https://www.techspot.com/...-time-ray-tracing.html
 
Well figure somebody would figure ray tracing with out the overpriced Nvidia RTX

The question is, would the rtx cards be able to perform on a higher level than a non rtx card, as it still has the tensor cores to utilize?

I didn't buy an RTX card because did not have a need and were beyond my budget, but "hardware accelerated" always beats software emulation.... usually by orders of magnitude.

But for most, the software emulation is going to be a good tradeoff regardless.

I told you what they do.
With NVIDIA for now only keep me performance difference. But that is lost because their price and with this situation can't get my money in future.
I'm super happy because GTX1080Ti but I didn't bought new and AMD Radeon 7 need only 15-20% more performance for same money and that would be reason to jump on Radeon.
 
Reviews present Radeon 7 as not worthy because no "extra power". With topics like So close and yet so far from RTX2080.
Because no extra features... No such power as RTX2080. With him owners of expensive 1000$-1500$ worth monitors only need to downscale resolution and enjoy in 1920x1080 with NVIDIA Super Power RT. RTX2080, one chip seriously limited with not enough power to give you full experience of RT and limited with video memory on longer distance. 
RTX2080Ti is nothing special but performance improvement is there, difference is obvious, only there is a one problem.
Price should be as RTX2080, not a even dollar more for that chip again not capable to give you RT experience on 4K.
Small numbers of buyers waited NVIDIA 2000 Series with 1080p monitors... Their main wish was far better performance on 4K than Pascal.
Improvement similar to generations launched before who bring 50-80% more power. But they get 30% and possibility to enjoy in some features on 55-60fps on 1080p, for 80% higher price than Radeon 7.
 
If someone launch 20-30% better hardware than previous he no reason to ask visible increase in price.
Imagine to Samsung ask 50% higher price for 970 EVO PLUS because it's 40+% better write speed. No naturally newer, better for similar price.
That's natural, you can ask something more if you shock people with performance improvement. But NVIDIA is far from shocking improvements.
 
 
 

Value is in the eye of the person doing the purchasing
 
Over Priced ?  Um, not really. 

I paid about the same price my Nvidia Titan X Pascal cost & My EVGA 2080 Ti have More Power
 
20 series are on a much larger chip, FAB cost rose due to yield issues.  Assembly lines need to be reworked because of the Chip size

One can hope future production improvements = lower prices
 

Cool GTX
Value is in the eye of the person doing the purchasing
 
Over Priced ?  Um, not really. 

I paid about the same price my Nvidia Titan X Pascal cost & My EVGA 2080 Ti have More Power
 
20 series are on a much larger chip, FAB cost rose due to yield issues.  Assembly lines need to be reworked because of the Chip size

One can hope future production improvements = lower prices
 

Okay overpriced is relative you are correct and since you paid the same amount for more power. But they decided to use the same naming schemes as the other previous generations and your paying almost double how ever you want to look at it. For example if you wanted to stay in the titan family You would be dropping 2500 vs 1200 from previous generations. So yeah overpriced is relative but your are paying almost double the previous generations models names.

Confirming what AMD said. What remains to be seen is how much better dedicated raytracing cores (I chose "raytracing core" instead of "tensor core" since tensor core is a name subject to change) perform versus use of general GPU compute cores. They both are hardware solutions, so I don't think it is fair to call it a hardware solution versus a software solution. The obvious difference is that utilizing dedicated raytracing cores should offer overall better performance since it doesn't detract from the number of cores available to perform other graphics intensive tasks versus general GPU computing raytracing which would use a compute core which would have otherwise been used for graphics intensive tasks.

Cool GTX
Value is in the eye of the person doing the purchasing
 
Over Priced ?  Um, not really. 

I paid about the same price my Nvidia Titan X Pascal cost & My EVGA 2080 Ti have More Power
 
20 series are on a much larger chip, FAB cost rose due to yield issues.  Assembly lines need to be reworked because of the Chip size

One can hope future production improvements = lower prices
 

Agreed 100%. People just don't see what you're actually getting for the money, but looking at the card's name only.
 
Like you said you got better performance along with RTX and DLSS features for the same price of the previous gen $1,200 video card.
 

ty_ger07
Confirming what AMD said. What remains to be seen is how much better dedicated raytracing cores (I chose "raytracing core" instead of "tensor core" since tensor core is a name subject to change) perform versus use of general GPU compute cores. They both are hardware solutions, so I don't think it is fair to call it a hardware solution versus a software solution. The obvious difference is that utilizing dedicated raytracing cores should offer overall better performance since it doesn't detract from the number of cores available to perform other graphics intensive tasks versus general GPU computing raytracing which would use a compute core which would have otherwise been used for graphics intensive tasks.

+1 
 
I'd love to see benchmarks when the time comes but by than, the RTX GPU's will be considered old tech.

 
Ray tracing...

 

panzlock

Cool GTX
Value is in the eye of the person doing the purchasing

......WHAT???

I KNOW..SHOCKING..ISN'T IT?? ;)
 
Edit: Tho to be fair, I would have preferred the same card without the RGB.......

In my particular case it's "business as usual". I started buying GPUs to fold with exaclty a year ago (yep, at the height of the whole mining thing) so paying what I pay for the 2080ti is pretty much the norm for me.  Would I prefer them cheaper?  Who the <radio edit> wouldn't? 

DLSS is quite terrible to be very honest, it decreases image quality by quite a fair margin, Image quality is better when RTX is off, Crytek's solution sems to be an even better choice in the end.
It looks much better, image quality wise than NV's so called hardware Ray Tracing "RTX On "solution, even being  NV's Ray Tracing method is not even full ray tracing either, it's partial, what Crytek managed is lots more, even it runs fine on a AMD Radeon RX Vega 56, all thanks to  CryEngine 5.5 :)

And thanks to this, there no need to waste on RTX Gimmick tech that ruins your image quality, yet the RTX boards are greatly overpriced, for a feature that barely does 50 fps at 1080p, 1440p/1600p & 2160p/2400p is not even plausible, even NV did do false marketing that you can get 60fps @ 4K reso's the lies rofl

UDF Tech explains and and proves it, and I know there will always be that lot won't agree with it, that's fine, they just make themselves look funny, just by denying the facts that professional reviewers have proved.


JayzTwoCents:


Gaming Nexus:




I prefer actual facts over marketing and propaganda nonsense, that always wins in the end
UDF tech isn't the only one that proved it Gaming Nexus & JayzTwoCents did as well as many others.
 
Also Ray Tracing even worked fine with the Amiga 500, it's nothing new, just old tech being reused for marketing, yet the three games that do support RTX, don't look great due to sheer image quality loss due to DLSS, just disable it for the better picture I'd be like.
NV could just of released the GTX 1180 / GTX 1180 Ti without the RTX nonsense and then these overrated prices would of been far better as well, most people I know game with RTX off simply due to the image quality loss DLSS gives.
 
Crytek's solution won't have to suffer from that major image quality loss issue NV's DLSS is camping with either, so all in all, Crytek has the answer everyone has been waiting for

transdogmifier
I didn't get it for ray tracing, but ..ok?

But you paid for ray tracing.

Holdolin
 
He paid for the card.  Ray tracing was included.

Ray tracing comes as part of the package and inflates the cost. If he didn't buy the card for ray tracing as he claims, he still paid for ray tracing.
 
When you purchase a car with a new technology you pay for the design and implementation of that technology. If you were to purchase a car with automatic seats despite having no interest in this function, simply because you wanted this particular car given its 50 Hp advantage over the competing brand in the same class, you still pay for the automatic seats since they are included in the package.