Meaning that in a path traced title that was optimized for AMD, the cards would perform some unknown % better than they do now, but still be behind Nvidia. So.what is the point in mentioning all of this, does this mean that AMD is secretly better than Nvidia at Vulkan RT? Of course not, Nvidia has both the general RT lead in hybrid rendering and a massive lead in path tracing scenarios, but worth pointing out that both the API and the title here were developed and optimized by Nvidia for their RT solution. In the same way that DXR 1.0 was co-developed closely between MS and Nvidia, the Vulkan RT capability was mostly developed by Nvidia and clearly optimized for their technology. The current head of Vulkan development at Khronos group is an Nvidia principle graphics engineer I believe, I think he did some interviews about Vulkan with RedGamingTech where he mentioned this. This RT extension was used as the basis for the official Vulkan RT capability that is now a part of the API. This is what was used in Quake II and Wolfenstein I believe. In addition to that, Vulkan did not have a RT extension/capability in the API when Quake II RTX was released so Nvidia wrote their own proprietary RT extension for Vulkan. However it should also be noted that while Nvidia does have the better RT solution/hardware, and they really pull far ahead with path traced titles, that Quake II RTX is a title where the RT implementation was coded by Nvidia and obviously optimised to their hardware solution/card. I'm actually surprised that the quake performance is as high as it is on RDNA2 compared to how they perform in Minecraft. We see this also with Minecraft, which as of now is the only other real example of a path traced title we have.
#Quake 2 rtx 3060 ti full
When you move from hybrid rendering to full path tracing the gap widens again as this is where Ampere really stretches its legs, we see this even with comparisons of Turing vs Ampere with ray tracing where the biggest gains are with path traced games. It is clear from what we have seen in most games performance that Nvidia has an overall more performant ray tracing solution than AMD this generation.
Since Cyberpunk 2077 does not use reflections in abundance and these are usually diffuse, this is not as noticeable as in Watch Dogs: Legion. Accordingly, the reflections are visibly more blurred than with the native rendering resolution. In addition, there is the problem that DLSS 2.0 cannot visually enhance ray tracing reflections and these are therefore simply displayed in the rendered resolution. That only happens now and then, but every now and then you come across objects that native Ultra HD displays more calmly. On the negative side, the image tends to flicker with DLSS 2.0. In addition, there are objects that have a higher image sharpness with DLSS. Even in native Ultra HD resolution, some fine objects such as palm leaves are drawn cleanly with DLSS, while the ends simply disappear with classic post-processing anti-aliasing.
#Quake 2 rtx 3060 ti plus
On the plus side, DLSS 2.0 recorded fine objects for itself as usual.
As recently in other games, Nvidia's exclusive "AI upsampling" in the current version shows advantages and disadvantages compared to the native resolution depending on the scene. DLSS with strengths and weaknesses as a useful FPS boostĬyberpunk 2077 uses DLSS 2.0 (test) which, in conjunction with ray tracing, should ensure playable performance.
0 kommentar(er)
