Gave it a go at 3440x1440 on an RTX3080, looks really nice, very natural, cozy and dynamic. DLSS at this resolution works a charm too.

Ray tracing just sucks, not sure why they insist on using this garbage tech. Beam tracing is the future and doesn't have the problems with noise.
Rays are artificial constructs, they contain no physics at all, so everthing you see like colour and refraction etc is a hack. Beams are actual solutions of a simplified Maxwell equation and thus contain all the physics you require. Things like refraction, diffraction, colour etc are all inherent properties of the beam. Alos rather than needing hundreds of millions of rays to build up a scene with low noise, you only need a few hundred beams. I know this for a fact. because I worked for a large camera company on a beam tracing program and it was vastly better than Ray tracing. You can get the actual colour of objects by just supplying the correct refractive index, you get the same resolution from as little as 200 beams, all the physics falls out naturally, no hacks no fudges. You don't have to solve the Helmholtz equation on the fly, you just need to beams that are valid solutions of this equation as your input. You could design your hardware to have improved fp32 and it would be no more taxing than for RT. If you think this is just abstract, there are commercial beam tracing programs for lens design like Code V and beam tracing is used extensively in radar and underwater acoustics.

Brain dead to still be using RT in an era of such powerful hardware.

evernessinceI'd highly disagree, especially since 240 Hz is moving up to 1440p and 360 Hz up to 1080p. If Cyberpunk 2077 is an indication of how demanding upcoming titles will be, you don't need to come up with ways to spend a ton of processing power. Devs are more than capable of using what they are given.



Noting the performance impact is an important point to make. Complaining about others pointing that fact out is not. IMO RTX isn't really worth it until you start getting movie like quality. RTX shadows are really really not worth the performance impact and their visual benefit is very subjective. It's not a definite improvement. RTX reflections do look nice but unfortunately for them, recent updates to game engines have made those exact effects possible via rasterization just as dynamic. There's a massive gap between where we are now and where RT performance needs to be in order to get the quality jump people expect when you imply ray tracing. At 30% a generation, you are looking a decades before we get full modern RT games. Even full RT minecraft has to use a fraction of the default render distance to get reasonable performance.

On the first point, I do want to point out that most people won't bother to run a game like CyberPunk at 240 or 360 Hz because it doesn't matter to them. These are usually used by competitive gamers for the minute advantage they can get. But I agree that game developers will start pushing the envelop when it comes to utilising the hardware available.

RTX is a nice to have feature, but in my personal opinion, is not required for most. The fact is that most people won't realise the difference with or without RT if they start gaming at very high graphic quality without RT. Its only when you have a side by side comparison will most notice the difference. The performance delta with and without RT is too wide, and to be honest, I rather play with high frame rates and smooth frame pacing. While most people will fall back to DLSS, but they need to be aware as well that DLSS is not available in every game release now. In the past, any games with RT will automatically come with DLSS at launch because it will be an Nvidia exclusive title. Now that RT is not limited to Nvidia hardware, we've seen cases where DLSS may not be available on day 1 or for some time after the game is released. Existing hardware can barely keep up with the RT requirements without some sorts of upscaling technology, and I am really not expecting the hardware to catch up anytime soon.

the bouncing light balls are cool , interactive is cool 1440 p was 30fps no rtx

im not sure what the idea is the room looks cheesy not stunning imo .Maybe rtx helps i wont know ...

Minus InfinityRay tracing just sucks, not sure why they insist on using this garbage tech. Beam tracing is the future and doesn't have the problems with noise.
Rays are artificial constructs, they contain no physics at all, so everthing you see like colour and refraction etc is a hack. Beams are actual solutions of a simplified Maxwell equation and thus contain all the physics you require. Things like refraction, diffraction, colour etc are all inherent properties of the beam. Alos rather than needing hundreds of millions of rays to build up a scene with low noise, you only need a few hundred beams. I know this for a fact. because I worked for a large camera company on a beam tracing program and it was vastly better than Ray tracing. You can get the actual colour of objects by just supplying the correct refractive index, you get the same resolution from as little as 200 beams, all the physics falls out naturally, no hacks no fudges. You don't have to solve the Helmholtz equation on the fly, you just need to beams that are valid solutions of this equation as your input. You could design your hardware to have improved fp32 and it would be no more taxing than for RT. If you think this is just abstract, there are commercial beam tracing programs for lens design like Code V and beam tracing is used extensively in radar and underwater acoustics.

Brain dead to still be using RT in an era of such powerful hardware.

Interesting. Are there any demos or comparison apps ?

Ran it on my R9 280. While lots of features clearly don't work on this card, it still ran at around 24 FPS with everything on at 1080p.

Also, the mirrors looked like crap because of the reflections only being screen-space.

watzupkenOn the first point, I do want to point out that most people won't bother to run a game like CyberPunk at 240 or 360 Hz because it doesn't matter to them. These are usually used by competitive gamers for the minute advantage they can get. But I agree that game developers will start pushing the envelop when it comes to utilising the hardware available.

RTX is a nice to have feature, but in my personal opinion, is not required for most. The fact is that most people won't realise the difference with or without RT if they start gaming at very high graphic quality without RT. Its only when you have a side by side comparison will most notice the difference. The performance delta with and without RT is too wide, and to be honest, I rather play with high frame rates and smooth frame pacing. While most people will fall back to DLSS, but they need to be aware as well that DLSS is not available in every game release now. In the past, any games with RT will automatically come with DLSS at launch because it will be an Nvidia exclusive title. Now that RT is not limited to Nvidia hardware, we've seen cases where DLSS may not be available on day 1 or for some time after the game is released. Existing hardware can barely keep up with the RT requirements without some sorts of upscaling technology, and I am really not expecting the hardware to catch up anytime soon.

You are conflating two points I was making. First, the fact that higher refresh rates are available at high resolutions and second that game requirements are increasing.

Those are separate, not combined as indicated.

That's funny. This is more what I expect unreal engine to look like. Not those fancy tech demos from the past. Looks like a classic unreal engine game. Aptly named engine

Fun demo to mess around with. I liked being able to adjust the time of day and play with the different "guns" and such.

Looked awful when I tried to run it at 3440x1440 with DLSS, for whatever reason. Turning that off looked great. Switching to windowed 16:9 1440p fixed DLSS. Weird.

Running with a 3700X and a 2080 Ti, so not the latest and greatest tech. Still got 60-72 FPS with all the toggles on.

Certainly not the most impressive RTX showcase I've seen, though. So far that is still Control.

just watch end game.
gold standard for what is global illumination

Two types of comments here.

1. DLSS / RT sucks. (oh and btw, I have a potato PC)
2. Good showcase of the new technologies and what's about to come in the future. (oh and btw, I have 2070 or newer GPU)

Minus InfinityRay tracing just sucks, not sure why they insist on using this garbage tech. Beam tracing is the future and doesn't have the problems with noise.
Rays are artificial constructs, they contain no physics at all, so everthing you see like colour and refraction etc is a hack. Beams are actual solutions of a simplified Maxwell equation and thus contain all the physics you require. Things like refraction, diffraction, colour etc are all inherent properties of the beam. Alos rather than needing hundreds of millions of rays to build up a scene with low noise, you only need a few hundred beams. I know this for a fact. because I worked for a large camera company on a beam tracing program and it was vastly better than Ray tracing. You can get the actual colour of objects by just supplying the correct refractive index, you get the same resolution from as little as 200 beams, all the physics falls out naturally, no hacks no fudges. You don't have to solve the Helmholtz equation on the fly, you just need to beams that are valid solutions of this equation as your input. You could design your hardware to have improved fp32 and it would be no more taxing than for RT. If you think this is just abstract, there are commercial beam tracing programs for lens design like Code V and beam tracing is used extensively in radar and underwater acoustics.

Brain dead to still be using RT in an era of such powerful hardware.

Well then if it is computationally far less expensive, then join the nvidia developer forum and tell devs how it's supposed to be done. Or AMD.... whomever.

FreedomEclipseI guess they allowed AMD to get in on it so that they have more ammo to dunk on them with --- Because its no secret that AMDs current cards dont handle RTX/DLSS very well.

Eh, aren't RTX/DLSS an nVidia thing or am I wrong?:p

Just funning with ya, I think I know what you mean, I'm just hoping that FidelityFX Super Resolution would, at the very least, improve gaming with RT enabled to a more comfortable level.

GamerGuyEh, aren't RTX/DLSS an nVidia thing or am I wrong?:p

Just funning with ya, I think I know what you mean, I'm just hoping that FidelityFX Super Resolution would, at the very least, improve gaming with RT enabled to a more comfortable level.

its a team green term for ray tracing.

hmm.....did anyone try this demo at 2160p??
it looks fine to me.
I ran RTX_Showcase-Win64-Shipping.exe from the RTX Technology Showcase/Binaries/Win64 folder.

this offers 2160p option.....

gedsterhmm.....did anyone try this demo at 2160p??
it looks fine to me.
I ran RTX_Showcase-Win64-Shipping.exe from the RTX Technology Showcase/Binaries/Win64 folder.

this offers 2160p option.....

It offers nothing above the monitor's native resolution, which for me is 1440. What got me moist for a few minutes was finding VR controller bindings in one of the subfolders. However, I now think they're just leftovers from the Unreal 4 engine dev tools. Even if the demo had VR capability, it would not look as amazing as the VR demo in the Superposition benchmark ( which has no RT ). The guy who made it is clearly extremely talented.

For this demo I was interested in how a 3080 & a 1080 Ti would handle it. Settings default, full screen, RTX label and side panel hidden (Using MSI Afterburner for the FPS counter ), not moving from initial location, day/night slider centred.
1440: RT on 99-100 fps
1440: DLSS off 44
1440: RT off 86 <--- Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuug!!!!
1080: RT on 114-115 fps
1080: DLSS off 93
1080: RT off 139-141

For a 1080 Ti with an FHD monitor attached.
1080: RT on 9 fps
1080: RT off 75-76 fps