- Dec 9, 2007
- 37 (0.01/day)
|Processor||C2D Q6600 @ 3.6ghz 24/7 H20|
|Cooling||2x240mm + 1x120mm + 1x360mm rads one loop.|
|Memory||4gb Corsair XMS2 6400 @ 1100mhz|
|Video Card(s)||2x ASUS HD4870 XFire H20|
|Display(s)||2 x 22" AOC + 1 x 24" AOC extended desktop|
|Audio Device(s)||X-Fi xtreme music|
|Power Supply||Enermax Liberty 620W|
|Benchmark Scores||1 Penis push up, then it broke.|
It's a comment on the ridiculousness of the notion to reject the new thing cause the old thing is just fine. Yes, the old thing is fine for you, if you don't want progress, go back to the stone age. Like I mentioned earlier, as a game dev and graphics programmer, rasterized triangles are at their limit in terms of being able to make a game look better for the amount of effort you put in (production wise and runtime wise). Ray tracing makes newer effects easier to implement and faster to run. It's really hard to actually comment on something like "Ray Tracing" as really, ray tracing has been done on shaders for many many years for all sorts of effects, really we're talking about the hardware used to accelerate the most costly part of Ray Tracing, intersections with geometry, that's really all it is (on top of denoising algos and reconstruction stuff, which is more AI focused and AMD seems to be catching up, but still not quite there).That makes no sense. Whether Ray-Tracing exists or not doesn't mean non-RTX dGPU's would have been "uninvented". It's like saying to someone "You don't see the need for PCIe 5.0 SSD? Go use a 1.44MB floppy disk then" as if there's absolutely nothing in between of those two extremes...
It's crazy to me that people DON'T want hardware to accelerate a pretty fundamental process on the GPU that ray tracing leans on heavily. If you don't want better looking games, that's fine, why the hell are you even commenting on high-end GPUs, this isn't even relevant to you. If you DO want better looking games, trust me, this is the path of least resistance and it really opens the doors to better things.
This is pixel shaders all over again. When pixel shaders came out with DX8.1/9, there were laggards who were just fine with a textured polygon and no shadows. Now look at games. 20 years from now, if we're still alive, people be making the same argument again, "My Ray Tracing is just fine, I don't need no stinkin' neuro light field cortical signal injection".
You know the more I see Ray tracing.
And I can use it.
The more I think it's a complete waste of time, energy and money.
Pre baked lighting is so good in many cases on what are fast moving game's that to me the difference is not worth the effort.
Plus instead of pre baked lighting giving us efficient and effective gaming.
We're all supposed to buy cards using twice the eco credits (power) for three times the money credits, all while trying to save the earth by not using plastic bags cars or farting too much.
I think it lunacy.
Ok, now do baked lighting for an open world game. Implement a time of day system. Have the user move dynamic objects in the world is a statically lit scene and have it look good. Yes, baked lighting has it's place, and if you CAN use it you SHOULD. However there are many use cases where it doesn't fit and we have to revert to dynamic lighting models, which look bad compared to the baked lighting scenario (which a ray traced scenario would look identical to).
You're not supposed to buy anything, if you want to be green, don't buy high-end computer hardware, just get something used and mid-range.