nah I responding to whether Voxel GI was enough.
Next gen lighting technologies - voxelised, traced, and everything else *spawn*
- Thread starter Scott_Arm
- Start date
That's hardly an optimized title that consoles would be. RT is a bolt-on for all the games being released this year. 2-3 years for now, if RT is part of the base console unit, games will be designed differently.
Is it DXR what's causing the slowdown?
If the base consoles can run RT at 4k or even 1440p without cutting back too much other visuals in 2-3 years then I'm all in but I somehow highly highly doubt that.
Tkumpathenurpahl
Veteran
https://www.gamersnexus.net/news-pc/3356-die-size-nvidia-rtx-2080-ti-evga-xc2-ft-der8auer
So, according to this, the die size is 775mm2. And that's at 12nm.
My gut reaction is that a node shrink wouldn't bring that within the bounds of a console SoC, but I haven't done the maths.
What kind of die area shrink are we looking at, going from 12nm to 7nm?
So, according to this, the die size is 775mm2. And that's at 12nm.
My gut reaction is that a node shrink wouldn't bring that within the bounds of a console SoC, but I haven't done the maths.
What kind of die area shrink are we looking at, going from 12nm to 7nm?
We can't say for sure but if a brand new high end card is struggling to run Tomb Raider at 1080p at >30 fps it has to be something, further analysis will require people having direct hands on and the ability to play with the knobs on every feature but it's hard to imagine it's anything but RT pulling the FPS down like that.
Edit: IIRC some other more knowledgeable folks have pointed out that TSMC 7nm node
Last edited:
TSMC 7nm has about a 3X gain in density. From their website
I wouldn't expect a shrunk down 2080Ti in the next consoles, but something closer to a 2070 with further improvements and refinements in ray tracing acceleration. At 7nm that's probably around 250mm for the GPU + 100mm or so for the CPU.
I wouldn't expect a shrunk down 2080Ti in the next consoles, but something closer to a 2070 with further improvements and refinements in ray tracing acceleration. At 7nm that's probably around 250mm for the GPU + 100mm or so for the CPU.
Wait...what? TSMC’s 7nm is suppose to offer 3.3X the density than its 16nm. And TSMC’s 12nm is just an enhanced version of its 16nm.
It all depends I think.
Once we get into checker boarding etc, using the tensor cores to possibly help with up-resolution. There are a lot of different ways for this all to play out because a console sets a standard for hardware.
Everything inside the Turing chip is desirable, there are lots of options available for the developer to use at their disposal. RT hardware support is just 1 pillar of Turing, there are other cores in there as well.
Current graphics are unbalanced. Even PS1 pre-rendered videos have better shadows than modern games. I'd cut back on polygon density and resolution if that'd get me ray tracing and volumetric effects.
480p raytracing & volumetrics > 4k rasterization and billboards.
I know this is all new tech, new cores and new optimizations but for the most powerful card 2080 ti not able to run these new games above 1080p/60fps is rather alarming. Word is Battlefield V also did not maintain 60fps at 1080p.
https://www.pcgamesn.com/nvidia-rtx-2080-ti-hands-on
Not that we'll get tensor cores in PS5 or Scarlet? anyway since they're AMD bound.
Um, I thought volumetrics are already getting more prevalent at least on major AAA games even at 4k. And I don't even want Infinity War level CGI at 480p on my 4k TV
. That'd be like one step forward and three leaps backward.
Unbalanced by what metric? They certainly have a different balance to 90's CGI, but I think it's a better one. I'm glad we are playing games with PS4 quality models, textures, and shading with blobby shadow maps instead of the garish plastic-like world's of a ps1 fmv coated by pixel perfect shadows.
In fact, I'd bet if devs were willing to sacrifice everything else to the point it looked as primitive as a typical PS1 CGI FMV, they'd be able to spend enough grunt on shadowmaps large enough to effectively look just as precise. That would have to be the least worth-it trade-off in the history of gaming.
anexanhume
Veteran
I didn’t realize Vega had so many things broken in it. Good news for Navi that NGG is supported though:
White paper for reference: https://radeon.com/_downloads/vega-whitepaper-11.6.17.pdf
White paper for reference: https://radeon.com/_downloads/vega-whitepaper-11.6.17.pdf
Last edited:
That's why I have a hard time believing that the next-generation of consoles are going to be $399... more like $499. Since MS is offering two (possibly 3) models of the next Xbox at launch, I could see the streaming-box at $199-249, the contemporary/modern system at $499, and possibly a surface-like Xbox with docking capabilities at 599$.
As far as RT capabilities I agree with you. If AMD's NAVI architecture doesn't have some-type of dedicated RT hardware, then that would mean two things for it's PC brethren. a) Nvidia will essentially be two generation ahead (with dedicated RT hardware) of AMD, if the dedicated RT only shows up in the their next architecture following Navi (Next-Gen), or b) the Navi PC variant is RT ready, and the consoles are SOL on that end. In the end, I just can't see AMD allowing Nvidia to go unchecked for two generations (a), nor them splitting the Navi architecture into two different flavors (b). We shall see...
I think the biggest thing is to think about whether or not the power is going to be there, you don’t want start a generation of rasterization again for another 6 to 8 years when ray tracing has begun now.
You want the generation to have features, let the power come with the mid generation refresh.
I should have been more specific. I meant this kind of volumetrics:Um, I thought volumetrics are already getting more prevalent at least on major AAA games even at 4k. And I don't even want Infinity War level CGI at 480p on my 4k TV
Rasterized real time lighting/shadows are awful for the level of fidelity of current gen models/shaders. The BFV RTX demo also shows how lame particle effects are.
Has anyone showcased non-graphical raytracing with these latest hardwares? The DXR API seems to be entirely graphical from what I've seen, rather than a generic interface to access RT hardwares.
Not at all! Geometry complexity doesn't affect rendering times as long as you have a suitable memory access solution, which allows for things like the old "one million sunflowers" demos. But secondary rays and shaders increase rendering times exponentially. Consider a room rendered with 5 rays per pixel. If each point sampled then casts five rays to sample its environment, that's 25 rays. If you allow a third iteration, a reflective surface reflecting a wall receiving bounced light from the ceiling, at 5 rays per sample you're now at 125 rays in total. Every surface will have its shader evaluated for every ray...lots of optimisation is needed.
In offline raytracing, it was common to prebake data to speed this up - you could raytrace lighting into a lightmap applied to the scene. I don't know if that's still a thing or not - maybe there's so much power in the hardware that it can be brute forced? This RT hardware is going to be wonderful for that. (I'm presently raytracing some graphics for ionAXXIA and a day's-plus work has mostly been 5 minute render times. Real-time rendering of the scenes would be very welcome!!)
Similar threads
