Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mesa Merge Pending For Vulkan Ray-Tracing On Older AMD GPUs

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

  • decksur
    replied
    Does this work on non AMD GPUs, e.g Intel?

    Leave a comment:


  • bridgman
    replied
    Originally posted by arQon View Post
    > I'm not suggesting that game development will get easier and nothing else will change, but rather that once game developers have had the chance to spend more time with ray tracing they may be able to get same or better results with same or less effort.

    Assuming by "game developers" you mean "downstream of the engine devs", I think that's probably correct.
    For engine devs, it actually means a move *away* from unified lighting models after finally getting there a few years ago back to hybrid models.
    All good points. I had not gotten as far as thinking about engine devs vs gaming devs... just "upstream of the customer"

    Leave a comment:


  • arQon
    replied
    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
    Don't know for sure, but my understanding is that it takes a massive amount of developer effort to get sophisticated lighting with conventional techniques
    It would probably be fair to say that even "massive effort" is an understatement for the majority of devs/houses: it's simply beyond most of them (either absolutely, or to an extent that makes it impractical), hence the reliance on UE etc.

    > while getting close to the same results with ray tracing can be a lot easier and faster.

    RT is certainly a lot easier to implement (and more importantly, easier on the asset pipeline) but I think "close to" is a bit optimistic. Since none of the cards out there ATM are capable of actually rendering full scenes in realtime, current RT is more a case of moving rendering to a hybrid model rather than having "real" GI. It does (or at least, can) produce "better" results for the same time budget than current techniques, which is what matters, but the HW still needs to be massively more powerful than the current generation to be able to discard "old" rendering completely - probably to such an extent that it will simply never happen.
    You can undersample rays quite a lot and "get away with it" (apparently especially if you add "AI" to your marketing :P), and VSR for RT is the obvious next step if it isn't already in place, but even with all the approximations we're still more than an order of magnitude away from the horsepower needed for an RT-only pipeline to be able to match the visuals of current games.

    But that's hardly a new position to be in. We've had hybrid lighting since Quake - i.e. pretty much the dawn of time - and it hasn't stopped engines improving beyond recognition from one decade to the next. Even going back that far makes it easy to see where RT *does* fit in well, replacing baked lightmaps with dynamically-generated ones (and you can cheat on the update rate too, if you have to) as the most obvious example.

    > I'm not suggesting that game development will get easier and nothing else will change, but rather that once game developers have had the chance to spend more time with ray tracing they may be able to get same or better results with same or less effort.

    Assuming by "game developers" you mean "downstream of the engine devs", I think that's probably correct.
    For engine devs, it actually means a move *away* from unified lighting models after finally getting there a few years ago back to hybrid models. But like I say, things have been like that for so long that it's barely an irritation let alone a problem - and I've never met an engine dev yet who didn't *enjoy* messing around with new methods anyway, so...

    Leave a comment:


  • Dagelf
    replied
    After playing Q2RTX non-RTX games are ruined for me, the subtle lighting and shadows just pushes the immersion ever so slightly closer to a feeling natural... Lots of games that claim RTX literally only uses it for reflections and totally miss the point by overlaying so many effects on top that the point is lost.

    As for hardware support... BS I say. All marketing. They're doing most of it in firmware. Some of the raymarching demos on Shadertoy run at 60 fps on 15 year old cards

    Leave a comment:


  • bridgman
    replied
    Originally posted by pal666 View Post
    this is part i don't understand. why play it in 640x480 when you have fullhd monitor? seems like a lot of work to reduce picture quality
    to be clear, i'm not telling people what to do, i'm just trying to find a usecase for myself
    One part of the answer is probably "just to see what it looks like", but I think the primary answer is that in some cases people may prefer the combination of ray traced graphics and lower resolution over conventional graphics and higher resolution. That would probably not be the most common scenario but there may be some cases.

    Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post
    Still, i believe that ray tracing as it stands today is just a useless gimmick. I haven't been convinced that modern games can't be even better with traditional techniques, and also perform better. In fact, most of current raytracing supporting games look worse and less realistic to me.
    Don't know for sure, but my understanding is that it takes a massive amount of developer effort to get sophisticated lighting with conventional techniques while getting close to the same results with ray tracing can be a lot easier and faster.

    I'm not suggesting that game development will get easier and nothing else will change, but rather that once game developers have had the chance to spend more time with ray tracing they may be able to get same or better results with same or less effort.

    Leave a comment:


  • TemplarGR
    replied
    I remember AMD presenting a ray tracing demo running on an old Opengl 3.3 era HD 4870.... I also remember all the fights i had online with Nvidia fanboys when RTX was initially released, because i kept telling them that raytracing is not some super-duper mystical technology, they are just shaders and could potentially run on current hardware as well.... Well, when Nvidia supported it on Pascal cards and now open source AMD drivers have it on pre-Navi hardware, it seems i was correct after all, who knew?

    Still, i believe that ray tracing as it stands today is just a useless gimmick. I haven't been convinced that modern games can't be even better with traditional techniques, and also perform better. In fact, most of current raytracing supporting games look worse and less realistic to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • pal666
    replied
    Originally posted by mitch074 View Post
    It's not software emulation in a strict sense, it's using generic shaders to perform ray tracing calculations - so it WILL be faster than CPU-based ray tracing on any card that's not more than 6 years old.
    i understand it, but it's obviously slower than special instructions on newer gpus.
    Originally posted by mitch074 View Post
    and in some cases we might even get a playable game at very low resolution - considering Quake II could be played and enjoyed in 320x240, it may just be a nice touch to play it in 640x480 in full RT glory.
    this is part i don't understand. why play it in 640x480 when you have fullhd monitor? seems like a lot of work to reduce picture quality
    Originally posted by mitch074 View Post
    it's not a dumb idea.
    to be clear, i'm not telling people what to do, i'm just trying to find a usecase for myself

    Leave a comment:


  • M@GOid
    replied
    If memory didn't fail me, Nvidia also released ray tracing on their older cards, with the intention to accelerate the interest and development of rt in games.

    This is a good move for AMD, even if not by them. Right now most rt games and demos out there are tainted, developed exclusively for Nvidia cards, for various reasons. So is important to get rt on AMD and Intel ASAP, so future projects don't target Nvidia exclusively.

    Leave a comment:


  • mitch074
    replied
    Originally posted by pal666 View Post
    rt is slow even on fast gpus. why would i want it on slow gpu in software emulation?
    It's not software emulation in a strict sense, it's using generic shaders to perform ray tracing calculations - so it WILL be faster than CPU-based ray tracing on any card that's not more than 6 years old. This helps in debugging, still frame rendering etc. and in some cases we might even get a playable game at very low resolution - considering Quake II could be played and enjoyed in 320x240, it may just be a nice touch to play it in 640x480 in full RT glory.
    Also, provided the implementation is well tweaked, some cards may just give unexpected results - Polaris comes to mind as a capable architecture when there's a bunch of shaders to compute, and may provide quite interesting results.
    Also note that early Nvidia RTX implementations actually ran on non-RTX capable cards - so it's not a dumb idea.

    Leave a comment:


  • smitty3268
    replied
    Originally posted by pal666 View Post
    rt is slow even on fast gpus. why would i want it on slow gpu in software emulation?
    You wouldn't, which is why it's disabled by default.

    It's nice for devs and people wanting to test rt on old hardware without the feature, though.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X