Several AMD RDNA 4 Architecture Ray Tracing Hardware Features Leaked

[JustBenching]

And again, if it was obvious and they didn't have RT that would have been your first and immediate answer.

Because it's obvious, right ? You do know what "obvious" means, correct ? If it takes you 2-3 tries and even then you have no reasoning behind your conclusion, except that it's just a hunch, then it's not very obvious, now is it ?

But my first and immediate answer was that I can't tell the difference. Post #124.

Turns out I can't tell the difference because there isn't any, neither has RT. Why do you keep at it? You tried to trick me by implying one has RT and it failed cause RT is so obvious, even at your low quality image anyone would be able to tell. That's exactly why you didn't post the one that has RT. If there was no difference then you'd post the PT one, but you didn't, cause there is. Period. I ain't coming back to that, go have the last word.

 

[64K]

I would counter that with Gamepass. I am sure there are Gaming PCs out there that just have Gamepass and don't even worry about Steam. It does not matter to me though as the narrative likes to paint the 7900XTX/XT as failures but the latest AS rock 7000 series review showed that they are much faster than 6000 and that is all that matters to some like me. The extra VRAM is nice too. Combine that with Freesync on a Mini LED with HDR (when it works Windows) @ 4K resolution and RT is a memory. So yes I like the models in LMU but also the colours in Orcs Must Die 3 or the weather effects in AMS2. I also feel that the success of the handhelds will do AMD good in the GPU space in about 4-5 years as those are filling the vacuum that budget cards and laptops left for the young. So there will be plenty of mind share to help AMD.

Neither of those GPUs are a failure. Far from it but imagine if the next AMD series carried a nice bump in performance and better RT performance as well. How could that be a bad thing? Even for gamers that don't want RT or see the value in it the resulting GPUs would be far more desirable because of the tens of millions of gamers that do want RT. AMD obviously knows this and that is why they are pushing forward with RT.

I have thought all along that AMD card owners are a bit sensitive to the whole RT value debate because too many times Nvidia fans have dismissed their GPUs as being subpar because of RT performance shortcomings. That could change next generation.

 

[JustBenching]

I have thought all along that AMD card owners are a bit sensitive to the whole RT value debate because too many times Nvidia fans have dismissed their GPUs as being subpar because of RT performance shortcomings. That could change next generation.

Yes.

 

[Vya Domus]

But my first and immediate answer was that I can't tell the difference.

Not being able to tell the difference is not equivalent to "neither has RT", you understand that, right ? You were saying something about path tracing at some point, it's obvious you didn't even consider that neither had RT at first, let's drop the act.

Why do you keep at it

I am just trying to figure out how is it possible that it's obvious when RT is on but at the same time that wasn't your first answer, nor do you have an explanation for it. What you are saying can never make sense no matter how hard you try.

It can't be obvious if you can't spot it the first time you take a look at it, duh. Makes zero sense. Either admit that you can't always tell when RT is on (which isn't even controversial, there are scenes where it's simply not possible to tell), or that at the very least it's not obvious at all.

 

[ZoneDymo]

Not being able to tell the difference is not equivalent to "neither has RT", you understand that, right ? You were saying something about path tracing at some point, it's obvious you didn't even consider that neither had RT at first, let's drop the act.


I am just trying to figure out how is it possible that it's obvious when RT is on but at the same time that wasn't your first answer, nor do you have an explanation for it. What you are saying can never make sense no matter how hard you try.

It can't be obvious if you can't spot it the first time you take a look at it, duh. Makes zero sense. Either admit that you can't always tell when RT is on (which isn't even controversial, there are scenes where it's simply not possible to tell), or that at the very least it's not obvious at all.

"it's obvious you didn't even consider that neither had RT at first, let's drop the act."

that is called acting in good faith.... they thought you were presenting them with a real opportunity to show where RT shines vs rasterization, instead of just trying to pull a fast one on them and not acting in good faith yourself.

There ya go, that is what RT can provide, enjoy.

 

[kapone32]

I have never seen a left or right question become so twisted in knots.

Neither of those GPUs are a failure. Far from it but imagine if the next AMD series carried a nice bump in performance and better RT performance as well. How could that be a bad thing? Even for gamers that don't want RT or see the value in it the resulting GPUs would be far more desirable because of the tens of millions of gamers that do want RT. AMD obviously knows this and that is why they are pushing forward with RT.

I have thought all along that AMD card owners are a bit sensitive to the whole RT value debate because too many times Nvidia fans have dismissed their GPUs as being subpar because of RT performance shortcomings. That could change next generation.

I have been loving my 7900XT since I replaced my 7900XTX with it. I have had people tell me that my GPU sucks and cannot play 4K 60 comfortably. Cannot take advantage of the VRAM buffer and should have been called the 7800XT (That one I don't understand). It is the narrative that drives this RT movement and if AMD can indeed deliver "proper" RT performance it will shut some of them up but just look at how some people on Youtube are saying that AMD CPUs are also failing because Intel have egg on their face with the fiasco that is going on.

"it's obvious you didn't even consider that neither had RT at first, let's drop the act."

that is called acting in good faith.... they thought you were presenting them with a real opportunity to show where RT shines vs rasterization, instead of just trying to pull a fast one on them and not acting in good faith yourself.

There ya go, that is what RT can provide, enjoy.

That Game is a technical Nvidia property use something else that uses the RT that most Games use.

 

[Vayra86]

My answer is pretty clear, neither has RT. What more do you want me to say? How is that confusing for you?


Neither has AMD's raster push. I mean that's not what graphics are supposed to do so yeah, makes sense.

Im not applauding AMD either, I just play games. Ive never been much of camp guy

 

[Vya Domus]

that is called acting in good faith

Even if I wasn't acting in good faith one would should still be able to tell what's happening according to what he claims. There are reasonable instances where you can tell RT is on and there are instances where you can't. Insisting on this point that "nah bro it's obvious, I can always tell" it's just a bad idea because inevitably there are going to be cases where you can't and then you awkwardly have to pretend that you did.

I don't even need to show any images to prove this is true, for example if you have RT reflections but in a scene there are no objects that would be shown from out of screen space then you're not gonna be able to tell if it's ray traced.

I didn't choose that image by accident, it has almost no reflective surfaces, mostly diffuse materials, outdoor scene where it's difficult to tell what should be lit and what shouldn't, it's a difficult image to tell whether RT is on or off, or if it's even present.

 

[JustBenching]

"it's obvious you didn't even consider that neither had RT at first, let's drop the act."

that is called acting in good faith.... they thought you were presenting them with a real opportunity to show where RT shines vs rasterization, instead of just trying to pull a fast one on them and not acting in good faith yourself.

There ya go, that is what RT can provide, enjoy.

Yeah, I don't know man, clearly he tried to trap me, he didn't and now he is doubling down for God knows what reason.

 

[ZoneDymo]

That Game is a technical Nvidia property use something else that uses the RT that most Games use.

I fail to see how that is relevant, at this point people here are just discussing ( weirdly enough) the value of RT, I offered a good representation of what RT offers over rasterization, its not even about the game, its about the tech and that would be applied the same way in any other game.

But fine...even more DF material:

 

[AusWolf]

8 pages and we're still arguing about the relevance of RT? Jesus...

Let me ask you guys a question: what makes in-game graphics good to you personally? To me, it's geometry and texture detail and animations. Lights and reflections are nice, but when living characters still look and act like porcelain dolls, I couldn't care less what angle the sun shines at a puddle that I'm probably never gonna look at.

I'm not saying that RT is irrelevant or isn't nice, but there's other things to improve in game graphics, which makes RT not worth arguing about, imo.

 

[wolf]

Yeah, I don't know man, clearly he tried to trap me, he didn't and now he is doubling down for God knows what reason.

It really is from bad to worse with him, what an absolutely moronic trap/troll post to make their...uh.... point not a point?

Read my sig for a accurate description of that one.

 

[Sunny and 75]

Well, perhaps age or general maturity in terms of knowledge and purchases over time is also a factor. On the one hand, I totally get you. I was at a point some years ago where every new graphical/visual upgrade was like a new world opening up to me and while gaming it actually felt that way too. From extended draw distance in WoW or Elder Scrolls Online (modding) to Crysis 1-3's graphical fidelity with volumetric clouds and all. And then there is a point where it starts to matter a whole lot less, because you realise underneath the visual sauce the same games are just being rehashed in front of your eyes. To me, mechanics/ conceptual game designs that are extremely well thought out win the day now and I can look back at a long history of graphical upgrades that eventually really didnt offer me 'more game' or 'more immersion'.

Its like alcohol or drugs. Your first high/trip is the best one, and all that comes after is just trying to achieve that same sense of 'wow' ; might occasionally, briefly, even achieve it but it will never truly beat that first experience. The edge is off and it wont come back. Addicts try to keep finding it nonetheless and lose themselves in their search. There is more to life though

If I place that lens on RT, for myself, I just see yet another incremental, small improvement to graphics that never changes, makes or breaks the game underneath. Not worth chasing the drugs dealer for. Ill just enjoy a sunny afternoon with a two dollar craft beer instead and avoid the hangover. Because in the end that drugs dealer is the synonym for a commercial push so you can make another guy rich. He isnt doing it to make you feel better. Thats something you can only achieve yourself and doesnt require money.

This statement deserves a standing ovation! Hats off to you, Sir!

And that signature, just EPIC!

 

[AusWolf]

Well graphics do matter. Not for all games, but there are games that live or die by their graphical presentation. RDR2 / Cyberpunk / Witcher 3, I feel like they wouldn't be what they are (for me at least) if they weren't top notch in the graphics department as well.

That's the thing - it's the graphical presentation, and not graphics themselves. For that matter, The Witcher 3 didn't have RT originally, and was perfectly fine. You can turn off RT in Cyberpunk and still have a decent time playing it. Heck, I just finished Hogwarts Legacy on low graphics not long ago (because I sold my 7800 XT for some temporary cash), and enjoyed it. Graphics can enhance your experience, but you don't need this or that effect or technique to say that a game looks good, let alone plays good.

 

[Noyand]

Even if I wasn't acting in good faith one would should still be able to tell what's happening according to what he claims. There are reasonable instances where you can tell RT is on and there are instances where you can't. Insisting on this point that "nah bro it's obvious, I can always tell" it's just a bad idea because inevitably there are going to be cases where you can't and then you awkwardly have to pretend that you did.

I don't even need to show any images to prove this is true, for example if you have RT reflections but in a scene there are no objects that would be shown from out of screen space then you're not gonna be able to tell if it's ray traced.

I didn't choose that image by accident, it has almost no reflective surfaces, mostly diffuse materials, outdoor scene where it's difficult to tell what should be lit and what shouldn't, it's a difficult image to tell whether RT is on or off, or if it's even present.

RT is mostly in the fine details, which most people aren't that good at discerning...Higher texture and resolution were very obvious to figure out, but beyond that, it's like we have a "tolerance" to graphics that are overall close enough. Like, I never hear people complain about how badly transmissive surfaces like glass are rendered in games. Even in cyberpunk it just doesn't feel right. There are no caustics, so they cannot behave like they are supposed to...but most people don't seem to care, heck do people even notice caustics in real life when they are out and about?

Because of the technical challenge, I don't think that RT/PT will ever be a sudden mindblowing upgrade, it's going to slowly progress, until one day people will get so used to it, and suddenly feels like something is slightly off with rasterized lighting when they will switch it off.

The brain is a funny thing, even though we are looking at the real world constantly we've been able to enjoy graphics that were for all intents and purposes very mediocre at depicting the real world...how did we ever manage to call the early 2000 real-time 3D breathtaking?

 

[Sunny and 75]

it's the graphical presentation

This^

The Witcher 3 didn't have RT originally, and was perfectly fine.

Still is.

Graphics can enhance your experience, but you don't need this or that effect or technique to say that a game looks good, let alone plays good.

Sure.

 

[Minus Infinity]

RT will always be a controversial topic ....People who wants it vs People don't care about RT.
sarcasm/
Usually people of RT are willing to put $$$ for RT performance ... In that case ... yeah AMD needs to double the performance of Nvidia's RT and add double to the pricetag to say "AMD GPU are now a valueable product"

AMD is on a hiding to nothing. Nvidia trolls and a lot of the tech reviewers bash them unmercifully for their weqk RT even though most of them don't use it. AMD will finally take away that from them and then the trolls can move on to something else, probably power consumption as raster is already good. If RDNA4 is more efficient, and prices are a bit lower than RDNA3, they will have addressed most things to complain about. Actually, I forgot about FSR. Hopefully they have FSR 4 coming with AI upscaling too, so Steve at Hardware unboxed can stop bashing them.

If say 8800XT can deliver 7900XT/XTX raster, much better RT, uses 30% less power, and is $500 I'll be replacing my 6800XT very quickly.

 

[InVasMani]

Proper path tracing is too anemic even on top end hardware currently. Realistically it's going to require a good 2-3 generations before it starts to hit a higher acceptance level of satisfaction for what it actually provides and how it it provides in terms of both performance and quality not to mention cost because the technology isn't free and it could've been better quality upscale or something else more readily usable and beneficial to many.

 

[Minus Infinity]

And likely even higher prices than 4000 series, no thanks.
Even if AMD can deliver similar performance to Nvidia, they will still have problems selling their cards because it's a marketing and mindshare issue more so than an issue of people caring about what RT performance is. Tech reviewers would still claim AMD cards not having features proprietary to Nvidia as a downside.

I'll bet a 5080 that is about 4090 performance will also cost 4090 price and 5090 is going to hit $2099 at least. Soon a mid-tier product will trash 7900XTX in RTing and basically match nit in raster probably using a lot less power and for $500. But Nvidiots will boast about paying $1K for their 5070 no doubt.

 

[Neo_Morpheus]

I mean look at this very thread, guy posted 2 images with no RT whatsoever and then a guy with an AMD logo jumped in to tell us how crap RT is cause there is no difference between the 2 images. LOL, you can't make this up.

I have noted others claiming that arguing with you is a waste of time because you keep changing the narrative, but i wll add that reading comprehension failed you or you simply are trolling.

Because i did not said one word stating that those 2 pics are the reason why i think RT is a gimmick.

But yes, the others are right.

That's the thing - it's the graphical presentation, and not graphics themselves. For that matter, The Witcher 3 didn't have RT originally, and was perfectly fine. You can turn off RT in Cyberpunk and still have a decent time playing it. Heck, I just finished Hogwarts Legacy on low graphics not long ago (because I sold my 7800 XT for some temporary cash), and enjoyed it. Graphics can enhance your experience, but you don't need this or that effect or technique to say that a game looks good, let alone plays good.

Adding to this, Subnautica has loads of low res textures, to the point that the whole games takes less than 10 gb of hd space but man, its that game fun.

so Steve at Hardware Ngreedia unboxed can stop bashing them.

Fixed it a bit for you.

Oh and dont forget Tim Jensen and is uttermost hate for AMD gpus.

 

[Punkenjoy]

RT is just a tool, a very nice one, but just a tool.

If you have static light, you could just bake the lighting like they did for so long. What it is ? You pre render the lighting into texture (using RT!!!!) and apply it as light maps.

Look super nice but it's static. With RT, you can have dynamic light, dynamic day/night cycle etc. RT is not the best solution all the time, but is a great solution when dynamic lighting is required. It's still a young tech, but it will not go away. Games will continue to be made without it as they might not need it. There is no point of using RT if you have no dynamic light (or if you have very few).

But if you want a game with many dynamics light or where the gameplay require it, you will have a much better results with RT. There is still 2D games being made after all.

The whole RT On/RT off in the same game is a bit dull. If the game is made with dynamic lighting in mind, RT will always look better. If not, well it will be barely noticeable.

But let's be realist, RT is nice but i doubt it still need at least 2-3 gen to be widespread, so that probably mean 2030+.

And it's only one of the thing we need to have for better graphics. We also need way better textures too. Game needs to be made to utilize the full 24 GB of latest graphics cards.

Low-mid range should at least have 12 GB or RAM, mid at least 16-20 GB and ultra high end should already be at 32 GB. But there is no to little progress there sadly. Older games that got released when first 8 GB appeared still look very great because they have about the same texture budget as current game.

anyway. Glad that AMD is working on it. But they need to stop being the catch up player at some point.

 

[Minus Infinity]

Oh and dont forget Tim Jensen and is uttermost hate for AMD gpus.

Steve and Tim are now bitching about lack of prices and so-called "dodgy" performance" claims by AMD. They are quite tiresome, really and don't even pretend to be ubiased.

 

[JustBenching]

That's the thing - it's the graphical presentation, and not graphics themselves. For that matter, The Witcher 3 didn't have RT originally, and was perfectly fine. You can turn off RT in Cyberpunk and still have a decent time playing it. Heck, I just finished Hogwarts Legacy on low graphics not long ago (because I sold my 7800 XT for some temporary cash), and enjoyed it. Graphics can enhance your experience, but you don't need this or that effect or technique to say that a game looks good, let alone plays good.

The point isn't RT specifically. The point was graphics. RT is part of that. Yes witcher 3 didn't have it back in 2013, but the graphics were top notch. And that was a part of what made it great. Would the game still be good if it was made with 8bit pixel style graphics? Yes, but it wouldn't be legendary. Graphics, music, ambiance elevate an already good game into a great one imo.

RT still looks like an afterthought in a lot of games but the few ones that take real advantage of it look amazing. It's the amd fans that just try to bash it cause their cards can't do it. Traditional prebaked lighting looks mostly flat because you just cannot use prebaked lighting properly EVERYWHERE on eg. an open world game.

 

[ratirt]

The point isn't RT specifically. The point was graphics. RT is part of that. Yes witcher 3 didn't have it back in 2013, but the graphics were top notch. And that was a part of what made it great. Would the game still be good if it was made with 8bit pixel style graphics? Yes, but it wouldn't be legendary. Graphics, music, ambiance elevate an already good game into a great one imo.

RT still looks like an afterthought in a lot of games but the few ones that take real advantage of it look amazing. It's the amd fans that just try to bash it cause their cards can't do it. Traditional prebaked lighting looks mostly flat because you just cannot use prebaked lighting properly EVERYWHERE on eg. an open world game.

You are going too much into extremes with your points.

Still, i would not buy graphics strictly for RT. It is too expensive to get the benefit of that in a way I would be satisfied.
it will get better though if consoles hit the RT hard next year. At least, that is what I hope for.

 

[AusWolf]

If say 8800XT can deliver 7900XT/XTX raster, much better RT, uses 30% less power, and is $500 I'll be replacing my 6800XT very quickly.

My bar is even lower than that. If it's a little bit faster than the 7800 XT is raster, delivers the promised RT improvements, and fixes the horrendous video playback power consumption, I'll be getting one.