john_I see those numbers and just comes to my mind those ratings from TV makers. Like Samsung's PQI.
Going from 11 fps to 59 does makes everyone (I think) wonder about visual quality. I mean can we really consider those 59 fps as equal quality to those 11 fps? If not, then this isn't an apples to apples comparison.

Hyderzit will be quite a while before ray tracing performance hit will be small

Vya DomusIn this case it's more about responsiveness rather than visual quality, frames are being interpolated to go from 30 to 60 fps, that difference in latency will not go unnoticed.


RT performance hit will never be small, it just doesn't scale like that.

Vya DomusIn this case it's more about responsiveness rather than visual quality, frames are being interpolated to go from 30 to 60 fps, that difference in latency will not go unnoticed.

Hyderzray tracing performance hit reminds me of the early 2000s gpu gets a massive performance hit when Anti Aliasing enabled for games to smooth out the jaggies...
took the companies a while before the gpu's were powerful enough where enabling them doesnt have much of a performance hit, it will be quite a while before ray tracing performance hit will be small

john_In case someone wants responsiveness, they just lower the settings and get higher framerates

Hyderzoh it won't, how so if i may ask?

Vya DomusWhy would you lower the quality if the whole point of this is to have the best visual settings irrespective of the compromises you need to make even if that compromise means getting 10 fps. Sound stupid but that's what is being pushed right know.

Ray tracing cost is constant per scene, meaning that if you were to double the number of compute units in a GPU it would still infer X % performance impact per frame, the only thing that would improve is the number of frames per second but the cost per frame would remain the same.

john_But you DO get lower quality with FSR, XeSS and even DLSS. It's just that the framerate increase is high enough for people to just accept to ignore the lower visual quality. Those techs do try to offer better visual quality than what you get by lowering resolution from 2160p to 1800p for example and from ultra settings to med high settings. But they do bring their own problems, like ghosting, even minimal ghosting. So, you do get lower quality. Only DLAA improves quality. Everything else lowers quality.

It's just psychology.
If I go in a game's settings and change from ultra to high, I KNOW that the quality will be lower. Even if I have a difficulty to spot the differences.
If I go in a game's settings and change from high to ultra and at the same time enable DLSS quality, I BELIEVE I am getting ultra quality, even when I do notice ghosting or whatever in the image.


But I do agree about RayTracing(even not replying to me). It's probably another thing just finding the edges than following the light while it jumps from a 3D surface to a 3D surface. Nvidia also proved with overdrive mode that we still haven't seen the maximum performance hit from enabling RayTracing.

Vya DomusIt all comes down to the fact that it's harder to market your product when it's not capable of running a game with all settings maxed out than it is to convince people the image quality is the same.

fevgatosCan you tell the difference between native and dlss q in a blind test? Say I post 5 pictures and you tell me which is which? Everybody I tried it with spectacularly failed, in which case, yeah, they are equal quality. In fact I'd say in some games dlss looks better than native, especially those problematic taa implementations (cod comes to mind)

sam_86314Just tried it. Woo, 4 FPS on my 6800XT at native 3440x1440.

AusWolfWe're getting into Portal RT territory here. Some developers do everything they can to butcher their game's performance to get that tasty Nvidia paycheck. And to think that I get a stable 60 FPS in The Market of Light UE5 demo... Ridiculous!

I'll try it on my 6750 XT at 1080p, but with zero hopes.

bugIt's not about paychecks, it's about staying ahead of the curve. If path tracing is somewhat acceptable today, it will be acceptable with the next generation and probably common place after another 2-3 generations. As a developer, it's important to try it early and learn how it can help and what pitfalls it presents.
As for "butchering performance", I don't see how anything got butchered. If you're not interested in this (or, more likely, don't have the hardware), don't activate path tracing.

PunkenjoyWell CD project RED already said they are switching to Unreal Engine 5 for the next games so all this work might not be reusable. It's a super nice technical feats but not sure how much they will be able to reuse with the new engine. And since the assets doesn't change, we can't say they are learning to create assets that work well with Path tracing. But i am pretty sure the engine devs will be able to get some work somewhere for sure

To me, one of the main reason(except noise and some DLSS hiccup) that the game do not look that much better. To me it feel like the game was designed with raster in mind, then they added basic raytracing, then path tracing.

I suspect that games made with Pathtracing from scratch will look significantly better even if the performance is about the same on same hardware.