Digital Foundry || Minecraft DXR on Xbox Series X: Next-Gen Ray Tracing Analysis!

GrrImAFridge · Mar 17, 2020

Obviously, this is just one point of data, and I'm sure the devs could've squeezed out more consistent performance if given more time, but, uh, safe to say the XSX's RTRT performance is not ~4x that of the 2080 Ti. ;)

Rasterisation performance comparable to a 2080 and RTRT performance somewhere around the 2060 sounds just about right for an AMD APU in a $400-$500 console. AMD wasn't going to pull a rabbit out of its hat with its first run at ray tracing.

Bluforce · Mar 17, 2020

I apologize form my noobness.
I don't know Minecraft very well, but I don't see all this "beautifull stuff" that some of you are seeing.

To have those kind of light effects, do we really needs raytracing tech?

Deleted member 11276 · Mar 17, 2020

JaseC said:
Obviously, this is just one point of data, and I'm sure the devs could've squeezed out more consistent performance if given more time, but, uh, safe to say the XSX's RTRT performance is not ~4x that of the 2080 Ti. ;)

But... the math says so! ~Do the math~ ;)

But yeah, if it were 4x 2080TI at RT, it would perform much better even at an unoptimized stage.

ILikeFeet · Mar 17, 2020

Reinhardt Schneider said:
What about us 2060 peasants?

1080p/60fps

https://www.game-debate.com/news/27...rtx-targets-1080p-60fps-on-a-geforce-rtx-2060

Monster Zero · Mar 17, 2020

Bluforce said:
I apologize form my noobness.
I don't know Minecraft very well, but I don't see all this "beautifull stuff" that some of you are seeing.

To have those kind of light effects, do we really needs raytracing tech?

Yes you do. Faking lighting, reflections, and shadows will always have limitations.

DSP · Mar 17, 2020

rtx 2060 is a very good card for the price, it is just a bit gimped by its VRAM and RTX takes a whole bunch of VRAM. Apparently asus is making a 8GB version, it is interesting to see how it compares to 6GB version.

This performance is about what I expected compared with nvidia's implementation. It is going to get better though and AAA games will use it smarter to manage the performance hit.

ILikeFeet · Mar 17, 2020

Bluforce said:
I apologize form my noobness.
I don't know Minecraft very well, but I don't see all this "beautifull stuff" that some of you are seeing.

To have those kind of light effects, do we really needs raytracing tech?

sure, if you want to place sixty billion lights by hand and spend hours baking gigabytes of low resolution shadow and diffuse maps (which isn't doable because of the procedural world)

Reinhardt Schneider · Mar 17, 2020

ILikeFeet said:
1080p/60fps

https://www.game-debate.com/news/27...rtx-targets-1080p-60fps-on-a-geforce-rtx-2060

Well, the seus shader runs at unstable 60 fps for me so I'll take that gladly :)

JudgmentJay · Mar 17, 2020

JaseC said:
Obviously, this is just one point of data, and I'm sure the devs could've squeezed out more consistent performance if given more time, but, uh, safe to say the XSX's RTRT performance is not ~4x that of the 2080 Ti. ;)

Immediately what I thought when I saw this video. That poster was very sure of himself.

Flandy · Mar 17, 2020

Dictator said:
It runs very well on rtx cards
was way above 60 fps all the tiem on rtx 2080ti in august

Is that at 4k? Hoping I can pull 4k60 off in it on a 3080 which I imagine will be even better

Bluforce · Mar 17, 2020

Monster Zero said:
Yes you do. Faking lighting, reflections, and shadows will always have limitations.

I understand, but also ray tracing have at least one big limitation. With the actual tech, It tanks performance very badly.

ILikeFeet · Mar 17, 2020

Reinhardt Schneider said:
Well, the seus shader runs at unstable 60 fps for me so I'll take that gladly :)

Does the Seuss shader utilize the dedicated RT hardware?

Edit: Reading the website, it's not implied that they use RT hardware

dmix90 · Mar 17, 2020

Well yeah..... I am sorry but i will repeat my initial reaction to Lockhart -> fuck Lockhart

Here is the case, right from the start where it won't be able to keep up with ambition unless its running at like PS2 resolution.

Yes, it's not fully optimized example yet but still valid. Can we please get a good solid baseline without excessive branching for a change? Kill Lockhart while it's not too late.

Reinhardt Schneider · Mar 17, 2020

ILikeFeet said:
Does the Seuss shader utilize the dedicated RT hardware?

Edit: Reading the website, it's not implied that they use RT hardware

Nope, it doesn't use it, it runs on raw gpu power, with the rtx cores going unused

Miggytronz · Mar 17, 2020

ONLY 1080P! Uhg

Equanimity · Mar 17, 2020

snowhite said:
Don't worry about it, I hedged my bets both ways. :P

I noticed lol

Monster Zero · Mar 17, 2020

Bluforce said:
I understand, but also ray tracing have at least one big limitation. With the actual tech, It tanks performance very badly.

It will get better. A question for you. Would you rather play Minecraft at 1080p looking like this or at 4K looking its standard way?

TheNerdyOne · Mar 17, 2020

LuckyX2 said:
The unoptimized rasterization performance of XBSeX has already been shown to be comparable to a 2080 Super. So yes, I expect at least 2080 Super levels of raytracing performance or else the RT side of things its going to be a big bottleneck.

2060 levels of RT perf is disappointing if true. I'd rather turn off RT and run at 4K60 at that point instead of running at 1080p30 with RT.

i mean, dictator might say its 2080 non super level for raster, but we have gears 5 running at 4k at a locked 60 on settings beyond pc ultra for the demo, and then mike rayner says they have it running over 100fps now, when a 2080Ti only does 60fps at 4k ultra in the benchmark, and only like, 80 in the section shown in gameplay in the demo, with lower settings.... sooo...... and that's right out of the mouth of the technical lead at the coalition, so yeah, no, the xsx is faster than the 2080Ti and DF got it wrong on that one. IF it were 2080 tier for raster you'd be looking at 4k at ~40fps on ultra, not 4k100+ on settings beyond that, and that aint what we got. As for the RT performance, we'll see i guess. Minecraft RT looks ok so far i guess. Also, dictator/DF claiming that minecraft RT runs way over 60fps at all times on a 2080Ti is DIRECTLY at odds with every other preview that said their 2080Tis struggled to hit and hold 60 at 1080p with it. so at the very least, in beta software using the same code, XSX is roughly matching the 2080Ti per everyone else except dictator's reports about minecraft RTX performance.... and one dude did that demo in a week apparently, as opposed to an entire team optimizing minecraft RTX with nvidia's help for months? come the hell on son.

TheNerdyOne · Mar 17, 2020

dampflokfreund said:
But... the math says so! ~Do the math~ ;)

But yeah, if it were 4x 2080TI at RT, it would perform much better even at an unoptimized stage.

if you want to talk shit about someone do it to their face, and to date not one actual developer has come out and corrected the formula i used to calculate the number of intersection tests you can do per second, and until one does, you can shut the fuck up sir. Infact nobody has provided a different formula for calculating that information at all. saying "youre wrong" but not proving it means literally nothing, and until someone can provide a formula that matches the known data, my formula stands. My formula straight up matches the fucking data both companies advertised, and if you think its wrong you're welcome to provide a better one, otherwise you can kindly fuck off with that passive agressive bullshit and talking shit about people behind their backs.

every preview we have of minecraft RTX says it runs at 1080p at 30 - 60 at best on a 2080Ti and they spend months and had an entire team working on it.

XSX is apparently delivering the same, except 1 dude did the tech demo in a month, without support from a team of engineers spending months helping him like the team has for the minecraft RTX work. so show me how minecraft RTX ran exactly one month into development, or uh, you're simply wrong here sir. its not an apples to apples comparison, and the data we have about minecraft RTX anyway says it doesn't run better on a 2080TI. dictator saying it does is not the same thing as dictator providing proof that it does, and we have footage of it running at sub 60 at 1080p on the 2080Ti, and none of it running over 60 at all times

thevid · Mar 17, 2020

SummitRidge said:
...and one dude did that demo in a week apparently, as opposed to an entire team optimizing minecraft RTX with nvidia's help for months? come the hell on son.

Wouldn't this XSX build be based on the RTX version, which utilizes DXR (as opposed to something like Quake 2 RTX which utilizes Vulkan)? I'm sure there's room for optimizations but I doubt it's a from scratch version by one person.

Deleted member 11276 · Mar 17, 2020

SummitRidge said:
if you want to talk shit about someone do it to their face, and to date not one actual developer has come out and corrected the formula i used to calculate the number of intersection tests you can do per second, and until one does, you can shut the fuck up sir. Infact nobody has provided a different formula for calculating that information at all. saying "youre wrong" but not proving it means literally nothing, and until someone can provide a formula that matches the known data, my formula stands. My formula straight up matches the fucking data both companies advertised, and if you think its wrong you're welcome to provide a better one, otherwise you can kindly fuck off with that passive agressive bullshit and talking shit about people behind their backs.

Calm down. I'm sorry I didn't mean to offend you that much, in my eyes it was just a funny little reference but yeah I can see how it's offending. However we should wait to see to determine RT performance correctly, that 4x 2080Ti claim is just ridiculous as you probably saw here now. We also don't know things like the quality and depth of the BVH structure, you always go by the industry standard but that could have changed between the time Nvidia released their metrics and Microsoft, especially since it's using a different version of the API now, DXR 1.1 instead of DXR 1.0 which could also have changed things up.

Please just be patient and wait before you continue making your claims.

TheNerdyOne · Mar 17, 2020

thevid said:
Wouldn't this XSX build be based on the RTX version, which utilizes DXR (as opposed to something like Quake 2 RTX which utilizes Vulkan)? I'm sure there's plenty of optimizations that could be done, but I doubt it's a from scratch version by one person.

one person spent a month doing the work, and i doubt very much that nvidia allowed microsoft to use their code to make a demo for an amd powered product. unless you can provide proof that they took already running code and it was perfectly optimized for amd's architecture already, then its still not an apples to apples comparison to compare months of work by a whole team workign with nvidia engineers directly, to one dude porting it in his spare time as a tech demo.
Either way, saying that "welp, guess XSX is crap at RT because its not beating a 2080Ti in this test" is misleading because 1 dude vs entire team, and extremely early tech demo vs software thats about to ship.

Bluforce · Mar 17, 2020

Monster Zero said:
It will get better. A question for you. Would you rather play Minecraft at 1080p looking like this or at 4K looking its standard way?

I'm honest, I like the original graphics of Minecraft more than the raytraced one.
So I'd probably go for 4K not raytraced in this case.

In general, I play on a 144hz monitor, so I always like to have more fps than more graphics.

TheNerdyOne · Mar 17, 2020

dampflokfreund said:
Calm down. I'm sorry I didn't mean to offend you that much, in my eyes it was just a funny little reference but yeah I can see how it's offending. However we should wait to see to determine RT performance correctly, that 4x 2080Ti claim is just ridiculous as you probably saw here now. We also don't know things like the quality and depth of the BHV structure, you always go by the industry standard but that could have been changed by the time Nvidia released their metrics and Microsoft released it now, especially since it's using a different API now, DXR 1.0 instead of DXR 1.1 which could also have changed things up.

Please just be patient and wait before you continue making your claims.

fair enough, i was talking purely theoretical numbers that aren't real world in any way because thats all we actually can do right now. my formula for figuring out the raw peak intersection tests is accurate. converting that into rays/sec may not be, though the math works too perfectly on nvidia gpus to be incorrect for them imo. how any of that translates to ACTUAL rt performance is another matter. nvidia quotes 10 gigarays/sec, real world how low is it? is it 5? is it 3? is it 1? the real world figure is going to change everything. as will real world performance with the XSX, we dont know yet and using minecraft RT to compare it is flawed until such time as both are actually shipped, because its far too early and far too unoptimized with only literally 1 dude working on it, to compare to a team's months long effort backed by nvidia directly.

thevid · Mar 17, 2020

SummitRidge said:
one person spent a month doing the work, and i doubt very much that nvidia allowed microsoft to use their code to make a demo for an amd powered product. unless you can provide proof that they took already running code and it was perfectly optimized for amd's architecture already, then its still not an apples to apples comparison to compare months of work by a whole team workign with nvidia engineers directly, to one dude porting it in his spare time as a tech demo.
Either way, saying that "welp, guess XSX is crap at RT because its not beating a 2080Ti in this test" is misleading because 1 dude vs entire team, and extremely early tech demo vs software thats about to ship.

Shouldn't it be the same API though? DXR? Which is owned by Microsoft. And Minecraft is also owned by Microsoft. I don't think Nvidia has much say in what Microsoft can do with its code. What leverage do you think Nvidia has here? It feels like you are conflating DXR and RTX. I'm not sure how a version of Minecraft, a Microsoft game, utilizing the DXR API, a Microsoft API, is being controlled by Nvidia.

Muhammad · Mar 17, 2020

SummitRidge said:
every preview we have of minecraft RTX says it runs at 1080p at 30 - 60 at best on a 2080Ti and they spend months and had an entire team working on it.

Nope, it runs way higher than 60fps on the 2080Ti according to DF and everyone who saw it and experienced it.

TheNerdyOne · Mar 17, 2020

thevid said:
Shouldn't it be the same API though? DXR? Which is owned by Microsoft. And Minecraft is also owned by Microsoft. I don't think Nvidia has much say in what Microsoft can do with its code. What leverage do you think Nvidia has here? It feels like you are conflating DXR and RTX. I'm not sure how a version of Minecraft, a Microsoft game, utilizing the DXR API, a Microsoft API, is being controlled by Nvidia.

nvidia is bankrolling minecraft RTX, its not called minecraft DXR its called minecraft RTX specifically. Nvidia engineers are also working with that team directly to get it released. So yeah, MS owns DXR but they dont have any legal ownership or right to use someone elses code that someone else funded.

TheNerdyOne · Mar 17, 2020

Muhammad said:
Nope, it runs way higher than 60fps on the 2080Ti according to DF and everyone who saw it and experienced it.

Minecraft RTX looks good but runs hard

In terms of pure visual spectacle, Minecraft RTX is hands down the most impressive application of ray tracing I've seen…

www.rockpapershotgun.com

"These are RTX 2080 Ti-based systems and we're getting roughly 60fps from this," Nvidia said.

nvidia themselves claimed 2080Ti was roughly 60 on the demo at 1080p, rock paper shotgun noted it wasn't smooth, others have as well, i'd be glad to dig them out. Digital foundry can claim whatever they like but until there is a video proving it, i'll take the footage we have of it at sub 60fps, and nvidia's statement about it being sub 60fps as fact. they HOPE it runs at 1080p60 on a 2060 when its released, but currently, it does not sir, its 1080p, sub 60 on a 2080Ti

Muhammad · Mar 17, 2020

SummitRidge said:
nvidia themselves claimed 2080Ti was roughly 60 on the demo at 1080p, rock paper shotgun noted it wasn't smooth, others have as well, i'd be glad to dig them out. Digital foundry can claim whatever they like but until there is a video proving it, i'll take the footage we have of it at sub 60fps, and nvidia's statement about it being sub 60fps as fact. they HOPE it runs at 1080p60 on a 2060 when its released, but currently, it does not sir, its 1080p, sub 60 on a 2080Ti

You do whatever you want, the conversation is no longer logical with you. The 2080Ti is getting mostly 60fps even according to your link, while others like DF noted way higher than 60fps. The Xbox is running between 30 to 60fps, which is way lower. So can't ever be 4X the RT performance according to your flawed math.

Oh and the 2060 will run this at 1080p, according to your link, and the 2080Ti will be able to push 4K:

Performance-wise, Nvidia told us it's expecting its bottom end RTX graphics card, the Nvidia GeForce RTX 2060 6GB, to be able to play Minecraft RTX at 1080p, 60 frames per second with all raytracing features enabled.

For higher resolutions you will require a higher-end GeForce RTX 20 Series video. The top-end Nvidia GeForce RTX 2080 Ti and Nvidia GeForce RTX 2080 Super 8GB are well placed to handle Minecraft RTX at 4K screen resolution.

Monster Zero · Mar 17, 2020

SummitRidge said:
Minecraft RTX looks good but runs hard

In terms of pure visual spectacle, Minecraft RTX is hands down the most impressive application of ray tracing I've seen…

www.rockpapershotgun.com

nvidia themselves claimed 2080Ti was roughly 60 on the demo at 1080p, rock paper shotgun noted it wasn't smooth, others have as well, i'd be glad to dig them out. Digital foundry can claim whatever they like but until there is a video proving it, i'll take the footage we have of it at sub 60fps, and nvidia's statement about it being sub 60fps as fact. they HOPE it runs at 1080p60 on a 2060 when its released, but currently, it does not sir, its 1080p, sub 60 on a 2080Ti

SummitRidge you're making our 2080Ti's angry. Gonna be looking for you in the inevitable DF Gears 5 Series X vs PC comparison video thread.

TheNerdyOne · Mar 17, 2020

Muhammad said:
You do whatever you want, the conversation is no longer logical with you. The 2080Ti is getting mostly 60fps even according to your link, while others like DF noted way higher than 60fps. The Xbox is running between 30 to 60fps, which is way lower. So can't ever be 4X the RT performance according to your flawed math.

if my math is flawed, show me the correct formula, otherwise you're just deliberately trying to start a fight. You and nobody else have provided a single legitimate counterpoint or other math to contradict mine. Show me how to calculate intersection tests per second on a gpu? show me the industray standard bvh depth level, show me then how to take intersections /sec and convert that into a theoretical peak rays/second. Until you can do that, you're just trying to pick a fight, and you're definitely being hostile to me, so kindly please stop. Saying i'm wrong but not providing proof, using better math, and correcting my math directly, is nothing its literally nothing.

Deleted member 11276 · Mar 17, 2020

SummitRidge said:
Minecraft RTX looks good but runs hard

In terms of pure visual spectacle, Minecraft RTX is hands down the most impressive application of ray tracing I've seen…

www.rockpapershotgun.com

but currently, it does not sir, its 1080p, sub 60 on a 2080Ti

That's not true, currently we don't know how well it runs. If anything, we know that it ran at roughly 60 FPS in October 2019. A lot optimization could have been done since then. Plus, only the author stated it ran at 1080p, but not Nvidia themselves. Question is how reliable that claim is.

Muhammad · Mar 17, 2020

SummitRidge said:
if my math is flawed, show me the correct formula, otherwise you're just deliberately trying to start a fight. You and nobody else have provided a single legitimate counterpoint or other math to contradict mine. Show me how to calculate intersection tests per second on a gpu? show me the industray standard bvh depth level,

Show me the link to your stated BVH standard depth? Show me a link that NVIDIA used this on their Giga Ray formula please? Otherwise your math is just pure conjecture on your part.

TheNerdyOne · Mar 17, 2020

dampflokfreund said:
That's not true, currently we don't know how well it runs. If anything, we know that it ran at roughly 60 FPS in October 2019. A lot optimization could have been done since then. Plus, only the author stated it runs at 1080p, but not Nvidia themselves. Question is how reliable that claim is.

could pixel count it if you really want me to, but there are other sources claiming sub 60fps at 1080p for the demo. it may be better now, but then how many months of dev has gone into that? was it more than 4 weeks and more than 1 engineer? if the answer is yes then its not an apples to apples comparison now is it?

Dictator · Mar 17, 2020

Where are people getting this 4x RTX 2080 Ti nonsense from?

TheNerdyOne · Mar 17, 2020

Muhammad said:
Show me the link to your stated BVH standard depth? Show me a link that NVIDIA used this on their Giga Ray formula please? Otherwise your math is just pure conjecture on your part.

if my formula is not accurate please tell me what the correct formula is, otherwise you cannot prove it isn't accurate. you're trying to pick a fight and you're pissing me off, please stop being hostile to me sir.

Monster Zero · Mar 17, 2020

Dictator said:
Where are people getting this 4x RTX 2080 Ti nonsense from?

SummitRidge is bullying us 200Ti owners.

TheNerdyOne · Mar 17, 2020

Dictator said:
Where are people getting this 4x RTX 2080 Ti nonsense from?

how many raw intersection tests per second can you do on a turing gpu? do you know the formula to calculate it? in terms of raw intersects/sec, on paper, purely theoretical, the XSX is ~3.65x faster than a reference clocked 2080Ti

RT core count times clockspeed gets you the raw theoretical peak intersections/sec count you can do... do the math for the XSX and you get 208 times 1825mhz = 379.6 billion per second. your own article says 380 billion/sec, so the formula is accurate. for an nvidia gpu then, you do, for a 2080Ti its 68 times 1545mhz for 105.06 billion intersects/second. Real world this has no relevance, but purely on paper which is all you can do right now, that's what the math says it is. I'd be happy to be corrected if you have a better formula for calculating the RAW , peak intersections/second the gpus can do.

Dokkaebi G0SU · Mar 17, 2020

So the conversation will become "but it's not as good as ___"

damn y'all suck the life out of good news:/

ImaginaShawn · Mar 17, 2020

Ooh, math off!

Ready? Set?

CALCULATE!!!!!!

Deleted member 11276 · Mar 17, 2020

SummitRidge said:
could pixel count it if you really want me to, but there are other sources claiming sub 60fps at 1080p for the demo. it may be better now, but then how many months of dev has gone into that? was it more than 4 weeks and more than 1 engineer? if the answer is yes then its not an apples to apples comparison now is it?

That is indeed true, however it is important to remember that probably a lot of work on the Minecraft RTX version can also be transported over to the Xbox Series X version, since both are running on DXR. Architectural optimization still has to be made but in theory, you could port many optimizations between PC and console, which is AFAIK one of the strength points of DXR.

But yeah, we have to wait and see for sure. Still, path tracing on a console in 1080p and more than 30 FPS is impressive as hell.

Muhammad · Mar 17, 2020

SummitRidge said:
if my formula is not accurate please tell me what the correct formula is, otherwise you cannot prove it isn't accurate. you're trying to pick a fight and you're pissing me off, please stop being hostile to me sir.

Please provide the required links to the BVH depth test number and to the NVIDIA reference forumla (and that they used this number precisely), either put up or don't brag about your accurate math, because it"s not until you provide the links for your claims.

Alexandros · Mar 17, 2020

Dictator said:
Where are people getting this 4x RTX 2080 Ti nonsense from?

It's that time of the console cycle, a time when facts don't matter and console tech is basically magic.

TheNerdyOne · Mar 17, 2020

Alexandros said:
It's that time of the console cycle, a time when facts don't matter and console tech is basically magic.

again, to date not one person has provided a different formula that also arrives at microsoft's officially confirmed 380 billion intersections/second figure. my formula arrives PRECISELY at that figure, RT core count times clockspeed gets you that figure.

thevid · Mar 17, 2020

SummitRidge said:
nvidia is bankrolling minecraft RTX, its not called minecraft DXR its called minecraft RTX specifically. Nvidia engineers are also working with that team directly to get it released. So yeah, MS owns DXR but they dont have any legal ownership or right to use someone elses code that someone else funded.

I think you are going to be surprised when Minecraft RTX works on AMD cards that support DXR. Because it's not Minecraft RTX, it's Minecraft Bedrock Edition.

Render dragon and NVIDIA ray tracing

A new engine and a new way to experience Minecraft!

www.minecraft.net

"It'll be playable on Windows 10 with devices that are capable of DirectX R, such as with an NVIDIA GeForce RTX GPU (and we plan to expand it to future platforms that support DirectX R raytracing)."

Alexandros · Mar 17, 2020

SummitRidge said:
again, to date not one person has provided a different formula that also arrives at microsoft's officially confirmed 380 billion intersections/second figure. my formula arrives PRECISELY at that figure, RT core count times clockspeed gets you that figure.

So you are absolutely certain that XSX will have 4x 2080 Ti ray tracing performance?

TheNerdyOne · Mar 17, 2020

Alexandros said:
So you are absolutely certain that XSX will have 4x 2080 Ti ray tracing performance?

no, i'm absolutely certain that on paper it can do ~3.6x as many intersections per second. in the real world all bets are off, but my formula was never going to give you real world performance, just like the formula for flops doesnt tell you squat about real world performance. its all just raw peak on paper figures. the math my formula uses arrives at exactly the XSXs confirmed intersects/second figure (380 billion) and the formula can also accurately arrive at the RT performance figure nvidia quotes for every single one of its gpus. People keep saying "youre wrong", or being hostile and trying to stir up shit but to date none of them have provided a different formula that accurately arrives at the figures from either company let alone both of them.

eonden · Mar 17, 2020

SummitRidge said:
Real world this has no relevance, but purely on paper which is all you can do right now, that's what the math says it is. I'd be happy to be corrected if you have a better formula for calculating the RAW , peak intersections/second the gpus can do.

Why are we comparing on paper stuff when there is a big chance that there is no real correlation with real world (like in the case of teraflops)? For all we know we are comparing apples and oranges (edit: due to the behaviour of both things being different).
I say this mainly because I doubt AMD has a better raytracing solution than Nvidia taking into consideration where the technology from raytracing came from.

plagiarize · Mar 17, 2020

I'm just very glad that both new consoles (and upcoming amd gpus) support this so people can stop pretending it isn't great due to platform preference etc.

Whatever the performance difference may be. RT will play a key part in next gen engines etc.

TheNerdyOne · Mar 17, 2020

eonden said:
Why are we comparing on paper stuff when there is a big chance that there is no real correlation with real world (like in the case of teraflops)? For all we know we are comparing apples and oranges.

on paper is about all we can do right now. and DF comparing a version of minecraft 1 dude did in his spare time over a month vs an entire team spending many months and many millions is about as apples and oranges as it can get too, but nobody's bitching about that

Digital Foundry || Minecraft DXR on Xbox Series X: Next-Gen Ray Tracing Analysis!

ONE THOUSAND DOLLARYDOOS

Account closed at user request

DF Deet Master

DF Deet Master

Community Resettler

DF Deet Master

Puzzle Master

Account closed at user request

Puzzle Master

Account closed at user request

Digital Foundry

Account closed at user request

Puzzle Master

Eating crackers