RejZoRIt's great they can make it faster. It's just shit at scaling on hardware level in terms of what shit we can buy that isn't 3000 €. If this was around GTX 1000 series, such improvement would be awesome. Now I just approach everything NVIDIA does with a jug full of skepticism because their priorities are all over the place. On one side they are 99% catering to corporate Ai slop and on the other hand they are like "hey we care about gamers too yo". No you don't.

It's literally "This is worthless" meme IRL. If it's not yet it soon will be if they continue with this trajectory. It's why I'm mad and salty. Because the state of the industry is in the ass.

That's exactly what this is fixing!!!! If this new approach makes PT 3x faster, alternatively, you can do the same speed with 3x less power. This fixes the hardware scaling problem. Look at these numbers and imagine a 3x performance improvement. The 3080 gets 99fps at 1440p. The 5060 gets 72fps at 4k! Imagine that! A 5060 tier card giving you a 4k60 path-traced game. Instead of needing a $3000 GPU (5090) to break 60fps, you just need a $300 GPU.

TheinsanegamerNI'm sure we're going to hear lots of people talk about how this is utterly useless, nobody wants it, and its ruining gaming.

I'm glad somebody is trying to push lighting forward. Having seen a few games using path tracing, the lighting really does look better.

Some people get disenchanted with technology as they experience issues with said technology. When the cost of using new technology is prohibitive to most users because it costs an arm and a leg or two, people will not be happy. I wish I was able to just go along my day as if companies aren't doing the worst damage to our economy.

I remember the days of 8-bit gaming (Commodore 64, Atari, Amiga, IBM Clone PCs, etc.), when the gameplay, not the graphics was the thing most gamers really enjoyed. To me, gameplay is always more important than the new feature in graphics. Maybe you are too young to understand what has changed over the years and not for the benefit of humanity or the consumer.

evernessinceThis looks pretty cool although the difference in output is of note, particularly that last clip with the reflections on the white floor. We'll have to see more of it to get a better idea of what it can do. The performance improvement is insane.



Well ya know, there are valid points behind those opinions. Those are actually adding something to the conversation, instead of being the first poster on every Nvidia releated thread pre-glazing or defending them before everyone else has a chance to speak. That doesn't add anything to the conversation.

I don't care whether you are pro or con, at least comment on the actual article.

Yeah. That is exactly right. It's like they are trolling people because they have their own opinions. Why do they think they are the gatekeepers of the community? Kind of sad, really...

TheinsanegamerNI'm sure we're going to hear lots of people talk about how this is utterly useless, nobody wants it, and its ruining gaming.

Path Tracing (and to some extent even the Ray Tracing) as it was pushed to customers since Sep 2018, was and still is utterly useless garbage not even at pre-alpha level of development.

TheinsanegamerNI'm glad somebody is trying to push lighting forward.

I am just afraid I wont live long enough to see the results.
🙄

LastDudeALiveIf this new approach makes PT 3x faster, alternatively, you can do the same speed with 3x less power.

Or devs will try to apply 3x more effects ...

Looks fantastic. Since Path Tracing (using CP2077 as an example) looks so good it's what everyone thought Ray Tracing was going to be I think. Hopefully this tech will be hardware supported by RTX 60 series.

phintsLooks fantastic. Since Path Tracing (using CP2077 as an example) looks so good it's what everyone thought Ray Tracing was going to be I think. Hopefully this tech will be hardware supported by RTX 60 series.

Its a new algorithm of how from limited amount of casted rays, reflections and refractions made the light map od the 3D scene.

It probably could run on rtx 3090 (rtx 3090Ti)
rtx 4090 definitely has enough computing power to run it.
But you will get it enabled on rtx 6060 laptop which wont have enough power to use it for real.

TheinsanegamerNI'm sure we're going to hear lots of people talk about how this is utterly useless, nobody wants it, and its ruining gaming.

I'm glad somebody is trying to push lighting forward. Having seen a few games using path tracing, the lighting really does look better.

Oh path tracing is actually really interesting however for gaming it's not that interesting because it's simply too intensive compared to 2-3 bounce depth ray tracing. However gaming is far from the only field it can be used.

They could do it all along, to simplify what they do, they calculate 20%-30% and the rest is estimated based on some AI model, then they have left over performance for denoising.
They had it but they give it slowly, new generation, next generation, all that bullshit.
Now with Pragmata and Resident Evil Requiem, Nvidia insists on full precision or higher precision path tracing, they could do it much cheaper but if it runs on RTX 5070 then what would be the point of RTX 5080 and 5090.
Bought tech media like Digital Foundry will advertise this like they invented the light bulb, Nvidia is getting close to Apple in terms of marketing.

Well, hello :) So, do you know what's worse from raytracing? 4K+ gaming.. as if super high resolution (or raytracing, that is) will make crappy games (read: most of them) any better.. But of course companies do know that already, so there you have DLSS or whatever and call it a day,
Greetings

I'm sure this will come out just in time for the next generation of GPUs and will require some totally not made up optical flow path tracing accelerator tensor core which unfortunately previous generation GPUs don't have.

evernessinceWell ya know, there are valid points behind those opinions. Those are actually adding something to the conversation, instead of being the first poster on every Nvidia releated thread pre-glazing or defending them before everyone else has a chance to speak. That doesn't add anything to the conversation.

I don't care whether you are pro or con, at least comment on the actual article.

Why would you comment something so blatantly wrong trying to bait an argument like this is WCCFtech?

Like I said, PT offers a huge visual upgrade, and I'm glad that at least one company in the space is working hard to push the tech forward. If you dont like new technology you are welcome to disable PT and keep using pre baked renders, just like nobody forces you to use RT, upscaling, or FG.

chrcolukTo me RT looks worse than legacy lighting, PT catches up with legacy lighting, but with a huge performance penalty, the only point of the tech is to help those sorry dev's who want every shortcut they can get.

Playing a game like Metro, the RT make sit look a whole gen newer.

Vya DomusI'm sure this will come out just in time for the next generation of GPUs and will require some made up optical flow path tracing accelerator tensor core that unfortunately previous generations GPU don't have.

Pretty sure you mistook nVidia for AMD here.

Regardless, technology WILL advance, and at some point you will need new hardware to do new effects. Thats how things work.

I feel like people just want the industry to completely stagnate so the never have to accept any kind of change (and then they can complain we're still stuck on 4 cores and why cant we get something better.....)

BigshrimpSome people get disenchanted with technology as they experience issues with said technology. When the cost of using new technology is prohibitive to most users because it costs an arm and a leg or two, people will not be happy. I wish I was able to just go along my day as if companies aren't doing the worst damage to our economy.

I remember the days of 8-bit gaming (Commodore 64, Atari, Amiga, IBM Clone PCs, etc.), when the gameplay, not the graphics was the thing most gamers really enjoyed. To me, gameplay is always more important than the new feature in graphics

Oh yes, the pinnacle of gameplay: run to the right and press the jump button. if you get REALLY advanced, maybe you run LEFT too!

Gamers still enjoy good gameplay today. IDK why you think that changed, games with good gameplay are consistently outselling and out living graphical showcases with no meat to them.

BigshrimpMaybe you are too young to understand what has changed over the years and not for the benefit of humanity or the consumer.

Ive been around more than long enough to tell you people today have become insanely cynical and depressed, angry over every little thing. when Crysis came out, people didnt wail and gnash their teeth over this unoptimized fairly mediocre FPS game with some neat effects. When Hardware T&L released, people didnt cringe and demand developers keep doing things the old fashioned way because it was good enough before.

Even now, people mald over GPU prices because they always compare them to prices during the GFC and conveniently forget the market from 2000-2007, because the top end 8800 series being in the 4 digit range with inflation doesnt fit the worldview they try to paint. A high end rig in 2008 was utterly unobtainable to the average joe unless they were REALLY dedicated, yet nobody was sobbing over how nGREEDia and SINtel were ruining the hobby with their $1000 processors. We drooled over E8600s and 8800 ultras, built our budget rigs with whatever we could get, and played our games and had fun!

Most people just want to be absolutely miserable all the time. Despite games being so "horrible" and the hardware so "terrible", ece ece they still come here and crap all over everything that comes out. Why? You have literal decades of software available to purchase, a whole lifetime's worth of games available, all of which run on the equivalent of a toaster, and if you run out somehow, you also have literal decades of consoles you can emulate! Just playing the whole PS2 library would take you decades.

I always have to ask, when someone who has been around for awhile says this stuff: "why are you here complaining about the new things you dont like instead of enjoying the literal decades of greatness available to you right now?"

TheinsanegamerNWhy would you comment something so blatantly wrong trying to bait an argument like this is WCCFtech?

Like I said, PT offers a huge visual upgrade, and I'm glad that at least one company in the space is working hard to push the tech forward. If you dont like new technology you are welcome to disable PT and keep using pre baked renders, just like nobody forces you to use RT, upscaling, or FG.

Playing a game like Metro, the RT make sit look a whole gen newer.

Pretty sure you mistook nVidia for AMD here.

Regardless, technology WILL advance, and at some point you will need new hardware to do new effects. Thats how things work.

I feel like people just want the industry to completely stagnate so the never have to accept any kind of change (and then they can complain we're still stuck on 4 cores and why cant we get something better.....)


Oh yes, the pinnacle of gameplay: run to the right and press the jump button. if you get REALLY advanced, maybe you run LEFT too!

Gamers still enjoy good gameplay today. IDK why you think that changed, games with good gameplay are consistently outselling and out living graphical showcases with no meat to them.

Ive been around more than long enough to tell you people today have become insanely cynical and depressed, angry over every little thing. when Crysis came out, people didnt wail and gnash their teeth over this unoptimized fairly mediocre FPS game with some neat effects. When Hardware T&L released, people didnt cringe and demand developers keep doing things the old fashioned way because it was good enough before.

Even now, people mald over GPU prices because they always compare them to prices during the GFC and conveniently forget the market from 2000-2007, because the top end 8800 series being in the 4 digit range with inflation doesnt fit the worldview they try to paint. A high end rig in 2008 was utterly unobtainable to the average joe unless they were REALLY dedicated, yet nobody was sobbing over how nGREEDia and SINtel were ruining the hobby with their $1000 processors. We drooled over E8600s and 8800 ultras, built our budget rigs with whatever we could get, and played our games and had fun!

Most people just want to be absolutely miserable all the time. Despite games being so "horrible" and the hardware so "terrible", ece ece they still come here and crap all over everything that comes out. Why? You have literal decades of software available to purchase, a whole lifetime's worth of games available, all of which run on the equivalent of a toaster, and if you run out somehow, you also have literal decades of consoles you can emulate! Just playing the whole PS2 library would take you decades.

I always have to ask, when someone who has been around for awhile says this stuff: "why are you here complaining about the new things you dont like instead of enjoying the literal decades of greatness available to you right now?"

Lol, you assume a lot, my man. I can complain about the new things, while I enjoy the old things. In fact, I do, as it is more enjoyable than the new things. Anyhow, people will always have different opinions and you can either accept it, or keep trolling others because you don't like their opinions.

PT makes a huge difference in games and I am glad to see it gains more attention. I also heard rumors that the next gen RTX 6000 cores will also have multiple times better performance in PT.

Leaks claim that the 5th generation RT core has 2x better path tracking, and now 2x or 3x better with optimization. If that stacks up, we'll have a real breakthrough. Well, it's probably still not enough for a good real-time experience.

CornyOCPT makes a huge difference in games and I am glad to see it gains more attention. I also heard rumors that the next gen RTX 6000 cores will also have multiple times better performance in PT.

Sure.
When you pay for higher class than you have now.

The compute problem is a lie.
it's just like trying to render down to microscopic levels with rasterization & tessellation.

If I can't can't see it why are you rendering it ??? I don't have a in game microscope? ?? ( Crysis 2)

the current ray tracing design factors are poorly done, to the point where no hardware will have enough compute to staify it
What's need it cut off points for ray & dynamic ray count total that can change on the fly. Games don't need 1,024 ray pre-pixel if the screen if the scene is full of fog! or the light intensity isn't the high. ( that 1024 ray's- per-pixel's what developers claimed they needed for no noise in ray tracing games. While a RTX 5090 can only 4.5 ray pre-pixel even in 4K rendering while rendering rasterization.) by the way that's 256x more compute performance for rays. Not ever going to hit that untill 20 years later

What's need isn't compute it's link the rays to correctly done physics for waves, frequency's & intensity.
The current design is compute heavy because it's sort of just "Dumb rays" that don't do very much except from Point A to point B & sometime reflect from point B to C, then tell the texture units to shader x,y,z. There's literally a ton of things the light ray isn't doing or isn't doing properly. That Ray tracing cores can't do without proper physics calculations applied to it or reapplied while in motion.

This is just a ploy to get you accept more A.I software that isn't actually helping, or just hallucinating details that weren't originally there, but look aesthetically please to people.

I was looking at some DLSS 4 transformer model on Horizion Zero dawn Forbiddin west & I'm fairly certain that it was adding details that was never part of the original games models or rendering even on 16k native.
DLSS 5 took that to the extreme, since they were getting away with it on DLSS 4.

DemonicRyzen666The compute problem is a lie.
it's just like trying to render down to microscopic levels with rasterization & tessellation.

If I can't can't see it why are you rendering it ??? I don't have a in game microscope? ?? ( Crysis 2)

the current ray tracing design factors are poorly done, to the point where no hardware will have enough compute to staify it
What's need it cut off points for ray & dynamic ray count total that can change on the fly. Games don't need 1,024 ray pre-pixel if the screen if the scene is full of fog! or the light intensity isn't the high. ( that 1024 ray's- per-pixel's what developers claimed they needed for no noise in ray tracing games. While a RTX 5090 can only 4.5 ray pre-pixel even in 4K rendering while rendering rasterization.) by the way that's 256x more compute performance for rays. Not ever going to hit that untill 20 years later

What's need isn't compute it's link the rays to correctly done physics for waves, frequency's & intensity.
The current design is compute heavy because it's sort of just "Dumb rays" that don't do very much except from Point A to point B & sometime reflect from point B to C, then tell the texture units to shader x,y,z. There's literally a ton of things the light ray isn't doing or isn't doing properly. That Ray tracing cores can't do without proper physics calculations applied to it or reapplied while in motion.

This is just a ploy to get you accept more A.I software that isn't actually helping, or just hallucinating details that weren't originally there, but look aesthetically please to people.

I was looking at some DLSS 4 transformer model on Horizion Zero dawn Forbiddin west & I'm fairly certain that it was adding details that was never part of the original games models or rendering even on 16 native.
DLSS 5 took that to the extreme, since they were getting away with it on DLSS 4.

Did nobody read the article? Why is everybody talking about how this is just another way to force people to buy $3000 GPUs and/or upgrade to the next generation? The article literally says the opposite. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

The paper details new ways of handling PT on the software side (i.e. in the game engine). It improves PT performance by being smarter about what is included in the process and de-duplicating work. Nothing about this signals any new hardware requirements beyond what already exists.

If the soon to be released 3060 12GB card can run games with PT at 1080p with 60Hz native, then we get somewhere mainstream with PT. That includes AMD and Intel GPUs too. Since only when everybody profits from the improvements, then game developers can go with a fully Path Traced game.

I am also glad to see that intelligent approaches are taken now. Brute force usually only is chosen in the beginning of a new tech.

LastDudeALiveThat's exactly what this is fixing!!!! If this new approach makes PT 3x faster, alternatively, you can do the same speed with 3x less power. This fixes the hardware scaling problem. Look at these numbers and imagine a 3x performance improvement. The 3080 gets 99fps at 1440p. The 5060 gets 72fps at 4k! Imagine that! A 5060 tier card giving you a 4k60 path-traced game. Instead of needing a $3000 GPU (5090) to break 60fps, you just need a $300 GPU.

Doubt it, 3x performance is straight up magic.
5090 - 140 fps @ 1080p DLSS Quality (aka 720p) with PT
Three times that is 420, oh that was yesterday, lol. :laugh: :pimp:
www.techpowerup.com/review/pragmata-performance-benchmark/5.html
^That's 55% more than 1080p native without RT.
At 1440p it would be 315 vs 220 fps, 43% more.
At 2160p it would be 186 vs 138 fps, 35% more.
So this "new PT" wouldn't give a performance penalty like expected (compared to native) but a performance boost instead. :eek:
tpucdn.com/review/pragmata-performance-benchmark/images/upscaling-performance.png
^Since the comparison uses native vs DLSS Quality there is a performance boost when switching but still reasonable percentages.
tpucdn.com/review/pragmata-performance-benchmark/images/vram.png
^There's also the question of VRAM impact of PT, does it remain the same with this new one and only the framerate increases or is the VRAM impact lower as well?

2x would seem plausible, fps for DLSS Quality would be very close to native, that would mean small performance penalty compensated by upscaling.
1080p - 271.4 vs 280 fps ("new PT" +3.2% faster)
1440p - 219.6 vs 210 fps (native +4.6% faster)
2160p - 138 vs 124 fps (native +11.3% faster)

LastDudeALiveThe paper details new ways of handling PT on the software side (i.e. in the game engine). It improves PT performance by being smarter about what is included in the process and de-duplicating work. Nothing about this signals any new hardware requirements beyond what already exists.

Yeah, could be huge assuming the caveats aren't bad (I did notice a difference in the outputs so who knows). Looking through the paper, potential downsides may include:

* Higher VRAM usage for the reservoirs and VRAM bandwidth requirements
* Deep engine integration required (notably beyond what is required for current RT)
* Higher register pressure (capacity, bandwidth, throughput)
* Longer shader compilation times (more complex shaders)
* Over / under estimation of light sources (might be why we see the difference in floor reflection in the last clip of the video.

Basically everything next gen GPUs would solve. Increasing register and cache would improve RT performance in general.

I do wish they moved away from this being temporal.

TheinsanegamerNWhy would you comment something so blatantly wrong trying to bait an argument like this is WCCFtech?

Saying other people's opinions are valid is wrong?

You are just wholesale attempting to dismiss everyone else's opinions and you don't even bother giving a reason why, let alone an actual argument.

TheinsanegamerNLike I said, PT offers a huge visual upgrade, and I'm glad that at least one company in the space is working hard to push the tech forward. If you dont like new technology you are welcome to disable PT and keep using pre baked renders,

Not sure if you actually read my comment, I did say this could be a good thing (after nothing the visual differences). Not that I've ever used any PT / RT feature. I don't dislike the feature but I do prefer performance and a clean presentation. Art style always trumps graphical fidelity.

If everyone was racing towards realism, games would homogenize visually and a big part of the charm of games has always been the visual style.

TheinsanegamerNjust like nobody forces you to use RT, upscaling, or FG.

This isn't true and we all know it. AAA games are increasingly being designed with upscaling in mind and in some cases being an outright requirement. It's absolutely at least a soft requirement in an increasing number of titles.

TheinsanegamerNIve been around more than long enough to tell you people today have become insanely cynical and depressed, angry over every little thing. when Crysis came out, people didnt wail and gnash their teeth over this unoptimized fairly mediocre FPS game with some neat effects. When Hardware T&L released, people didnt cringe and demand developers keep doing things the old fashioned way because it was good enough before.

This is really a false equivalent on many levels.

Crysis (the first) is 1 game, not an industry trend. Games of the time didn't suddenly require a $2,000 GPU in order to run. One game being hard to run is not the same as every AAA title running like doo-doo unless you have a 4090 / 5090 and still having messy artifacts. Heck I remember running Crysis on my $280 5850 right before I upgraded to something better. The presentation was also a lot cleaner as well. There was no temporal artifacts, smearing, ect. Nevermind that Crysis 1 has a more interactive environment than your average AAA title to this day.

People were excited about graphical features back then because most folks could actually afford to buy a GPU that'll run them reasonably, new features would generally run well across the entire GPU stack, you didn't have a gun held to your head basically forcing you to use features required to get decent performance, and they didn't come with image quality degradation drawbacks (remember the crap FXAA took?).

People used to get notably more performance per dollar gen over gen. That's exciting, that's advancement. It's not advancement when everything gets significantly more expensive every gen.

Sol_Badguy2x would seem plausible, fps for DLSS Quality would be very close to native, that would mean small performance penalty compensated by upscaling.

I did some math using the 5090's Alan Wake 2 PT on vs off, cutting the PT performance hit of PT in half would place the card at 173.9 FPS at 1080p, up from 132.

cinemawarePeople in these threads will always claim that this is all "subjective" and I suppose it is, to an extent. It's true that lightning is not as easy to compare as some other more obvious visual qualities (even though to me, in titles that get it right, it really is night and day)

But, I really would like to see what they would say if this tech came from AMD, was open source, or some such - ie did not carry the baggage of coming from that disgusting, greedy, evil Nvidia, (as explained to us by a myriad of self reinforcing posts, videos, and the like). Bias is a helluva thing :)

ReSTIR is open - it’s a series of algorithms. Even AMD uses it.

LastDudeALiveThat's exactly what this is fixing!!!! If this new approach makes PT 3x faster, alternatively, you can do the same speed with 3x less power. This fixes the hardware scaling problem. Look at these numbers and imagine a 3x performance improvement. The 3080 gets 99fps at 1440p. The 5060 gets 72fps at 4k! Imagine that! A 5060 tier card giving you a 4k60 path-traced game. Instead of needing a $3000 GPU (5090) to break 60fps, you just need a $300 GPU.

In my opinion, we are at least 2-3 generations from PT that scale, and graphics cards less than or equal to $300 will not handle this (if they even exist at that time). The longer nvidia has to experience large inventories and ramp up in pricing driving away consumer confidence/sentiment in their products, the quicker we will see the end of consumer GPU hardware.

How far are we realistically away from them renting us their GPUs exclusively - not just as an option via their cloud service? Their encoding is highly advanced, streaming latency is becoming almost nothing sans HAGs (even with HAGs, frame generation makes it fill almost non-existent), and fiber is rolling out nationwide.

cinemawareBut, I really would like to see what they would say if this tech came from AMD, was open source, or some such - ie did not carry the baggage of coming from that disgusting, greedy, evil Nvidia, (as explained to us by a myriad of self reinforcing posts, videos, and the like). Bias is a helluva thing :)

intel and amd hardly deliver anything to the table to even trash talk it.

that pragma game, seems another nvidia exclusive tech demo, nvidia exclusive features, is also something i do not really see what other people appreciate.

when people like it, why not. some consumers will see nvidia this and that and will keep on buying the market leader in graphic cards. which is of course good for the market. one graphic card maker means microsoft needs to test and support less hardware.

RavenasIn my opinion, we are at least 2-3 generations from PT that scale, and graphics cards less than or equal to $300 will not handle this (if they even exist at that time). The longer nvidia has to experience large inventories and ramp up in pricing driving away consumer confidence/sentiment in their products, the quicker we will see the end of consumer GPU hardware.

How far are we realistically away from them renting us their GPUs exclusively - not just as an option via their cloud service? Their encoding is highly advanced, streaming latency is becoming almost nothing sans HAGs (even with HAGs, frame generation makes it fill almost non-existent), and fiber is rolling out nationwide.

Holy cow, you guys are so negative, it's insane. If I ran Nvidia I'd stop selling consumer GPUs altogether, just to piss ungrateful guys like you off. Nvidia releases a paper like this, that details how they're working to make PT less computationally intensive so path-traced games run faster and smoother on lower-tier GPUs, and all you can talk about is insane conspiracy theories that have no relevance to the topic at hand.

They say they're making Path Tracing easier to run, and you somehow take that as a sign that they want to do away with discrete GPUs. It's like talking to a flat-earther.

LastDudeALiveHoly cow, you guys are so negative, it's insane. If I ran Nvidia I'd stop selling consumer GPUs altogether, just to piss ungrateful guys like you off. Nvidia releases a paper like this, that details how they're working to make PT less computationally intensive so path-traced games run faster and smoother on lower-tier GPUs, and all you can talk about is insane conspiracy theories that have no relevance to the topic at hand.

They say they're making Path Tracing easier to run, and you somehow take that as a sign that they want to do away with discrete GPUs. It's like talking to a flat-earther.

You have some learning about assuming how individuals are talking within a forum. I'm not negative or against nvidia creating better PT algorithms, I'm directly responding to your claim, or at least I assume your claim based on your OP, that PT on $300 GPUs at 4k is something this is not going to bring to the table in the near term. I specifically said, maybe in 2-3 generations.

I have a 5090, PT at 4k max setting is quite taxing.

LastDudeALiveDid nobody read the article? Why is everybody talking about how this is just another way to force people to buy $3000 GPUs and/or upgrade to the next generation? The article literally says the opposite. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

The paper details new ways of handling PT on the software side (i.e. in the game engine). It improves PT performance by being smarter about what is included in the process and de-duplicating work. Nothing about this signals any new hardware requirements beyond what already exists.

It literally happens so often whenever Nvidia is in the title that it even has a name and memes too. And counter memes as well