GoldenEye98
posts news as their odd job
Basically yes...if you drop texture quality and DXR quality.
Last edited:
Why the texture quality? VRAM?
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.what a joke
targeting 1080p 60 with a 350 dollar card
what a joke
targeting 1080p 60 with a 350 dollar card
i understand why i just think the trade off is wankHow'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.
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.i understand why i just think the trade off is wank
my gtx 1060 does 3440x1440 at 60 fps with most settings on ultra
Raytracing has been the holy grail of 3D gaming graphics for well over a decade.what a joke
targeting 1080p 60 with a 350 dollar card
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
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.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
BFV only does reflection. Atomic Heart also uses raytraced shadows and adds refraction.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.
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.''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.
Or just wait for DLSS.
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 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.
6gb makes it useless when next gen launches. You're throwing 350 down the drain.
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.
Ok fam, enjoy your paperweight when it turns out *next gen* uses 8+gbs vram.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.
Nvidia already announced they'll be adding DLSS to Battlefield V and that it will work on all resolutions, not just 4K.
Ok fam, enjoy your paperweight when it turns out *next gen* uses 8+gbs vram.
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.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 towalking/raytracing.
Haha, wow.Or just wait for DLSS.
Ok fam, enjoy your paperweight when it turns out *next gen* uses 8+gbs vram.
Just to be accurate consoles uses shared memory so the 4.5GB of PS4 is for both CPU and GPU.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 a no go for the $1000+ card as wellDid you want maxed 4K60 or something?
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 4kJ 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.
Wasnt 5GB total available?so the 4.5GB of PS4
Brand new card is already forced to use lower textures at 1080p for a current gen game, doesnt bode well for next genBased 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.
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.I
I mean you can't really blame people.
Its hardly years off when the next contender is Metro Exodus, which i feel will show it off better than BFV.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.
How does it suck, apparently?Haha, wow.
DLSS is a con, it sucks.
Its support sucksHow does it suck, apparently?
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.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.
Yeah, one hell of an expensive upscale.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.
Raytracing isnt an easy feature when its engine assets dont take it into account.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?
Claybook is a different implementation of RT.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.
Corporate slaves.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.
I wonder what is traced and what elements/materials are affected.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've already read about sebbi's method, it's great.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
If next gen used 8gb+...
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?!
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.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...
6gb vram will be well under the next gen standard.
We'll see.Nope, not at 1080p it won't.