In an interview with Comicbook, Christian Buhl, the Technical Director at Ripple Effect, explained why Battlefield 6 won’t have Ray Tracing. He said the team wanted to focus on making the game run smoothly, instead of adding flashy graphics features like Ray Tracing or Path Tracing.
As Buhl told Comicbook:
“No, we are not going to have ray-tracing when the game launches and we don’t have any plans in the near future for it either. That was because we wanted to focus on performance. We wanted to make sure that all of our effort was focused on making the game as [optimized] as possible for the default settings and the default users. So, we just made the decision relatively early on that we just weren’t going to do ray-tracing and again, it was mostly so that we could focus on making sure it was performance for everyone else.”
Battlefield V was one of the first games that NVIDIA used to showcase the brand-new Ray Tracing effects of the RTX-20 series GPUs in 2018. So, you’d expect the devs to go all out with BF6. For better or worse, though, Battlefield 6 will not have any Ray Tracing or Path Tracing effects.
If I had to choose between an unoptimized ray-traced game and an optimized rasterized game, I’d choose the latter. No questions asked. And, to its credit, BF6 not only looks amazing but it also runs great on PC. Yes, the game would benefit from RTGI in numerous areas. Still, this is a fast-paced multiplayer game. So, I really don’t mind the absence of Ray Tracing or Path Tracing from it.
However, BF6 will also have a single-player campaign. And that’s where I believe the devs could have used Path Tracing. This could be an “Experimental” setting for high-end PCs. Again, I understand the focus on the game’s performance. But the single-player campaign is an entirely different thing.
All in all, it’s a bit disappointing to see the new BF game not pushing the boundaries of PC graphics, especially for its single-player campaign. But hey, at least we’ll get a game that will run great.
EA will release Battlefield 6 on October 10. The game will support NVIDIA DLSS 4 with Multi-Frame Gen at launch. You can also find its final PC system requirements here.
It’s also worth noting that BF6 will require Secure Boot on PC. As such, PC gamers will have to enable it from their BIOS. Otherwise, you won’t be able to play it. To combat cheaters, BF6 will also use EA’s Javelin anti-cheat system.
Stay tuned for more!
John is the founder and Editor in Chief at DSOGaming. He is a PC gaming fan and highly supports the modding and indie communities. Before creating DSOGaming, John worked on numerous gaming websites. While he is a die-hard PC gamer, his gaming roots can be found on consoles. John loved – and still does – the 16-bit consoles, and considers SNES to be one of the best consoles. Still, the PC platform won him over consoles. That was mainly due to 3DFX and its iconic dedicated 3D accelerator graphics card, Voodoo 2. John has also written a higher degree thesis on the “The Evolution of PC graphics cards.”
Contact: Email
Good i stand by their decision. Although RT in campaign would be nice
Idiots!
"pushing the boundaries of PC graphics" aka justifying your poor financial decisions. considering the game looks good, and the improvements of RTGI are minimal (and they are in most cases unless devs actively sabotage non RTGI options), then just scrap it entirely, focus on what works. Maybe when GPU manufacturers actually design GPU's powerful enough to run RTGI at 4k then you could bring the feature back, otherwise why bother.
The BF6 beta ran so damn well for me – well done DICE
great decisions but BF6 suck azz
Smart decision.
Raytracing =
-1% increase in visual fidelity
-100% drop in performance
The only reason some game developers implemented raytracing is because they got tons of money from Nvidia to do so.
In 2018, rasterised AAA games without raytracing were hitting 100+ FPS. Far Cry 5 was showing off high-end graphics, and doing it at 100+ FPS on $300 GPU.
This was becoming a problem for Nvidia. People were having too much fun with cheap GPU. Nvidia wants you to keep upgrading your GPU. Nvidia needed something that would kill the performance of games, forcing you to upgrade. Raytracing.
Realtime raytracing makes absolutely no sense, it only exists to tank performance. Raytracing is a brute force approach that is incredibly inefficient. It only exists because Nvidia needed a reason to force people to upgrade GPU.
I think you have never run a raytraced game in your life.
I literally mentioned Far Cry.
Far Cry 5 does not have RTX and is incredibly optimized. It runs circles around today's games. Far Cry 5 came out right before the era of Raytraced Slop started. Games were hitting 100+ FPS on cheap CPU.
Far Cry 6 on the other hand, came out during the raytracting slop era. It has a setting option for raytracing. Turning it on is a massive hit on performance for a graphical difference that is literally non-existent.
We are now seeing some sense coming back. Battlefield 5 was the first game with RTX raytracing. Now we see Battlefield 6 flat out reject raytracing because no one wants to see thier FPS cut in half.
Raytracing has no business being in realtime applications, it is way too inefficient.
Far Cry 6 rasterisation on the left.
Far Cry 6 raytracing on the right.
Not only does RTX offer nothing rasterisation techniques can't do. It is incredibly inefficient. No one wants to cut their FPS in half for something that doesn't make a difference.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b4309d6d2f9a3cf9b2d172052681063f28d25124f3d8144c3a826c0cdcbf37fb.png
Good job bringing one of the shaittiest RT examples.
FC is an AMSlow gamingDevolved title, the RT was tailored towards their türd of an arch that can't raytrace to save their lives.
It's always a bad example according to raytracing fans.
The real world is not a glossy Cornell Box. We don't live in a world full of reflections from polished floors and chrome surfaces where light bounces 40 times.
The only thing raytracing is really good at is accurate reflections. We don't need raytracing for ambient occlusion, global illumination, soft shadows or punumbra, we have way faster solutions for this than raytracing, they get us 99% there without the overhead of raytracing.
No one is bothered by that 1% not being visually accurate. In fact gamers seem to like that 1% being filled in by an artist's touch. So you don't end up with every game looking the same.
We don'y play games like Digital Foundry does. Games aren't played with a measuring tape, graph paper and a magnifying glass to see if the reflection is physically accurate. But we immediately notice suttering and framerate drops.
It's not the fault of the examples, the real world simply isn't a glossy box.
We even had planar reflection that exist and perform way better than noisy RT reflection. Hitman 3 put them in great use, while plenty of today RT relections game have noisy blurry reflections image like in Alan Wake 2 that cut your performance in half or more if you want it as good as planar
Planar reflections offers perfect clarity, but arnt universal, because they cant be used for diffused reflections. Also they are heavy because the game needs to render the whole scene twice. Developers use planar reflections only in small rooms because of performance cost. For example Uncharted 4 has planar reflections only in Nathan Drake's house.
RT reflections can be used also for diffused reflections and are relatively cheap on modern hardware.
Look at this comparison showing importance of diffused reflections and remember planar reflections cant be used for that.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/317bc52df0ce018d291b04697f135c1ec912eedc6044500e1b14d370cf5e73fc.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/507313099316575d497c53ba38b879569a83bfaadca4fe1b6d0e20bba113e9c8.jpg
When it comes to Alan Wake 2, reflections in the game are razor sharp – that is, if they are meant to be. Here's for example windows reflections with pixel perfect precision.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/edbe4d694b65766bb6fad5ed6b6a5baca9cb33d10724bac68d6d2c0c919befc3.jpg
However, for artistic reasons, the developers at Remedy decided to make the mirrored reflection appear dirty and distorted.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/71c9c89c4d92175c46ad1210068b69586bb71a27a4846bac7ab27111333364c7.jpg
Good job bringing one of the shaittiest RT examples.
FC is an AMSlow gamingDevolved title, the RT was tailored towards their türd of an arch that can't raytrace to save their lives.
First of all, good to see you are back with a vengeance!
I honestly assumed the worst already…
Anyhow, note that the primary market for NVIDIA are its business customers, with Windows gamers being an increasingly niche market based on profit revenue.
Therefore, the primary reason why NV added RTRT acceleration logic with their Turing redesign (among Tensor cores for AI/ML assistance) was to primarily benefit the CGI/VFX industry, who are increasingly relying on RTRT during production in order to get a pretty faithful recreation of the final offline render while filming in virtual production studios.
Note that with the upcoming PS6, ray-tracing will play a much more prominent role, to the point that most AAA games will outright require it, similar to the current idTech 8.
Same reason why Valve is ramping up their investment into improving the open-source RT/PT performance of the RADV Vulkan driver on Linux lately…
Unfortunately Far Cry 5 did cut on features present in Far Cry 2, but in regards to graphics, but other than that, yeah i agree, RTGI also didn't bring those cool features back, too many games released today lack decent physics and even the ragdolls are botched. Raytracing may be a cool experiment only on old games where you can still get decent FPS.
No, they use raytracing because it's easier than making your own lighting engine, it's a cost cutting measure that you can spruce up to look nice.
Has it's use but raytracing is lazy lighting.
I think it's more that it's cheap then lazy specifically. Labor is the most costly thing in game development and if you can spend that much less time on "good" lighting that's more time that can be spent elsewhere or just less money spent on the project.
That reason also didnt apply well when at the end they just released broken unoptimised mess that still need fixes years after launch.
Smart decision? Yes.
But dazzling graphics get a ton of press attention and sell games, devs don't even need Nvidia to justify it.
And Far Cry 6 is a poor example of the good side of ray tracing, but a good one for a forced implementation that doesn't do more than 1 aspect of the usual quartet of lighting, global illumination, shadows and reflections.
100% drop in performance? You are using crappy RDNA2 GPU? On modern Nvidia GPU's RT performance cost isnt nowhere near as big unless you turn on PT. In cyberpunk ULTRA RT lowers framerate by 36-42%, medium RT by 24-28%, and low RT just 1%, so with the right settings RT cost literally NOTHING and the lighting still look a lit better (I proved it in my comparion on this page).
Even in older games like GTA5, RT significantly improves the quality of the lighting. I would have to be blind not to see a big improvement. That 1% improvement is nonsense.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c432aed27c7c905b268da3978008cf1da5e0abfb2721d874b98bdfae0c106f9d.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8cc909675ef8295403ce612a2cdeabee902f9a5459490363cefe9604cac1b7b3.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b64135eebe52a325316c6b389cc9238c0178db016dbaa0998c8f5b7cce08c8d7.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/73cc8f462ba6b1e29a257fbd621f588c0df343d3f60259ed25b0e03f1ce94fb1.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/317bc52df0ce018d291b04697f135c1ec912eedc6044500e1b14d370cf5e73fc.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/507313099316575d497c53ba38b879569a83bfaadca4fe1b6d0e20bba113e9c8.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/51a42a68f99e23b8731ad24cd0c33390a6ede60c9b27d5c5c3ed484ec9d7178c.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4176d19945a2c8bdc4cefb94fdf4cb12cb2cacdb947e65a12b01d471f0f89051.jpg
i think he was being sarcastic, but yeah "only" 42% drop if you use DLSS. man F all that
if you on RTX 5090 , that 36% out off hundred fps wont be bother, but its different case with lower end hardware like 4060,3060, etc, that 36% out of 30 fps meant around 20-ish fps, imagine that.
I honestly don't know which is RT and which is not RT. They look different, but I am not sure whether top or bottom looks consistently the best. In the end, I'd take the one with the best fps (if I wasn't already maxing out my monitor refresh rate).
But can't you blame ONLY nvidia when their customer base are such R3T@rdz? We've seen this time and time again. Before raytracing it was gamesworks. All that work for some hair. Something that other games had without gamesworks. Nvidia is nvidia because their consumer base allows them to be this way.
It's like GoG vs Steam. You know how many people I tried talking to about GoG and they just don't understand it. As if there is something to understand. I even gifted people the Witcher 3 on launch, because I had 3 extra copies from a promotion. 2 of them said no, they'd rather have the game on steam. People are why the world is rotten they do nonsensical rubbish.
That GOG vs Steam are very appropriate, GOG should have been gold standard but people still choose steam because arbitrary reasons like their collection are already on steam so they didnt want to switch (with that reasons also come other arbitrary one like achievements, tracking play hours, etc) while with GOG copy you dont even need that arbitrary make up unnecessary reasons to play your games.
I probably had over 200 games on steam when I switched to GoG now I have 600+ games on GoG. My GoG library far surpases my steam library now and I never looked back. The only reason that mattered to me was DRM-FREE. We've seen time again when steam goes down you have no games, especially the Denuvo ones. Yet the steamw6orez will still find an excuse as to why they love steam so damn much. Imagine giving one corporation so much power over you.
Mate, personally I am a huge Steam fan. & I do one step even aggresive. If I get a GOG copy, I get that & buy that one on Steam later on. Steam is so much interesting it feels like you really own that stuff. I think you will agree with me on that. It has a whole different environment. But one thing for sure, GOG releases tend to run the game a tid bit better performance wise, just like a cracked copy.
Path tracing is the true endgame
Path Tracing is really bad at caustics. It is also incredibly slow.
Photon Mapping is better and becomes much faster than Path Tracing the more complex a scene becomes.
But Photon Mapping requires having enough memory, to store the photon data. And if there's one thing Nvidia hates, it is giving gamers access to more memory, because regular plebs are not allowed to run their own AI models according to Nvidia.
How much memory are we talking? 32gb with 5090 is enough or nah?
Photon Mapping requires maybe 5x more video memory than Path Tracing to get decent results. If you use it for indirect lighting and caustics, and reuse and cache photon maps.
But it would run much much faster than Path Tracing.
But if we had consumer GPU with 64GB, it would completely undercut Nvidia's AI business. Nvidia is selling $20,000 AI GPU.
You could run very fancy offline LLM if you had a consumer GPU with 64GB VRAM, AI models that are indistinguishable from an Open AI o3 mini model for most people. Nvidia doesn't want you to do this, that's why they've been restricting VRAM so aggressively. They don't want consumer GPU to undercut their AI business.
Latest Threat Interactive videos points plenty of technique in graphic mostly neglected due to flashier and fancier tech rather than how efficient it is
The first RTX GPU is now 7 years old.
And RTX is still not viable, 4 generations of GPU later, it is still destroying performance.
Raytracing in games was a mistake.
Having the right perspective is everything. What you see and think depends on where you stand. From my perspective, none of what you said is true. I could simply tell you that you are wrong and leave it at that, but that wouldn't convince anyone. In this comment, I will present a number of arguments with comparison photos, to prove that you are wrong.
I would agree with you about RT if I were still using my old GPU. When I had the GTX1080 ray tracing destroyed framerate and made games unplayable. For example framerate in The Witcher 3 with RT enabled was dropping to 7–10 fps from 70 fps with raster. Now, however, I'm using an RTX 4080S and turning on RT in the same game only lowers the framerate by 28–32%, which I find acceptable, especially given the enormous difference that RT makes to this game.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e5122dcc649da5a70d6c861047681c3496c4849eeb0e0b11b6e6e8cbecceebe1.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fd27dac6e8759c041717cdf0460bb9cced85bc4b3b062b112676d6762c4e2ee4.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/65b12a3118408900042c4ba685d94c1040726042dde4affb89de9eca6882703d.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/04a5a2bdc805ecf6bc85eb37f30dadeec8c54736161058c3c7b1d8083b3095fd.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8cd0bc1e0f5ab2cd2b16785b5903cafb7e863857966137e8bae45b4d737a7ae2.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6293303642d83072a9625833e06f075e0c01ebb7388a7b3a14af586f4a3cfcf7.jpg
The Witcher 3: EE use quite a few RT effects. Most hybrid RT games only use a limited number of RT effects, so the RT cost is less noticeable. RT is also highly scalable and sometimes as fast as rasterization on my GPU. See Cyberpunk comparison below for proof.
RT reflections (ray reconstruction turned off) vs Raster at ultra settings
223fps vs 221fps
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/12a7e00bfe896c8183e22ccfa3f0845c7633b655de0da9c5997b87b7c97bfe13.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cc39015a5e6e1d14206a5a7743ba127b0fffb779f4585ee933b98322edfbf3da.jpg
138fps vs 139fps
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7f5bff7fc811f388df5516508c94d2e9fc7fc9a79047f8f2adba4336f672ddf1.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/40d1e0dc726897a9bb27acc816f41147cad528d3d9b14fc6d75a265cb648c474.jpg
Cyberpunk looks much better with RT and runs pretty much the same on my PC with DLSS and ultra settings. How can you say that RT was a mistake when the benefits are so significant?
Interestingly, in many games lowering the graphics preset from 'Ultra' to 'High' can often increase the framerate by 20-30%, so it's often possible to balance RT performance cost. Games with high settings preset and RT turned on look much better, than ultra settings with RT turned off. Many RT games from my library run at 60fps with maxed out settings even at native 4K, and some less demanding RT games like RE3 remake, REVillage, or Doom Eternal runs way above 120fps.
Metro exodus 4K native with RT GI, around 80-100fps
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2a6a29eaf799e203a1d3e13fc7dd018d0673667623105ae2dc63669d5a513ef9.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0d9b1dbf3c49dc2aba6fc852ff68ee7f86ec20f5c28e53e82ba902d2df4680d2.jpg
RE3 Remake 150-200fps
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2167edc7e0342a29ac6dfd5f4876f97b271c52f42dc434c634a2690e1d860d6d.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/64189d2193a595082fd2b2506f708b4d134d345f8b70870d1641456a0703ddb9.jpg
Some people may find Jill Valentine's reflection in the TV subtle, but I like details like that. RT also make a staggering difference in the last level (labs), because every wall is mirror like and with SSR gimmicks reflections constantly fade in and out as you move the camera.
RE 8 Village 120-150fps
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e52ac264f919e98ca938c2330bade0758e109ee0020134ea61a8012e1dff99fa.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5c6a1c853d189250cb3c7adf7a9bede4d635192da2622cd65a28544cb13cd4c4.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ba03f0d593bf9dd7720ebb6bd6aaba0a418f168b43d8d54d1ae27cafa886218a.jpg
Doom Eternal 150-200fps. There's a lot of reflective / metalic surfaces in this game, so RT reflection can make a big difference.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c9bedcd1767909e67e9c7755e8ac9fc735c7065dc3e21ecd0b38c922eb6ade8e.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2e534d9fade191d5979a9b25a4cb246c0a66ed2d0a1b0340adad1fd8625ae203.jpg
My card also support DLSS image reconstruction technology and hardware based frame generation that offer much better latency than even FSR FG. Some people say that FG are fake frames and should be avoided, and that playing at 4K with DLSS is like playing at 1440p or even 1080p. I however only care about my own impression and this technology is extremely impressive. If I didn't know that this technology existed, I would be 100% convinced that I was playing at real 4K and 140 fps. Latency is improved a lot (I have taken measurements in many games), it's much easier to aim, picture quality look sharper during motion. Benefits are obvious from my perspective, so I dont mind using DLSS.
Spiderman 2, high RT preset, native 4K TAA vs 4K DLSSQ+FGx2.
DLSS made the game run at 140fps and I see no reason to play spiderman 2 at 4K TAA native 60-70fps.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f833e774c867f2b9b152d29bbedaddd18fe52a4c3e2fa05d80f64b5c7f387c52.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0eddf9b0efcfc533525b1410704608ddf4dcf734dbece9ea412c22a3fc7a4b58.jpg
Even UE5 games run very well thanks to DLSS. Lumen lighting in this engine use software ray tracing.
4K DLAA, high settings (with epic draw distance and textures)
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f28d71c8db51b950c7a17bad21bb759a7cfdcaf3b5a458c29ea853fa3c1daf18.jpg
DLSSQ+FGx2
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7bf6f21a3897e08892d8d5bfdd7e95f08ba0d0e805f707bd27224fc5fcf23cdd.jpg
Robocop 4K DLSS ULTRA QUALITY (77% res scale) +FGx2
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f84cfbb39fe13fdcec5776ca40267749fdd730ef5a00eac3fe1dcabc9fac23bf.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6f4adefb93af23a0f8f0f397289f9bfbe2d5351103b2fa2982920f97cffebf36.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b251a8adad9fbbcb79183c687b220197bcc9a454b729b766077d4bcb3628d7c8.jpg
With DLSSB+FGx2
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e26e082936ed8d982cb03d03ea2bcfa573141c6e13beaf5b636e9fb893aae0f6.jpg
Hellblade 2
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b501df0b1635e050242868158fba0707dd947d6cfc7ccf232fbe3ba0fe0dcf6b.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/16d02684ccb91de44646a52aede265d822f849e04778bd948ff0384ff0d0ac2c.jpg
MGS Delta considered extremely demanding game
4K DLSS-Balance (it's acutally DLSSQuality 67%, just named incorrectly as balance in this game)
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7dfbb3f5e3aa94046f7dbebf00fbf60f488fe38f0caf18a5dc1bbd0cff49ed55.jpg
With FGx2 on top of that 110-140fps
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/16522d7477a7c4d87694d265b84634a5f28bda359772e3c195a4ddfa8073937c.jpg
And if someone tells me that games without RT have equally good graphics here's jungle in Uncharted 4, one of the best looking raster games:
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dbf4b35e6061d9e8dabc4a39bec2cdba0cd797f55c4bffee514d7a5258420ff0.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b05344acce20f692166b7ba73edead5b18999be2d80a0fffd19f2aa60c4b57c9.jpg
PS4Pro screenshot (supposedly the PS4 version looks better than PC, but I cant see it).
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e7bb5a5e9b04d3707c6b0caf579be1f64da3067ada4a026e9f790713873f1da8.jpg
Uncharted 4 also demonstrates why games need real-time ray tracing. For example, Samuel Drake is standing in the shadows, yet he is well lit.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dc1ca725e1e9de76781ad89abaf9524a3089a49c42aad5569126c65f5a926e3e.jpg
Cyberpunk is one of the most demading RT games with maxed out RT, but it runs well thanks to DLSS. With PT. I need to use DLSS Performance at 4K to get around 110-120fps, but the game is definitely playabe and image still look amazing on my 4K QD-OLED monitor.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1482fd8e8e7c4bde59a832ffa800d4d54611379dbad644d851945b7ae048ace0.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8746524950d5d284eca7c1bcfc6048805950d0276a8d909d50c3fbe62d8f3421.jpg
Without path tracing I can run DLSSBalance
Raster 189fps. Without RT the car reflections look bland and the indirect shadows in the car interior are missing, which makes the image look flat.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/38ae911a2dff2b5908cb069f41597369608c9ba5346dec07d9cec3cb6ff9dd62.jpg
RT Reflections and shadows from for both indoor and outdoor scenes – 135fps (28% performance cost compared to raster)
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3c0c340133d09b0989be234540beed2be637b82983ea011af342c3822665729d.jpg
Ultra RT – 111fps (41% performance cost)
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7ee1a24ae01ce441eecc09800e38395b809170860b7e35dd4223e3459b330fdd.jpg
And from another angle (it's easier to see how big difference RT shadows make in this game).
Raster 187fps
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/97c2cd784c6b77cf15b8fbfe1e513792c225515aef289b90dfb57a13cc589c47.jpg
RT shadows and reflections – 142fps (24% relative difference)
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c105bdbac8fc068b355b0f15ee015f12666191e92b89ff419e3f9ee0538f1d83.jpg
Ultra RT – 118fps (36% relative difference)
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dc95bfb5a3b786925930aef1306a4a98f9dade745fd846b9408a4abb9cbe2631.jpg
Trust me, dude. Once you buy a decent PC that can run RT at a smooth framerate, you'll change your mind about RT.
The last sentence is EXACTLY why Raytracing is a niche feature. Because the MAJORITY of PC users don't have "a decent PC that can run RT at a smooth framerate". The MAJORITY of users are on extremely old hardware.
Also, WTH? Are you getting paid for these comments?
Da fuq?
😂
It would be nice if Nvidia sent me a 5090 for free 😂👌, but no, nobody is paying me for being honest and telling the truth. I like what RT does and I'm very passionate about this topic, because I studied the rules of light and use that knowledge in my work. I'm triggered when I see clueless people saying false things about RT and I feel obligated to show them how little they know.
There’s nothing false about Raytracing being a performance hog, especially on weaker hardware. Then, all 3 companies created their upscaling software because their hardware is too weak to run RT on high framerates.
And then there are people like you who believe that their own microcosm is what the whole world is like. But truth is far from what you believe. Most people have extremely low hardware compared to what you have and game developers need money so guess what? They will make games that cater to more users. There’s a reason that Battlefield 6 doesn’t support RT and it came right out of the developer’s mouth.
If user "Itno" had said what you said about RT, that would be fine, because hybrid RT is indeed expensive on weaker or older hardware. However, that's not what he said. He clearly suggested that modern GPUs still have problems running the RT introduced with the RTX 20 series (and that was hybrid RT to be precise). This is simply not true and I provided examples showing the reality.
On GPUs like mine you need to turn on many Hybrid RT effects before you start noticing modest performance hit, and even then 40% performance cost in the worst case scenario (Ultra Ray Tracing preset in cyberpunk) is not a big deal if you use DLSS, because you will get insanely high framerate anyawy close to 200fps at 1440p and over 100fps at 4K.
Maybe some people confuse Hybrid Ray Tracing with PT and that's why they complain about ray tracing performance cost. Path Tracing is drastically more demanding compared to Hybrid RT and can bring even the RTX5090 to it's knees (but at native 4K). Thanks to DLSS technology however even my card allows me to play PT games with decent quality and frame rate. I played Alan Wake 2 with PT at 120-170fps at 1440p DLSSQ+FGx2 when I had 1440p monitor and I was blown away by this experience. My old screenshots:
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c3e45e43bf6cef93076e4ea9f25afbbbbe96ea6fe6817a4b2b31e10276dd46b8.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/43b18e84f31a1417c06faa2ab2c93f4b7ce8309074f4abef1a9da0ad2265a530.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/087724311e80b67667f706edeaf09fffa55d7d466f404839383094dc6ebef082.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/05c37ebc5ba0ab08a45db2f7d0719074b1a82165e8aa866cdb1302ffc3b822a5.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/edbe4d694b65766bb6fad5ed6b6a5baca9cb33d10724bac68d6d2c0c919befc3.jpg
And you keep ignoring the elephant in the room, that being that the MAJORITY of gamers don’t have RT capable enough hardware to care for RT with its performance tax.
No matter what you say about YOUR hardware, the world doesn’t revolve around you.
The majority of PC gamers probably play on a 3060 or a weaker laptop. However, I think an affordable card like the RTX 5060 Ti with 16 GB of VRAM ($429 MSRP) would be already good enough to run RTX games at 1440p with decent quality and frame rate and especially with DLSS enabled. If I would still game on 1440p monitor I wouldnt mind using 5060ti, or even 4070 Super.
Good for you, dude. Seriously, the technology cannot be widely adopted until it is afforable. And it is simply not affordable at the moment (and hadn't been in the past 7 years).
Besides this performance-heavy shiny new toy made TAA way too popular so that now we all have smeared blurry image instead of clear visuals.
And nothing of what you wrote matters (that’s why i asked if you’re being paid) because people won’t see your comment and think “i should go spend more money on buying hardware only to enable a feature that will make my games run slower”.
Raytracing is great but it needs powerful hardware and the vast majority of gamers don’t want to spend money.
The way i see it is that Raytracing will be relative in AT LEAST 2 more hardware generations (if not more) when even entry level hardware will be able to run RT with the performance drop not messing with framerates taking them down to <60.
Voice of logic is an AMD slave, don't bother.
Not paid I guess, but that thousand of dollar GPU need to be justified so he didnt fell sorry about spending that amount of money that could go elsewhere more beneficial other than gaming ..lol…
True.
LOL
The Witcher 3 comparison shots you posted just show that RT in this particular case and implementation doesn't add anything worthwhile to the game. The 2014 E3 build looked way better than RTX version.
This post just shows how people deceit by RT to sell more RTX GPU as intended by Nvidia, plenty of this effect have been replicated in raster just fine that wont make you suddenly think the game looks off. Also all is just cosmetic in the end, nothing forward thinking in term of gameplay with RT tech and until RT used more than just cosmetic , I think people would still prefer higher fPS with traditonal raster tech than RT.
yeah somehow I feel we still are 6 years away from having good ray tracing performance.
When the market shifts to a complete Raytracing-capable on all market segments, then Raytracing will have a proper existence purpose. Until then, it'll still be a niche feature most people don't use for such a performance drop.
People still believe that since they have a 4090 or a 5090, Raytracing is mandated for every game. These people ignore how the GPU market is.
Exactly! Those 4090/5090 owners comprise about 5-10% of individual GPU owners. And catering to that small audience is just shooting themselved in the foot which is why no sane developer chooses to release RTX-only game.
5-10 % is too much, they less then 0.5 % I believe
You wont have a big multiplayer game with raytracing until like 90% of players have at least a 4060.
Lol, 4060 with RT is a joke itself, 8GB or VRAM will choke the card to death without RT let alone with RT
Also that x8 PCIe 4.0 bandwidth didnt help either
Just weird I guess because 2042 did have RT and it plays fine. I think this kind of thing also sidesteps the content and balance issues that people generally have with the more contemporary Battlefield titles that release in divisive states.
Battlefield V also had RT.
my bad I didnt play the old-timey ones a lot. I was already bothered with some of the weapons and mechanics earlier on in 1 and stopped playing it sooner so when they revealed V, I wasnt terribly interested and never checked it’s setting too much.
John is saddened by this news.