Impact of nVidia Turing RayTracing enhanced GPUs on next-gen consoles *spawn

[Shifty Geezer]

IMO, its not niche allready now if theres rather many games going to support it (if that list is correct/true), for being such a new tech, im quite suprised how many its. BFV, Tomb Raider, Atomic Heart, Metro Exodus etc
https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcoc...mes-that-will-support-nvidias-rtx-technology/

It's a tiny list, and from August, where games can be dropped under new business decisions. A new $500 machine with 11 games on a list to launch not even within six months of launch would be considered DOA. RTX is definitely niche. Get past the year exploration phase and then see if it's established or not.

If UE4 enables RTX as a switch-on feature, RTX will get used in UE4 titles, but a world away from GI at the moment. RTX may become synonymous with 'nVidia's shadow tech' in the end, with real raytracing (delivering all the promise) happening in a different version of DXR entirely.

 

[vipa899]

A new $500 machine with 11 games on a list to launch

If we say that its a $500 machine, say a PS4 was less but, how many exclusive games did it have in its first 6 months? It are those exclusives making use of its features. Multiplats where generally better then on the One but far from what they were on pc. A 2080, or 2060 then, can be used more then just for RT, they are quite capable gpus for normal gaming too.

RTX is definitely niche

We could say that, for now atleast. Its all perspective too, as when were buying that 500 dollar console, you get the normal games, and the AAA ones that really push the system and use it features.

RTX may become synonymous with 'nVidia's shadow tech' in the end, with real raytracing (delivering all the promise) happening in a different version of DXR entirely.

It may or it may not, we probably will see better RT implementations in future nvidia, AMD, and possibly Intel gpus. RTX 2000 are for the early adoptors, but that doesnt mean they become totally useless in two years or so. hell we dont even know what the consoles will be doing, it seems like if MS has the bigger chance of going DXR/RT, but otherwise RT is a very new tech and console makers maybe skip it for the 9th gen alltogether, relaying perhaps on partial via compute in less demanding games.

 

[OCASM]

If AMD doesn't have RT hardware next-gen is going to be very disappointing.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If we say that its a $500 machine, say a PS4 was less but, how many exclusive games did it have in its first 6 months?

The games don't have to be exclusive. They have to be present. You spend $500 for a GPU with raytracing and have three games to use RT with. You don't care whether RT games are exclusive to your $500 GPU or not; you just want games to use its features! Same with consoles. Same with VR. If you bought an Oculus VR headset, you didn't care whether the games on it were on PSVR or not as well. PS4 had some 32 games in the first 6 months in NA and many more promised. It had 80 in the first year. RTX offers 11 in the first year, maybe. That's niche.

We could say that, for now atleast. Its all perspective too, as when were buying that 500 dollar console, you get the normal games, and the AAA ones that really push the system and use it features.

It's not perspective at all. Raytracing hardware is niche! It's a tiny little portion of the gaming market and will remain as such probably until its replaced. A tiny portion of the market will have RTX enabled cards and a tiny portion of games will have RTX features.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If AMD doesn't have RT hardware next-gen is going to be very disappointing.

If next-gen doesn't have raytracing*, it'll be disappointing. If it can be done effectively without needing specialist hardware, lack of specialist hardware won't matter.

* Actually what we want are traced quality shadows, reflections, and effective lighting. If that comes from raytracing or something else like cone tracing or hybrid solutions, makes no difference as long as visuals take a generational advance.

 

[OCASM]

If next-gen doesn't have raytracing*, it'll be disappointing. If it can be done effectively without needing specialist hardware, lack of specialist hardware won't matter.

* Actually what we want are traced quality shadows, reflections, and effective lighting. If that comes from raytracing or something else like cone tracing or hybrid solutions, makes no difference as long as visuals take a generational advance.

Without the performance necessary nobody will bother to implement it.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yes, but the performance doesn't necessarily need raytracing hardware. What we want is next-gen visuals and hardware that achieves that, whether that's fixed-function or not.

 

[vipa899]

If AMD doesn't have RT hardware next-gen is going to be very disappointing.

For us tech people yes, or those who are intrested in it. For most 'normal' people probably wont care, they see 'PS5' so it must be better then PS4. PS5 certainly wont match PC but its graphics wont dissapoint to a level that it will flop or anything like that. AAA games will look stunning, even more so then now. On the other hand, since MS is betting more and more on AAA/AA studios, and their DXR solution, with again Halo on pc as lead, atleast that looks quite promising.

The games don't have to be exclusive. They have to be present. You spend $500 for a GPU with raytracing and have three games to use RT with. You don't care whether RT games are exclusive to your $500 GPU or not; you just want games to use its features! Same with consoles. Same with VR. If you bought an Oculus VR headset, you didn't care whether the games on it were on PSVR or not as well. PS4 had some 32 games in the first 6 months in NA and many more promised. It had 80 in the first year. RTX offers 11 in the first year, maybe. That's niche.

People that buy a 2060 or any RTX gpu now dont buy it only for RT, they are capable enough. If i would be in the market for a new pc, i wouldnt buy a gpu without RT. A 2060's performance isnt too shabby, and its RT features are sure nice to have, Metro is mighty impressive. Yes not many games, but when one bought a PS4 there werent many games either, mostly multiplats, that certainly dont use all of its features.

It's not perspective at all. Raytracing hardware is niche! It's a tiny little portion of the gaming market and will remain as such probably until its replaced. A tiny portion of the market will have RTX enabled cards and a tiny portion of games will have RTX features.

Just like the One X and Pro's market is tiny compared to the base consoles? How much aside from resolution goes used? With the 2060 out the door, and seeing how popular the 1060 was/is, i dont think its that bad as some like to portray.
But we will see with RTX, maybe its a flop, maybe not. I do think that MS has some say in it too, with their DXR. It could be that hardware RT(X) is a thing for now and a couple of years to come, when we see new generation of GPUs landing with more flexible solutions. Like i said RTX 2000 is for early adoptors, people that want raytracing now can get it, and i dont think the list of games is that bad, i wouldnt expect a huge library from start, in special in the pc world. Hardware T&L, pixel and vertex shaders took awhile for adoption aswell.

 

[JoeJ]

If AMD doesn't have RT hardware next-gen is going to be very disappointing.

It's even more disappointing people make such predictions. They'll show stuff looking much better than anything before, but you'll first check if it has RT HW or not, and then you will judge based on this.

Without the performance necessary nobody will bother to implement it.

Just sit, wait and see.

 

[OCASM]

Yes, but the performance doesn't necessarily need raytracing hardware. What we want is next-gen visuals and hardware that achieves that, whether that's fixed-function or not.

So far real life has shown that you need ray tracing hardware.

It's even more disappointing people make such predictions. They'll show stuff looking much better than anything before, but you'll first check if it has RT HW or not, and then you will judge based on this.

Just sit, wait and see.

They'll show tech demos that will get people hyped. Then the real games will not look as good as that (PS4 reveal anyone?).

Remember UE4 reveal with voxel cone tracing? How many games ended up using such technology?

At least DXR has already been used in AAA commercial projects with very good results. Much better than a fantasy magical algorithm that looks as good and runs better without special hardware

 

[vipa899]

What we want is next-gen visuals and hardware that achieves that, whether that's fixed-function or not.

Seeing DF's Metro video, thats a hell of a visual experience, even without RT its rather impressive too. Games looking just better then that as a start aint bad.

They'll show stuff looking much better than anything before

Thats also predictions, with hardware jumps not on the level as before and diminishing returns, we cant expect the world. I can also say that MS will show things better then anything before, on their xbox and pc, with added features perhaps. Predictions you know.

They'll show tech demos that will get people hyped.

Hype is a thing to attract people to buy your product, they will do it again. That GT Sport 8k CGI demo would be a nice fit.

Just sit, wait and see.

Exactly.

 

[JoeJ]

They'll show tech demos that will get people hyped. Then the real games will not look as good as that (PS4 reveal anyone?).

I'm no PS4 palyer but the games looked as shown from what i've seen.
BFV or Metro however do not look like Starwars and Rodot Demo

Remember UE4 reveal with voxel cone tracing? How many games ended up using such technology?

They did not release their voxel GI with the argument it would be too slow for all platforms. So no games.

At least DXR has already been used in AAA commercial projects with very good results. Much better than a fantasy magical algorithm that looks as good and runs better without special hardware

Your magic glass bowl is the only fantasy thing here. Wait and see.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

People that buy a 2060 or any RTX gpu now..

We're talking about RTX hardware. RTX hardware, hardware raytracing acceleration in Turing, in niche. Heck, even the RTX GPUs are niche because they constitute a very small proportion of the market, although a reasonably sized niche perhaps.

Just like the One X and Pro's market is tiny compared to the base consoles?

Yes. The mid-gen consoles are a niche too.

How much aside from resolution goes used? With the 2060 out the door, and seeing how popular the 1060 was/is, i dont think its that bad as some like to portray.

Where are you going with this argument? Milk says RTX hardware is niche. You say it isn't. I qualify what niche is. I don't see why someone would try and argue around that. Yes, RTX is a niche, by definition. It'll be a few percent of the market that buys RTX capable hardware, and a few percent of games (perhaps a fractional percentage) that implement RTX features. That's a niche. Just accept it!

But we will see with RTX, maybe its a flop, maybe not.

It wasn't described as a flop. It was described as a niche. It may be very successful in its niche. It may be highly valued by players who like it, and maybe devs will love working with it, and perhaps it'll lead on to bigger and better things. However, categorically, scientifically, RTX is a niche and RTX acceleration will remain a niche if there isn't a substantial proportion of the market using RT acceleration, with that sizeable proportion most realistically coming from consoles and alternatively coming from a mass-upgrade by the majority of PC users to buy new RT capable GPUs. But as said, by then RTX may have been replaced.

 

[DavidGraham]

It's not perspective at all. Raytracing hardware is niche! It's a tiny little portion of the gaming market and will remain as such probably until its replaced. A tiny portion of the market will have RTX enabled cards and a tiny portion of games will have RTX features.

It's not that tiny when it's on a 2060. And it's not going to be tiny come 7nm NVIDIA GPUs. DXR is also part of the picture. DXR is as much as niche now, as DX11 was nice when it was first introduced.

 

[Ike Turner]

Remember UE4 reveal with voxel cone tracing? How many games ended up using such technology?

UE4 never implemented voxel cone tracing...that's why no "games ended up using such technology"..you can't use something that doesn't exist. Epic was literally high on fumes when UE4 was unveiled (they saw Cyril Crassin's paper on the subject a few months prior & thought that this would be it..). The SVOGI shown when UE4 was unveiled was quickly scrapped because it was simply unusable at the time with the hardware available. UE4's development was a total mess, Epic was totally lost (this was before Tencent came to save the day & way before they decided to give it away for free in a last hail mary attempt..which worked to a certain degree..same thing they did with Fortnite which was a total flop & had a disastrous development cycle..they aped PUBG & made it F2P and this time raked in billions).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It's not that tiny when it's on a 2060.

I don't understand why people are arguing over these obvious semantics. We have what percent of GPUs being RTX? Less than 1% going by Steam hardware survey? And that's not a niche by your reckoning?? We have what fraction of games are targeting that 1%? 11 out of how many hundreds of games being released since RTX came on the market? And that's not niche??

You cannot redefine the word 'niche' to mean something other than what it is. It means a small, specialist part of the market. RTX, people who have hardware raytracing, is a niche, and will be for a while yet, because even if RTX cards became the fastest selling ever (which they won't at $300+), it'll struggle to get to percentages that elevate it beyond a small portion of the total market. And even when you have a decent sized market for RT games and devs target it specifically, same as VR, it'll still be a niche! An install base of 10 million PCs with RTX cards all buying RT enabled games will still be a niche!!! A small percentage of the total of GPUs used for gaming and a small niche market for devs to consider.

There's no sane reason whatsoever to argue against this. It is what it is. A tree is a tree by definition, and a niche is a niche by definition, and RTX is a niche, by definition. It's English! The only reason to try and argue this is if one believes 'niche' has negative PR connotations for one's company of preference.

One day, maybe RTX hardware will not be a niche, but the argument that even now, it's not a niche, is utterly ridiculous.

 

[vipa899]

DXR is as much as niche now, as DX11 was nice when it was first introduced.

Microsoft has a quite big importance on the whole, its to be seen which direction they take with next xbox, but its not impossible they boost DXR which has support for RT(X).

One day, maybe RTX hardware will not be a niche, but the argument that even now, it's not a niche, is utterly ridiculous.

Tech like this has a slow start, but im sure install base will grow, in special with next gen gpus at 7nm, and perhaps more flexible solutions. I agree that right now the RTX market is rather small compared to the total GPU install base, its a different market to the console market as people with a base PS4 are more likely to upgrade to a PS5 then a 1070 or even 970 user to a 2060 for exempel.

 

[milk]

It's not that tiny when it's on a 2060. And it's not going to be tiny come 7nm NVIDIA GPUs. DXR is also part of the picture. DXR is as much as niche now, as DX11 was nice when it was first introduced.

And DX11 sure was a damn niche software when it released, it only became popular when...
...drum roll...
...consoles with DX11 level HW features launched.
You can deny this all you want. Consoles set the baseline.
Even examples like HL2, FarCry, Doom 3 or Crysis represent the very last moonhawks of these forward looking games made for PC-only technology, that had looks to justify that exclusivity. And what great examples they are, since all the studios responsible for these games surely went on to develop with consoles as a target for all later titles they released right after the ones mentioned here.
You guys are good at proving my own points. Thanks.

 

[vipa899]

Even examples like HL2, FarCry, Doom 3 or Crysis represent the very last moonhawks of these forward looking games made for PC-only technology

When talking hardware, where does it originate? from the pc market, xbox og was a GF3, 360 and PS3 had X1800/1900, 7800GTX deratives respectively. PS4 had mid-end 2012 hardware.

Looking at HL2, Doom 3 Crysis etc, those titles where head and shoulders above what consoles had to offer by and large, those games pushed the bounderies of then hardware.

Bottom line is if you want the latest tech its not the console you should be after.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Tech like this has a slow start

Which makes it a niche!

, but im sure install base will grow

Unless nVidia stop selling RTX cards, of course it'll grow.

...and perhaps more flexible solutions.

Which then won't be RTX.

It's probably important for people to move away from thinking of RTX as raytracing and focus on DXR and raytracing as a rendering method, akin to deferred rendering, say. It's something written in software, with hardware more or less capable, and that hardware capability will only improve with time. Where devs expend their efforts will be wherever the market rewards them. Ergo, if there were 50 million PC gamers all with raytracing capable cards, devs will target that market with RT-focused games. If the PC market is < 1million, the focus will be marginalised. The best hope for raytracing adoption in games is through mass consumer adoption of devices capable of implementing raytracing software solutions, and that will most likely be determined by whether the consoles are capable or not simply because they sell more and define the economics in which these game developers operate.

Which is all Milk is saying, and he ain't wrong.