I remember Half Life 2, during development Valve had to create many rendering systems, spanning 3 different DirectX versions: DX7, DX8 and DX9, the differences between these 3 APIs were vast, each requiring different data storage, programming language and rendering approach. In the end Valve had to create 9 rendering systems and spent a very long time making sure all of them look consistent.
No, just default raster lighting vs path tracing.
Yes PT and RT off vs PT on.
Well, clearly the users are staying stuck in the past.... If we believe steam, users are playing old games more than ever and we're almost 5 years into a new generation. Then again, it's not about staying in the past. As someone who bought the ps5, series x, ps5 pro, rtx 3080, then 4080, this generation on average has yielded one of the most unremarkable jumps in graphics I've ever experienced. For the most part, RT has done absolutely nothing to address that. Personally speaking, I'm no longer interested in funding experiments that don't yield tangible gains.
Cyberpunk was referenced because for many, it represented a notable jump in graphics. For me, it's a game that is carried mostly by it's art and city design while having no readily comparable reference point. There's no other game in that type of setting at that scale. However, it terms of rendering, barring RT/PT, it's quite unremarkable.
Like I said, I'm not against paying for the cost of advancement... However, if all you have to show for it is slightly better shadows, rt reflections, and real-time gi as opposed to baked gi, I'm not interested.
I'm not blaming poor RT implementations. It's a case of trying to do everything and doing nothing well.
That's a fair take for sure and I'm ok with Devs taking their time to learn. I'm just not going to personally fund their learnings anymore. I'll wait till ROI is good again to start spending like I previously used to.
Present an alternative and I'll change it! (one of the perils of people posting OT in other threads instead of starting new ones, they are at the mercy of the mods' interpretation when the tile is formed).
I don't know. RT implementation case by case basis until hardware is ready?
You are totally off the mark. At least in the case of Doom and Crysis these games set new examples in rendering techniques but were not the norm. The majority of games respected the hardware that was available./yawn
When Doom3 released, no GPU could run it at max settings.
When Crysis released, no GPU could run it at max settings.
When the Witcher 3 released, no GPU could run it at max settings.
Plenty of games have done this, the only difference is that back then, people adjusted their settings down, but today people whine and want to stop progress because their expectations to their GPU is broken.
Boring
I think this would qualify as a low effort post no? On top of being a low effort post, it's just false equivalency. Show me in the past where Nvidia released an x80 product with worse performance per dollar than the previous x80 product and a gen on gen performance increase of 15%? I'll wait. Let's not forget the rapid rate of gpu improvement in those days render this statement completely useless. In 2024, a $3000 5090 gets you a whole 28 frames in cyberpunk 2077 at 4k with PT./yawn
When Doom3 released, no GPU could run it at max settings.
When Crysis released, no GPU could run it at max settings.
When the Witcher 3 released, no GPU could run it at max settings.
Plenty of games have done this, the only difference is that back then, people adjusted their settings down, but today people whine and want to stop progress because their expectations to their GPU is broken.
Boring
)I can't help but laugh lol. 4k ultra in 2015 on pc as a representative resolution of the times.... Yea OK. The same goes for 1600x1200 in 2004 but like I said in my original post, I'm not surprised. Using your logic, I should post benchmarks of cyberpunk 2077 pt at 8k native so that you can see the difference between 8-12 fps and a 30fps average which many people still play at in 2025 today.... in both those examples you posted, a solid 30fps is achievable at the laughable resolutions you chose. The same cannot be said for a $3000 5090 at 8k path traced.Try finding max setting, not numbers tailored to lower settings, I wrrte max settings and then you post numbers at lower resolution (1080p)/No AA:
Doom 3:
View attachment 13123Doom 3 Graphics Deathmatch
www.anandtech.com
The witcher 3:
View attachment 13124The Witcher 3 Video Card Benchmark - Poor Software Optimization by CDPR | GamersNexus
stub Benchmarking the Witcher 3 proved to be more cumbersome than any game we've ever benchmarked. CD Projekt Red's game doesn't front the tremendously overwhelming assortment of options that GTA V does – all of which we tested, by the way – but it was still a time-consuming piece of software to...gamersnexus.net
You do understand MAX settings right?
(Because y
Attach files
our posting actually supports my claim about people reducing settings to have playable FPS
I would argue that Path Tracing is CyberPunk adds significantly image quality and with the new DLSS TNN models, the image quality of CyberPunk 2077 version 2.21 is far greater than CyberPunk version 1.5 (Launch version)
In 2015, 1080p60 was max settings for me. I don't know about you but for me and most other pc gamers, 1080p60 was max. I was able to run it at max settings at 1080p if I wanted. Today, I have a 4k240 hz monitor and a 5090 can't even get me 1/8th of the way to my monitor refresh rate at max settings in cyberpunk.Your post just confirms my point:
No GPU can run CyberPunk 2077 at MAX settings, so adjusting settings is needed
Even @ 4K I have to use DLSS TNN Quality + FG with Path Tracing , if I use DLAA @ 4K my FPS gets to low.
Just like with Doom 3 when I ran it back in the day.
Just like the Witcher 3, where PhysX Hairworks and 4x AA also made that impossible at MAX settings
And we do agree that 1080P is not MAX settings?
I think the claim about Doom 3 is regarding its highest texture setting only running on GPUs with higher than 256 mb VRAM - which in August 2004 did not exist.
I don't think anyone should need their head examined for favouring similar or improved image quality at higher performance levels.
