# [FREE] Pure RayTracing and Non-RT benchmarks



## miguel1900 (Sep 29, 2020)

Hi all!

I have created a new GPU benchmark, designed to know how powerful our GPUs are, and great to find the best overclock. It's *very easy and fast to try* it: download, decompress and execute, *without installing anything*.

Currently, there are *two independent versions of the benchmark*: one *with Ray Tracing* enabled, and another one, *without Ray Tracing*, as a 'standard' benchmark, so any user, even those without a RT capable GPU, can use it in a usefu way. In a future realease, both benchmarks will be integrated into only one, simply being different options to be selected in an unified benchmarking software.

You can find more information and the *free download* link at the project's page:
- *Ray Tracing edition* (_Pure RayTracing benchmark_): https://marvizer.itch.io/pure-raytracing-benchmark
- *'Standard' edition* (_Pure Non-RT benchmark_): https://marvizer.itch.io/pure-non-rt-benchmark

In addition, if you have doubts about your PC being Ray Tracing ready, I have created this very simple and ultra fast tool to check if your PC is able to run the Ray Tracing technology: https://marvizer.itch.io/ray-tracing-compatibility-checker










I would be very happy if you could try it and *share your results here!* (If only passing one benchmark, I would recommend the *Common Settings at QHD*).

*Updated scores*: at the same _itch.io_ project's page.

Thank you very much and best regards!


----------



## londiste (Sep 29, 2020)

Yours is content and it is based on newest Unreal Engine?
Would be nicer if it didn't automatically initialize VR headset at start


----------



## sepheronx (Sep 29, 2020)

wow, that is super cool!

I am impressed with your work.


----------



## miguel1900 (Sep 29, 2020)

Thank you very much!

It's made with latest UE4 version. And yes, all mine except 3D models; I used some marketplace packs for models, as my goal was to focus in lighting, ray tracing capabilities and benchmarking measurements (and the rest, of course, like camera effects, ambience, gameplay...).

Didn't realise about the VR headset. I didn't try it with a HMD connected  , but will keep an eye on it for an upcomming update!

I'm working too in an option to use it without Ray Tracing, so all kind of users will be able to pass it as a "normal" benchmark too.

Best regards!


----------



## agent_x007 (Sep 29, 2020)

@miguel1900 System requirements ?
1) Windows version Win7/Win10 and if Win10, does it need RayTracing enabled build ?
2) DirectX or Vulkan ?
3) Does it use software RT or is it RTX only ?
4) Are RayTracing 1.0 cards (ie. Pascal) "good enough" ?
5) How much RAM/VRAM is needed (and when you will "run out") ?
6) Do you need special CPU instructions to run it (AVX/SSE4.2/FMA, etc.)
7) What can be called a "recommended CPU" (do you need more cores or is it single threaded benchmark) ?


----------



## miguel1900 (Sep 29, 2020)

agent_x007 said:


> @miguel1900 System requirements ?
> 1) Windows version Win7/Win10 and if Win10, does it need RayTracing enabled build ?
> 2) DirectX or Vulkan ?
> 3) Does it use software RT or is it RTX only ?
> ...



Hi @agent_x007 , good questions! Will try to clarify them (but, basically, the same system requirements to execute RT, in general):
1) Windows version Win7/Win10 and if Win10, does it need RayTracing enabled build ? As for RT in general, Nvidia GPU (currently) with drivers 425.31 or higher, Windows 10 v1809 or higher.
2) DirectX or Vulkan ? DirectX 12
3) Does it use software RT or is it RTX only ? Hmmm not sure about this meaning. It's "real" Ray Tracing, but even an AMD could run it, but RT wouldn't be working, if it helps to your question in any sense.
4) Are RayTracing 1.0 cards (ie. Pascal) "good enough" ? They can run it, but the performance gap is the well known huge gap. They will run it at a very low FPS.
5) How much RAM/VRAM is needed (and when you will "run out") ? Not sure. I will need more testers, but 6gb of Vram seems to be enough, as even my old GTX 1060 6gb ran it (but at 6fps).
6) Do you need special CPU instructions to run it (AVX/SSE4.2/FMA, etc.). You don't, as far as I know.
7) What can be called a "recommended CPU" (do you need more cores or is it single threaded benchmark)? If it isn't a bottleneck for your GPU, any kind of CPU should run smoothly. CPU is almost "sleeping", being only a high-demandant GPU benchmark.

Thank you!


----------



## Ibotibo01 (Sep 29, 2020)

Nice benchmark, good work. 
GTX 1660 gets 11.49 FPS at 1080p Common Settings.


----------



## miguel1900 (Sep 29, 2020)

Ibotibo01 said:


> Nice benchmark, good work.
> GTX 1660 gets 11.49 FPS at 1080p Common Settings.



Thanks @Ibotibo01 !

Here my slightly OCed 2080 Ti, @ QHD Common Settings:





FHD Common Settings:


----------



## Toothless (Sep 29, 2020)

I got a wonderful 6-7fps on pro settings/4k. I miss Microsoft Powerpoint.


----------



## miguel1900 (Sep 29, 2020)

Hi @Toothless , with which GPU? Were you sure your PC was executing Ray Tracing? An already tested RTX 2070 gets around 6fps at 4k/Pro.

Regards!


----------



## mouacyk (Sep 29, 2020)

Toothless said:


> I got a wonderful 6-7fps on pro settings/4k. I miss Microsoft Powerpoint.


Wasn't aware MS Powerpoint did ray-tracing.  I'll have to check it out.


----------



## Toothless (Sep 29, 2020)

miguel1900 said:


> Hi @Toothless , with which GPU? Were you sure your PC was executing Ray Tracing? An already tested RTX 2070 gets around 6fps at 4k/Pro.
> 
> Regards!


I never bought into the ray tracing gimmick, and system specs are current if that helps.



mouacyk said:


> Wasn't aware MS Powerpoint did ray-tracing.  I'll have to check it out.


The best .png ray traced pictures ever.


----------



## sil3ntearth (Sep 30, 2020)

Results from a 2060 Super.


----------



## miguel1900 (Sep 30, 2020)

Hi @Toothless

I'm not sure about understanding your last comment. I'm Spanish, sorry!

Thank you @sil3ntearth ! I have updated the scores chart on the itch.io project's page, but here you are a current copy&paste:


*FHD Common Settings:*
2080 Ti (+100, +900)
2080 Ti
2080 mobile
2070
2070
2060 Super
2060 Super
1080 Ti
1660
68
61
41.5
41.5
40
38
36.5
15
11.5*FHD High Settings:*
2080 Ti (+100, +900)
2080 mobile
2060 Super
46.5
28.5
25*FHD Pro Settings:*
2080 mobile
2060 Super
22
18.5*QHD Common Settings:*
3090
2080 Ti (+100, +900)
2080 Ti
2080
2080 mobile
2070
2070
1080 Ti
67
41.5
37.5
29
25
25
24
9*QHD High Settings:*
2080 mobile
17*4k Pro Settings:*
3090
2080 mobile
2070
17
6
5.5

Regards!


----------



## basco (Sep 30, 2020)

nv441.87 win10 1903 
1080ti@1900mhz \ 5960x@4300mhz
1920x1080 common settings = 14,48 avg fps


----------



## pantherx12 (Sep 30, 2020)

Downloaded without a donation for now as I want to check it out first.

Will update later with performance and potentially send over a donation.


----------



## miguel1900 (Sep 30, 2020)

pantherx12 said:


> Downloaded without a donation for now as I want to check it out first.
> 
> Will update later with performance and potentially send over a donation.



Of course, don't worry!

Thank you for downloading and using  The most important thing is to make it useful.


----------



## pantherx12 (Sep 30, 2020)

Average frame rate of 32.4 fps on my hardware ( see system specs) @ 1080p

Couple of suggestions, make it output results at the end. the more data the better, I imagine hardware reviewers will like this little benchmark.

More dynamic lighting moments, for example some explosions here and there, or perhaps sparks from some wiring.

Because whilst it's beautiful in its on way, it's also quite sparse.

I sent along a small amount of money, enough for a coffee or beer.


----------



## hardcore_gamer (Sep 30, 2020)

Amazing work!

By pure ray tracing, you mean fully path traced (including the GI) and little to no rasterization?


----------



## Hardi (Sep 30, 2020)

2080 super with a little undervolt and +800 to mem


----------



## miguel1900 (Sep 30, 2020)

pantherx12 said:


> Average frame rate of 32.4 fps on my hardware ( see system specs) @ 1080p
> 
> Couple of suggestions, make it output results at the end. the more data the better, I imagine hardware reviewers will like this little benchmark.
> 
> ...



Thank you very much! Also for the donation.

About "at the end", do you mean when you pass to control the character? In that case, final results remain at the screen. When you exit pressing escape, you get also the last benchmark result on the menu screen.

I thought about more dynamic moments too, at the beginning, but finally didn't add them because of some things, like I had no enough time during the weekend I had free time to work on it and whith the release of the new cards, and because I wanted to prevent little random things, that could vary the benchmark result (the explosions should have some random components, but also the sparks). Anyway, I love your idea, but I needed to decide then. It would be less boring, but simply add more effects to harm performance, which is quite under load, already. Right now, probably, I shouldn't make more changes, because people are already using the benchmark and showing their results. But I will kept it in mind. Maybe, if some reviewer are going to start testing it, make it more popular, and they tell me before reviewing, it could be a good moment to make new changes and make a new "beginning".

PS: I have tried writing some hardware webpages but usually with no replies. If you know someone, all help is welcome!




hardcore_gamer said:


> Amazing work!
> 
> By pure ray tracing, you mean fully path traced (including the GI) and little to no rasterization?



Thank you! Yeah, all lighting and effects are fully RT dynamic, except for the Common Settings, without GI and with Sky lighting backed, and the High Settings, with GI but still with the Skylight backed. Pro Settings has the Skylight dynamic. It's a little more explained at the itch.io project's page.



Hardi said:


> 2080 super with a little undervolt and +800 to mem



Thanks for sharing!


----------



## londiste (Sep 30, 2020)

RTX2080, Gainward Phoenix GS - Boost clock 1815 MHz.
Majority of the time Common runs at 1860MHz, High at 1845MHz and Pro at 1830MHz, basically each more taxing setting one runs at one clock bin lower.

  


Spoiler
















1440p Common - 29.56 FPS
1440p High - 19.87 FPS
1440p Pro - 15.33 FPS

  


Spoiler
















1080p Common - 46.81 FPS
1080p High - 32.51 FPS
1080p Pro - 25.85 FPS



hardcore_gamer said:


> By pure ray tracing, you mean fully path traced (including the GI) and little to no rasterization?


I bet it isn't. This is still Unreal Engine and the hybrid RT approach, just heavy with RT effects. RT Reflections, RT GI and RT shadows, I assume. @miguel1900, anything else?

Do you take feature requests? Especially if you'd like this to take off as a benchmark - batchs runs please. 
Queue up tests with different settings with x amount of runs each, logging at least the results (if not in more details - min, max, avg, maybe frametimes, maybe monitoring data) 
More details about what settings exactly are changed for High-Pro would be nice as well.


----------



## miguel1900 (Sep 30, 2020)

londiste said:


> View attachment 170274 View attachment 170275 View attachment 170279
> 
> RTX2080, Gainward Phoenix GS - Boost clock 1815 MHz.
> Majority of the time Common runs at 1845-1860MHz, High at one bin (15MHz) lower and Pro at two bins lower.
> ...



Thank you!

Already added to the table of scores.

Well, it's not "path traced", but it's "ray traced". You are totally right, simply adding the RT Sky on the Pro test. On Pro, there are no rasterization nor backed lighting at all. How would you define your hybrid term? (Maybe it's the correct term!)

Of course! Suggestions are totally welcome. I have already added (but not published yet) a looping mode, and it shows the number of current loop, but didn't thought to allow the user to fix a cretain loop number. About the rest, it could be interesting too! but a little time consuming. The more used it is, the more time I will dedicate.

Thanks again!


----------



## londiste (Sep 30, 2020)

miguel1900 said:


> Well, it's not "path traced", but it's "ray traced". You are totally right, simply adding the RT Sky on the Pro test. On Pro, there are no rasterization nor backed lighting at all. How would you define your hybrid term? (Maybe it's the correct term!)


Large part of the scene is still done with rasterization and other more common methods. There are certain effects or buffers (or parts of them as with your example of Skybox lighting getting raytraced at higher settings) that are raytraced (as a general term, whether the actual algorithm/method used is pathtracing, some hybrid and/or the nice postprocessing like inevitable denoising) that are then composited together. Reflections, shadows, GI/AO are the main ones with UE as far as I remember.

UE does have some type of full pathtracing renderer but to the best of my knowledge that is essentially for reference renders, not real-time usage. From what I have seen or heard from its performance, this is absolutely definitely not what your benchmark uses 

Edit:
UE RT overview in their own documentation:


			Hardware Ray Tracing Tips and Tricks in Unreal Engine  | Unreal Engine 5.1 Documentation
		


Translucency is the one I forgot. GI and AO are separate as well.


----------



## JalleR (Sep 30, 2020)

hmmm well i think a 3080 will be an upgrade even with the 10GB of memory


----------



## miguel1900 (Sep 30, 2020)

londiste said:


> Large part of the scene is still done with rasterization and other more common methods. There are certain effects or buffers (or parts of them as with your example of Skybox lighting getting raytraced at higher settings) that are raytraced (as a general term, whether the actual algorithm/method used is pathtracing, some hybrid and/or the nice postprocessing like inevitable denoising) that are then composited together. Reflections, shadows, GI/AO are the main ones with UE as far as I remember.
> 
> UE does have some type of full pathtracing renderer but to the best of my knowledge that is essentially for reference renders, not real-time usage. From what I have seen or heard from its performance, this is absolutely definitely not what your benchmark uses
> 
> ...



I only have the doubt about which part is done with rasterization and how to check it. But you are totally right: there are denoisers, of course, and yes, actual Path Tracing it isn't for real time. RT is something like a "light" PT. Well, in fact, certain very little effects are slightly different between RT and PT, thinking about it should make the calculations in a slightly different way, that was what you meant? Well, anyway yes, it's not fully path traced, hehe, but fully ray traced.

Regards! 



JalleR said:


> hmmm well i think a 3080 will be an upgrade even with the 10GB of memory



Of course! haha. Thanks for sharing


----------



## londiste (Sep 30, 2020)

While I am at it, 2160p results as well, although these are pretty slideshow on my hardware 

2160p Common: 13.09 FPS
2160p High: 9.04 FPS
2160p Pro: 7.31 FPS


  


Spoiler

















VRAM usage peaks at 7.5GB with Pro settings and depends more on settings than resolution.
Common settings use 500-600MB less but still peak at 7.5GB at one point.

These two scenes or moments are the best eyecandy IMO:

 


Spoiler















miguel1900 said:


> I only have the doubt about which part is done with rasterization and how to check it. But you are totally right: there are denoisers, of course, and yes, actual Path Tracing it isn't for real time. RT is something like a "light" PT. Well, in fact, certain very little effects are slightly different between RT and PT, thinking about it should make the calculations in a slightly different way, that was what you meant? Well, anyway yes, it's not fully path traced, hehe, but fully ray traced.


Simple - anything that is not reflections, shadows or lighting is rasterized. And no, it is not fully raytraced. Shadows are (or might be, depending on settings), same for reflections and GI/AO taking them separately but not the scene as a whole 

Raytracing works fine as a general term in this context. PT and RT are pretty interchangeable when we talk about hybrid rendering and what is rasterized or raytraced. It is a technical question, which method is used by UE you can probably ask or look it up but I would assume it is more likely PT.


----------



## miguel1900 (Sep 30, 2020)

londiste said:


> While I am at it, 2160p results as well, although these are pretty slideshow on my hardware
> 
> 2160p Common: 13.09 FPS
> 2160p High: 9.04 FPS
> ...



Thank you!

Didn't thought about things not being reflections, shadows, lightings... could be also rasterized. Anyway, nothing to add, hehe, all you said is totally right!

Oh, about VRAM, I also tested on a GTX 1060 6GB and it worked fine. I think the more you have, the more it gets.


----------



## londiste (Sep 30, 2020)

londiste said:


> More details about what settings exactly are changed for High-Pro would be nice as well.


Ha, this one is on me not reading the link correctly.

```
Common  High    Pro
RT Reflections           ON      ON      ON
RT Shadows               ON      ON      ON
RT Ambient Occlusion     OFF     ON      ON
RT Global Illumination   OFF     ON      ON
RT Sky                   OFF     OFF     ON
```


----------



## miguel1900 (Sep 30, 2020)

londiste said:


> Ha, this one is on me not reading the link correctly.
> 
> ```
> Common  High    Pro
> ...



And me, not reading that comment. Great schema! Adding it to the first post, thank you!

EDIT: Ouh, it seems I can't edit the first post anymore.


----------



## stealth83 (Sep 30, 2020)

Msi SeaHawk X 2080ti stock


----------



## scope54 (Sep 30, 2020)

Ryzen 2600x and Radeon 7

GPU-z Reports max Dedicated memory used during the 1440 pro run was about 4GB.


----------



## miguel1900 (Sep 30, 2020)

stealth83 said:


> Msi SeaHawk X 2080ti stock
> 
> View attachment 170298
> 
> View attachment 170299





scope54 said:


> Ryzen 2600x and Radeon 7
> 
> GPU-z Reports max Dedicated memory used during the 1440 pro run was about 4GB.
> 
> ...



Thank you for sharing!

Unfortunately, @scope54 , AMD cards are currently non capables of Ray Tracing so, probably, if you compare your sequences with the sequence shown in the video of the first post, you should notice clear differences.

But there will be a non-RT benchmark version soon!!


----------



## wolf (Oct 2, 2020)

3700X and RTX3080


----------



## miguel1900 (Oct 2, 2020)

Thank you @wolf ! first 3080 over here. Added to the scores table!


----------



## birdie (Oct 10, 2020)

@miguel1900

I don't think it will take too much of your development time if you implemented some sort of proper summary window, like e.g. in Unigine benchmarks:




Please, do.

Here's my GeForce 1660 Ti *FHD Common Settings*  results (stock) - 13.27 fps along with Ryzen 3700X (stock).


Not that they are interesting to anyone here considering that I have what could be called an entry level GPU.


----------



## miguel1900 (Oct 11, 2020)

birdie said:


> @miguel1900
> 
> I don't think it will take too much of your development time if you implemented some sort of proper summary window, like e.g. in Unigine benchmarks:
> 
> ...



Hi @birdie ,

Thanks for sharing! Of course, every card result it's important for every kind of player. It's already added to the official list.

About that screen, probably I will end adding it. The problem is that I didn't want to "cover" the screen with that message after the test, to allow the user to play. So I decided to add the final info too when you exit from the benchmark, going back to menu, in a descreet line at the bottom of the menu, but I'm not sure if some of you haven't seen it, or if you want a little more info, like min and max FPS (which was already asked by another user), or if you simply want an independent summary window, so I'm open to suggestions!


----------



## miguel1900 (Oct 22, 2020)

Hi guys!

I'm working on some great things.

The next one will be the same benchmark but without RayTracing, to be a benchmark for any kind of user (well, DX12 required), released independently.

But next... I will unify the two benchmarks, RT and non-RT, in the same one, simply checking the option, and I'm adding some great additions to the 'menu' screen, which will be a menu + statistics screen now, as never seen before in any other benchmark on the market! (I think! So, please, if you want, you can post here a screenshot of the most 'analytical' benchmark screen you have ever seen).

More details about its new options coming soon.

Best regards!


----------



## miguel1900 (Nov 17, 2020)

Hi all!

I'm glad to announce that this *RT benchmark has been updated to v1.5*. I have heard all your comments, fixed some minor things and added new options (some still in development, for the next release! That one will be awesome!).

I have also launched *a version without Ray Tracing* capabilities, so any kind of user with a DirectX12 compatible graphic card, will be able to execute it and compare his measurements with others. I have been suggested to keep those non-RT results in this same thread too, but if we notice it becomes a little chaotic, I will ask our moderators again about opening an independent new thread.

*Free Non-RT download*: https://marvizer.itch.io/pure-non-rt-benchmark

(The upcoming v2.0 release will unify these two benchmarks in only one, being able to switch between then selecting one simple option. In fact that option already exists, but it's currently disabled, as it's still in development. But it works like a reminder).

I hope you like it!

PS: Oh, I can't edit the first post anymore, right?


----------



## k1llsh0t16 (Nov 23, 2020)

I have a RTX 2080 Super but the benchmark is saying my system can't do ray tracing. Any thoughts? RTX is definitely working in games and other benchmarks.


----------



## miguel1900 (Nov 24, 2020)

k1llsh0t16 said:


> I have a RTX 2080 Super but the benchmark is saying my system can't do ray tracing. Any thoughts? RTX is definitely working in games and other benchmarks.



Hi @k1llsh0t16 ,

Thank you very much for your feedback. Please, could you make some tests to check it and try to solve? My bench is checking, in a pragmatical way, if your PC is actually executing RT, during the firsts 0.2 seconds. On my old PC, with a GTX 1060 it was more than enough to successfully check it. So, maybe, your PC is really not running RT, or it has a huge bottleneck to check it before the firsts 0.2 seconds, or an even more strange case, but I will be ready to deep into the problem.

Please, could you try starting testing this mini tool?








						File on MEGA
					






					mega.nz
				




And this Nvidia's one? (I remember I tried it when my PC wasn't RT compatible, and it shown me a warning):


			https://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/reflections-demo/Reflections_Demo.zip
		


If nothing, I would want you to try another thing, please.

Thank you and best regards!


----------



## miguel1900 (Nov 28, 2020)

I have now published the mini-tool to check if a computer is actually executing the Ray Tracing technology, in an easy and ultrafast way: _https://marvizer.itch.io/ray-tracing...bility-checker_


----------



## Lord KUKO (Nov 29, 2020)

Hey. I have win 10 x64 and RTX 3090 but please why i have this? https://prnt.sc/vs22kk


----------



## miguel1900 (Dec 1, 2020)

Lord KUKO said:


> Hey. I have win 10 x64 and RTX 3090 but please why i have this? https://prnt.sc/vs22kk



Already talked about this with Lord KUKO trough private messages! Will help to check it for a future fix. It's an unknown error for some GPUs, which can check if RT is enabled in time, for some reason.


PD: *some RX 6800 XT results added* to the score tables!! They are almost like a 2080 Ti


----------



## Hugis (Dec 1, 2020)

1080ti here the app returns RT capable and the test returns non RT


----------



## Athlonite (Dec 1, 2020)

looks great runs ok on my system  ok aswell Sapphire Pulse RX5700 8GB @1750cclk/1700mclk and R7 3700X @ 4325MHz


----------



## Zyll Goliat (Dec 1, 2020)

Here for your Data-Base NoN RT result from my R9 Fury


----------



## miguel1900 (Dec 1, 2020)

Thank you all! 



Hugis said:


> 1080ti here the app returns RT capable and the test returns non RT
> 
> 
> View attachment 177717



Hi Hugis,

You are right. I have noticed some few users having this problem. For some reason, your computers can't check if RT is enabled or disabled in the given time. The 'checker tool' have been designed with a improved 'more flexible' method, which will be added in the next release of the benchmark, coming very soon. Sorry for the inconvenience!


----------



## Caring1 (Dec 2, 2020)

Compatibility checker wouldn't run for me.
First it was telling me I needed to install Visuals C++ 2015, although it is already installed, then it was telling me after I redownloaded that, that I need DX to run it, even though I have DX12.


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 2, 2020)

@miguel1900 Nice work man! I just tested the non RT demo on a Vega card and would you believe it your benchmark auto kicked in my monitors HDR and it looked GREAT!! 

Great job!


----------



## miguel1900 (Dec 3, 2020)

Caring1 said:


> Compatibility checker wouldn't run for me.
> First it was telling me I needed to install Visuals C++ 2015, although it is already installed, then it was telling me after I redownloaded that, that I need DX to run it, even though I have DX12.



Hi Caring,

You're the first user having this certain issue. Please, could you post some screenshots? And could you try this official Nvidia demo? https://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/reflections-demo/Reflections_Demo.zip




fullinfusion said:


> @miguel1900 Nice work man! I just tested the non RT demo on a Vega card and would you believe it your benchmark auto kicked in my monitors HDR and it looked GREAT!!
> 
> Great job!



Thank you so much! Really nice to read this kind of comments


----------



## Petar666 (Dec 3, 2020)

Palit 3080@2055/20800 8700k 5.0Ghz/16GB/4400 17 19 19


----------



## purecain (Dec 3, 2020)

miguel1900 said:


> Hi all!
> 
> I have created a new GPU benchmark, designed to know how powerful our GPUs are, and great to find the best overclock. It's *very easy and fast to try* it: download, decompress and execute, *without installing anything*.


Absolutely brilliant. Ive wanted to do this for a long time but for reasons. Congrats  

I'm struggling to get Ray tracing to work on Titan V. I only get nonRT mode.

Am i doing something wrong??? 

Or does my card need the RT cores like on the RTX series of cards.  RTX usually works on my card. DLSS doesnt.

note-According to a recent report, the *Titan V can* run Battlefield *V* with *ray tracing* despite not having any RT cores. ... Not only *does* it claim that *ray tracing* worked on the $2999 GPU, but it held its own *versus* the *Titan* RTX being able to run Battlefield *V* at 1440p with the Ultra visual preset at around 80fps in most cases.


----------



## Caring1 (Dec 4, 2020)

miguel1900 said:


> Hi Caring,
> You're the first user having this certain issue. Please, could you post some screenshots? And could you try this official Nvidia demo? https://images.nvidia.com/geforce-com/international/reflections-demo/Reflections_Demo.zip


Nvidia demo ran after the same Dx error and then a popup appeared to install it which I did, despite my computer having it already.
Compatibility checker could then run and show it was working.


----------



## miguel1900 (Dec 4, 2020)

Thank you @Petar666 !

Thank you too, @purecain ! Please, run my mini checker tool too, to check if your card is really running RT. If yes, then it's a known issue with my benchmark: some users, for some reason, can't check the RT capability within the given time (even if me, with a GTX 1060, was able), so it will be fixed in the next benchmark update.

Hi @Caring1 . Then, have you tried to run my checker tool after installing that DX package? Anyway, may be something not really correct with your PC, if you thought you already had DX installed, and even another software shown you the same error.

Regards!


----------



## Caring1 (Dec 4, 2020)

miguel1900 said:


> Hi @Caring1 . Then, have you tried to run my checker tool after installing that DX package?


Yes, as I mentioned it ran fine after, the Nvidia demo gave the the popup to install Dx for required for UE to run.


----------



## miguel1900 (Dec 4, 2020)

Caring1 said:


> Yes, as I mentioned it ran fine after, the Nvidia demo gave the the popup to install Dx for required for UE to run.



Oh, ok, thank you! I read it as a supposition, which sounded strange to me, anyway


----------



## Carda (Dec 16, 2020)

Thank you for the nice benchmark. First thing I wanted to do on my new PC to check the raytracing. Very well done.

AMD 5950X (SMT/Hyperthreading disabled), Gigabyte AORUS Xtreme 3090




Normal RT settings 1440p


----------



## miguel1900 (Dec 17, 2020)

Carda said:


> Thank you for the nice benchmark. First thing I wanted to do on my new PC to check the raytracing. Very well done.
> 
> AMD 5950X (SMT/Hyperthreading disabled), Gigabyte AORUS Xtreme 3090
> 
> Normal RT settings 1440p



Thank you very much, @Carda ! Great PC.


----------



## toilet pepper (Dec 18, 2020)

Hi! Nice benchmark! I have the same problem. Its saying that my GPU is non RT-enabled. Checker says it is capable and I can run the Reflections demo well.I'm using an RTX 3080. Thank you!


----------



## miguel1900 (Dec 18, 2020)

Thank you @toilet pepper !

Sorry for the delay, I were finishing other projects, but I'm on it! I have already implemented it, but I'm making another little internal change, and will make some internal testing too. So I hope to have it updated even during this weekend!


----------



## miguel1900 (Dec 20, 2020)

Hi all!

*Version 1.51 already available!* Fixed the issue for some users having problems to check RT capabilities in time, an added some internal options, stablishing the foundations for the big upcoming update.

(So, @toilet pepper , you should be able to run it fine now)

Best regards!


----------

