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

  • mdedetrich
    replied
    Originally posted by cb88 View Post

    This just isn't true. The have about the same amount of hardware. AMD has lower intersection performance and higher raybox performance. Please stick to the facts. Both AMD and Nvidia provide fully accelerated RT functions that are basically equivalent. AMD wen't for an implementation that is more die area efficient that keeps more silicon active all the time by dual purposing the texture unit which frankly is ingenious... this means Nvidia won't be able to scale their implementation as well next generation as it will require many more transistors than AMD's. 6900XT is often faster than the 3090 for graphics, even though its 108mm sq smaller GPU.... this is because even though Nvidia has a huge GPU it has very poor silicon utilization.
    Which has nothing got to do with the current generation performance of Ray Tracing. Even with the differences that you mention between AMD having higher raybox performance, overall with all things considered its still less capable than NVidia's Raytracing for current generation of GPU's. For example, AMD's does not hardware accelerate the BVH tree traversal where as NVidia's does (AMD uses shaders to calculate BVH tree traversal which slows down the general GPU pipeline). Furthermore AMD's tree traversal is also offloaded to SIMD stream processors which also needs to be used by other parts of the game for stream processing.

    Going by your logic your argument would be that CPU's are better at encoding/decoding for video's then having dedicated hardware because it scales better since its part of the CPU (which is hogwash). Having a dedicated piece of silicon which is designed to do one thing and do it well will win every time and thats what Ampere is in context of ray tracing. When AMD does Raytracing, its using the same part of the die which is required for rendering the game, which of course takes a bigger toll on the rendering pipeline.

    There are games out there have dedicated Ray Tracing implementations for both Ampere and AMD and Ampere wins every time.

    So please just stop spreading misleading bullshit that AMD's current generation of Raytracing is as competitive as Ampere, its simply not true and no one was even expecting (or arguing) for it to be so since its AMD's first ever implementation of it.
    Last edited by mdedetrich; 04 June 2021, 11:01 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • coder
    replied
    Originally posted by cb88 View Post
    6900XT is often faster than the 3090 for graphics, even though its 108mm sq smaller GPU.... this is because even though Nvidia has a huge GPU it has very poor silicon utilization.
    It should be noted that AMD's is made on TSMC N7 and Nvidia's uses Samsung's "8 nm" node, which is also less power-efficient than the former. Not to invalidate your points, but it's not totally an apples-to-apples comparison, when talking about area-efficiency in terms of mm^2.

    Leave a comment:


  • cb88
    replied
    Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post
    Nothing new, its been well known now that AMD's RayTracing in the 6000 series is one generation (and such details was leaked well before the cards released). The RTX 3xxx has just a lot more dedicated hardware for ray tracing, you can't really fix this with drivers.
    This just isn't true. The have about the same amount of hardware. AMD has lower intersection performance and higher raybox performance. Please stick to the facts. Both AMD and Nvidia provide fully accelerated RT functions that are basically equivalent. AMD wen't for an implementation that is more die area efficient that keeps more silicon active all the time by dual purposing the texture unit which frankly is ingenious... this means Nvidia won't be able to scale their implementation as well next generation as it will require many more transistors than AMD's. 6900XT is often faster than the 3090 for graphics, even though its 108mm sq smaller GPU.... this is because even though Nvidia has a huge GPU it has very poor silicon utilization.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stefem
    replied
    Originally posted by coder View Post
    Yeah, with lenses like Magic Leap's, that are mini lightfield displays!

    One problem with conventional VR displays is that you're focusing at a single distance and everything is always sharp. Lightfield displays try to replicate the depth-of-field effect of real life, where your eyes have to focus on objects, based on their depth.
    That would be another step

    Leave a comment:


  • coder
    replied
    Originally posted by Stefem View Post
    Imagine the impact on VR
    Yeah, with lenses like Magic Leap's, that are mini lightfield displays!

    One problem with conventional VR displays is that you're focusing at a single distance and everything is always sharp. Lightfield displays try to replicate the depth-of-field effect of real life, where your eyes have to focus on objects, based on their depth.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stefem
    replied
    Originally posted by sophisticles View Post
    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)

    So Nvidia considers it ray-traced.

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


    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".
    Ray tracing is an overloaded term and if you would have cared to learn something before replying instead of searching for the first words that statisfied your confirmation bias you would have known, it's true that path tracing is a form of ray tracing but with ray tracing is generally indicated a technique named Whitted (or classical) ray tracing. Both ray tracing and path tracing involve the tracing of rays, both backwards starting from the eye/camera to save on resources but they are quite different in how they do it.
    Path tracing take a unified approach, it shoot a ray and it keep bouncing until it reach a light source and a sample is generated each time it hit a surface based on its properties, reflections, shadows, GI, everything is naturally generated by the same algorithm.
    In ray tracing each effect is done separately, for shadows for example a ray is shoot and when it hit a surface another ray is shoot towards each light source to check if that point is directly illuminated or in shadow.

    If you actually cared enough to read something I wouldn't had to explain

    Leave a comment:


  • Stefem
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Stefem
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • AdamOne
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • F.Ultra
    replied
    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.
    Last edited by F.Ultra; 29 May 2021, 11:19 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X