Originally posted by Kemosabe
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Quake 2 Gets Real-Time Path Tracing Powered By NVIDIA RTX / VK_NV_ray_tracing
Collapse
X
-
- Likes 1
-
Originally posted by Aeder View Post
He's not lying technically, just imprecise in his statement. If you game at 4K, RTX makes it go from playable 60+ fps to barely above 30 fps at Medium preset....
It's just pathetic really.
NVIDIA made possible something that had been deemed impossible for over 50 years but still NVIDIA sucks.
Comment
-
Originally posted by birdie View Post
A) Drop RTX quality and texture quality https://youtu.be/E2pMxJV4xr4?t=473
B) Overclock your brand new $350 graphics card https://youtu.be/E2pMxJV4xr4?t=718
You have to choose one of the options above to game at 60 FPS. The game still looks great (not perfect) with option A, but still not worth it IMO. I am a windows gamer (vfio) so if I had to choose right now I would go for something like the 1070 ti which gets 80-100 FPS at 1080p ultra (even in multi player) in bf5 and the graphics looks great. If I only played games on Linux I would use a rx 580 which has the great drivers and price/performance.
RTX might be a step in the right direction, but with current hardware even if you ignore cost the SPP is too low and noise is too high so for gaming I'm sticking with pure rasterisation. This technical video explains part of the reason why https://youtu.be/jaUP4LucmZM I hope nvidia and game developers can improve this in the future or release a highend card without RTX.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by msotirov View Post
Woah, don't take it so personally. There's no pain on my part. I stopped caring when NVidia released the highly overpriced 1xxx series. And sorry but RTX owners are not the "first people on Earth" to enjoy ray-tracing. There were versions of Quake Wars and Wolfenstein with ray-tracing 10 years ago.
Those versions of Quake Wars and Wolfenstein? Is it some kind of sick joke or what? The quality was shit, the resolution was shit, the graphics was shit and the performance was shit and no one played them. Find some valid arguments next time not some BS.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jabberwocky View Post
According the video linked the solution is:
A) Drop RTX quality and texture quality https://youtu.be/E2pMxJV4xr4?t=473
B) Overclock your brand new $350 graphics card https://youtu.be/E2pMxJV4xr4?t=718
You have to choose one of the options above to game at 60 FPS. The game still looks great (not perfect) with option A, but still not worth it IMO. I am a windows gamer (vfio) so if I had to choose right now I would go for something like the 1070 ti which gets 80-100 FPS at 1080p ultra (even in multi player) in bf5 and the graphics looks great. If I only played games on Linux I would use a rx 580 which has the great drivers and price/performance.
RTX might be a step in the right direction, but with current hardware even if you ignore cost the SPP is too low and noise is too high so for gaming I'm sticking with pure rasterisation. This technical video explains part of the reason why https://youtu.be/jaUP4LucmZM I hope nvidia and game developers can improve this in the future or release a highend card without RTX.
At which framerate do AMD GPUs run raytraced BF5? At 0? So why is NVIDIA bad for implementing something which was deemed impossible just a few months ago? Your nitpicking is just pathetic. "If it's not >60fps, then RTX just sucks". Wow.
Also, you judge RTX by the only game which implements it. So much data, so many conclusions.
Comment
-
Originally posted by birdie View Post
If AMD had been the first to implement RTX it would have been peddled like crazy everywhere, AMD would have been praised as a second coming of Messiah, and since it's NVIDIA, it's strictly meh, no one ever needs, it's not fast enough, it's too expensive, it's proprietary (even though it's now a standard both both D3D and Vulkan) etc. etc. etc.
It's just pathetic really.
NVIDIA made possible something that had been deemed impossible for over 50 years but still NVIDIA sucks.
But it didn't, and I don't see how getting angry at a speculative fantasy that only exists in your head helps your point. Specially when you decide to argue against additional points no one made here.
It just makes you look like a bitter fanboy, even if you aren't.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by birdie View Post
Why don't you save your own sanity (and ours) by just showing yourself out?
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by birdie View PostActually I won't comment in this topic any more.
- Likes 3
Comment
-
I see all the usual suspects who are talking shit about me. They are not discussing the article or my arguments, or provide their own arguments - no, my own shit cult is discussing me personally, keeps calling me names and assigning me various mental diseases. What a shithole this place is. I'll go ahead and blacklist Darknation and sa6666666 because they're unable to talk argumentatively.
Originally posted by Aeder View Post
"If AMD had been the first to implement RTX..."
But it didn't, and I don't see how getting angry at a speculative fantasy that only exists in your head helps your point. Specially when you decide to argue against additional points no one made here.
It just makes you look like a bitter fanboy, even if you aren't.
I've never been a fan of any company in the world. I always buy products based on performance/value/price ratio. And I've never ridiculed AMD or people who bought their GPUs. The very first message in this topic ridicules NVIDIA and everyone who buys their GPUs. Too many people here have shit instead of grey matter. What a fucking cesspool we have here.Last edited by birdie; 18 January 2019, 11:55 AM.
Comment
Comment