For what BFV does you may be right, but they are not using it for global illumination like Metro. I don’t see turning that on off being practical.
Ahhhhh. That’s very interesting. So due to performance constraints we’re back to using tricks, rather than “it just works”. Well, hopefully the tricks won’t be necessary next generation.
Good point, forgot about that.
Wouldn’t that kill sales of the 20x line? I guess if sales have been bad enough.
It would, but more importantly, it would allow Nvidia to sell a cheaper model at the 1080ti/2080 performance tier without depressing the perceived value of the RTX line, and kill the Vega 7 dead.
That would be the card I shoot for, or even a 1180ti if such a thing were to exist. But I’m looking at picking up a gaming laptop, and I’ll be holding off until I hear word on the rumored 11-series.
I don’t think there will ever be a point in computer graphics where “it just works” is a reality. No matter how powerful dedicated ray tracing hardware gets, developers will always introduce optimizations to enable them to reach higher resolutions, higher frame rates, push detail in other areas, etc.
I don’t see any reason to ever need resolutions higher than 4k at current screen sizes and view distances. VR could probably benefit up to 8k. Same with framerates, the limitation is the human body, our eyes can only resolve pixels larger than a certain size at a certain distance, our brains see anything over X fps as smooth.
I don’t like Linus Tech Tips but they did get a watch from me with their recent video where they did a blind test of resolution. The short of it was that for text and productivity, 4K is good. For games, it’s not only not as good, but a $6K gaming PC with 4K is less preferred than a normal gaming PC with 1440p.
Yep. I will defend higher DPIs to the death for productivity, but even with excellent (corrected) eyesight the difference between 1440 and 4k at 27" and typical desk distance (2-3 feet) is negligible.
I do want to stab my eyes out going back to 1080/25" though, especially with Windows’ often-shitty font scaling.
For games, though, even 1080/25" is great.
Seems like the RTX line would become pretty undesirable… Is this really likely?
True, but if sales are really sluggish enough, why back a lame horse? It is the sunk cost fallacy to stick with something not working, especially if your competitor basically gave up trying to compete effectively, why not go for the jugular?
This is true, but there’s no way this is a reaction to poor sales. Nvidia couldn’t pump out a new chip and design this fast. If it’s real, an 11xx series has been in the works to go long side the 20xx series for years.
I’m down for a $250 1160, would put in a pre-order today. Aside from that I keep considering my options.
I’d be interested to see if there’s any perf/watt improvement over the 10 series.
It could be 2080s binned because their ray-tracing cores are busted. Or possibly rebranded 1080tis, but I doubt that as they were very large chips.
I suppose they could have been sitting on a bunch of extra 1080tis since the cryptomining bubble burst that they’re gonna rebrand, but that’ll become obvious as soon as they release the specs.
AMD working on ray tracing as well
Can’t wait to try the gsynch crap on my monitor next week. I just upgraded to a 144hz monitor and a 1070ti. If this works on my monitor well I’ll be super happy that I didn’t pony up more for a gsynch monitor.
The prices just seemed too insane to consider. I see a similar AOC monitor is listed as compatible so fingers crossed. So far I’m generally at or near the refresh rate, but come a year or two down the road that will start changing.