Tuesday, August 28th 2018

UL's Raytracing Benchmark Not Based on Time Spy, Completely New Development

After we've covered news of UL's (previously known as 3D Mark) move to include a raytracing benchmark mode on Time Spy, the company has contacted us and other members of the press to clarify their message and intentions. As it stands, the company will not be updating their Time Spy testing suite with Raytracing technologies. Part of the reason is that this would need an immense rewrite of the benchmark itself, which would be counterproductive - and this leads to the rest of the reason why it's not so: such a significant change would invalidate previous results that didn't have the Raytracing mode activated.

As such, UL has elected to develop a totally new benchmark, built from the ground up to use Microsoft's DirectX Raytracing (DXR). This new benchmark will be added to the 3D Mark app as an update. The new test will produce its own benchmarking scores, very much like Fire Strike and Time Spy did, and will provide users with yet another ladder to climb on their way to the top of the benchmarking scene. Other details are scarce - which makes sense. But the test should still be available on or around the time of NVIDIA's 20-series launch, come September 20th.
Sources: UL, None of the images herein are representative of UL's benchmark, they're just examples of Raytracing
Add your own comment

10 Comments on UL's Raytracing Benchmark Not Based on Time Spy, Completely New Development

#2
RejZoR
I don't get it why they can't do some sort of Ray Tracing Approximation where you'd use rays as method of approximating the light refraction or reflections and then faking them with lower precision. I bet 90% of people wouldn't even know a difference and you can bet it would be way faster than just brute force blasting rays at things. We can do that later when graphics really become fast enough. We just aren't at that point yet when you have to dedicate 1/3 of GPU just to render few reflections in a game (not even whole scene!) that barely reaches playable framerate.
Posted on Reply
#3
ViperXTR
Caring1, post: 3893515, member: 153156"
Oooh, shiny.
You mean grainy
Posted on Reply
#4
silentbogo
It looks familiar. I think I've already seen it in one of the NVidia demos (apparently developed by Remedy Entertainment, formerly Futuremark's parent company):



EDIT: Here's a better one from Remedy channel
Posted on Reply
#5
londiste
RejZoR, post: 3893523, member: 1515"
I don't get it why they can't do some sort of Ray Tracing Approximation where you'd use rays as method of approximating the light refraction or reflections and then faking them with lower precision. I bet 90% of people wouldn't even know a difference and you can bet it would be way faster than just brute force blasting rays at things. We can do that later when graphics really become fast enough. We just aren't at that point yet when you have to dedicate 1/3 of GPU just to render few reflections in a game (not even whole scene!) that barely reaches playable framerate.
That is exactly what RTX is doing ;)

And before someone comes to nitpick, sparse raytracing is used to generate some stages of things like lightmap/shadowmap/reflections and the sparse result is then upsampled with the machine learning DLSS to be used in the normal rasterized graphics pipeline. Doing that to the entire frame is just not viable at this time.

Precision as well as algorithms used are already heavily optimized, technically they are doing a variant of path tracing.
Posted on Reply
#6
jabbadap
silentbogo, post: 3893533, member: 141875"
It looks familiar. I think I've already seen it in one of the NVidia demos (apparently developed by Remedy Entertainment, formerly Futuremark's parent company):



EDIT: Here's a better one from Remedy channel

Nah those pics are just for illustration and forum misses the sources mentioned in news piece:
Sources: UL, None of the images herein are representative of UL's benchmark, they're just examples of Raytracing
Posted on Reply
#7
Sharkyy
Bull s..t . dis is to not show how much slow is this new graphics card
Posted on Reply
#8
R0H1T
UL ~ couldn't they've come up with something clever(er) :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#10
Boosnie
RejZoR, post: 3893523, member: 1515"
I don't get it why they can't do some sort of Ray Tracing Approximation where you'd use rays as method of approximating the light refraction or reflections and then faking them with lower precision. I bet 90% of people wouldn't even know a difference and you can bet it would be way faster than just brute force blasting rays at things. We can do that later when graphics really become fast enough. We just aren't at that point yet when you have to dedicate 1/3 of GPU just to render few reflections in a game (not even whole scene!) that barely reaches playable framerate.
lol
Posted on Reply