How are you interpreting these benchmarks? Radeon VII is the same transistor count as RTX 2080 and performs better and worse given different workloads. Previous gen is typically slower, although I don't know about performance per transistor. In fact that's actually an important thing to consider - it's not just raw performance but performance per dollar per W, with gaming workloads needing to be well balanced (certainly for consoles).
At best you can make comparisons between the same vendor, if at all.
AMD compute performance is always very easy to predict, and always is as expected. Just take core count times frequency and you know. (VII is different because of bandwidth which is out of the norm)
This is very difficult. Games mostly profit from rasterization performance, because they have not found a real use for compute yet. (They need a GDC talk just to tell them: "Hey, you can use compute to cull stuff! Awesome, isn't it?") But there is constant increase in compute usage.
Likely i got this question wrong.
Impossible: Both worlds need their own acceleration structures - twice the work. DXR BVH is blackboxed and only accessible by tracing DXR rays, which further do not allow parallel algorithms.
By all means say in your experience working with compute, AMD is better. but you can't cite a source and then ignore its data when making an argument.
Looking at these benchmarks, the ones you linked to, I see no data to suggest last-gen GPUs were faster at compute. It's unfair to NV to make such bold assertions, especially with your data showing the complete opposite - I'd classify those remarks as FUD.By all means say in your experience working with compute, AMD is better. but you can't cite a source and then ignore its data when making an argument.
Which looks a lot better, and i have recognized this. Believe me i like to see this, because it makes my worries MUCH smaller. And i have worries. RTX and tensors DO reduce enything else, you all know this.
1080 is faster than 2080 in only 1/8 of those charts that I'm seeing. Therefore, it's not faster overall. It's faster in some cases.
The reason I say it sounds like FUD is because, had I not checked the links, I'd have taken your word for it and walked away thinking, "gosh, last-gen nVidia GPUs are better at compute than the new ones." It's fairly typical not to check every link and to trust them to be valid. Having checked your link, I see limited situations where 1080 is faster so overall, your statement is plain wrong - 1080 isn't faster at compute.
I'm not reacting to anything of the sort. Vendor doesn't come into is, as I mentioned just a few posts above. My remark is about data and logical debate. Assertions that can be backed by facts should be, and if those facts don't show what the argument they are supposed to be supporting are saying, something's very wrong with the discussion.
The 'FUD' here is nVidia's last-gen GPUs are better at compute than their new GPUs. If true, no-one interested in performance compute should buy RTX and should instead buy 1080s. It's the kind of significant assertion that needs backing up.
I've both been accused of being biased in favour of AMD and biased in favour of nVidia in this one thread, so I think the neutrality crown goes to me because I seem to be on the wrong side of everyone.
99.9% of games are triangle-based. It's the best choice for now.
I looked at the Danger Planet tech (link). It's very limited compared to ray tracing. Doesn't even handle occlusion, it requires manual artist input to prevent light leaking. In any case, PICA PICA already uses surfels for GI and doesn't have noise issues.
False dichotomy. If anything, Microsoft and NVIDIA pushing RT is what will generate the research that will yield faster algorithms. Without this push there would be little interest and therefore little research into the topic.The argument is that the short-term gains come with notable long-term losses in reduced R&D and dead-end/restricted algorithm developments.
I don't know whether that's true or not, but hopefully people can understand the argument and talk about it in terms of the choices, rather than just trying to make everything about how to get RT out there now. Hypothetically, if the choices were:
1) Get fixed function HW and realtime RT hybrid games out there now, and lose access to the more efficient Future Methods for 10 years, resulting in slower RT effects in games for 10 years
2) Have a slower introduction of RT technologies that are more flexible and get weaker gains now, but through more flexible solutions gain more significant gains through Future Methods, resulting in significantly faster solutions 5 years from now and going forwards
Which would people choose? And how about different timelines? Iroboto's argument that you need iterative advances to uncover new tech is a strong one, but we also have compute enable exploration in an 'almost fast enough' way without the need for specific hardware, and that could lead to the best game solutions rather than following a 1970s image construction concept.
My theory is that it's fine to put in these RT cores for professional imaging. I'm not sure they're ideal for gaming. It also doesn't matter one way or another - lives aren't in the balance.
It's not impossible. Remedy's Control uses both voxel lighting AND ray tracing.
No! How do you get 1/8, if there are only 4 cases????
But i never said this. I am afraid of that, but i don't know. Again, sorry for the noise - i see my fault here.
That's your job. Well done. I know how it feels
It does handle occlusion by negative light. That's the whole (brilliant) idea.
You still don't get it: Research on faster RT algorithms will reduce to 1%. Only NV and other Vendors will do it. No faster algorithms! Only faster blackboxed hardware.
The best choice for primary visibility O(N^2) is not necessarily the best choice for lighting O(N^3). And they do not need to be the same.
I've both been accused of being biased in favour of AMD and biased in favour of nVidia in this one thread, so I think the neutrality crown goes to me because I seem to be on the wrong side of everyone.
(doesnt that make you neutral in a sence?) Just feels like that sometimes, personally, your handling it nicely though This is exactly what i'm working on (and i expect Turing compute to be more then fast enough to be clear). In this case i still have two BVH implementations, but it's worth it and i have no choice anyways.
Of course i want the GPU that is closest to next gen consoles, and it's features and performance will answer all my questions. Who knows - maybe MS comes up with some 2060 alike, but surely no Titan
No, surely not. Unlike SSAO SSR is totally unacceptable and next gen would have allowed to address this in any case. I don't see any other solution here than RT.
Hard to guess.
