Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Quake II RTX Performance For AMD Radeon 6000 Series vs. NVIDIA On Linux

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Nvidia on Linux is actually the best but current wayland support.

    Comment


    • #32
      Please test 1080p!

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Stefem View Post
        No offense but no, you don't understand what you are seeing, you are looking at path tracing rendering in real time and that's mind blowing. If you want to understand learn the difference between ray tracing and path tracing and the effect that the transition from the former to the latter had on the creative process of the film industry.
        Your silly rejoinder in no way offended me, what offends me is that lack of thought you employed in crafting your response.

        Hoe Nvidia describes the game:

        Quake II RTX Available Now: Download The Ray-Traced Remaster Of The Classic Quake II For Free (nvidia.com)

        Quake II RTX, our ray-traced remaster of Quake II is now available to download and play!
        So Nvidia considers it ray-traced.

        Future of Gaming : Rasterization vs Ray Tracing vs Path Tracing | by Junying Wang | Medium

        Path tracing is a type of ray tracing.
        I can find nothing that says Quake II RTX uses anything other than simple ray-tracing and even if it did, there is nothing "mind blowing", it just tells me that someone really wanted to use the most inefficient rendering method possible.

        I also don't know what benefit you think going from simple ray-tracing to path-tracing had/has on the "creative process of the film industry".

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by sophisticles View Post
          upscaled to 4k, still looks like shit
          Not upscaled in the traditional sense -- it's natively rendered at 4k. Using raytracing.

          And I certainly don't think it looks like shit.


          Originally posted by sophisticles View Post
          What exactly is the point of ray tracing and this game?
          There are A/B comparisons on Youtube.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by sophisticles View Post
            I can find nothing that says Quake II RTX uses anything other than simple ray-tracing and even if it did, there is nothing "mind blowing", it just tells me that someone really wanted to use the most inefficient rendering method possible.
            And still a very simple google gave me an entire video presentation on how the path tracing in Quake II RTX works:


            Not to mention that the first name of the project was "Quake II Vulkan Path Tracing"

            Originally posted by sophisticles View Post
            I also don't know what benefit you think going from simple ray-tracing to path-tracing had/has on the "creative process of the film industry".
            The benefit was that the film industry could move on from the old ugly plastic looking worthless cgi from the early 90:ies to the type of cgi (path traced) that is used everywhere today on films and series.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post
              The benefit was that the film industry could move on from the old ugly plastic looking worthless cgi from the early 90:ies to the type of cgi (path traced) that is used everywhere today on films and series.
              The film industry only switched over to ray tracing a little more than a decade ago. There were a lot of non-"plastic looking worthless cgi" produced before that point.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by coder View Post
                The film industry only switched over to ray tracing a little more than a decade ago. There were a lot of non-"plastic looking worthless cgi" produced before that point.
                But the context was ray traced cgi, with ray traced cgi the industry could make a shit ton more cgi work than what it could back when it was mainly used for cleanup and touchup work. And ray traced cgi has been used since the 90:ies, e.g in B5. The industry as a whole only switched over to ray tracing _because_ path tracing become available.
                F.Ultra
                Senior Member
                Last edited by F.Ultra; 29 May 2021, 11:19 AM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by sophisticles View Post

                  What exactly is the point of ray tracing and this game?
                  In the future, graphics will probably be close to photorealistic. For that to be possible, real time raytracing must be implemented. Todays hardware is *just* capable of doing exactly that, quake 2, at 60-ish fps. The 4k resolution is a bit high for me, but the objects and 3d-scenes in quake rtx look to me to be more "physical" than a traditional 3d render. That means I feel like they look closer to something Id be able to reach out and touch, even though the models are ancient.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by CochainComplex View Post
                    Normally it should be an apple to apple comparison. But Luke_Wolf pointed it out correctly in the post prior to yours it depends on the different techniques of the vendors. In another thread few weeks ago this was also discussed. Of course at the end the delivered experience/performance to the user is the culprit. I can not asses what's the pro and cons of each approach and when which technique results in a better performance. But If the quake raytracing engine was build up from scratch with nvidias approach in mind which is very likely its difficult for AMDs implementation to gain some ground dispite of their contribution.

                    At the end AMD needs to change gears no matter if increasing raytracing cores on the die, driver and software implementation or in marketing, convincing game engine devs to use their techniques.
                    The fact that optimizations are possible is obviously true but that doesn't mean that the ray tracing pass isn't much faster on NVIDIA GPUs, even Turing is faster than any RX6000 GPUs if you test with a ray tracing microbenchmark

                    Originally posted by CochainComplex View Post
                    Only the 3090 gives enough perfomance to use rtx switch in any modern game. At the moment i prefer 60fps+ over 30fps with better reflections. But maybe in 3years.
                    That's just a pile of bullshit, even an RTX 2060 can play many games with ray tracing @1080p 60fps

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by AdamOne View Post

                      In the future, graphics will probably be close to photorealistic. For that to be possible, real time raytracing must be implemented. Todays hardware is *just* capable of doing exactly that, quake 2, at 60-ish fps. The 4k resolution is a bit high for me, but the objects and 3d-scenes in quake rtx look to me to be more "physical" than a traditional 3d render. That means I feel like they look closer to something Id be able to reach out and touch, even though the models are ancient.
                      Imagine the impact on VR

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X