Is raytracing worth cutting your fps in half for?

Is raytracing worth cutting your fps in half for?

Attached: RTX on vs off.jpg (3840x2160, 460.67K)

If cutting your fps in half still keeps you above 60fps AND If it’s implemented well. Control is probably the best argument for raytracing right now but there are plenty of games where the visual gains through raytracing are subtle at best currently.

You don' need to cut your FPS in half any more with DLSS™ by *sensually whispers* Nvidia.

Depends how high my fps is to begin with.

i feel like this is the kind of thing i gotta experience for myself because i ain't seeing any differences in that image.

calling all richfags! post some comparison shots cuz i'm thinking this is all a scam

>post almost black scene
>hurr durr why doesn't it look different

45fps, so around 19, 11 in bad areas.
give or take

I wish they did something with this graphic shit
like if you have raytracing on there are new traps or enemies that require looking at the reflections to defeat
not just "your game looks better sometimes"

Was just asking.

Attached: RTX metro.jpg (3840x2160, 908.67K)

Because that's not really full scene raytracing is it dumbshit.
The only game that does it close to what it should be is fucking minecraft because that's all current gen shit can run at a pathetic 60fps 1080p on a 1200usd gpu

Depends on its implementation. Metro Exodus was an OKAY example where it only shows when you're in a building for the most part.

Control did an amazing job with RTX, along with the new DLSS 2.0

RTX + DLSS 2.0 is a nice future for graphics.

Attached: 1568056048661.png (819x827, 15.86K)

I tried bfv at launch it was the definition of a gimmick ran and looked really bad
Apparently it was fixed since but ea dropped support for it after only 2 years lmao and I cbf playing that shit even though I have a 2080ti

>game uses global illumination
>test it in a dark tunnel under ground
Brilliant.

>Depends on its implementation. Metro Exodus was an OKAY example where it only shows when you're in a building for the most part.
Nope I tried it not worth the performance downgrade outside of cutscenes and they game was unplayable 30fps 1440p
>Control did an amazing job with RTX, along with the new DLSS 2.0
Game sux
>RTX + DLSS 2.0 is a nice future for graphics.
Lol no it's fancy low res upscaling and rt at best

oh, you're retarded and just looking for bait
now I see

The downside of RTX is you need a 2080 minimum, 2070 performs poorly and a 2060 is just a rip off that shouldnt exist can barely run RTX shit at 30-40 fps

>5
just wait for the 3000s this summer

I can't even see a difference.

>Games from 2020 need to cut your FPS in half to get lighting that doesn't look much better than stuff that was around in fucking 2004

retard

As someone with a 2080 i gotta say it aint worth it yet, give it a few years when it doesnt each up so much fps. But for now the cost aint worth the reward besides maybe minecraft if you really wanna play that in 2020

They will be pricey as fuck after corona if it even ends in summer

it will still cut your fps in half regardless.

Attached: control.jpg (2560x1440, 281K)

>I enjoy raytracing my vidja at 640p24FPS and then DLSS filtering it up to HD

Attached: 1587722192821.jpg (118x35, 1.98K)

>no argument
no really, user, enlighten us with your incomprehensible intelligence and explain why games from 15 years ago have better lighting than today

>literally meme tech
lmaoing@RTniggers

Attached: ＭＯＲＰＨＩＮＥ ＡＤＭＩＮＩＳＴＥＲＥＤ.jpg (600x449, 29.85K)

they don't

So 720p native dlss upscaled for 60-120fps is acceptable to you?
Or I could turn it off and have 1440p-4k 200fps
2080ti here it's not worth it

BfV itself is the definition of a gimmick.
Its amazing in control and metro exodus and if you play those with it youll see why its worth it but the game needs to be designed with it in mind really, in bfvs case it was just slapped in to throw the rtx tag on it and destroys performance.
DLSs was garbage but dlss2 gives serious gains while looking as good at whatever your base resolution is which is pretty impressive

RTX sucks. I've run agnostic ray tracing with much less of a performance hit and still maintained 1080/60. I have an RX 5700, so you shouldn't need ridiculous hardware to do these operations.

RTX is a great technology, but no game has used it fully yet
The problem is, we've spent the past 15 years trying to emulate all these effects, and we do it so well there's hardly a visual upgrade when switching to real-time Ray Tracing

Give it a few years, and we might see more games embrace it fully

On what two games? Minecraft and neon noire tech demo
Just not worth it imho

Honestly minecraft does the best job of using RTX right now. Surprisingly ray tracing actually is more appealing on cartooony, bright graphics because it gives everything a visual richness. I think it get's lost in the hyper realistic stuff.

The visuals in Metro Exodus are overrated, it's not a very good looking game and the art direction is a mess. It's just a very busy sort of environment design where there is junk everywhere. RDR2 looks better in every way.

>60fps is the benchmark rtx fags shoot for
fuck off

I'm actually pretty hyped up for DLSS 2.0, let's hope it catches on

>60 fps
>2020
What are you, amish?