EVGA GeForce RTX 2060 KO Pictured, Possibly NVIDIA's First Response to RX 5600 XT

[medi01]

Ray Tracing hasn't fully evolved properly just yet.

Because even 2080Ti is pathetically underpowered at it to deliver anything beyond basic reflection/shades gimmicks.
And that is not going to change any time soon.

 

[Vya Domus]

How do you know it is going mainstream this year? All I see is in the nearly 1,5 year RTX is on the market, we got only 2 games (if I'm right) with initial RTX support. These are Metro: Exodus and Control. The RTX announced titles like BFV and SotTR got their RTX support in a later patch. It was also promised that FFXV will get RTX support, but it was cancelled. And you have Quake 2 with RTX... This is the RTX lineup so far. BFV had to be updated, because - as a competitive game - couldn't run with fix 60 fps on FHD with a 2080Ti with RTX set to high/ultra, so they had to lower graphics quality in a later patch to provide better performance. And that is FHD with a $1000 GPU (which is $1100 in reality). Metro and Tomb Raider both had minimums halved compared to average, meaning a 2080Ti provided 40-45 fps minimums on FHD... Same for Control.

Shush, you're going to brake their bubble. There are less games sporting RT than GPU models supporting it, let that sink in for a moment.

 

[bug]

Shush, you're going to brake their bubble. There are less games sporting RT than GPU models supporting it, let that sink in for a moment.

Ahem, the list of games supporting DXR is longer than you seem to think it is: https://www.ozarc.games/best-rtx-raytracing-games/
(heads-up, not everything in there is released, but there are more titles than cards )

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

Shush, you're going to brake their bubble. There are less games sporting RT than GPU models supporting it, let that sink in for a moment.

You using drum brakes or disk brakes there boss?

Now watch, once next gen consoles come out with RT hardware and RDNA 2 comes out, AMD fans will be praising it as the next innovation of immersive gameplay. They only dis RT now because their hardware cant do it at all. It's the reverse of DX12, when only AMD card could do it, it was the next messia of the gaming industry, and NVidia would surely be so far behind AMD would dominate. Give it a year, and the anti raytracing arguments will mysteriously dissapear.

 

[xkm1948]

You using drum brakes or disk brakes there boss?

Now watch, once next gen consoles come out with RT hardware and RDNA 2 comes out, AMD fans will be praising it as the next innovation of immersive gameplay. They only dis RT now because their hardware cant do it at all. It's the reverse of DX12, when only AMD card could do it, it was the next messia of the gaming industry, and NVidia would surely be so far behind AMD would dominate. Give it a year, and the anti raytracing arguments will mysteriously dissapear.

Savage

Funny thing, quite a lot of AMD fans here actually sports the “evil nvidia GPU”

When Nvidia priced high: evil money grabbing Nvidia!



When Nvidia priced low: evil Nvidia stealing RTG’s thunder, RTX useless etc etc

Some folks always find negativity in anything Nvidia related

 

[Vya Domus]

AMD fans will be praising it as the next innovation of immersive gameplay.

And you're telling me this for what reason exactly ? Why do I care what AMD fanboys will do, are you implying I'm one of them ? If so, come forth with it rather that telling me this sort of bizarre piece of future trivia that I didn't need to know.

You know, I do have to wonder in what sort of brain dead world you live in which you really believe this sort of thing would actually happen, that people would just radically change their opinion in a split second simply because of the color of their favorite company or that it would matter in any conceivable way. As if the success of some technology that's supposedly amazing by default would be somehow forever ruined by a bunch of fanboys.

It's actually pretty sad that you're bothered enough by what fans of some company say to tell me this. I'm sorry, really, this is strangely depressing in a way.

 

[cucker tarlson]

And you're telling me this for what reason exactly ?

To let it sink in for a moment.

 

[64K]

It's true that there isn't very much support for RTRT from Developers right now but that will change when the next gen consoles roll out with hardware support for accelerated RTRT.

Remember that most games are still made for the console and ported (sometimes badly) to PC. Console gamers would have a shit-fit if Developers didn't make some use of RTRT in their new console games especially if these next gen consoles end up more expensive than the present generation.

With AMD on board the RTRT train there is nothing standing in the way of RTRT even though it can only be implemented in small ways right now.

 

[cucker tarlson]

And you're telling me this for what reason exactly ? Why do I care what AMD fanboys will do, are you implying I'm one of them ? If so, come forth with it rather that telling me this sort of bizarre piece of future trivia that I didn't need to know.

You know, I do have to wonder in what sort of brain dead world you live in which you really believe this sort of thing would actually happen, that people would just radically change their opinion in a split second simply because of the color of their favorite company or that it would matter in any conceivable way. As if the success of some technology that's supposedly amazing by default would be somehow forever ruined by fanboys.

It's actually pretty sad that you're bothered enough by what fans of some company say to tell me this, imagine being only be able to think about something in terms of being opposed to a fan of soemthing. I'm sorry, really, this is strangely dystopian in a way.

It takes one,not three or give,one,rt game that amd runs well and better than NVIDIA for you to turn on a dime.

 

[notb]

Because even 2080Ti is pathetically underpowered at it to deliver anything beyond basic reflection/shades gimmicks.
And that is not going to change any time soon.

Have you seen any RTRT game? Compared to RTRT switched off? And I recommend a video, not still images.
Yes, RTX cards are too slow to run more complex light effects. But what they do now makes such a huge difference already.

The goal today is not to make games look like movies looked 10 years ago. It's not even a goal for the next decade or two.
It's just to make game look better - just like with every major change in GPU feature set.
It always means higher hardware requirements.

It's 2020.
You can buy a $200 card for a decent 1080p 60fps gaming. It's enough for most.
Or you can pay few times more and get a bonus. Before RTX that bonus was mostly about resolution.
Today you have another choice: more realistic picture.

It's a choice. It's not mandatory. Why are you so much against it?

Also, think about 4K.
We take it for granted today. It's a reference point for high-end GPUs.
But it hasn't been like that in the past. When 4K came out, many people were against it: it decimates fps, it doesn't change a lot - same arguments you use.
And to some extent they were right. In many games moving from 1080p to 4K doesn't impact gaming experience very much.
Many people still game at 1080p. We have high-end 1080p gaming monitors and so on.


And lets look at total cost of 4K vs RTX - something people here seldom think about (maybe because most of you have vevry expensive PCs anyway).
For 4K you need a more expensive graphics card, but also a more potent CPU, a 4K monitor, maybe more RAM. You end up with an expensive PC.
For RTX you only need an RTX GPU. The rest can remain pretty basic and cheap.

 

[Super XP]

As opposed to other techniques that speed it up?
Tesselation incurs a performance hit. Shading incurs a performance hit. Lighting incurs a performance hit. If it weren't for all these pesky techniques, we'd be enjoying Wolfenstein at 1,000,000 fps by now.

Edit: More on topic, I think Nvidia has squeezed all there was from Turing by now. Going forward it's Ampere or bust (i.e. whoever didn't buy into Turing by now, most likely never will).

I agree. These image enhancements do take a performance hit, just not as deep as Ray Tracing. RT ain't polished yet.
It needs to mature, I believe next gen consoles will be the answer because they really have no choice as both M$ and Sony have been touting about RT support.
M$'s latest info that came out is 4k/120 w/ RT enabled. And they also spoke about 8k support. 8k is useless now and for the foreseeable future.
Sony's PlayStation 5 claims 4k/60 w/ RT enabled.

I suppose we will eventually find out in 2020 as RT development is going quite well.

Have you seen any RTRT game? Compared to RTRT switched off? And I recommend a video, not still images.
Yes, RTX cards are too slow to run more complex light effects. But what they do now makes such a huge difference already.

The goal today is not to make games look like movies looked 10 years ago. It's not even a goal for the next decade or two.
It's just to make game look better - just like with every major change in GPU feature set.
It always means higher hardware requirements.

It's 2020.
You can buy a $200 card for a decent 1080p 60fps gaming. It's enough for most.
Or you can pay few times more and get a bonus. Before RTX that bonus was mostly about resolution.
Today you have another choice: more realistic picture.

It's a choice. It's not mandatory. Why are you so much against it?

Also, think about 4K.
We take it for granted today. It's a reference point for high-end GPUs.
But it hasn't been like that in the past. When 4K came out, many people were against it: it decimates fps, it doesn't change a lot - same arguments you use.
And to some extent they were right. In many games moving from 1080p to 4K doesn't impact gaming experience very much.
Many people still game at 1080p. We have high-end 1080p gaming monitors and so on.


And lets look at total cost of 4K vs RTX - something people here seldom think about (maybe because most of you have vevry expensive PCs anyway).
For 4K you need a more expensive graphics card, but also a more potent CPU, a 4K monitor, maybe more RAM. You end up with an expensive PC.
For RTX you only need an RTX GPU. The rest can remain pretty basic and cheap.

1440p seems to be the best resolution for PC Gaming. Because you get the huge bump up in image quality over 1080p with very little hindrance on performance.

Going from 1080p to 4k is not only too expensive, but it hinders performance a lot, despite the superior image quality gains.

1440p wins on performance, image quality and price.

You using drum brakes or disk brakes there boss?

Now watch, once next gen consoles come out with RT hardware and RDNA 2 comes out, AMD fans will be praising it as the next innovation of immersive gameplay. They only dis RT now because their hardware cant do it at all. It's the reverse of DX12, when only AMD card could do it, it was the next messia of the gaming industry, and NVidia would surely be so far behind AMD would dominate. Give it a year, and the anti raytracing arguments will mysteriously dissapear.

Nobody is against Nvidia's Ray Tracing implementation, what people are upset with is the premium price Nvidia implemented for a product that does not work as advertised nor has enough in game support.

In many scenarios enabling NV Ray Tracing didn't make the picture quality all that great. Not to mention the massive performance hit.

You want to launch a beta product? By all means go right ahead, but don't charge a premium for it lol..

 

[Xaled]

As opposed to other techniques that speed it up?
Tesselation incurs a performance hit. Shading incurs a performance hit. Lighting incurs a performance hit. If it weren't for all these pesky techniques, we'd be enjoying Wolfenstein at 1,000,000 fps by now.

Edit: More on topic, I think Nvidia has squeezed all there was from Turing by now. Going forward it's Ampere or bust (i.e. whoever didn't buy into Turing by now, most likely never will).

Other features didn't cost up to 50% price increase and 50% performance drop for something that benefits only in very rare scenarios and needs huge optimization

 

[Super XP]

Other features didn't cost up to 50% price increase and 50% performance drop for something that benefits only in very rare scenarios and needs huge optimization

Nvidia would argue we included RT dedicated cores which is where the added cost comes from.
Fair enough, then why are games still getting 1/2 the FPS when RT is enabled?
In other words, dedicated RT cores do nothing special but massively decrease performance very little gain in PQ.

 

[Xaled]

You using drum brakes or disk brakes there boss?

Now watch, once next gen consoles come out with RT hardware and RDNA 2 comes out, AMD fans will be praising it as the next innovation of immersive gameplay. They only dis RT now because their hardware cant do it at all. It's the reverse of DX12, when only AMD card could do it, it was the next messia of the gaming industry, and NVidia would surely be so far behind AMD would dominate. Give it a year, and the anti raytracing arguments will mysteriously dissapear.

There is a huge difference between two cases. AMD didn't made a 50% price increase when they were the only one who could do it.
That's why you can't dis people who will praise AMD offering RT for lower price.

Nvidia would argue we included RT dedicated cores which is where the added cost comes from.
Fair enough, then why are games still getting 1/2 the FPS when RT is enabled?
In other words, dedicated RT cores do nothing special but massively decrease performance very little gain in PQ.

I guess they did that on a purpose so people who want to fully benefit from RT to buy their most expensive or next gen cards

The claim that RT cause additional cost is just misleading, yes RT cores make additional but also other old parts are just going cheaper, especially when you add RT cores on a not too much improved 3 years old gpu, maybe it is even cheaper!

 

[notb]

Going from 1080p to 4k is not only too expensive, but it hinders performance a lot, despite the superior image quality gains.

But is it really so "superior"?
Image just gets sharper. This may lead to unrealistic, very crisp image.

RTRT does something exactly opposite. It will lead to unsharp, often darker image. So it's just not for every game and not for every gamer.

Nobody is against Nvidia's Ray Tracing implementation

Yeah, people are just against Nvidia.

In many scenarios enabling NV Ray Tracing didn't make the picture quality all that great.

And once again: RTRT makes the image more realistic. Some people will see this as decrease in picture quality. Not everything is sharp, bright and clear. That's the point.

This also means that RTRT is more worthwhile in games built around mood (Metro, SOTR) than in something bright and flashy like Final Fantasy.

That's why you can't dis people who will praise AMD offering RT for lower price.

Most critics are not targeting RTX value, but RTRT in general.
Almost all of them on this forum are known for supporting AMD. And most will start to praise RTRT when AMD starts supporting it. That's the point.

Yes, RTX adds cost and makes cards more expensive. Yes, the result isn't for everyone. These are objective arguments.

Frankly, after 20 years of 3D gaming, I still think isometric perspective is more enjoyable than what dominates today. And imagine the enormous savings on hardware.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Nvidia would argue we included RT dedicated cores which is where the added cost comes from.
Fair enough, then why are games still getting 1/2 the FPS when RT is enabled?
In other words, dedicated RT cores do nothing special but massively decrease performance very little gain in PQ.

fair enough,they do nothing special since the performance is halved,then why on pascal is it not only halved,but it's like 1/6th ?
in a fully path traced game 2060 is 2.5x faster than 1080Ti

Test wydajności Quake II - Path tracing na API Vulkan wstrząsa... | PurePC.pl

Test wydajności Quake II - Path tracing na API Vulkan wstrząsa... (strona 7) Test wydajności Quake II z patch tracing na API Vulkan. Czy rewolucyjna technika oświetlenia zmieni starego Quake 2 nie do poznania? I jakiego sprzętu do tego potrzeba?

www.purepc.pl

do you know SSR in RDR2 take a 20% performance hit on Ultra,and they're still screen space ?
Or rasterized soft shadows ? the performance hit is the same,the quality is worse.

 

[Th3pwn3r]

Because even 2080Ti is pathetically underpowered at it to deliver anything beyond basic reflection/shades gimmicks.
And that is not going to change any time soon.

Oddly enough 2080ti is basically the most powerful at it too.

 

[cucker tarlson]

And once again: RTRT makes the image more realistic. Some people will see this as decrease in picture quality. Not everything is sharp, bright and clear. That's the point.

absolutely.
here's rasterized soft shadows vs ultra.
notice the performance hit.36%.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

As opposed to other techniques that speed it up?

Image Sharpening and Boost. Boost dynamically lowers render resolution get more FPS. Image can make a lower resolution render look like it is higher at little frame time cost.

AMD, likely because of pressure from Sony and Microsoft, is really focusing on technologies that can get higher image quality with fewer transistors.


On topic, KO is just EVGA branding.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Boost dynamically lowers render resolution get more FPS. Image can make a lower resolution render look like it is higher at little frame time cost.

boost is currently doing an awful job

 

[notb]

Or rasterized soft shadows ? the performance hit is the same,the quality is worse.

In general: people criticize RTRT for not providing enough IQ improvement, but at the same time many assume games should only be played at highest settings.
Going from medium to high/ultra isn't changing much in many AAA titles, while fps can drop by 30% or even more.

Imagine the situation, when "medium" is the best setting we're used to and suddenly Nvidia adds a "magic feature" that provides higher modes (with the performance cost we observe today).
Bloodbath on forums.

 

[kapone32]

Indeed once again Nvidia releases a boring GPU to compete with AMD's latest offerings. It is also officially $20 more than the 5600XT. We already have almost 4 cards that are around the same performance from Nvidia. To be honest the only thing I am interested in is a Big Navi card or a properly priced 2080TI competitor.

 

[notb]

AMD, likely because of pressure from Sony and Microsoft, is really focusing on technologies that can get higher image quality with fewer transistors.

Image sharpening improves image quality?
Are you one of those people who think upscaling photos makes them look better?

And once again: you're talking about quntitative stuff (like resolution and fps), not about actual quality.

Think about orcs in Hobbit movies.
Now imagine they look like in Shadow of War (4K, highest settings!).
So: you'd rather go after the actual movie image or go 16K?

 

[cucker tarlson]

In general: people criticize RTRT for not providing enough IQ improvement, but at the same time many assume games should only be played at highest settings.
Going from medium to high/ultra isn't changing much in many AAA titles, while fps can drop by 30% or even more.

Imagine the situation, when "medium" is the best setting we're used to and suddenly Nvidia adds a "magic feature" that provides higher modes (with the performance cost we observe today).
Bloodbath on forums.

the iq improvement is there,but not every scene will not showcase that.
imo when rt gets adopted and improved over a few years we'll look at rasterized games with disgust.

 

[kings]

Indeed once again Nvidia releases a boring GPU to compete with AMD's latest offerings. It is also officially $20 more than the 5600XT. We already have almost 4 cards that are around the same performance from Nvidia. To be honest the only thing I am interested in is a Big Navi card or a properly priced 2080TI competitor.

Nvidia has not released anything, the RTX 2060 is a card that has been around for a year. Just got a little forgotten, because of the 2060 Super.