Support NeoGAF

[Gaiff]

So, in the latest DF Direct, Alex mentions a Ubisoft presentation where they revealed some eye-opening numbers regarding ray tracing and global illumination.

In short, getting Assassin's Creed Unity quality and method of GI in Shadows wouldn't be possible due to the size of the game world and the dynamic time of day.

As you can see, it would have taken 1.9 TB of data just for the GI file.

Another cool thing is the rendering time for the ray tracing in the pipeline.

A few things surprised me: The Pro is slower than I expected. I thought it would be twice as fast or take half as long as the PS5. It takes a little under 2/3 of the rendering time. The 4080 is much faster than I thought being over 4x the speed of the PS5.

 

[OverHeat]

PS5 pro…is slow

 

[Gaiff]

PS5 pro…is slow

Interestingly for WS tracing, it's almost twice the performance of the base PS5.

 

[The Cockatrice]

Gaf can laugh and cry all they want about this game, but if theres one thing that AC Shadows does absolute top notch over pretty much most games, it's the weather/atmosphere and the seasonal changes. This game is a visual masterpiece and probably in my top 5 of all time visuals.

 

[Gaiff]

Gaf can laugh and cry all they want about this game, but if theres one thing that AC Shadows does absolute top notch over pretty much most games, it's the weather/atmosphere and the seasonal changes. This game is a visual masterpiece and probably in my top 5 of all time visuals.

It is a looker for sure, but I truly wonder what they could have done with a map the size of Unity. Would ray tracing have been necessary?

 

[KyoZz]

Gaf can laugh and cry all they want about this game, but if theres one thing that AC Shadows does absolute top notch over pretty much most games, it's the weather/atmosphere and the seasonal changes. This game is a visual masterpiece and probably in my top 5 of all time visuals.

It's as beautiful as the story is bad, and this game is a freakin looker. Too bad I don't play games just for the visuals and after 10 hours once you see enough it's boring and cliché as fuck.
Very disappointing.

BTW my AC: Shadows gallery for those interested, maxed out: https://lensdump.com/a/ut5jr

 

[mckmas8808]

It is a looker for sure, but I truly wonder what they could have done with a map the size of Unity. Would ray tracing have been necessary?

Exactly!!!

 

[mrqs]

It's very pretty, but I just hate the world design. There are too many unclimbable forests, you have to stay on the road at all times, thats ass.

The story and narrative is pretty ugh too.

But pretty game!

 

[Hudo]

Do DF finally have someone who actually knows what ray tracing is and how it works?

 

[rofif]

All it says is that origins and shadows are too big

 

[Physiognomonics]

So, in the latest DF Direct, Alex mentions a Ubisoft presentation where they revealed some eye-opening numbers regarding ray tracing and global illumination.

In short, getting Assassin's Creed Unity quality and method of GI in Shadows wouldn't be possible due to the size of the game world and the dynamic time of day.



As you can see, it would have taken 1.9 TB of data just for the GI file.

Another cool thing is the rendering time for the ray tracing in the pipeline.





A few things surprised me: The Pro is slower than I expected. I thought it would be twice as fast or take half as long as the PS5. It takes a little under 2/3 of the rendering time. The 4080 is much faster than I thought being over 5x the speed of the PS5.

They are likely not using RDNA4 hardware on the Pro version. We just see improvements from added CUs and bandwidth. Some games that really use RDNA4 got their resolution improved by +50% + added hardware RT(like the F1 game and Fornite). It's a Ubisoft game, do not expect custom implementation because they don't want to lose dev time optimizing one platform. I read a Ubisoft interview saying exactly this once.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Truly, an incredible looking game.

Its bonkers.

 

[cyberheater]

I'm also surprised how relatively slow the PS5 pro is. Must be quite a challenge for devs.

 

[Soren01]

 

[Karim]

A few things surprised me: The Pro is slower than I expected. I thought it would be twice as fast or take half as long as the PS5. It takes a little under 2/3 of the rendering time. The 4080 is much faster than I thought being over 5x the speed of the PS5.

Probably raytracing at 1440p resolution is very expensive for Pro? PSSR it's there for a reason.If you look to the XSS perfomance it runs faster at lower resolution than the base ps5 with half of the CUs and a lot less bandwidth.

 

[Karim]

I'm also surprised how relatively slow the PS5 pro is. Must be quite a challenge for devs.

What exactly is a challenge? Oh sorry it was sarcasm, forgive me.

 

[Killer8]

Best looking game on the market right now.

 

[nemiroff]

after 10 hours once you see enough it's boring

I guess we're all different

 

[Vlodril]

Unity was probably one of the last games where Ubisoft shown any ambition.

 

[Lokaum D+]

if at least the game was good, its pretty much lipstick on a pig.

 

[Gaiff]

Exactly!!!

Also glad I wasn't crazy when I said Unity was the best looking AC game until Shadows. Every game after it seemed like a step back graphically and now I know why.

 

[The Cockatrice]

It is a looker for sure, but I truly wonder what they could have done with a map the size of Unity. Would ray tracing have been necessary?

No doubt a more focused story and half the map size would've been so much better.

 

[ResilientBanana]

So, in the latest DF Direct, Alex mentions a Ubisoft presentation where they revealed some eye-opening numbers regarding ray tracing and global illumination.

In short, getting Assassin's Creed Unity quality and method of GI in Shadows wouldn't be possible due to the size of the game world and the dynamic time of day.

As you can see, it would have taken 1.9 TB of data just for the GI file.

Another cool thing is the rendering time for the ray tracing in the pipeline.

A few things surprised me: The Pro is slower than I expected. I thought it would be twice as fast or take half as long as the PS5. It takes a little under 2/3 of the rendering time. The 4080 is much faster than I thought being over 5x the speed of the PS5.

You thought a $700 all-in-one AMD-based console would beat out a $1000 video card made by nVidia?

 

[MikeM]

I love these deep dives. I wonder if the slower than expected RT is due to bandwidth contention?

 

[Windom Earle]

lol and that's just a 4080. Consoles eternally btfo.

 

[LordOcidax]

This data is gold and really interesting.

 

[Gaiff]

You thought a $700 all-in-one AMD-based console would beat out a $1000 video card made by nVidia?

How did you come to that conclusion from my post?

 

[The_Observer]

So what I'd like to know is, if Shadows engine could render Unitys lighting in real-time instead of using the pre-baked lightmaps like they did on lastgen and have day/night cycle.

 

[LordOcidax]

lol and that's just a 4080. Consoles eternally btfo.

The 4080 is a really good GPU, but yes i was expecting a lot better from the PS5 Pro, this data is going to adjust some expectations.

 

[kevboard]

this might explain why the Series X is right in-between the PS5 and PS5 Pro in terms of resolution in Doom TDA.

the wide and slow GPU design finally paying off lol

 

[winjer]

A few things surprised me: The Pro is slower than I expected. I thought it would be twice as fast or take half as long as the PS5. It takes a little under 2/3 of the rendering time. The 4080 is much faster than I thought being over 5x the speed of the PS5.

It makes sense tough.
The 4080 at 1440p is 70% faster than a Radeon 6800.
RDNA4 RT units are much faster than RDNA2. But it's still slower than Ada.
And then the Pro is also very limited in memory bandwidth.
Add all these things together and the 3.5 difference is justified.

 

[Gaiff]

It makes sense tough.
The 4080 at 1440p is 70% faster than a Radeon 6800.
RDNA4 RT units are much faster than RDNA2. But it's still slower than Ada.
And then the Pro is also very limited in memory bandwidth.
Add all these things together and the 3.5 difference is justified.

I wrote 5x, but meant 4x. I was just expecting the Pro to be better relative to the base model. That the 4080 is that fast is a bit surprising but not totally unexpected and as you so duly pointed out, justified.

 

[Windom Earle]

The 4080 is a really good GPU, but yes i was expecting a lot better from the PS5 Pro, this data is going to adjust some expectations.

It's good but it's far away from top tier

 

[Rosoboy19]

this might explain why the Series X is right in-between the PS5 and PS5 Pro in terms of resolution in Doom TDA.

the wide and slow GPU design finally paying off lol

The Series X has always had more raw hardware grunt than the base PS5, many games just didn't utilize it because the PS5 was the lead platform that got more optimization. A few games have put it to use for improved performance (Space Marine 2 comes to mind).

 

[winjer]

I wrote 5x, but meant 4x. I was just expecting the Pro to be better relative to the base model. That the 4080 is that fast is a bit surprising but not totally unexpected and as you so duly pointed out, justified.

The Pro is still limited in many ways by RDNA2's caches, memory bandwidth, etc.
It's only the RT units and some connected caches that were upgraded.
It didn't even get the enhancements to delta color compression that RDNA4 on PC brought.
Besides, the Pro is much more starved for memory bandwidth than the base PS5.
Still, a 60% improvement in RT performance is nothing to sneeze at.

 

[Lootlord]

Still, a 60% improvement in RT performance is nothing to sneeze at.

Well 60% from a low starting point is still not great

 

[Karim]

The 4080 is a really good GPU, but yes i was expecting a lot better from the PS5 Pro, this data is going to adjust some expectations.

A lot better based on what? It's still AMD tech. Nvidia is a generation ahead to AMD in raytracing if not more.

 

[LordOcidax]

A lot better based on what? It's still AMD tech. Nvidia is a generation ahead to AMD in raytracing if not more.

Compared to base consoles.

 

[Karim]

this might explain why the Series X is right in-between the PS5 and PS5 Pro in terms of resolution in Doom TDA.

the wide and slow GPU design finally paying off lol

More the Bethesda acquisition finally paying off.

 

[Karim]

Compared to base consoles.

But it is a lot better compared the base console. Base console can't even handle GI raytracing at 60 fps in AC Shadows...and raytracing reflection on it are quite expensive even on pc. But there are also other examples. Dead Rising remake using GI and raytracing reflections just on Pro is another one.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Gaf can laugh and cry all they want about this game, but if theres one thing that AC Shadows does absolute top notch over pretty much most games, it's the weather/atmosphere and the seasonal changes. This game is a visual masterpiece and probably in my top 5 of all time visuals.

i think you should cry, for the incompetence/agenda of some people in position in power the entire project suffers.

 

[Flabagast]

Amazing looking game, truly one of the most next gen lookings titles out there.

Bottom tier garbage story and writing though, I could not believe how bad and boring it was. Dropped off after 15h and I doubt I'll ever come back

 

[Karim]

Amazing looking game, truly one of the most next gen lookings titles out there.

Bottom tier garbage story and writing though, I could not believe how bad and boring it was. Dropped off after 15h and I doubt I'll ever come back

I can't disagree. But still I playing it.

 

[SABRE220]

Sigh, maybe one can claim they aren't putting full effort in utilizing the rdna4 rt performance, but I take this as more evidence of just how middling of an upgrade the Pro is for a mid-gen console. Rt workloads were the very selective scenario where the pro was supposed to have a large differential from the base console touted to be 3 to 4x performance in rt workloads, and yet here we are...even in its very niche, it's still disappointing. Sony skimped out big time on the pro and made a limited and unbalanced upgrade, and yet overpriced it to the heavens. If Microsoft were competitive like the one x days, the pro would neither be this conservative nor this overly priced.

 

[Gitaroo]

how does it compare to 3080? I always thought PRO is more like a 3080 with more ram even thought it's shared.

 

[Gaiff]

how does it compare to 3080? I always thought PRO is more like a 3080 with more ram even thought it's shared.

Still quite a bit slower than a 3080 if we're talking strictly RT. It's much closer in raster with the 3080 still being about ~20% faster.

 

[Gitaroo]

Still quite a bit slower than a 3080 if we're talking strictly RT. It's much closer in raster with the 3080 still being about ~20% faster.

that sucks, I am surprised they compare it to a 4080, I know even the 4070 is quite a bit better, guess 3080 is similar to 4070. Maybe 3070 RT performance? 9700XT must be a whole different league from PS5 pro.

 

[Gaiff]

that sucks, I am surprised they compare it to a 4080, I know even the 4070 is quite a bit better, guess 3080 is similar to 4070. Maybe 3070 RT performance? 9700XT must be a whole different league from PS5 pro.

It's extremely imperfect as a methodology, but we can infer some details using Cyberpunk raster vs RT performance.

4080: 103 fps 9.7ms
3080: 70.9 fps 14ms

4080: 55.2 fps 18.11ms +8.41ms
3080: 34.6 fps 28.9ms +14.9ms

The ray tracing adds 14.9ms of rendering time on a 3080 compared to just 8.41ms on a 4080. This makes the 4080's RT performance about 1.77x faster than the 3080. In Shadows, it's 2.68x faster than the Pro, so the 3080 sits somewhere between a PS5 Pro and a 4080 in RT performance.

And yes, the 9070 XT is far above the Pro both in rasterization and ray tracing simply for being a full-fledged and much bigger RDNA4 GPU.

 

[peish]

It's probably the memory bandwidth, SX split / exclusive 320bit bus paying off long term. We owe the beard guy an apology

Also nvidia going all in with gddr7, don't forget to thank the Jensen too

 

[Gitaroo]

thanks fo

It's extremely imperfect as a methodology, but we can infer some details using Cyberpunk raster vs RT performance.

4080: 103 fps 9.7ms
3080: 70.9 fps 14ms

4080: 55.2 fps 18.11ms +8.41ms
3080: 34.6 fps 28.9ms +14.9ms

The ray tracing adds 14.9ms of rendering time on a 3080 compared to just 8.41ms on a 4080. This makes the 4080's RT performance about 1.77x faster than the 3080. In Shadows, it's 2.68x faster than the Pro, so the 3080 sits somewhere between a PS5 Pro and a 4080 in RT performance.

And yes, the 9070 XT is far above the Pro both in rasterization and ray tracing simply for being a full-fledged and much bigger RDNA4 GPU.

Thanks for the break down, guess 3070 ish is still a whole lot better than RDNA2 lol. It kind of make sense, PS5 games still need to run on both models after all, you can't stray too far away from each other. Guess the thing Sony should be focusing on is improve PSSR quality and speed.