AMD Radeon RDNA2 Navi (RX 6500, 6600, 6700, 6800, 6900 XT)

You avioded answer the link I gave you, let me quote:

That is why you have SETTINGS in a PC game....to span the hardware.
What you are advocating is not pushing further than consoles can play along (which reads as stagnate to me)...if the consoels are to weak, let them suffer...don't hold back games because consoles cry "unfair"...
Console gamers accept low FPS, variable resolution and other hacks due to the lack of performance...but saying that is a reason to stagnate is mindboggling....

 

They always have held back things, they are static devices. Right of the bat, were already at 3 times the raw power of the PS5 now (30TF 6900xt). Those new rdna2 gpus also are quite advanced with Infinity cache and the full fat rdna2 features like vrs for enhanced performance. Also, unlike last time, its the consoles that 'lack' on VRAM. Every RDNA2 product today has 16GB dedicated to VRAM. Either console does not.
Theres also faster/more core zen3 prducts, 14gb/s SSD/optane drives and gobs of system ram.

The consoles main advantage (cheap/ease of use/development) are also its disadvantage (static hardware for seven years).

Actually, pc gaming is a larger userbase. Also, looking at 8th gen/last gen, the best looking games ended up being on.... the pc. Death stranding, HZD, rdr2, they all looked better on the pc. The most immersive VR experience resides on pc (hl Alyx)
Your argument that high end pc gaming is niche.... So is the PS5 now, most console users will be PS4/pro/one S etc users, and that userbase is going to stay bigger then the PS5/XSX base for a long while, just like pascal and turing userbase will be larger for a while over ampere.

If we include star citizen, its arguably still the technically best looker out there.

Ray tracing arrived on pc over two years ago in 2018, and its here to stay. RT implementation is already showing, Godfall on PS5 doesnt have ray tracing, on pc, it does.
Also, wasnt one of RT's big advantages that it should ease and reduce development time? It seems that, going forward, that studios actually want to ease up and shorten development time, which means pc hardware is going to see those advantages more and more.

Thats why scaling is so important, all the way from low to high/ultra end. Hl2, Doom3, farcry, crysis, those did happen anyway, back then scaling wasnt all that great, today it is much better. See eternal running on the switch, and the game technically competing with the best out there on higher end hardware.

 

Wait, what?
PC don't have to support console for starters.
The settings on PC games that allow them to scale is what will allow them to scale on consoles.

So settings on PC allows it to scale up and down the stack but somehow consoles don't fit in that stack or is way below the lowest supported PC?

When did I imply, advocate, say anything your attfibuting to me? Apart from a seriously warped interpretation I guess.

My point is and always has been, that PC is also the low end, RDNA2 will be supported even with lower performing RT hardware, even if consoles didn't exist.
The engines will be made to scale. Regardless of your view of peasant console gamers.

I would say consoles held back games, but that was due to cpu. Now we have a much more balanced systems, where graphics engines are built to scale.

 

Does it really matter why we haven’t seen it in games? Like I said I’ll believe it when it actually happens.

 

From here maybe take it elsewhere, was going to post again, but its the AMD Radeon topic.

 

PC gaming is larger when you include all the systems far weaker than even last gen consoles. The best looking games you just listed wouldn't even exist without consoles.

 

You don't need to use DXR to be current gen, and his argument was that current gen games will favor RDNA2 (which is arguably very likely due consoles)

 

Disagree, in the span of two years DXR was used in dozens of titles without consoles support. Expect rapid deployment from now on thanks to multi platform games.

And with the way things are, RDNA2 is not even fully suitable for RT shadows, several DXR titles have RT shadows only, and the performance is half of NVIDIA (Shadow of Tomb Raider, Call Of Duty Cold War, etc). AMD seems to prefer the use of select RT shadows for optimal performance. So even in that aspect it's not a saving grace, what will happen is RDNA2 hardware being relegated to medium DXR effects whether that is shadows or else.

 

All you have to do is point to DF latest video on RDNA2 gpus, they have covered the basics. Either a mod is going to spin off this discussion or we leave it.

 

24 or more games?

 

Call of Duty Modern Warfare
Call Of Duty Cold War
Minecraft RTX
Quake 2 RTX
Cyberpunk 2077
Shadow of Tomb Raider
Battlefield V
Metro Exodus
Pumpkin Jack
The Fabled Woods
Wolfenstein Youngblood
Watch Dogs Legion
Control
Fortnite
MechWarrior V
Deliver Us The Moon
Bright Memory
World of Warcraft
Amid Evil
Crysis Remastered
Ghostrunner
Xuan-Yuan Sword VII
The Medium
Observer System Redux
Dirt 5
Godfall
The Riftbreaker
Stay in the light
Ring Of Elysium

Mortal Shell
Enlisted
Ready or Not

Not to mention Chinese titles of which I know only two:
Justice
JX3
Moonlight Blade

Pending games with working DXR DEMOS:
Atomic Hearts
Boundaries

 

10 of those I've not heard of

 

You've probably heard of Minecraft, Fortnite, COD, Battlefield, Cyberpunk, World of Warcraft and Tomb Raider. Pretty much all of the biggest games outside of mobas are supporting it. Will be interesting to see if DOTA ever adds ray tracing support.

 

At least Quake 2 RTX, Crysis Remastered and Wolfenstein Youngblood are NOT DXR titles.

 

Without consoles, games would be targeting Intel integrated graphics instead of consoles. Just look at all the "PC exclusives", even the big budget ones usually don't push graphics very hard. Nothing stops devs from targeting higher than console specs, nobody does it anyways because economics dictate that they want to maximize potential player base.

 

Disagree, Half Life, Doom, Deus Ex, Crysis, Far Cry, Max Payne, Hitman, Quake, Wolfenstein, GTA, Call Of Duty, Medal Of Honor, The Witcher, Elder Scrolls, Ghost Recon, Fallout, Metro, Thief, Mafia, Unreal, Unreal Tournament, Battlefield, STALKER, Prince Of Persia, Need For Speed, ArmA, DayZ, Ark Survival, PUBG, and pretty much all of the advanced and visually complex RTS games, were all franchises that pushed the envelopes, and started solely on PC, and later on got ported to consoles.

 

Consoles are great. We get very decent baseline with decent flops, ray-tracing and fast ssd. PC's have been stuck on spinners for a long time. Consoles suck in few more years but the initial raising of bar is nice.

 

I see you dug through like 30 years of PC gaming to find a list of games but most of those franchises went to console exactly for the reason I already noted, the want to expand the potential player base. 20-30 years ago, you can build a "AAA" game without nearly the level of investment as today which might explain why there were more PC games pushing boundaries back then. Nowadays I don't see many devs making AAA PC exclusives that have minimum requirements above console level.

Recent examples such as PUBG are a rare breed rather than the norm and even then, it didn't really push new technologies for better graphics but rather had terrible optimizations for graphics that looked worse than many games that exist on console, the minimum GPU requirement is pretty comparable to a PS4.

 

Most of these games date back to the early 2000s, or even earlier. That's a time when engines still had to make the leap to multicore CPUs, and even counted on 10 Ghz CPUs being the deal in the future. What the sceptical users are asking is, would the modern versions of these games really have been better, or even the same, if they didn't target the combined console userbase? Because without that userbase, they'd either have to settle with less resources, or target even more lower spec hardware to make up for the difference.

What PC exclusives today are known for their superior core scaling or using the DX12/Vulkan features to a greater extent than the multiplat releases?
Around the 360 era is when I'd say most typically PC-associated franchises started getting console releases from day one.


More games starting to use DX12 today, with the new console generation, just reminds me of how quickly the transition to requiring DX11 happened back when the PS4 and Xbox One had been released. Up until that point, many games had still kept using DX9 or supporting feature level 10 too.

I'm keeping my expectations low about DXR too. AMD's inferior tessellation performance tended to be a deal at the beginning of this generation but it didn't' matter much once most engines became GCN-centric and Nvidia's advantage in that was forgotten.

 

Yeah, that's my feeling as well. The notion that the 100+ million PS4/Xbox userbase would be using gaming PC's instead if they didn't exist I think is extremely suspect. The vast majority of the people don't want to deal with the complexity & hassle a PC brings, hence the reason for consoles proliferating in the first place.

There's a reason that list is franchises that may have started on the PC, as opposed to games that are now exclusive to the platform. Development budgets are significantly higher than when those franchises debuted on the PC a decade ago. Would Doom 2016/Doom Eternal exist in their current form if they were released only on the PC? I'm doubtful. On the other hand, we have gorgeous games like God of War, Last of Us 2, Ghosts of Tsushima etc that are console exclusive - and exclusive to one particular console manufacturer to boot, and they're very successful while ignoring the PC market entirely.