Support NeoGAF

[hououinkyouma00]

Absolutely fucking not.

It’s nice don’t get me wrong but I’d prefer performance over RT any day. Plus it’s just inconsistent.

Some games RT looks great, and then some games I prefer the original look. I was watching the Digital Foundry video about HL2 RT and while some parts looked good others looked worse and lost some of the carefully crafted atmosphere.

 

[jmiller180]

Definitely not needed. There have only been a few games I've played where I found a meaningful improvement to visuals, those being Cyberpunk 2077 and Control. Alan Wake 2 looked fine with and without RT. Same goes for Spider-Man games.

 

[Majukun]

no, and sometimes makes games look worse.
but it's expensive to run in an era where we are running out of gpu shredding features

 

[omegasc]

There are plenty games without RT that look incredible, so it's not required. I won't dare say it's useless, but it is usually too expensive for mid range hardware to do it properly, and that sucks.

 

[HeWhoWalks]

no, and sometimes makes games look worse.

What games look worse?

 

[Codes 208]

Demon souls proves you can have an amazing looking game without ray tracing

Would it look better with it? Yes. But its not a necessity

 

[Portugeezer]

In the long run it will ease development which is always a positive. Currently the performance hit (on consoles) is too much for my liking.

 

[cinnamonandgravy]

once GPUs dont shit the bed trying to run it, yes.

rasterization tries to fake RT via baked lighting.
RT is obviously the gold standard.

 

[CompleteGlobalSaturation]

RT on my old GTX1080 was heavy. My framerate in the witcher 3 decreased from around 70fps to 7fps (90% performance drop). That was certainly unplayable. On my 4080S not even PT tanks performance that much and there are also games where RT is literally free on this GPU.

You have the RTX4080, so you can play the vast majority of RT games right now with 4K like image quality and 120fps thanks to DLSS, unless you want to live in the past and continue playing with TAA native.

Try playing RT on UE5 games. You will NOT get 4k120 even with DLSS Performance unless you think FG is a good way to play games. The latter has always felt and looked like shite to me.

 

[Bojji]

Try playing RT on UE5 games. You will NOT get 4k120 even with DLSS Performance unless you think FG is a good way to play games. The latter has always felt and looked like shite to me.

RT, you mean hardware lumen or custom RT like in Wukong? UE5 is super cpu limited so it's hard to get 120fps in it anyway.

 

[PaintTinJr]

once GPUs dont shit the bed trying to run it, yes.

rasterization tries to fake RT via baked lighting.
RT is obviously the gold standard.

But it isn't really RT in the purest sense. Today, real-time game RT even on powerful PC hardware is with lots of caveats, and by the time a RTX 8050 ti can do RTX 5090 level graphics, the caveats will only be reduced, still meaning a RTX 8090 will still struggle and have caveats, but will look far more impressive than GI rasterization by then which hardware RT struggles to do, today IMO.

 

[Johnny Concrete]

If you want next gen graphics: yes.

 

[Majukun]

What games look worse?

cyberpunk 2077 comes to mind, i much prefer the city with the pre-baked lights than the more natural ray tracing ones

 

[HeWhoWalks]

cyberpunk 2077 comes to mind, i much brefer the city with the pre-baked lights than the more natural ray tracing ones

You and I both!

 

[CompleteGlobalSaturation]

RT, you mean hardware lumen or custom RT like in Wukong? UE5 is super cpu limited so it's hard to get 120fps in it anyway.

All UE5 games whether this is lumen or custom RT. Without DLSS the 4080 doesn't even hit 4K60.

There is only one game where I've managed 4K 120 with RT on - Doom Eternal.

To assume a 4080 is enough for 4K120 and RT is hilarious.

 

[Bojji]

All UE5 games whether this is lumen or custom RT. Without DLSS the 4080 doesn't even hit 4K60.

There is only one game where I've managed 4K 120 with RT on - Doom Eternal.

To assume a 4080 is enough for 4K120 and RT is hilarious.

What did you expect with lumen, nanite and VSMs? Native 4k/60 may even not be possible for 4090/5090 class hardware in some games.

UE5 is heavy for a reason.

You can see in some other games using different engines that just RTGI is really not that heavy and can change look of the game dramatically.

 

[rkofan87]

i will take locked 60 fps over rt thanks

 

[DinoD]

Only for neon light reflections on rain puddles.

 

[Playboi Carti]

Yeah, RT is the future. PT is the endgame

 

[simpatico]

Absolutely. Scenes like this would be impossible to create without it.

 

[bighugeguns]

Necessity...

What do we need? I'll tell you what we need, less smarmy bullshit and better games.

 

[Corporal.Hicks]

Try playing RT on UE5 games. You will NOT get 4k120 even with DLSS Performance unless you think FG is a good way to play games. The latter has always felt and looked like shite to me.

Yes, I was thinking about frame generation. DLSS FG works so well, that I dont mind using it. I'm not a robot who can notice 2.5ms difference in input lag, because it's placebo territory. My eyes however can definitely notice HUGE improvement in smoothness and motion clarity when I turn on DLSS FG.

Base framerate 31.3ms

https://i.ibb.co/Qv6bV7xx/20250313-124432.jpg

DLSS FG 33.8ms

https://i.ibb.co/9mMZhhJz/20250313-124256.jpg

Just 2.5ms difference in latency is not big deal, and 33.8ms is still very low compared to consoles (80-100ms in 60fps games).

I will always choose real frame rate if I can max out my monitor's refresh rate without DLSS FG, because real frames lowers latency and will always look perfect. If I however cant max out my monitor refreshrate (that's the case at 4K and with the most demanding RT games), I will always use DLSS FG, because it drastically improves my experience compared to the base fps. Motion clarity is much better with DLSS FG and I can no longer see judder. What's more DLSS FG improves my aiming, because my eyes can track moving objects a lot easier. DLSS FG has artefacts but I need to look for them to even notice them, that's how small they are. It's easier to notice DLSS Quality artefacts than DLSS FG artefacts. Even my LCD monitor ghosting is more noticeable than FG artefacts.

I've recorded my DLSS FG gameplay in 120fps. I recommend downloading this video file, because otherwise it will be displayed at 60fps. As anyone can see, I have no problems with aiming even though I'm using M+K and I'm trying to aim as fast at the NPC's as I can. Lossless Scaling FG, or FSR FG has noticeable input lag to me and I would start to struggle with aiming, but DLSS FG is good enough even for me. I have been playing Quake 3 / UT99 for over 25 years and I can easily tell the difference between VSYNC input lag on and off, but DLSS FG input lag does not bother me.

RoboCop Rogue City 1440p DLAA + FGx2.mp4

drive.google.com

As for DLSS (super resolution), I dont want to play UE5 games with software lumen in performance mode (unless the game support HW lumen and ray reconstruction), because internal resolution is tied to LUMEN GI / reflections quality, and as you start lowering internal resolution, lumen boiling / shimmering / noise becomes more and more noticeable. It's much better idea to use DLSSQ + FGx2, that way artefacts are minimal.

To assume a 4080 is enough for 4K120 and RT is hilarious.

Again, I thought about using FGx2. On my RTX4080S it's possible to run RT games at 4K 120fps when using DLSS FGx2, although I usually use just DLSS quality and leave FGx2 only for the most demanding RT games, such as Hellblade 2:

4K DLSS Quality + FGx2

All UE5 games whether this is lumen or custom RT. Without DLSS the 4080 doesn't even hit 4K60.

With high settings instead of ultra / very high / epic, I can run number of UE5 games at 4K 60fps even without DLSS.

Robocop Rogue City, 4K native, with high settings. This game use all UE5 featuers, lumen, nanite, VSM, yet still runs at over 60fps.

DLSS Quality

FGx2

Native 4K

DLSS Q + FG

I usally get around 120fps in UE5 games at maxed out settings using 4K DLSS Quality + FGx2. Only in PT games I need to use DLSS performance (Alan Wake 2, Black Myth Wukong, Cyberpunk with PT). I played tens RT games on my 4080S, and almost all run at 4K 120fps thanks to DLSS.

There are also RT games where I dont even need to use DLSS features to hit 120fps at 4K native. In doom eternal I get 150-200fps with RT. In Resident Evil 3 remake I get 130-200fps. In RE 8 village I get 120-160fps. Most RT games in my library only need DLSS Quality to hit 120fps. These results are good enough for me, especially compared to consoles .

 

[LectureMaster]

 

[Corporal.Hicks]

This meme is inaccurate. In 2003 people were still playing on CRT (blurry picture) and never saw 300fps

 

[IDKFA]

It depends on the game.

A new Mario 2D platformer doesn't need RT or PT.

It would only be beneficial in a game that has a realistic style for immersion purposes.

 

[mopspear]

I voted yes because when someone in 10 years digs up this thread, I won't look stupid. Hey future person. Your lottery numbers are: 284759. Also, look behind you.

 

[rofif]

not to mention Demons SOuls remake is 4k60 etc now on pro... does it need rt? how possibly could it do... anything

 

[rofif]

This meme is inaccurate. In 2003 people were still playing on CRT (blurry picture) and never saw 300fps

bitch I had 120hz eizo crt. thing was awesome

 

[awwr999999]

Oh Topher
@ me by year end when you go through GTA 6
You'll change your opinion I guarantee. In fact let's remake this thread after GTA 6. It'll showcase how pretty much everyone is sleeping at the wheel tech wise this gen.

GTA6 is built around the PS5 and RT's not happening.

 

[Buggy Loop]

GTA6 is built around the PS5 and RT's not happening.

Then it'll be a massive downgrade from the 1st trailer as that HAS ray tracing.

 

[Buggy Loop]

This meme is inaccurate. In 2003 people were still playing on CRT (blurry picture) and never saw 300fps

Yea, FPS should be flipped. Used to be a lot more 15~30 fps shit back then.

 

[NomenNescio]

It's not a necessity for any particular game in order to achieve great lighting, but it is a necessity in advancing graphics tech and making development process more streamlined.

 

[deriks]

Maybe not now, but in a recent future

I mean, we lost momentum on particles and details having this, and still struggling to run smoothly. It's not really worthy

 

[Corporal.Hicks]

bitch I had 120hz eizo crt. thing was awesome

My dear bitch, your godlike CRT had a 120Hz refresh rate, but your poor 1GHz CPU and Geforce 2MX (or Geforce 3 if you were lucky ) were unable to run games at 120Hz (maybe some old games at low settings).

 

[rofif]

My dear bitch, your godlike CRT had a 120Hz refresh rate, but your poor 1GHz CPU and Geforce 2MX (or Geforce 3 if you were lucky ) were unable to run games at 120Hz (maybe some old games at low settings).

depends.
I am trying to remember what I had.... I remember I moved from 3dfx to geforce 2ti... then radeon but I don't remember which one. I think I only replaced it with a crt in like 2007. Remember playing Lost planet on an lcd

 

[Corporal.Hicks]

depends.
I am trying to remember what I had.... I remember I moved from 3dfx to geforce 2ti... then radeon but I don't remember which one. I think I only replaced it with a crt in like 2007. Remember playing Lost planet on an lcd

My Geforce 3 had like 80-100fps at 1600x1024x32 in quake 3 (1999), so such old games at 1024x768x32 could probably run at 120fps, but in general people were happy if games run at 30fps. I had 30fps in splinter cell 1, and I was very happy .

 

[rofif]

My Geforce 3 had like 80-100fps at 1600x1024x32 in quake 3 (1999), so such old games at 1024x768x32 could probably run at 120fps, but in general people were happy if games run at 30fps. I had 30fps in splinter cell 1, and I was very happy .

I remember discovering that 120hz made a big difference in starsky and hutch in 2003 lol.
Before that, I don't think I cared that much. yeah, 3dfx ran unreal at like 20fps and it was amazing.
Also, 1024x768 was a luxury. I mostly played at lower res before maybe 2003/4

 

[Allandor]

Absolutely. Scenes like this would be impossible to create without it.

That's what I mean "fake" stuff looks great. This is good enough to be convincing. When I play, I don't investigate if every shadow is in the right position. I look if the scene is cool looking (not realistic). Artifacts (like shimmering) is a absolut no go for me. Well I know many current techs introduce such things, but if I can reduce it, it's ok for me. Consistency in graphic presentation is much more important than physical correctness.


Btw, the thing about DLSS 4 is that we had the same arguments when DLSS3 was introduced. That it is near perfect etc... I guess we see some honest reviews about DLSS4 when DLSS5 is introduced. And yes, FSR4 has the same problems (a few more but still the same).
RT -> Denoising -> Additional Artifacts (additional shimmering, even temporal like visible light spread, ...)
DLSS/FSR -> Additional Artifacts (also inconsistencies)

And what not to forget, especially DLSS/FSR4 are non-standard techs, you need special hardware and is not a dx/vulcan standard that might not work in future (just look what happens currently with physx). This is not good for future backwards compatibility.

 

[Griffon]

Ray tracing is a stupid waste of resources. You can obtain the same look through cheaper tricks (1997 games had mirror reflections).

 

[HeWhoWalks]

Ray tracing is a stupid waste of resources. You can obtain the same look through cheaper tricks (1997 games had mirror reflections).

If all raytracing did was provide mathematically correct mirror reflections, you'd have a point. 1997 games also look NOWHERE NEAR as good as what we have today, with/without raytracing.

 

[Corporal.Hicks]

I remember discovering that 120hz made a big difference in starsky and hutch in 2003 lol.
Before that, I don't think I cared that much. yeah, 3dfx ran unreal at like 20fps and it was amazing.
Also, 1024x768 was a luxury. I mostly played at lower res before maybe 2003/4

My first graphics card (3D accelerator) TNT2 was already running pretty much every game at 1024x768 but in 16bit color. When I bought the Geforce 3 in 2002, my fps in Quake 3 at 1600x1200x32 went from 7fps to 80fps, so I was absolutely blown away. This was just 3 years of progress in GPU technology, can you imagine something like that today? But very soon newer games started pushing my Geforce 3 harder and harder (PS2 ports), so I started playing at 1024x768x32 again. I build my next PC in 2007 (Q6600, 8800Ultra) and I started playing at 1680x1050x32. The vast majority of games run at well over 60fps, some games even at 1440p.

Raytracing reminds me of shaders. Back then shaders was as demanding as RT today, but people wanted to play games with better graphics. Now PC gamers have changed a lot and if games arent running at 4K native and real 120fps they arent willing to use features that elevate graphics fidelity to a next level, like ray tracing.

I bought fairly good PC in June 2024 to play RT games and I'm very happy with the experience even though some neogafers try to tell me 120fps at 4K DLSSQuality + FGx2 (in the most demadning RT games) is not good enough. I wonder what they will tell console gamers who play at 30-60fps at even lower resolutions? Sometimes I think console gamers are more happy than PCMR, because the typical console gamer can just focus on enjoying the game (even at 30fps), while PC gamers are just looking for things to complain about. For example you rofif played Black Myth Wukong on the PS5Pro at 40fps (if I remember correctly). Try to tell PCMR guys that was indeed playable and they will not believe you, in fact they may even laugh at you, just to feel better.

 

[Hawk The Slayer]

For me it's not important and don't even want to think about it since I'll be on 1080p for a long time. Currently on a gtx 1070 and my next card will either be a rtx 3060 ti or a 5060 ti so I don't even want to worry about 4k and ray tracking for years to come.

 

[ResilientBanana]

 

[Schmendrick]

Ray tracing is a stupid waste of resources. You can obtain the same look through cheaper tricks (1997 games had mirror reflections).

another post from the "I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about" category....

Please enlighten us which "cheap tricks" can replace RT for fully dynamic lighting in non static environments at even remotely comparable quality levels for example. I'm sure a lot of developers would be very interested in your insights.

 

[Bojji]

another post from the "I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about" category....

Please enlighten us which "cheap tricks" can replace RT for fully dynamic lighting in non static environments at even remotely comparable quality levels for example. I'm sure a lot of developers would be very interested in your insights.

Not to mention planar reflections were not cheap at all, that's why so little games used them. In most games mirrors are broken, lol.

 

[damidu]

doesn't make much sense to argue if its necessity, when its obviously where things are headed in accelerating pace.
i guess, around the time ps6 becomes the main target platform for majority of multiplatform games, you'll see even less effort put to accommodate low spec baked solutions.
so the quality difference will get only bigger.

 

[RafterXL]

another post from the "I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about" category....

Please enlighten us which "cheap tricks" can replace RT for fully dynamic lighting in non static environments at even remotely comparable quality levels for example. I'm sure a lot of developers would be very interested in your insights.

Console players, who've never actually seen full RT. Although it is kinda hilarious that AC:Shadows has them all drooling over the Pro's graphics compared to the base PS5. I wonder why that is?

 

[bender]

1997 games also look NOWHERE NEAR as good as what we have today, with/without raytracing.

Wrong

 

[Buggy Loop]

another post from the "I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about" category....

Please enlighten us which "cheap tricks" can replace RT for fully dynamic lighting in non static environments at even remotely comparable quality levels for example. I'm sure a lot of developers would be very interested in your insights.

Yea I skipped on these posts as its so low level knowledge in the business to know the challenges of mirrors in videogames that I thought "Mario 64 has mirrors!" posts were bait but here we are...



The times they were working pre ray tracing era is because the world was so fucking basic or in such a controlled setup (Think cyberpunk 2077 looking in mirror in the intro) that there's no comparison with how the ray tracing solution would work. Very small controlled spaces like a bathroom.

The modern games just being that much more complex in geometry would not perform well at all with replicating it with planar reflection like Mario 64 would do. It would tank performances more than just having ray traced reflections.

 

[proandrad]

Ray tracing is unnecessary to make realistic games with enough talent and time. But it’s necessary for inexperienced people trying to make a good looking game with limited development time. Corporations rather have the later because it’s cheaper and easier to find those types of developers.