Monday, August 19th 2019
NVIDIA CEO Says Buying a GPU Without Ray Tracing "Is Crazy"
During NVIDIA's second quarter earnings call, the company's co-founder and CEO, Jensen Huang, talked about earnings and what drives demand. When talking about sales, Huang noted a few things about NVIDIA's RTX lineup of graphics cards and why buying one is the only reasonable thing to do.
Specifically, Huang said that "SUPER is off to a super start for and at this point, it's a foregone conclusion that we're going to buy a new graphics card, and it's going to the last 2, 3, 4 years to not have ray tracing is just crazy. Ray tracing content just keeps coming out. And between the performance of SUPER and the fact that it has ray tracing hardware, it's going to be super well positioned for throughout all of next year."
He says that if you are going to buy a GPU and have it last 2-4 years, you have to "future proof" your system by buying an RTX GPU. What is implied there is that NVIDIA is currently the only company that is building a GPU with ray tracing built into hardware, meaning the only choice for ray tracing enabled games.
Ironically, NVIDIA also offers Turing GPUs without any of the ray tracing capabilities in form of GTX 1660 Ti, 1660 and 1650 GPUs all positioned at low to middle range performance market.
Source:
PCGamesN
Specifically, Huang said that "SUPER is off to a super start for and at this point, it's a foregone conclusion that we're going to buy a new graphics card, and it's going to the last 2, 3, 4 years to not have ray tracing is just crazy. Ray tracing content just keeps coming out. And between the performance of SUPER and the fact that it has ray tracing hardware, it's going to be super well positioned for throughout all of next year."
Ironically, NVIDIA also offers Turing GPUs without any of the ray tracing capabilities in form of GTX 1660 Ti, 1660 and 1650 GPUs all positioned at low to middle range performance market.
108 Comments on NVIDIA CEO Says Buying a GPU Without Ray Tracing "Is Crazy"
-----Do you realize that every CEO will cherry-pick or even stretch arguments to favor the sales of their company? Always take any CEO or marketing department with more than a grain of salt.
Obviously, Nvidia's claim here about ray tracing becoming a "deal breaker" anytime soon is BS. It will take many years, and most buyers of cards in the next two years will probably replace their cards again before we see any major ray tracing usage.
Still, I would kindly ask many of you who makes fun of ray tracing to look in the mirror, many of you have fueled the narrative that GCN was somehow superior in Direct3D 12 and would be better in the long run. Now, many years later, what we are left with is crappy Direct3D 12 ports and very slow adoption rates, and a claimed advantage which never materialized. We should expect something similar for ray tracing; many years of gradually turning from a "gimmick" to "somewhat useful" and eventually becoming widespread, and by then, Turing cards will no longer be relevant.Nvidia's dominance in the PC market have never been stronger. Anyone who thinks Nvidia is in panic mode must be nothing short of delusional. What we should worry about is AMD's lack of willingness to prioritize the PC gaming market.
2. it's not holy grail, just go watch toy story it's easy to see how synthetic it is
3. this RT is so fake, you can't even call it RT
4. "lowering graphical settings" ? absolutely 0 games using this crap give you ANY control of it what so ever
5. you my dear are full of sht
2. If it isn't the holy grail, I'll ask again, why does every cgi movie use it? They have millions of dollars and months to throw at the problem, if rasterazation was better, they would do that.
3. I made no claims about the quality of RTX. Of course it isn't full RTRT, that is impossible at this point in real time.
4. I never claimed they did. That point was about tradeoffs in quality vs speed. Like how you can turn down rasterazation quality to gain fps or turn it up for visual quality.
5. If you really don't think ray tracing is better for quality than rasterazation, then you have no idea what you are talking about.
But yes, still a beast. :P
1. does RTX on versus RTX off bring massive visual improvement over the cost of the fps? (answer: no... not really)
2. does a 1440p ultra settings versus a 720p low settings has the same impact as RTX? (answer: no)
3.does the difference in visual improvement over the fps lost is equivalent? (answer: no)
4. will lowering graphic settings to alleviate the fps loss from RTX make the game using it on the same level as high/ultra settings in term of image quality? (answer: no)
i can achieve 1440/1600p 60/75fps (nope no need for 100hz+ for me ) at high or ultra settings ... but a 2080Ti in a RTX enabled game with the same detail level and goes to .... 30fps at 1080p ... and the visual quality difference is ... not that much different, yet that 2080Ti has a huge chunk of hardware dedicated to handle RTX, that alone make me think my 1070 replacement will not be green.
RTX is just like PhysX ... for now ... and the need to get a 1200$+ card t get it done with the same level of detail and resolution as my actual setup is a pure no go (well 1200 for you, not for me ... it's even a tad higher :laugh: ) i think i will pay half/third the price and skip RTX until it's really something more than a hindrance in game that use it or a demo worthy gimmick that use a baffling amount of RT core for that little improvement.
Almost4.6 Billion-aire says not buying a €1,500 GPU would be crazy"Buying a GPU without 7 nm is crazy. At the high end, we should wait for Ampere or Navi 23 if we have the patience.