PC Gaming

7293 readers

10 users here now

Rule #1: Be civil

Rule #2: No spam, memes, off-topic, or low-effort posts/comments

Rule #3: No advertisements

Rule #4: No streams, random gameplay videos, highlights, or shorts

Rule #5: No erotic games or porn

Rule #6: No facilitating piracy

Rule #7: No duplicates

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

workerONE@lemmy.world

Raytracing overblown? (lemm.ee)

submitted 1 week ago by DireTech@lemm.ee to c/pcgaming@lemmy.world

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Much as I love the look of Quake RTX, it feels like it’s a barely there performance hog in modern games. You look at the benchmarks on the newer cards and so much is focused on ray tracing performance but I just don’t see that big a difference in Cyberpunk on an 3080 Ti unless I look really hard for it.

Am I alone in this? I’d much rather have 100+ non generated FPS at 4k over what raytracing is delivering in major titles. And by 4k I really mean my super modded Skyrim VR :)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Viri4thus@feddit.org 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

It's a gimmick to sell GPUs. Once we increase ray throughput by two orders of magnitude it will become standard because developers won't need to bake gi, etc, saving dev time. For now, I truly can't believe people don't find the dynamic lighting update lag jarring. It breaks immersion much more than less accurate but real time lighting. (at least on a 4090, maybe the 5090 can do it faster)

[–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago

It is nice doing pathtracing on older games, but it's pretty clear we're no where near the computation required for path tracing anything newer than HL1/Q2. Even Portal RTX and HL2 RTX require copious amounts of Upscaling and framegen with the highest end available hardware (that draws 600watts...)