Or at the least, it’s the most demanding ray tracing game you might actually play. Image used with permission by copyright holderĬyberpunk 2077 and Portal RTX couldn’t be more different (technically and thematically), but it’s a good illustration that Portal RTX might be the most demanding ray tracing game we’ve seen to this point. Even with free frames, Portal RTX taxes the RTX 4080 much more than Cyberpunk 2077 does. Portal RTX is a showcase for Nvidia’s next-gen graphics cards like the RTX 4090, and in particular, the unique frame-generation capabilities of these GPUs with DLSS 3. Image used with permission by copyright holder In both Cyberpunk 2077 and Portal RTX, I used the same DLSS mode and the highest ray tracing quality preset. For reference, you can see how the RTX 3070 held up with Nvidia’s Deep Learning Super Sampling (DLSS) set to Auto in Portal RTX below. Even Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition, which uses full ray-traced global illumination, is leagues easier to run than Cyberpunk 2077.īut Portal RTX is even more taxing. Even two years after launch, Cyberpunk 2077 is the most demanding game in my GPU benchmark suite, both with ray tracing on and off. Portal RTX is way more demanding than you probably think. Way more demanding than you think Image used with permission by copyright holder Ray tracing is taxing, but it’s how Portal RTX is leveraging ray tracing that makes it the next-gen benchmark I’ve been waiting for. If you’re planning on running Quake II RTX, you’ll probably want to pair it with the Game Ready GeForce drivers too (available here).Portal RTX is the most demanding game I’ve tested, and running it is only possible with clever image reconstruction techniques and the fastest GPUs on the market today. So if you’re going to snark about “only 97 fps” on a GeForce RTX 2080 Ti, know that a game session of Quake II RTX will easily render more ray-traced frames than a full-length animated movie, and in real time, too. Glass windows and water in Quake II RTX obviously seem like night and day from the original version. It’s a technique that’s really only been used in 3D movies to date, and fairly recently, too. The game is implementing a fully path-traced renderer and is computationally expensive to run. If you’re underwhelmed by 97 fps on a $1,200 GeForce RTX 2080 Ti card, remember what’s going on here. We had to patch the Steam version first using the Yamagi patch. For comparison, we saw about 419 fps in Quake II, set to 1920×1080 with 8x anisotropic filtering and multisampling turned off, using the OpenGL 3.2 renderer on a Core i7-9750H laptop with a GeForce GTX 1660 Ti GPU. On a GeForce RTX 2080 Ti with a not-quite-final version of Quake II RTX, we saw roughly 97 fps at a resolution of 1920×1080, with visual quality set to high. In 1997, though, PC gamers all wanted 3Dfx’s Voodoo card (the Voodoo2 card would come out a year after Quake II). The conventional wisdom among investors, technology analysts, and press was that Intel could do no wrong and would soon take over the discrete graphics market. In fact, dozens of graphics companies were still competing at the time.Īs if to prove how the world is on a time loop, everyone was quaking in their boots in fear of Intel’s upcoming discrete graphics card, the i740 using the AGP interface. In 1997, Matrox was still in the game, AMD hadn’t yet bought ATI, and even Nvidia’s GeForce didn’t exist yet (its card at the time was the Riva 128). When we talk about Quake II, we’re talking old-school PC gaming, and old-school graphics. Memories: Going way, way back to Quake II Update: The final version seems to have changed the demo file name shown in the video, but we just tested it on the free version Nvidia released this morning ( download it here).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |