Nvidia wants your RTX feedback

Dec 2, 2014
1,619
288
375
#3
  • bati

    bati

Here's my feedback - I feel pressured into buying a 2060 because of its great baseline performance and at the same time I feel like I'm throwing money away on a feature that I know won't be feasible to use on a xx60 series card.

And the closest alternative right now looks like it's going to be a 1660ti, which according to leaked prices won't be cheaper enough to offset the loss of baseline power relative to the 2060.

So instead of having two great options at my disposal that would actively make me want to buy the card I'm forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.
 
Feb 6, 2018
358
112
195
#4
I can't imagine that a lot of people take the survey, since not a lot of people bought the cards :0
It´s open to the general public. I think they are starting to suspect that the tech is not that attractive, at least not enough to justify these prices. It should seem like a perfectly logical possibility, but sometimes echo chambers can get you badly.
 
Last edited:
Nov 19, 2018
105
170
200
#5
Real-Time Ray Tracing is a gimmick trying to convince PC gamers to pay almost double the price of previous gen, all the while staring at sub 60 FPS @1080p wondering where their money went. Even their CEO had to resort to seriously deceptive presentations to try and justify RTX during his frankly embarrassing "It Just Works" presentation.
 
Last edited:
Likes: thelastword
Apr 5, 2018
417
534
225
#6
Ray tracing is not worth it , a nice technology yes but until Nvidia and Developers learn to implement it without completely tanking FPS at high resolutions its , pointless . I mean why purchase a 800 - 1500 pound video card to play with ray tracing at 1080p.
 
Nov 27, 2018
206
146
175
#9
Looks like they did their homework:


All the tech combined really makes it kind of worth it, but I think it's safe to say the RTX cards are unbalanced - they give over a 100FPS in normal rendering, while barely break 60 with RT+DLSS combo. IMO they should have ditch the Tensor cores to replace it with more RT cores, to get the RT running buttery smooth at native resolutions. But hey, next generation of 7nm GPUs can get only so much better.
 
Likes: pawel86ck

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
2,930
2,392
405
Unknown Body, Proxima Centauri, 4th O.B.
#10
Real-Time Ray Tracing is a gimmick trying to convince PC gamers to pay almost double the price of previous gen, all the while staring at sub 60 FPS @1080p wondering where their money went. Even their CEO had to resort to seriously deceptive presentations to try and justify RTX during his frankly embarrassing "It Just Works" presentation.
It runs at over 60 fps at 1080p in BGB and Metro Exodus also runs over 60 fps at 1080p and even 1440p (But with dips to 55 FPS) with RTX ultra and DLSS on. Granted thats an RTX 2080Ti but this whole ''You only get 1080p sub 60'' narrative is just BS.

https://www.dsogaming.com/first-imp...rformance-impressions-comparison-screenshots/

Hell even RTX 2060 does 1080p60 with RTX features enabled. And lets not forget Q2VKPT.

All in all, no you won't get 4K RTX, but 1440p Ultra RTX is definitely achievable, and 1080p60 RTX on medium/low (Which is not much of a difference really) in BFV is also attainable.

Just because initial performance was sub 60 fps does not mean that is accurate to performance today.

Ray tracing is not worth it , a nice technology yes but until Nvidia and Developers learn to implement it without completely tanking FPS at high resolutions its , pointless . I mean why purchase a 800 - 1500 pound video card to play with ray tracing at 1080p.
Metro Exodus runs at 1440p60 with a few dips. BFV runs even better.

But yeah if you expect 4K with raytracing ultra then you simply do not get what RT actually does, come on now.

Here's my feedback - I don't care about RTX, shitty DLSS and RTX series as a whole.
So i take it you buy a GTX 1660Ti then? :) Also how is DLSS shitty given the potential it has?

Also some more Metro Exodus RTX stuff, where RTX actually has a change on visuals:

 
Last edited:
Likes: pawel86ck
Apr 5, 2018
417
534
225
#11
Metro Exodus runs at 1440p60 with a few dips. BFV runs even better.

But yeah if you expect 4K with raytracing ultra then you simply do not get what RT actually does, come on now.
yes it runs at 66fps with RTX on at 1440p but without RTX on it runs at 117 FPS



and at 4k with RTX on its 34 FPS without RTX its 71 FPS


So you get a better gaming experience with RTX off, somewhere between 45 - 50% more frames.if the hit was 10% of frames ok, but as it stands RTX is to demanding IMO
 
Last edited:
Feb 8, 2018
305
108
190
Germany
#12
Looks like they did their homework:


All the tech combined really makes it kind of worth it, but I think it's safe to say the RTX cards are unbalanced - they give over a 100FPS in normal rendering, while barely break 60 with RT+DLSS combo. IMO they should have ditch the Tensor cores to replace it with more RT cores, to get the RT running buttery smooth at native resolutions. But hey, next generation of 7nm GPUs can get only so much better.
Well they delivered features that are old on delivery.
RTX is just not good enough to really use RT
DLSS has some major flaws and one of it is, you always need support from nvidia so DLSS can be used with a game in combination with your GPU. This means, at some point nvidia won't deliver the DLSS support for older products/games. It is a feature that will die out really quickly.
e.g. MSAA/SSAA can be used on any hardware through their whole lifetime with well any game (not just nvidia supported games). DLSS is just there to win some benchmarks while picture quality is really not that great. Just a new form of cheating.
Just wait for the next generation of nvidia GPUs and nvidia will drop the DLSS support for the current 20x0 cards sooner or later. While older games won't be supported with DLSS on newer cards, because the profiles don't match. So DLSS is obsolete by design. And they didn't even deliver "patches" on launch day.
 
Likes: Griffon

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
2,930
2,392
405
Unknown Body, Proxima Centauri, 4th O.B.
#13
yes it runs at 66fps with RTX on at 1440p but without RTX on it runs at 117 FPS
Does that include DLSS? Well never mind that since DLSS on this game is not completely working yet, but yeah, RTX is a resource hog without DLSS.

The fact it hits 1440p60 without that aid is impressive to say the least given Exodus pushes more RTX stuff than BFV.

So you get a better gaming experience with RTX off, somewhere between 45 - 50% more frames.
Why is that your conclusion? In 4K, yes, but Metro is a rather slow paced game so 30 FPS could work there too, but why claim there is a better experience off when 1440p still gets you that holy 60 fps?

if the hit was 10% of frames ok, but as it stands RTX is to demanding IMO
RTX was never going to introduce a 10% performance deficit as that completely is opposite of what RTX is, namely a completely different rendering model.

Its only too demanding if you want 4K60 Ultra with RTX on, but who expects that? You can still have 1440p60 Ultra RTX on and 4K60 Ultra RTX off either way.
 
Last edited:
Likes: pawel86ck

Leonidas

"Ask me about computers"
Mar 6, 2007
1,240
672
1,090
#16
It's funny how people act like 1440p60 is somehow not impressive for real-time ray-tracing effects. The results we're getting today are beyond what many thought was possible last year on a single GPU.

It's like people either forgot that ray-tracing is computationally expensive or they forgot that computationally expensive graphics cause a hit to performance.
 
Sep 25, 2015
4,682
1,628
320
Somewhere in space
#17
A Google Sheets form?

Stay Classy, Nvidia :messenger_winking:

yes it runs at 66fps with RTX on at 1440p but without RTX on it runs at 117 FPS



and at 4k with RTX on its 34 FPS without RTX its 71 FPS


So you get a better gaming experience with RTX off, somewhere between 45 - 50% more frames.if the hit was 10% of frames ok, but as it stands RTX is to demanding IMO


Emerging rendering tech being able to hit 1440p60 is impressive when you actually take it in context rather than assuming that it will meet or exceed the standards of established rasterization technology that's been iterated on for some 20+ years at this point.
 

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
2,930
2,392
405
Unknown Body, Proxima Centauri, 4th O.B.
#18
My feedback is that RTX cards cost way too much, offer little actual gains compared to the 10 series, and RTX is a neat trick but not worth a 50% drop in framerate.
  • RTX 2060 is not too costly
  • Metro Exodus shows a better visual difference than BFV
  • RTX is not a neat trick. If you geniunely think this then you do not understand the concept of Raytracing
  • Since you also say its not worth the 50% framerate drop, i geniunely have to question if you understand its concepts
It's funny how people act like 1440p60 is somehow not impressive for real-time ray-tracing effects. The results we're getting today are beyond what many thought was possible last year on a single GPU.
Exactly. Having this kind of stuff (Actual accelerated raytracing) running at that resolution even when its just an effect and not full scene is impressive.

It's like people either forgot that ray-tracing is computationally expensive or they forgot that computationally expensive graphics cause a hit to performance.
Visual improvements need to be much more dramatic before its noteworthy. People expect a complete turnaround and ran with it when initial release code had a huge deficit to performance in BFV, so much so that any reasonable resolution was unplayable.

Thanks to patches and DLSS in a lesser fashion, BFV proved RTX has merit. Metro Exodus so far also shows that RTX definitely has merit, even on resolutions higher than what most Steam users have (Which is 1080p.)

Its DLSS functionality is still limited and buggy, but like BFV, i reckon patches will come out.

That's basically the real story.

In regards to Metro Exodus i read complaints that RTX-off looks better to them. Which is rather crazy since that kind of lighting is less natural. Because our eyes are so used to lighting that does not correspond to reality, lighting that attempts to simulate it comes across as unnatural. Even when that, in fact, is more realistic.
 
Last edited:
Apr 5, 2018
417
534
225
#19
@Leonidas @Redneckerz. It is a impressive technology, there is no doubting that, i dont think people have said it isnt, people on this thread have questioned the resources and price its using to get there.

However i have evga 2080ti, and if anybody thinks am going to be grateful and amazed because nvidia can give me RTX at 60 fps at 1440p60 in 2019 you can stop that shit now.
 
Likes: lukilladog

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
2,930
2,392
405
Unknown Body, Proxima Centauri, 4th O.B.
#21
@Leonidas @Redneckerz. It is a impressive technology, there is no doubting that, i dont think people have said it isnt, people on this thread have questioned the resources and price its using to get there.
See above. And the resources, well, on the other hand i want to question what they think raytracing actually does. Because i see a lot of people shitting on it, but do they know why it carries that deficit?

I mean, i get it, you get 50% less performance and visually the difference is not stark so its shit.

However i have evga 2080ti, and if anybody thinks am going to be grateful and amazed because nvidia can give me RTX at 60 fps at 1440p60 in 2019 you can stop that shit now.
Well, yeah. Especially when you couldn't run those fancy tech on a reasonable resolution as little as 2 years ago. The fact it does and does it at a higher resolution than the majority of gamers setups is what makes it impressive.

It sounds to me that your expectations are a bit out of the window.

When the 1080ti was introduced you had these options:
1070: $350
1080: $500
1080ti: $700

With RTX it's now:
2070: $600
2080: $800
2080ti: $1200
You miss RTX 2060 for 350.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Leonidas
Apr 5, 2018
417
534
225
#22
mean, i get it, you get 50% less performance and visually the difference is not stark so its shit.
No one said RTX was shit, now you're reaching, so please stop it.

There are legitimate arguments about the price to performance issues, let alone the failure rate of this cards. Its exciting where this technology will be in a few generations time
 
Aug 3, 2014
8,794
416
340
#23
i'd let them know what i thought if there were any games i owned that used it. the only experience of RTX i've had is that new 3D Mark benchmark.

When the 1080ti was introduced you had these options:
1070: $350
1080: $500
1080ti: $700

With RTX it's now:
2070: $600
2080: $800
2080ti: $1200
blame AMD. they can't compete and therefore Nvidia can charge whatever price they pull out their ass.

if you don't wanna buy a new GPU because it's too expensive then tough shit. your loss. have fun with your AMD gpu (LOL) or console.
 
Last edited:
May 6, 2012
2,440
371
480
#24
So i take it you buy a GTX 1660Ti then?
I've bought AUROS 1080Ti just before 2019.

Also how is DLSS shitty given the potential it has?
What potential? To blur the screen even further so that you couldn't see anything? Ha-ha, yeah, no thank you. SSAA is all I need in 99% of AAA games as an AA option - other AA methods and temporal reconstruction can suck my dick and eat my balls. Better yet, they should've invent new and SSAA level of AA method just for shaders and shader effects to get rid of awful TAA, which is the one and only AA method that can fix alliancing of shaders and shader effects at the moment (by also ruining sharpness of textrures and adding vaseline effect).

Also some more Metro Exodus RTX stuff, where RTX actually has a change on visuals:
Yeah, as I've said before - I don't give a damn about RTX... for at least 6-7 years.
 
Last edited:

Leonidas

"Ask me about computers"
Mar 6, 2007
1,240
672
1,090
#25
When the 1080ti was introduced you had these options:
1070: $350
1080: $500
1080ti: $700
And Titan Xp was at $1200, so it was

1070: $350
1080: $500
1080ti: $700
TitanX: $1200

With RTX it's now:
2060: $350 (15% faster than 1070)
2070: $500 (10% faster than 1080)
2080: $700 (5% faster than 1080 Ti)
2080ti: $1200 (30% faster than Titan Xp)

Raster performance per dollar for Turing is better than Pascal.
 
Last edited:

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
2,930
2,392
405
Unknown Body, Proxima Centauri, 4th O.B.
#26
No one said RTX was shit, now you're reaching, so please stop it.
I was expressing a general sentiment and not your post in particular, sorry if that got confused.

What potential? To blur the screen even further so that you couldn't see anything? Ha-ha, yeah, no thank you.
If you are going to answer your own question, why need mines?

DLSS has been shown by DF to have rather impressive FPS gains, for one.

Yeah, as I've said before - I don't give a damn about RTX... for at least 6-7 years.
Given your post its also okay that your negativity clouds your perception. I support your point that you don't give a damn though about it.
 

JohnnyFootball

The Last of Us may be third person, but it is hardly third person.
Jan 20, 2014
8,033
1,043
595
#27
i'd let them know what i thought if there were any games i owned that used it. the only experience of RTX i've had is that new 3D Mark benchmark.


blame AMD. they can't compete and therefore Nvidia can charge whatever price they pull out their ass.

if you don't wanna buy a new GPU because it's too expensive then tough shit. your loss. have fun with your AMD gpu (LOL) or console.
I was expressing a general sentiment and not your post in particular, sorry if that got confused.


If you are going to answer your own question, why need mines?

DLSS has been shown by DF to have rather impressive FPS gains, for one.


Given your post its also okay that your negativity clouds your perception. I support your point that you don't give a damn though about it.
True, but judging by the screenshots (which is dangerous) it's a pretty drastic drop in quality. That makes it's benefits debatable.
 
May 6, 2012
2,440
371
480
#28
DLSS has been shown by DF to have rather impressive FPS gains, for one.
I don't care. I much prefer native and crisp picture with SSAA.

Given your post its also okay that your negativity clouds your perception. I support your point that you don't give a damn though about it.
Why should I care about RTX here and now then and why should I buy POS and overproced GPUs from NVIDIA which can't handle RTX in native resolutions (1080p / 1440p) with constant 60FPS and without DLSS, which also ruins the picture and almost every bit of detail it had in native resolution? The answer is that I shouldn't and frankly no one should. See ya in 6-7 years and will talk about it again when and if this tech will actually be implemented in 90% of games with good performance in at least native 1440p and on max settings.
 
Last edited:
Nov 27, 2018
206
146
175
#30
Well they delivered features that are old on delivery.
RTX is just not good enough to really use RT
DLSS has some major flaws and one of it is, you always need support from nvidia so DLSS can be used with a game in combination with your GPU. This means, at some point nvidia won't deliver the DLSS support for older products/games. It is a feature that will die out really quickly.
e.g. MSAA/SSAA can be used on any hardware through their whole lifetime with well any game (not just nvidia supported games). DLSS is just there to win some benchmarks while picture quality is really not that great. Just a new form of cheating.
Just wait for the next generation of nvidia GPUs and nvidia will drop the DLSS support for the current 20x0 cards sooner or later. While older games won't be supported with DLSS on newer cards, because the profiles don't match. So DLSS is obsolete by design. And they didn't even deliver "patches" on launch day.
It's still a "good" start - before RTX series we had RT at 0p@0FPS, so it's actually astounding accomplishment from Nvidia. And IMO it's a move into good direction - imagine if next-gen cards will be able to DLSS from actual native resolution, let's say super sample 4K to 5K, and instead of blurring the image actually sharpening it, that would be something. And/or if they could figure it out to work in every single game from the driver level, just like FXAA, independently without need of NV's input, that would be even better. And if they will put enough RT cores to utilize RT technology in not only one aspect of the rendering, but multiple ones at the same time (here's the list of possibilities in the recent UE4 update: https://forums.unrealengine.com/unr...d-releases/1583659-unreal-engine-4-22-preview), that would be amazing as well. As always, time will tell, they will have all the room to play with in 7nm process node, we already don't need any more CUDA cores since 1080Ti/2080/2080Ti already need a 144Hz 4K screen to fully utilize their power, so if they focus on Tensor and RT cores in 3xxx series we could see some amazing results.
 

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
2,930
2,392
405
Unknown Body, Proxima Centauri, 4th O.B.
#31
True, but judging by the screenshots (which is dangerous) it's a pretty drastic drop in quality. That makes it's benefits debatable.
It gives a blurry shimmering from what i have seen, but RTX perf increases rather significantly. So unless DLSS is early days, its a question of both worlds.

I don't care. I much prefer native and crisp picture with SSAA.
And without RTX. Noted.

Why should I care about RTX here and now then and why should I buy POS and overproced GPUs from NVIDIA?
You bought a GTX 1080Ti yourself?

The answer is that I shouldn't and frankly no one should.
You don't care but actually you do care or you wouldn't be so against it and shrugging explanations off as ''I don't care.'' :)

See ya in 6-7 years and will talk about it again when and if this tech will actually be implemented in 90% of games with good performance in at least native 1440p and on max settings.
Its already native max 1440p in Exodus and i believe BFV too so i am not really getting your point. Its not using DLSS to reach that in Exodus atleast, if that's where the confusion comes from.
 
Likes: Leonidas
May 6, 2012
2,440
371
480
#32
You bought a GTX 1080Ti yourself?
Nah, mommy and daddy bought it for me cuz and don't have my own money at age of 34))))))))))))

You don't care but actually you do care or you wouldn't be so against it and shrugging explanations off as ''I don't care.'' :)
But I don't care and there's no reason to care for at least 6-7 years and even then its questionable.

Its already native max 1440p in Exodus and i believe BFV too so i am not really getting your point.
There's no constant 60 FPS in high native resolutions with max raster and RTX settings even in BFV. Not to mention that at this point in time only 2 games support RTX were as 99% of other games don't. Again, see ya in 6-7 years from now. There's nothing more to discuss on that matter.
 
Last edited:
Mar 16, 2009
5,290
180
690
#33
What Metro Exodus is doing looks decent to me. It doesn't look like what we want it to look like in the long run but if you can do better than something like VXAO in Tomb Raider with RTX to make environments appear more natural I prefer it over not. Unlike reflections in Battlefield which to me are just cute and a solution looking for a problem i.e. tech demo aesthetics

Some of the disappointment about RTX from Nvidia in visual comparisons is due to the low amount of rays and the need for optimizations that make it more of an enhancement effect on top of regular raster methods in addition to cleaving what the rays are doing e.g. in Metro Exodus just global illumination and ambient occlusion whereas (if I'm getting it right) Tomb Raider will solely or primarily use RTX for shadows
 

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
2,930
2,392
405
Unknown Body, Proxima Centauri, 4th O.B.
#34
Nah, mommy and daddy bought it for me cuz and don't have my own money at age of 34))))))))))))
You are not understanding the question. You asked: ''why should I buy POS and overproced GPUs from NVIDIA?''

I responded that you bought a GTX 1080 Ti yourself and countered you with a question in the same sentence.

But I don't care and there's no reason to care for at least 6-7 years and even then its questionable.
But you do, that's the point. In the bottom of your post you even prove this yourself.

There's no constant 60 FPS in high native resolutions with max raster and RTX settings even in BFV.
I believe there was, and there certainly is in 1080p with Exodus and also in 1440p but you have to see a few dips to 55, which is completely normal in most user cases considering most user cases target 1080p.

Not to mention that at this point in time only 2 games support RTX were as 99% of other games don't.
That's a compelling argument.

Again, see ya in 6-7 years from now. There's nothing more to discuss on that matter.
Stating you don't care and then proceed to be vehemently negative about the hardware implies pre-determination.
 
Sep 25, 2015
4,682
1,628
320
Somewhere in space
#35
There are legitimate arguments about the price to performance issues, let alone the failure rate of this cards. Its exciting where this technology will be in a few generations time
This is the core of it for me. From a technological standpoint it's great that we're on the way to raytracing being a viable real-time rendering pipeline, yet we see dismissive takes everywhere because Nvidia flubbed its introduction to the consumer space and inadvertently shifted the narrative to "these new big ticket features aren't worth the money".

And that's a valid narrative, has been for a while on the high end of team green's product line, it just sucks that interesting new tech is getting thrown under the bus for it.
 

Leonidas

"Ask me about computers"
Mar 6, 2007
1,240
672
1,090
#38
DLSS is not supported at that resolution. So what you're basically saying is using something at an unsupported resolution sucks?

DLSS looks like bad AA lol
Based on what? For FFXV it seems to be up to personal preference compared to TAA with many preferring the look of DLSS.

Metro Exodus DLSS also recieved a day one patch which I don't think anyone has analyzed yet at the time of this post. So basically what you're saying is old version of DLSS, your personal preference on DLSS, or unsupported DLSS looks like bad AA?
 
Last edited:
Likes: kizito

Leonidas

"Ask me about computers"
Mar 6, 2007
1,240
672
1,090
#42
Hilariously overpriced for something that makes a minor visual difference, I went with a last gen card.
Depending on which card you bought, and when you bought it, you could have gotten a faster card for the same price if you got RTX(unless you got a great used deal or something).

2060: $350 (15% faster than 1070)
2070: $500 (10% faster than 1080)
2080: $700 (5% faster than 1080 Ti)
2080ti: $1200 (30% faster than Titan Xp)
 
May 4, 2014
1,148
39
290
#43
Totally not worth the money right now, and probably never will. I'd take just more standard rasterizing performance any day over RTX and DLSS. The amount of transistor cost ray tracing incurs is just not worth it, and I think this will be evident when Navi launches as it can provide much more bang for buck without wasting die space on meh features only available in select games. Nvidia could of course do the same with GTX 1660 but that would not make sense until they actually have to compete. I think part of the reason these non-RTX chips are coming to the low end is simply to prepare for that eventuality.

The reality is that the value proposition in GPUs won't improve that much in the future. AMD potentially coming up with a more competitive architecture is one thing, and Intel entering the market is another, but beyond that from a consumer perspective there isn't a lot to be excited for. Nvidia jumping to 7 nm production likely won't bring us cheaper cards, just even more expensive ones at the high end. This is all due to increasing transistor costs of the new nodes. We'll get power improvements and clock speed upgrades, but per transistor costs are only going up, so while it's technically possible to double up on transistors, it'll also cost more than double. Nvidia has conditioned the market to high prices, but in the next couple years the prices are unlikely to go down significantly, and the only place where more value is derived for the consumer is by Nvidia, AMD and Intel doing price competition and settling for smaller margins. It's not surprising to me that Nvidia's stock is falling, not just because of mining sales lies, but because their outlook just isn't one of growth.
 
May 4, 2014
1,148
39
290
#47
Nvidia's already done that. Pics

There's your Navi competitor. Only the 1660 Ti will be available soon while we'll have to wait maybe 8 months to see how Navi compares...
They won't position the 1660 Ti (un)favorably against the 2060 in terms of price/performance. They totally could price it better now, but it won't happen before Navi comes out.
 
Last edited:
Likes: bati
May 21, 2018
79
52
170
#49
They won't position the 1660 Ti (un)favorably against the 2060 in terms of price/performance. They totally could price it better now, but it won't happen before Navi comes out.
I don't see why they should drop price even if Navi gives 2080 perf for a 2060 price, AMD isn't even on the radar for many people, they just stick to Nvidia no matter what the alternative is.