is beyond me but that's because the tech is years off and they needed something to milk now.
 

Leonidas

"Ask me about computers"
Mar 6, 2007
1,171
630
1,090
#33
Ok fam, enjoy your paperweight when it turns out *next gen* uses 8+gbs vram.
Just like 2-3 GB cards turned into paperweights this generation just because consoles had 8 GB. Oh wait, it didn't happen. GTX 1050 2 GB outperforms base consoles and GTX 1060 3 GB outperforms PS4 Pro. 6 GB will easily be viable next-generation.
 
Likes: Ivellios
Mar 19, 2013
21,141
276
460
Brazil
#34
Just like 2-3 GB cards turned into paperweights this generation just because consoles had 8 GB. Oh wait, it didn't happen. GTX 1050 2 GB outperforms base consoles and GTX 1060 3 GB outperforms PS4 Pro. 6 GB will easily be viable next-generation.
Just to be accurate consoles uses shared memory so the 4.5GB of PS4 is for both CPU and GPU.
While a typical PC have 3GB for the GPU plus 4-6GB for CPU.

That means that most low-end PC have more RAM for games than a PS4.

A PC with 4GB RAM + GTX 1050 2GB have in total about 4.5GB or more available for game.
 
Last edited:
Aug 16, 2018
822
634
200
#35
Did you want maxed 4K60 or something?
that's a no go for the $1000+ card as well
I don't blame em though rtx is very heavy
J Oh wait, it didn't happen. GTX 1050 2 GB outperforms base consoles and GTX 1060 3 GB outperforms PS4 Pro. 6 GB will easily be viable next-generation.
But those cards are bottle necked and you have to downgrade memory intensive settings. PS4 Pro is also bottlenecked because it lacks memory and bandwidth for 4k
4GB Vram for 1080p is the consensus for this gen
so the 4.5GB of PS4
Wasnt 5GB total available?
Based on what?

Current gen has 8 GB since 2013 and even the 3 GB 1060 destroy the current gen base consoles...
RTX 2060 is a 1080p/1440p card it will be fine. GTX 1060 6 GB will be viable for many years to come as well.
Brand new card is already forced to use lower textures at 1080p for a current gen game, doesnt bode well for next gen
 
Last edited:

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
2,420
1,924
395
Unknown Body, Proxima Centauri, 4th O.B.
#36
I

I mean you can't really blame people.
Well yeah i can. It isn't that Nvidia explained what RT is in a nutshell, it is that people don't understand how different it is compared to current rendering let alone understand why it comes with such a performance deficit.

nVidia are selling RTX without explaining its massively limited in scope(for obvious reasons). Why anyone gives a fuck about enhanced reflections in a multiplayer fps is beyond me but that's because the tech is years off and they needed something to milk now.
Its hardly years off when the next contender is Metro Exodus, which i feel will show it off better than BFV.

Not targetting you but i swear people are hating on this tech out of ignorance on occassion.
Haha, wow.
DLSS is a con, it sucks.
How does it suck, apparently?
 
Likes: Ivellios
Feb 15, 2018
342
168
195
#38
Just like 2-3 GB cards turned into paperweights this generation just because consoles had 8 GB. Oh wait, it didn't happen. GTX 1050 2 GB outperforms base consoles and GTX 1060 3 GB outperforms PS4 Pro. 6 GB will easily be viable next-generation.
That's because consoles use 2-3gb for video memory. 1-1.5gb cards were quickly left in the dust. However I do recall in several DF videos with the 1050/750ti that certain settings had to be dialed back because of the 2gb limit, compared to ps4.

If next gen used 8gb+ for video memory you'd be buying an outdated brick already. Hint... they will.

For crying out loud it's already memory bottlenecked in battlefield 5 with its RT functionality at less than max settings, you don't think completely next gen games will use more than that?!

I mean, there's people not being visionaries and there's people that can't see something from an inch away. Do whatever you want lol
 
Last edited:
Likes: Kenpachii
Jul 8, 2018
163
135
180
#40
Isn't DLSS just an upscaling method? Render at a lower resolution an upscale to 4K? Most comparisons I've seen, it provides worse image quality, even vs 1440p + AA.
 
Feb 15, 2018
342
168
195
#41
Isn't DLSS just an upscaling method? Render at a lower resolution an upscale to 4K? Most comparisons I've seen, it provides worse image quality, even vs 1440p + AA.
Yeah, one hell of an expensive upscale.

We already have a brilliant technique called temporal injection used by shadow of the colossus and insomniac's ps4 games that doesn't need special hardware.

We already have ray tracing in games like claybook... Nvidia slaves will defend anything.
 
Last edited:

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
2,420
1,924
395
Unknown Body, Proxima Centauri, 4th O.B.
#42
Its support sucks
This is supposed to be a simple to implement feature why is it taking so damn long, is it more complicated than we were led to believe or something?
Raytracing isnt an easy feature when its engine assets dont take it into account.

Still, there have been big performance gains.
 

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
2,420
1,924
395
Unknown Body, Proxima Centauri, 4th O.B.
#43
Yeah, one hell of an expensive upscale.

We already have a brilliant technique called temporal injection used by shadow of the colossus and insomniac's ps4 games that doesn't need special hardware.

We already have ray tracing in games like claybook... Nvidia slaves will defend anything.
Claybook is a different implementation of RT.

It has nothing to do with being a slave, rather, you taking all RT variants as a whole and make conclusions based on that.
 
Feb 15, 2018
342
168
195
#44
Claybook is a different implementation of RT.

It has nothing to do with being a slave, rather, you taking all RT variants as a whole and make conclusions based on that.
Corporate slaves.

I get it, the end goal of this technology is to make it easy for the developer, to not have to fake anything.

But the cost is too high, and you can fake it for much less and still keep high resolutions and framerates. This is junk technology right now.

Bottomline is claybook is real ray tracing on the weakest current gen machine. It's just clever programming instead of brute force.
 

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
2,420
1,924
395
Unknown Body, Proxima Centauri, 4th O.B.
#45
Corporate slaves.

I get it, the end goal of this technology is to make it easy for the developer, to not have to fake anything.

But the cost is too high, and you can fake it for much less and still keep high resolutions and framerates. This is junk technology right now.

Bottomline is claybook is real ray tracing on the weakest current gen machine. It's just clever programming instead of brute force.
I wonder what is traced and what elements/materials are affected.

Then again Claybook dev also claimed 4.88 gigarays on Radeon GPU, which is why it is important to know what we are dealing with.

There is nothing junk about this RTX considering the improvements.

More Claybook info: https://twvideo01.ubm-us.net/o1/vault/gdc2018/presentations/Aaltonen_Sebastian_GPU_Based_Clay.pdf
 
Feb 15, 2018
342
168
195
#46
I wonder what is traced and what elements/materials are affected.

Then again Claybook dev also claimed 4.88 gigarays on Radeon GPU, which is why it is important to know what we are dealing with.

There is nothing junk about this RTX considering the improvements.

More Claybook info: https://twvideo01.ubm-us.net/o1/vault/gdc2018/presentations/Aaltonen_Sebastian_GPU_Based_Clay.pdf
I've already read about sebbi's method, it's great.

I call going from 4k to 1080p, with less consistent framerate for some puddles, junk technology. We've had planar reflections and clever tricks for reflections that look great for years. This method seen in Battlefield is the brute force method and there's nothing clever about it.
 

Leonidas

"Ask me about computers"
Mar 6, 2007
1,171
630
1,090
#47
If next gen used 8gb+...
Doesn't matter, RTX 2060 is a 1080p/1440p card. Years down the road it'll be just a 1080p card but that level of performance will still be viable a long ways into the future while giving ray-tracing functionality not available on consoles.

For crying out loud it's already memory bottlenecked in battlefield 5 with its RT functionality at less than max settings, you don't think completely next gen games will use more than that?!
I don't expect RTX 2060(the baseline RTX experience) to max a game out with RT on. To me the performance shown by DF is impressive and they've stated the performance will likely improve even more.
RT specifically causes the memory bottleneck, turn RTX off and there is no bottleneck at Ultra settings(same performance as 8 GB 1070 Ti).
But BFV also runs fine on 2-3 GB cards if you run at settings the card can handle and aren't trying to max out everything...
 
Last edited:
Feb 15, 2018
342
168
195
#48
But BFV also runs fine on 2-3 GB cards if you run at settings the card can handle and aren't trying to max out everything...
No shit. I never said 2gb cards couldn't run current gen games. 2-3gb is the standard, ushered in by the ps4 and xbox one.

6gb vram will be well under the next gen standard. You'd be really lowballing next gen if you think they'll be using less.

So you're willing to spend $350 on a card that will be merely doing 1080p (you think, because again, 1080p or not you aren't taking into account how memory intensive next gen rendering techniques will be) in the 4k era when ps5 will soon be launching. Like I said, do whatever you want but you're reasoning isn't sound and this is why you're seeing prices what they are in the PC space.