[Video] Is RTX a Total Waste of Money??


With real-time raytracing availability almost reaching 3 years of time, people starting to actually ask if they should “future proof” for RTX. But can you tell if RTX is …

41 Comments on “[Video] Is RTX a Total Waste of Money??”

  1. RTX is not about being realistic, it's about being "real"
    I'm a programmer. (often misread as pro-gamer). I LOVE ray tracing because of the simplicity it brings. On one hand you have 234523 technologies that interact in weird ways to create the illusion of reality which result in weird bugs and are only ever "better" than ray tracing variants IF you have 235 developers and designers working to "buff the 3d in". On the other hand you have…. a red ball under a green light. Which appears black. Without anyone ever programming that behavior into it.
    Expect superb graphics coming from small independent developers in the following years. The kind of developers without the time to burn shadows on clothes and hair, and 6-pack abs on spartans

  2. Being a Minecraft nerd that was easy to tell the difference (comparing Java to Bedrock/UWP) but the other games seemed hard to tell
    Not that I can try myself with my GTX 960. RTX prices are the same as what I paid for my entire computer when I first built it. stupid 🙁

  3. Interesting choice of games, Tomb Raider which just has RT Shadows so it's fairly subtle, and Minecraft, no idea what you were comparing to there.

    I mean if they can't tell the difference between stock Minecraft and RT Minecraft then they need their eyes tested.

  4. RTX is a meme, Nvidia had to find something to peddle their 20 series and make graphics more demanding so people were forced to upgrade. Not saying it's unnecesary at all, in the future will be the standard, but nowadays it should be marketed towards the common consumer.

  5. if they had seen the game Control with or without Raytracing they would have got it within 15 sec!
    you guys are using the wrong formula to prove that Raytracing is the future…

  6. Ray Tracing is definitely not the future, and I genuinely hope it doesn't become an industry standard.
    "Realism" equating "good" is a massive fallacy.
    All you're doing when you keep adding more realistic detail, is lifting up the ceiling for the amount of detail the brain will request out of a scene to be convinced that it's real. And most importantly, it's boring. Ye age old "If I wanted 100% realism I'd walk outside" argument is still undefeated.
    Nobody can tell me with a straight face that some Call of Duty with Raytracing is more immersive than We Happy Few, with is ridiculous cartoonish lighting.

  7. honestly i dont care much about rtx in games.
    there are far more problems then mentioned here.
    sure for a full high end super realistic game, you would want to raytrace everything.
    but fakery, stilization might just simply look better then realism.
    more realism doesnt mean "looking better"
    actually in most cases, more realism is simply uglier.
    for example the soft shadows ray tracing creats, it add extra noise to your whole scene, it makes the whole image less clear, less clear what the eye should focus on.

    to non 3d ppl "raytracing" sounds like magic, but rly, stilization > realism.
    the only reason i like the rtx cores are the performence improofements when working, i rly dont see a big benefit for gaming in particular.
    those rtx cores are simply more performence u can use for extra stuff.

  8. Did they actually use Java for the non-RTX version of minecraft? That is a dead giveaway. I don't play bedrock, so are normal shaders not available on bedrock? Is that why they used java?

  9. I can tell with 100% when ray tracing is on and yes we got bird with long tail, Real gamers can tell when ray tracing is on not non gamers they so noobs.

  10. 10:10 Minecraft RTX looks terrible imo, a good shader like Complementary, Sildurs Vibrant or ofc SEUS PTGI look so much better… Who cares it's not RTX, it's just the lighting in general that looks better.

  11. RTX is only one sample per pixel for shadows and lighting effects only. To get a fully rendered photo realistic scene with pure Path Tracing you need around 12,000 samples per pixel (the point where a de-noiser is doing nothing). So, rasterisation will be around for a long time yet.

  12. Ray-tracing is mostly gonna be a shortcut for devs. Watch Digital Foundry's video on Metro Exodus: Enhanced Edition, where they replaced all the custom fake lights with automatic ray-traced ones and it looks much better, but… Not that drastically. They show how the devs can just toggle an option to get super good lighting that saves so much hassle and time.

    So ray-tracing is gonna just allow devs to do more. If they can automate the lighting, they can focus more on content and polish.

  13. Really good ray tracing is pretty amazing, but so far most games only have ok ray tracing, which doesn't look good enough to justify the performance hit. Over time we will get more efficient ray tracing algorithms, and it will be better.

  14. Path tracing isn't a "short cut" version of ray tracing. Path tracing is a more general version of ray tracing and can be much more expensive. The RTX cards have support for path tracing because NVIDIA also wants to accelerate traditional non-realtime rendering — most games don't use full-blown path tracing.

Have a comment? Type it below!