this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2025
169 points (94.2% liked)
PC Gaming
9110 readers
916 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ray tracy can be cheaper for equivalent lighting quality than rasternization. Depending on how they use it, it could be great to have rates and only just like how mega texters work. People got upset about the g p u memory requirements for mega texters , but it was a huge gain in performance if you hit the minimum. Retracing as an effect on top of rasterized ighting is a big hit to performance and the only thing we have now.
Native real-time ray tracing was released like 20 years ago with ati x1000 series. No one wanted to risk making a retracing only games so it never took on. Rtx is based on using ray tracing as an effect to go on top of rasternized graphics.
No current games use retracing only, indiana jones uses it for mandatory effects and not as the primary render method.