It would be really interesting if they also released this for the Xbox Series X (and S?) so that we could compare performance and quality across PC and console.

Where the heck is Ruby?

btw, Welcome to our fortress tall...:rockout:

Did you notice how AMD is very carefully avoiding using certain terms like raytracing, DXR and such?

londisteDid you notice how AMD is very carefully avoiding using certain terms like raytracing, DXR and such?

The line is made very blurry and its obvious why. 90% of what we'll see is rasterized, in these consoles.

londisteDid you notice how AMD is very carefully avoiding using certain terms like raytracing, DXR and such?

Maybe its because in DXR applications, much like on how in 3DMark its the current situation [Rest of this comment will unlock at 3PM CEST]

Doesn't look very impressive really, the best part is presumably it will also run on Turing and Ampere cards and performance can be directly compared.

londisteDid you notice how AMD is very carefully avoiding using certain terms like raytracing, DXR and such?

idk what the actual reason is, but to me it does make sense to do, step away from marketing nonsense like "RTX" and just call it what it is, ray tracing, shadows, lighting and reflections.

ZoneDymoidk what the actual reason is, but to me it does make sense to do, step away from marketing nonsense like "RTX" and just call it what it is, ray tracing, shadows, lighting and reflections.

It's certainly more understandable for the average user. I mean, the question is understandable, but given that you can't do these kinds of shadows, reflections and lighting without hardware RT or an immense computational cost that would utterly kill performance, it's all rather meaningless. Besides, AMD has spoken plenty about their hardware RT capabilities, so the lack of explicit mentions in a marketing trailer is hardly proof of them somehow not being real.

Edit: after looking over the video, there is a lot of detail there that can't reasonably be done without hardware RTRT (off-screen reflections, dynamic lighting and shadows, mirror-like reflections with realistic surface distortion, etc.), but it looks like they're more trying to show how this could be integrated into an actual game design rather than just "look at all the chrome we can put into a single scene!" like that previous demo video they showed off. The trailer is way too quick, especially with all the cuts and transitions, to spot much without pausing constantly though.

ZoneDymoidk what the actual reason is, but to me it does make sense to do, step away from marketing nonsense like "RTX" and just call it what it is, ray tracing, shadows, lighting and reflections.

The thing is that for communication around Hangar demo (that clearly uses raytraced effects) AMD is making an effort to not use terms like raytracing or DXR.

ValantarIt's certainly more understandable for the average user. I mean, the question is understandable, but given that you can't do these kinds of shadows, reflections and lighting without hardware RT or an immense computational cost that would utterly kill performance, it's all rather meaningless. Besides, AMD has spoken plenty about their hardware RT capabilities, so the lack of explicit mentions in a marketing trailer is hardly proof of them somehow not being real.

I never meant it is not there. It is downplayed and certain terminology is very clearly being avoided. Funny how marketing works ;)

Not even "impressive", let alone "mind blowing".

Vayra86The line is made very blurry and its obvious why. 90% of what we'll see is rasterized, in these consoles.

And on glorious Fermi2 Ampere GPUs what % is rasterized? :D

So first AMD have reviews go live the same minute you can buy the card

Then an RT tech demo ... 24 hours later?

riiiiight

wolfSo first AMD have reviews go live the same minute you can buy the card

Then an RT tech demo ... 24 hours later?

riiiiight

You can still run any DXR workload already available on them, so ... not a problem. Reviewers have what they need for testing, and users have what they need for actually using the GPU for playing games. A tech demo is not a benchmark, it's a feature showcase.

It's a real shame that people can typically see those on YouTube, compressed with not-so-well aged x264 and potentially scaled... They (YouTube) should really move forward, codec-wise.

Mouth of SauronIt's a real shame that people can typically see those on YouTube, compressed with not-so-well aged x264 and potentially scaled... They (YouTube) should really move forward, codec-wise.

Isn't YT moving to AV1? I would expect the bottleneck to be more the playback capabilities of end user devices than YT's support for new codecs, given that there are near zero devices out there with AV1 hardware decoding.

wolfSo first AMD have reviews go live the same minute you can buy the card

Then an RT tech demo ... 24 hours later?

riiiiight

Let's pretend RT is disabled in drivers until RT demo is released, shall we.

medi01Let's pretend RT is disabled in drivers until RT demo is released, shall we.

Is that what you're doing?

All I mean is that it's just odd timing the cards have been in the making/marketing cycle for this long, and their own RT promo video comes out just 24 hours after you can see how good the card is / buy one.

ValantarIsn't YT moving to AV1? I would expect the bottleneck to be more the playback capabilities of end user devices than YT's support for new codecs, given that there are near zero devices out there with AV1 hardware decoding.

Supposedly. Extremely slowly. They haven't adapted their own VP9, which is roughly on the par with x265. So far, dedicated channels.

But I hope they will - though there is still a problem with regular people uploads from home - AV1 can't achieve reliable real-time compression, at least on all hardware. Hope this will change...

ZoneDymoidk what the actual reason is, but to me it does make sense to do, step away from marketing nonsense like "RTX" and just call it what it is, ray tracing, shadows, lighting and reflections.

RTX is the name of the cards...

DXR is a MS Direct X implementation of it (API) which both AMD and Nvidia use.

EarthDogRTX is the name of the cards...

DXR is a MS Direct X implementation of it (API) which both AMD and Nvidia use.

ermmm yes? obviously? what did I say that goes against that?
Nvidia is trying to create an image that only their cards can do "RTX" which is just ray tracing, it is purely marketing.
That is why I think its a good thing that AMD just ignores all of that and just calls it what it actually is.

FluffmeisterDoesn't look very impressive really, the best part is presumably it will also run on Turing and Ampere cards and performance can be directly compared.

Well, nVidia has been failing to impress gamers with RTX for 2+ years (or 2 gens). How could AMD with its first gen of Raytracing GPUs and smaller budget do any different? We are years away from the moment where everyone will be impressed ...

ZoneDymoermmm yes? obviously? what did I say that goes against that?
Nvidia is trying to create an image that only their cards can do "RTX" which is just ray tracing, it is purely marketing.
That is why I think its a good thing that AMD just ignores all of that and just calls it what it actually is.

It's your 'tone'. lol. You seem to think they are being shady in labeling cards that have hardware RT capabilities. When the reality is there is nothing at all dubious about the naming. RTX cards have hw accelerated RT (using DXR) and their GTX cards do not. it's product line separation... plain and simple.

AMD ignoring it or labeling their cards that can wouldn't bother me in the least. Nvidia is simply identifying those cards that can do hw accelerated RT. It isn't an "zOMG how could they name their cards RTX...the nerve.". RTX is just a prefix to segment their cards. lol

Do you think car makers are shady and it's 'nonsense' because they put SH-AWD/4WD/AWD/Quatro etc. on their cars that have 4WD/AWD? They labeled their cards. It isn't 'nonsense' and actually makes complete sense for product segmentation. Now because AMD can suddenly do DXR via hardware and don't make the distinction (which again may be because they can do it on ALL level of cards since its baked into the CUs/shaders) its merely marketing and looked down upon from Nvidia? Que?!

System specs seem to indicate a RX6900XT and Ryzen 3900X 2x16GB. It's a pretty impressive visual teaser to be fair. If this is what we can soon look forward to become more and more trivial and more impressive at the same time on the lighting, shading, and reflections and with increased polygon count gaming has a bright future ahead of itself over the course of the next decade. If you look at this objectively if they can actually deploy this in games at reasonable FPS 60+ this is actually not bad honestly. I'd soon play this than Quake 2 RTX put it that way even if is more rasterization based I think the end result for current hardware is more impressive shading, lighting, and reflections alone isn't everything the polygon count and texture quality and detail along with resolution is still very important if not more important. To me Quake 2 RTX even with path tracing is quite ugly because of the dated texturing and extremely low poly count that lacks any real sense of visual charm to it that other early 3D games like Everquest had more low polygon fantasy styling taste to them.

EarthDogIt's your 'tone'. lol. You seem to think they are being shady in labeling cards that have hardware RT capabilities. When the reality is there is nothing at all dubious about the naming. RTX cards have hw accelerated RT (using DXR) and their GTX cards do not. it's product line separation... plain and simple.

AMD ignoring it or labeling their cards that can wouldn't bother me in the least. Nvidia is simply identifying those cards that can do hw accelerated RT. It isn't an "zOMG how could they name their cards RTX...the nerve.". RTX is just a prefix to segment their cards. lol

Do you think car makers are shady and it's 'nonsense' because they put SH-AWD/4WD/AWD/Quatro etc. on their cars that have 4WD/AWD? They labeled their cards. It isn't 'nonsense' and actually makes complete sense for product segmentation. Now because AMD can suddenly do DXR via hardware and don't make the distinction (which again may be because they can do it on ALL level of cards since its baked into the CUs/shaders) its merely marketing and looked down upon from Nvidia? Que?!

But...I did not say anything about the cards?


^ that is what I was talking about, the marketing, really dont know why you gravitate towards Nvidias naming scheme for their cards when I specifically mentioned the marketing.
They dont say "ray tracing on" they say RTX ON, in Nvidia green, they are trying to sell Nvidia cards and trying to get it into peoples mind its some Nvidia invention/exclusive feature, Nvidia G-sync is pretty much the same thing.

but now im just repeating myself.

ZoneDymoBut...I did not say anything about the cards?


^ that is what I was talking about, the marketing, really dont know why you gravitate towards Nvidias naming scheme for their cards when I specifically mentioned the marketing.
They dont say "ray tracing on" they say RTX ON, in Nvidia green, they are trying to sell Nvidia cards and trying to get it into peoples mind its some Nvidia invention/exclusive feature, Nvidia G-sync is pretty much the same thing.

but now im just repeating myself.

Thanks for clarifying your stance. Due to previous posts, I thought this was just piling on and shitting on things for no reason which seems to be a theme at TPU with some users (you, yes, lol). :)

Apologies for misunderstanding your point.

lol. now if we could just get the card so we could see the demo... lol