RTX or brute-forcing?
I stumbled upon the Kwaki 2 test by accident:Well, what happens if a 1997 game can lower 3090 to 31 frames in its 100% load, then how many generations of cards do not release, you can omit any. So what? Kwaka 2 drops 3090 worse than Cyberbook
for rtx it is not the game of a certain year that is more important, but the scene and the render. For rtx, as far as I understand, there is no reasonable limit on the requirements for the computational performance of the GPU, but rtx gives tunnels unattainable for a conventional render to a mirror with a mass of multiple reflections and a fairly accurate global illumination in theory with a dependence on the light absorbing ability of the material. plus ptx is a massive high-quality eclipse faster than cascading shadows with pcss (it is also possible to create so-called celestial volumetric light by deep scattering with shadows on complex geometry in real time) and independent of the frame buffer depth. all sorts of sunbeams, caustics with aberrations and glass colored materials would be cool, but this is only possible with path tracing.
so rth is a bomb. this is PeKa boyar grapooooon.
Denis Kyokushin wrote:
Kwaka 2 omits 3090 worse than Cyberpook
So it's not so much about the omission as about poor optimization. Previously, hardware was weaker - they tried to value performance resources and optimize games. It's getting to the point where flat-bottomed games like the upcoming Turtles require more powerful hardware than Oblivion and Skyrim combined. It seems that the developers now do not care about the technical part, but just to release it faster and it is possible with bugs and cut money, hello Cyberpuk2077.
As for RTX, I can’t say anything good, just as bad, I have all the games that run, work without it. The main thing in the game is the gameplay and the story. In my opinion, RTX is a decoration, that is, an optional improvement that does not significantly affect the gaming experience.
Denis Kyokushin
game version 1.6, despite all the poor implementations and optimizations on 2070s, when setting the game, everything goes 60 frames with rare drawdowns up to 50 on full hd, but PrBoom Ray Traced 1.0.6 is still going worse. Metro exodus ee is better than these two
Denis Kyokushin
The problem is no longer resolution, but pixel density, which is inversely proportional to the physical size of the screen. On my 24-inch 1080p monitor, the pixels are practically invisible, if you do not peck at the screen with your nose. Accordingly, for large resolutions, a corresponding large screen is needed, otherwise the benefit of increasing the pixel density will be practically useless, the eye will still not be able to see a dot the size of which is thinner than a hair.
Therefore, 4-8k is a rather dubious advantage for desktop monitors - here you already need a projector with a picture in the entire wall.
yariko ookami
You can play 4K on big TVs, but it's expensive if you play new games. I completely agree about the meager pixel, I'll add on my own that with a meager pixel, anti-aliasing is not necessary
yariko ookami
Looks great on 27d 4k. But at the expense of 8k, yes, I agree, we need colossal sizes of diagonals.
MOSHIVURII lapwing
Yes, I agree, 4k is already the ceiling for desktop monitors, only TV on the wall and projectors are more. Although I have a 720p projector, when viewed from three meters, the pixels are also practically invisible, although the optics are still blurry there, it is very budget-friendly on my projector. Well, when viewed from a long distance, the pixels also seem to "decrease".