Well its good they finally found a use for there $1,200 cards! o_O 😕 😕 😱 🙄

Thanks for the links.

Appears to be completely framerate locked down. No idea of what would be possible if it was unlocked

15 fps lol on my 1080

7-15 fps for me on a 1080 Ti FE with +130 on the core and +570 on the RAM. I'm disappointed that these demos give you zero controls. Edit: At 1440p.

For those where the game doesnt start fullscreen or with the right resolution: Disable Windows DPI Scaling ~30fps with 2070 on 1440p

On an Asus Strix 1070Ti [youtube=iLiLuG4QOrY]

SharpGame:

On an Asus Strix 1070Ti Almost as good as when i had a Commendor 64 😛

[QUOTE = "Sempaii, post: 5659454, miembro: 259995"] [/ QUOTE] ;)

Works with my GTX1070 and latest driver. Runs like crap, but, it's an interesting look into the demands of "realistic" looking graphics. Gpu+cpu power is only part of the problem, it's obvious that hard drive space requirements would also be huge for a fully-fledged game. However, it also shows we're really not that many years away from this being potentially mainstream and the accepted standard. If I said 10yrs away, I still think I'm over-estimating.

I'm sorry, but I can't see one frame that would be impossible to mimic 100% with standard rasterizing tech--to look just like it and run at a 3x-4x better frame rate. Lol...10 fps at lowly 1080P--stutter city. People really get carried away with the Chrome look, eh? (You can do chrome effects and reflections that look just as nice with standard rasterizing. The "chrome look" isn't used that much in gaming today because it's such an old, hackneyed effect--done to death in previous years, previous games, movies, etc. Chrome & reflections does *not* = ray tracing. Sigh.) If this scene was actually *ray traced* you'd be lucky to get one frame generated every ten minutes. Instead of hybrid--well, there's no actual "ray tracing" going on, so I guess it's "hybrid rasterizing" (whatever that might be...;)) designed to mimic a ray-traced output. But that's what rasterizing is, anyway! Ah, leave it to marketeers to foul the environment once again! I predict this will be a very short-lived D3d effect, but we'll see. You know, if nVidia had called this "programmed rasterization" or something along those lines I'd have had no objection whatever. But "real-time ray tracing"...? No such thing! Doesn't exist. "Hybrid rendering" is fine--just leave off any mention of "real-time ray tracing" and all is well. But that's not going to happen, eh? But, I'll give nVidia props for finally getting out an actual *demo* of something that will run on those $800-$1300 cards! Even if it s only @ 1080P! It's about time, I should think--only about--what--six months late? Better late than never, right, nVidia? (I know that I sound like an old sour puss about this--but there's just something about *false advertising* that has always rubbed me the wrong way! Grrrrrr!)

waltc3:

I'm sorry,

No need to apologise, I think most tech-savvy people here realise you really haven't got a clue what you are talking about. 🙂

:p

"The "chrome look" isn't used that much in gaming today because it's such an old, hackneyed effect--done to death in previous years,..." No, that's not why. The reason why is because they CAN'T do it and look good. "You know, if nVidia had called this "programmed rasterization" or something along those lines I'd have had no objection whatever. But "real-time ray tracing"...? No such thing! Doesn't exist." You obviously don't even know what ray tracing is. What nonsense.

I think this demo looks outstanding. I am fortunate to have a very capable machine and it runs and looks great. I was at GTC last month and I saw this and "Troll" there and both of them look terrific. BTW - the machine listed in my profile is my work machine. My job involves CUDA programming and I actually do use those GPUs for their intended purpose.

waltc3:

I'm sorry, but I can't see one frame that would be impossible to mimic 100% with standard rasterizing tech--to look just like it and run at a 3x-4x better frame rate. Lol...10 fps at lowly 1080P--stutter city. People really get carried away with the Chrome look, eh? (You can do chrome effects and reflections that look just as nice with standard rasterizing. The "chrome look" isn't used that much in gaming today because it's such an old, hackneyed effect--done to death in previous years, previous games, movies, etc. Chrome & reflections does *not* = ray tracing. Sigh.) If this scene was actually *ray traced* you'd be lucky to get one frame generated every ten minutes. Instead of hybrid--well, there's no actual "ray tracing" going on, so I guess it's "hybrid rasterizing" (whatever that might be...;)) designed to mimic a ray-traced output. But that's what rasterizing is, anyway! Ah, leave it to marketeers to foul the environment once again! I predict this will be a very short-lived D3d effect, but we'll see. You know, if nVidia had called this "programmed rasterization" or something along those lines I'd have had no objection whatever. But "real-time ray tracing"...? No such thing! Doesn't exist. "Hybrid rendering" is fine--just leave off any mention of "real-time ray tracing" and all is well. But that's not going to happen, eh? But, I'll give nVidia props for finally getting out an actual *demo* of something that will run on those $800-$1300 cards! Even if it s only @ 1080P! It's about time, I should think--only about--what--six months late? Better late than never, right, nVidia? (I know that I sound like an old sour puss about this--but there's just something about *false advertising* that has always rubbed me the wrong way! Grrrrrr!)

I was under the impression that it was actually tracing like 1 ray per hour and using an algorithm to fill in the rest with horse shit, combined with traditional rasterization for that result? Either way, I feel like 7 fps on a 1080 Ti is a joke, a very intentional one by nVidia, to swing around their RTX brand for e-peen points in hopes of future sales.

In answer to some of the recent posts... It *is* doing real ray tracing, albeit at very low sample counts and with very limited bounces. Ray tracing is incredibly expensive in terms of computational cost. I'll say that again; Ray tracing is incredibly expensive in terms of computational cost. That's why frame rates aren't so great and it is also why we are only seeing a very small subset (typically reflections and shadows) of what ray tracing can offer. Until we have hardware available that is order of magnitudes more powerful the evolution of ray tracing will very much be an incremental thing. At least it's a step in the right direction (the first steps in the right direction). As more powerful hardware arrives (and algorithms improve) we will see more of the rendering equation satisfied in real time through ray tracing / path tracing, which will go some way towards generating the types of high-fidelity visuals we see in movies. However... this is not going to happen soon. Many folks just don't realise (or don't care!) how expensive ray tracing is to perform. I can't stress that enough. I personally welcome what nVidia has done in terms of the new hardware architecture as I think this is the way to go. I also applaud the fact that they have drivers, etc. that allow some of the ray tracing apps and demos to run on non-Turing platforms. Of course, they don't run great [on on-Turing] but that's what the new RTX cards are for. It's not a marketing gimmick and nVidia aren't deliberately restricting ray tracing performance on older non-Turing GPUs (such as the 1080 Ti). Those older GPUs simply don't have what it takes to deliver ray traced content at half-decent frame rates. They offer superb rasterisation performance but it's ridiculous moaning about how poorly they perform with ray tracing enabled; they weren't designed for it and they don't have the hardware and pipelines for it.