PC Gaming

7265 readers

2 users here now

Rule #1: Be civil

Rule #2: No spam, memes, off-topic, or low-effort posts/comments

Rule #3: No advertisements

Rule #4: No streams, random gameplay videos, highlights, or shorts

Rule #5: No erotic games or porn

Rule #6: No facilitating piracy

Rule #7: No duplicates

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Raytracing overblown? (lemm.ee)

submitted 4 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

25 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Much as I love the look of Quake RTX, it feels like it’s a barely there performance hog in modern games. You look at the benchmarks on the newer cards and so much is focused on ray tracing performance but I just don’t see that big a difference in Cyberpunk on an 3080 Ti unless I look really hard for it.

Am I alone in this? I’d much rather have 100+ non generated FPS at 4k over what raytracing is delivering in major titles. And by 4k I really mean my super modded Skyrim VR :)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] WolfLink 2 points 3 days ago

Ultimately how good a game looks is due a lot more to how much effort and how clever the artists were than it is due to the graphics technologies used.

I just started playing the new Indiana Jones game, which runs fine with RTX off but some scenes look much better with RTX on, but then the game runs very poorly. In both cases the game seems to be optimized for individual frames over how the actual animation looks - there are cases where the shadows blink between different results, where any result would look ok in a screenshot but as an animation it looks awful. Also despite all the fancy graphics features, most of the world and especially the people just look kinda plasticy.

Meanwhile take some games like Destiny 2 and Helldivers 2, which use “outdated” graphics techniques and yet both look and run great.