I'm still thinking about replacing my compute raytracing with RTX, and after watching the Remedy video from the other thread, i did some over the thumb comparison given their performance numbers.
The result is: I have about the same RT performance using FuryX than they mention for Turing. The comparison is not fair. My geometry is simpler (surfel hierarchy, smallest surfels 10cm), but also my diffuse rays have infinite length - not just a short range. Scene size and coarse complexity is similar.
(I'd still need to run half of my stuff beside RTX, so using RTX here would indeed cause a slow down. Reflections remain my first application for it.)
I'm saying this is to substantiate my reasons of critique. So you understand why i say we no longer need new fixed function stuff, just improve compute and let us implement what we need in the best way possible.
Of course you'll still doubt all this, but you should consider you might be wrong yourself.
... directed to all who think the purpose requires fixed function and justifies black boxes! (not to you personally)
That said (again... won't stop until i have my work generation shaders
), the video has evidence shading is indeed the bottleneck for reflections.
They say they need 1ms for tracing, and 7ms for shading the hit. Exactly the 8ms we see in BFV.
That's awesome! 1ms is better than i've expected. Photorealsim is near, guys, its coming...
(At least a huge step towards)