CrackongIt was the same thing again, hardware PhysX got 4 games back in 2008 and 7 in 2009, then hardware PhysX simply fade out and now open sourced.

chrcolukI was expecting a much bigger gap to be honest, usually specialised hardware with optimised routines has much more than a 2-3x performance improvement. This RT was optimised for RTX and it only has a 200-300% advantage depending on game.
All this data has told me, is that if games get made with compute versions of RT optimised for it, then potentially performance can be quite close.

FordGT90ConceptNVIDIA to date hasn't technically described what the RT cores are.

londisteThey have not described the units very precisely. However, it is not quite correct to say we do not know what the RT Cores do. They run a couple operations for raytracing implemented in hardware. Anandtech's article has a pretty good overview:
www.anandtech.com/show/13282/nvidia-turing-architecture-deep-dive/5

londisteThey have not described the units very precisely. However, it is not quite correct to say we do not know what the RT Cores do. They run a couple operations for raytracing implemented in hardware. Anandtech's article has a pretty good overview:
www.anandtech.com/show/13282/nvidia-turing-architecture-deep-dive/5

CrackongIf AMD come up with something let's say "FreeRay" which runs on and optimized for typical graphics cards instead of RTX cards, would that benefit RTX card sales ?

CrackongNvidia does not own DXR.
If AMD could come up with their own solution to optimize DXR without dedicated "cores", RTX cards would become utterly pointless.

R-T-BYes it would, because it's literally impossible to do this in a performant way on standard non tensor gpus.

As RTX are the only gpus with tensor cores right now, it would run like shit, driving upgrades to RTX.
That is his point in a nutshell.
They would need to add tensor cores first.

CrackongThey have nothing to do with Ray Tracing.

R-T-BThey do the "denoising" that enables raytracing to be possible on present hardware (we can't possibly push enough raw rays).

Thus, they have everything to do with it.

Crackonglol you are mixing things up.
RTRT doesn't require denoiser to work.
Denoiser is an after-effect added to the final image.

Essentially, this style of ‘hybrid rendering’ is a lot less raytracing than one might imagine from the marketing material. Perhaps a blunt way to generalize might be: real time raytracing in Turing typically means only certain objects are being rendered with certain raytraced graphical effects, using a minimal amount of rays per pixel and/or only raytracing secondary rays, and using a lot of denoising filtering; anything more would affect performance too much.

SoNic67Sure is not necessary... if you are able to ray trace all the rays. But the current generation of RTX are not.
They trace only a couple of rays per pixel and mix some textures in, hence they have to apply de-noise to that to make it look good.

FordGT90ConceptSomething like a Kepler core could be doing everything the "RT core" does.

Remember, RTX has an *extremely* limited capability to ray trace: it complements existing rendering techniques in games rather than replacing it.

londisteAnandtech's article has a pretty good overview:
www.anandtech.com/show/13282/nvidia-turing-architecture-deep-dive/5

CrackongYes, that is exactly the point.

Nvidia offers an AI-based de-noiser powered by tensor cores.
It will de-noise any image given, no matter it is an in-game image, or a photo.

If it is just the de-noiser which matters, then it is the de-noiser, NOT the Tensor cores.
If AMD could come up with an efficient de-noise method without any dedicated hardware, Tensor cores also become utterly pointless.

R0H1TSo what happens with Pascal, I'm guessing lack of tensor cores isn't the (biggest) reason why RT tanks the performance on that thing :wtf:

medi01Well, but what about "fully RT Quake 3"?
Of course, models that are rendered there are simple, but still.

FordGT90ConceptJudging by AAA games, publishers aren't willing to sacrifice so much for raytracing. On that note, if raytracing were more accessible, indie developers would probably use it because a lot of them go for a minimalist graphics style anyway.

FordGT90ConceptThen I have to assume that NVIDIA probably gave the devs RTX cards on the condition that they add RTX support.

It's way too early for indie devs to be adding raytracing as a cost-saving measure.

FordGT90ConceptSomething like a Kepler core could be doing everything the "RT core" does.
Remember, RTX has an *extremely* limited capability to ray trace: it complements existing rendering techniques in games rather than replacing it.

FordGT90ConceptTensor cores are quite useless for DXR. NVIDIA is using tensor cores to up-sample resolution to compensate for framerate loss due to DXR.

FordGT90ConceptJudging by AAA games, publishers aren't willing to sacrifice so much for raytracing. On that note, if raytracing were more accessible, indie developers would probably use it because a lot of them go for a minimalist graphics style anyway.

londisteIt could but would be rather inefficient at it. Turing SM is faster than Pascal SM in practically every aspect. Pascal is faster than Maxwell which is faster than Kepler. If Nvidia would think RT is best done on good old shaders, they would simply add more shader units and would not bother with RT Cores.

londisteThis is exactly what Nvidia has been going after. They say there are potential cost savings from reduced time in workflow of creating a game. Less workarounds, less artist/designer work. Some developers have supported that claim so they might actually have a point. Making raytracing more accessible is exaclty what DXR support for GTX cards is about.

FordGT90ConceptAll I know is that the organization of RT cores in Turing doesn't make sense.

CrackongIf AMD could come up with an efficient de-noise method without any dedicated hardware