They would have lost their two console contracts moving forward, I know the Microsoft platform has largely underperformed this gen but Sony has been moving some massive units.In modern cutting-edge games like Control or Cyberpunk 2077, ray tracing is like the shiny cherry on top of a realism sundae. Pretty much they ran 16x MSAA benches in essence, they were pegging the RT hardware to show the differences between the base and super cards, the supers are disproportionately faster with RT for some reason.ĪMD fought the fight you people seem to want, stop progress at all costs, they tried, but everyone else in the industry with any pull demanded ray tracing so AMD will add it. AMD is denying their customers the chance to even try it, their hardware is fully capable, they are simply refusing to support the industry standard.įor the record, that performance they were showing in that clip is well under half of what you would actually get in game. RTX is nVidia marketing for their RT hardware. So there is an industry standard for ray tracing, it's called DXR and so far AMD is the one not supporting, in any fashion, the industry standard. Q2RTX is an HDR game, I've got a reference OLED here and I would love to hear about some actual games with better colour, seriously. The utter trash lighting in the old XP build is comically terrible, the 'washed out colors'. Not worth the performance hit, that you can argue all day, looks better, not so much. So no, we didn't have to choose at all, because Voodoo 1 completely eclipsed software rendering in every metric.Īn actual comparison to debunk some of the utter insanity being discussed in this thread, the old WinXP Q2 looks better than RTX? Lmao, it's just stupid reading some of these comments. Voodoo 1 was to hardware what Doom was to FPSes, and what C was to programming. Unlike RTX/DLSS which relies on massive coding investment and R&D, still fails, and we're constantly told "games need to be rebuilt from scratch" and "needs more months/years of training", before it works as promised, blah blah blah. Meanwhile RTX provides visuals which look inferior to DX9 shown above, and slideshows the game to 1990s levels of performance on 2019 hardware.Īnd it was extremely simple to take advantage of. It also dramatically simplified the renderer. And speaking of Quake 2, OpenGL provided 30% more performance with much higher visuals, including colored lighting. This effect was present across the board, like in Tomb Raider. The level at which I was blown away seeing this for the first time has never been replicated with any tech, except possibly seeing Unreal outdoors for the first time. But more importantly, it gave bilinear filtering which provided an IQ gain so staggering, it instantly made software rendering obsolete and fundamentally changed the way games were viewed forever. GLQuake also gave vastly more accurate 16 bit color and smooth weapon glows. Framerates in the 20-40s on Quake 2 at 1080p on $350-$500 2019 GPUs? Is that a joke? And while I'm not saying it looks bad, the lighting isn't so amazing (let alone knowing that other lighting methods that games use could offer a pretty close visual approximation with a much lower performance penalty) that it impresses me, and again, that's on a 22 year old game that otherwise should have probably 10x those framerates.īut it wasn't just running faster four times the pixel count (a massive feat in itself), because software Quake was also a blocky 8-bit pixelated mess. Especially since newer lighting methods can get quite close (and often ray-tracing is even outright simply doing that - a lot of this ray-tracing is using the same "cheats" that people are trying to claim makes ray-tracing superior to other lighting methods that games have been using). The change to lighting is not enough to warrant the performance hit. New technology let it mature, so makes total sense for them to showcase it with poor framerates on a 22 year old game? Sheesh, Crysis brought lots of improvements (including ones that actually changed gameplay), and better framerates than that, a decade ago. They also released Quake Champions and it brings HUGE difference to the appearance compared to Quake 2. Heck, I think id themselves has an improved version of Quake 3 Arena out for several years now. I'm pretty sure there's been mods that brought huge improvements to older games like that out for quite a while (there were even ray-traced versions that I think had comparable performance to this, and those ran only on the CPUs and that was probably years back, so newer CPUs would probably run it even better). And you could get that along with other improvements, rendered at probably 4K or higher, with better framerates. You can get a similarly HUGE change to the appearance without ray-tracing (you know how I know that? Because games already had accomplished that).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |