[SOLVED] What are the AMD GPUs that are going to support PTGI/Ray tracing after Driver Update?

InfinityVive

Great
May 23, 2019
109
4
85
0
So, AMD announced that the up-comming driver updates this Year will make AMD GPUs support PTGI/Ray Tracing for CryEngine, But they didn`t say which AMD GPUs Will support it, So I am wondering which AMD GPUs will support PTGI/Ray Tracing, I am using AMD Radeon RX 570 4 GB, Will it support PTGI/Ray tracing? Because if it does not support it, I will return it before the 7 Days Try-After-You-Buy will expire after 2 days, So please give me a reply.
 

Metal Messiah.

Commendable
Mar 28, 2019
2,148
445
1,790
61
So I am wondering which AMD GPUs will support PTGI/Ray Tracing,
They haven't announced any particular GPU model though. But the RX 570 should also support this feature. It's only a matter of time and coding.

BTW, AMD has already claimed that all of its current DX12 graphics cards support ray tracing via Microsoft’s DXR fallback layer. On the driver level, the support will be there. BUT, this Fallback layer is just an emulation layer provided by MS, which is capable of running on any "D3D12" compatible GPU. It was originally meant so that the developers can learn the API (with having obvious DXR compatibility), and it was hardly intended to be able to run any games as such.

Once Ray Tacing Turing HW came out in the market, it's development was kind of halted, as it was deemed unnecessary. That it is technically supported was never in question, the question is how fast they can do it and my guess is not very fast, otherwise they would've already talked about it and showed some examples.

But AMD is still free to provide DXR support through their D3D12 drivers though. Any D3D12 GPU is actually capable of running this DXR code, since it is just an extension of DirectCompute. Slow Performance remains a totally different issue though (imagine running the same operations on a GPU without specialized processors/cores). But as per one recent post, ""The fallback layer isn't maintained anymore and it's unlikely that developers will use the codebase for ray tracing support under GPUs which don't support DXR directly.""

But MOST importantly, DXR has never been an NVIDIA-exclusive thing. Every DX12-capable card can access and use it, it's just slow (depending on the HW/GPU model).

Performance, however, appears to be underwhelming via this “emulation/software” method. This could explain why AMD has not enabled the real-time ray tracing fallback layer on its drivers as its GPUs currently lack hardware components that could accelerate the ray tracing calculations.

In short, and while theoretically AMD’s DX12 GPUs can support real-time ray tracing, chances are we won’t see the red team adding support to it for the foreseeable future (or at least until AMD releases GPUs that are capable of running RT games with acceptable framerates).
 
Last edited:
Apr 30, 2019
94
21
35
0
Nvidia is still ahead than AMD when it comes to ray tracing on the hardware level. Though, I really want AMD to step up their game. When are they going to be a strong GPU competitor is my question ?

So it'a all about drivers and emulation till now for Amd ?
 
Apr 30, 2019
94
21
35
0
They haven't announced any particular GPU model though. But the RX 570 should also support this feature. It's only a matter of time and coding.

BTW, AMD has already claimed that all of its current DX12 graphics cards support ray tracing via Microsoft’s DXR fallback layer. On the driver level, the support will be there. BUT, this Fallback layer is just an emulation layer provided by MS, which is capable of running on any "D3D12" compatible GPU. It was originally meant so that the developers can learn the API (with having obvious DXR compatibility), and it was hardly intended to be able to run any games as such.

Once Ray Tacing Turing HW came out in the market, it's development was kind of halted, as it was deemed unnecessary. That it is technically supported was never in question, the question is how fast they can do it and my guess is not very fast, otherwise they would've already talked about it and showed some examples.

But AMD is still free to provide DXR support through their D3D12 drivers though. Any D3D12 GPU is actually capable of running this DXR code, since it is just an extension of DirectCompute. Slow Performance remains a totally different issue though (imagine running the same operations on a GPU without specialized processors/cores). But as per one recent post, ""The fallback layer isn't maintained anymore and it's unlikely that developers will use the codebase for ray tracing support under GPUs which don't support DXR directly.""

But MOST importantly, DXR has never been an NVIDIA-exclusive thing. Every DX12-capable card can access and use it, it's just slow (depending on the HW/GPU model).

Performance, however, appears to be underwhelming via this “emulation/software” method. This could explain why AMD has not enabled the real-time ray tracing fallback layer on its drivers as its GPUs currently lack hardware components that could accelerate the ray tracing calculations.

In short, and while theoretically AMD’s DX12 GPUs can support real-time ray tracing, chances are we won’t see the red team adding support to it for the foreseeable future (or at least until AMD releases GPUs that are capable of running RT games with acceptable framerates).
Also, this indeed makes sense. Thanks for the clear explanation. noted. I wan't aware of any fallback layer stuff before though, lol.
 
Reactions: Metal Messiah.
Nvidia is still ahead than AMD when it comes to ray tracing on the hardware level. Though, I really want AMD to step up their game. When are they going to be a strong GPU competitor is my question ?

So it'a all about drivers and emulation till now for Amd ?
AMD has plenty of good GPUs at great prices in the mid-range market. For whatever reason, more gamers chose to buy the Nvidia GTX 1050 Ti and GTX 1060 than any other GPU in the past couple of years. I conclude that based on the Steam Hardware Survey https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/
 
Reactions: Metal Messiah.
Apr 30, 2019
94
21
35
0
AMD has plenty of good GPUs at great prices in the mid-range market. For whatever reason, more gamers chose to buy the Nvidia GTX 1050 Ti and GTX 1060 than any other GPU in the past couple of years. I conclude that based on the Steam Hardware Survey https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/
I didn't say AMD has bad cards, but I was just pointing out the lack of ray tracing on their GPUs. Oh Yeah, I'm aware of that steam survey as well, but I really don't trust those findings.

Is the survey 100% accurate and correct ?? I agree AMD has captured the mid-range GPU market, and their cards are also cheaper than nvidia though. Cheers !
 

Satan-IR

Honorable
Apr 18, 2014
1,090
96
11,740
148
Is the survey 100% accurate and correct ??
It has to be quite accurate for the purpose it's serving (estimates) otherwise they wouldn't publish it.

I agree with MrN1ce9uy and Metal Messiah they have some pretty good mid-range cards now. Few years back when Intel was ruling with 4th-5th gen CPUs and Nvidia had the Maxwell and Pascal lines AMD was making electric heaters with FX and R9 series, power hungry and not as efficient. Price-wise they were not that great either which had always somehow been AMD's advantage over Intel and nvidia; value. Or good/similar performance at lower price.

Before that period I had a Club3D HD 4850 OC and it was second best after the 4870s. Similar nvidia cards were not that great but as for the system I had gone with an Intel-based setup.

Later I went with Intel again with a 4th gen 6-core CPU but I got a GTX 1070 because I didn't want an R9 or the new-at-that-time AMD 400 series, for which a few models where available where I live at higher prices than would make sense.

I guess it takes a longer time to clear people's heads that nvidia and Intel must not be the sole players in the market after they really did rule for a couple years. This is an opinion of course, or a hunch if you like, not a fact and not a verse of the gospel.
 
Reactions: lux1109
Apr 30, 2019
94
21
35
0
It has to be quite accurate for the purpose it's serving (estimates) otherwise they wouldn't publish it.
Okay, thanks for clarifying this. Btw, which manufacturer do you actually prefer for GPU, amd or Nvidia ? NV cards are overpriced in my opinion, for the performance they provide..
 
Last edited:

Satan-IR

Honorable
Apr 18, 2014
1,090
96
11,740
148
Okay, thanks for clarifying this. Btw, which manufacturer do you actually prefer for GPU, amd or Nvidia ? NV cards are overpriced in my opinion, for the performance they provide..
As I said above I don't really care if it's an nvidia or and AMD. If it is the card that can deliver what I want I'd get it.

Each time I actually need to upgrade my graphics card, that is it can no longer perform at the desired resolution and refresh rate (for me now that is 1080p at 60Hz) I see what well-known brand/model can do that with best value, which one has better cooling and runs with less noise.

Then I'd see if my PSU would support the card or not (6+2 pins, amperage etc.) or would getting the new card entail a PSU upgrade as well. Then I'd see which one has best/longest warranty.

Lastly, if there is more than one candidate that meets that criteria I'd also consider cosmetics and how it looks.
 

digitalgriffin

Distinguished
Jan 29, 2008
416
63
18,870
3
Facepalm, I just need a quick answer for God sake...
The Crytek demo was a mix of Ray Tracing and Rasterization on a Vega 56. Not 100% ray tracing (But then again neither is NVIDIA's RTX) At 1080p it was around 30 fps if I remember correctly.

The 570 is nowhere near the horsepower of the Vega 56. So it will be pretty much be worthless for ray tracing. It's an excellent value for 1080p gaming however.

True AMD hardware support for ray tracing isn't supposed to be around until 2020 (Arcturus?) We'll find out tomorrow for sure.

RX570 is good for 1080p with medium settings.

You can return your 570 and wait. The next gen cards might be a tad bit more expensive for the same performance, but we aren't entirely sure yet.

Where things settle out with regards to who provides the better value (AMD/NVIDIA) is determined upon what the reviews say against the price of next gen. No one has that data yet.
 
Last edited:

Metal Messiah.

Commendable
Mar 28, 2019
2,148
445
1,790
61
The Crytek demo was a mix of Ray Tracing and Rasterization on a Vega 56. Not 100% ray tracing (But then again neither is NVIDIA's RTX) At 1080p it was around 30 fps if I remember correctly

Yup. A lot of people have been talking about that DEMO that you don’t need Nvidia’s Turing or DXR support from Microsoft. This has always been true though. Nvidia didn’t invent the idea of running ray tracing on a GPU.

Nvidia’s Turing GPUs just contain some specialized function blocks to accelerate part of the ray tracing process more effectively.

It was an engine demo though. It’s much easier to deliver gorgeous graphics when the only thing the engine is doing is running graphics code. Delivering good real-time performance in a game requires managing physics, network code, player inputs, audio, and AI, just to name a few. Detail settings and target resolution will have a significant impact on GPU performance in ray traced games, just as they always have in rasterized titles.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: digitalgriffin
Nvidia is still ahead than AMD when it comes to ray tracing on the hardware level. Though, I really want AMD to step up their game. When are they going to be a strong GPU competitor is my question ?

So it'a all about drivers and emulation till now for Amd ?
hard to say really. the problem is nvidia is not the type that will "relax" their advancement even when they were on top. base on my observation nvidia roughly still give us 30% performance increase every year. on AMD side that will be every two years or so. that's why i'm not totally ditching the idea nvidia to release something that is maybe within 25%-30% faster than 2080ti this year. it's not AMD did not stepping up their game but simply nvidia is that ahead and did not slow down their advancement.
 
Why is ray tracing getting so much importance these days is beyond me.
it is really not that different when tessellation first being push with DX11. though RT did have it's benefit for game development once the usual fake effect that being used right now are completely being replaced with ray tracing. RT also makes some effect that is hard or outright impossible to mimic with those fake effect.
 

knickle

Distinguished
Jan 25, 2008
219
7
18,695
3
With the upcoming PCIE4, I've been wondering if the extra bandwidth is going to be enough to allow the CPU to carry some of the real-time raytracing load. I mean, AMD has been hinting at 12 core "gaming CPUs". We don't exactly need 12 cores (24 threads) for gaming, unless... hmmm....

Yeah, I know. I'm allowed to dream though. ;)
 

digitalgriffin

Distinguished
Jan 29, 2008
416
63
18,870
3
With the upcoming PCIE4, I've been wondering if the extra bandwidth is going to be enough to allow the CPU to carry some of the real-time raytracing load. I mean, AMD has been hinting at 12 core "gaming CPUs". We don't exactly need 12 cores (24 threads) for gaming, unless... hmmm....

Yeah, I know. I'm allowed to dream though. ;)
Most of the bandwidth over the PCIe for games is for transferring textures and Draw call buffers. DX really limited the amount of draw calls you could do on a frame. However with the advent of Vulkan, a lot of these limitations can be bypassed. It's still difficult to saturate the PCIe v 3.0 bus with a single card, even at 4K for gaming.

The increased bandwidth should help eliminate bottlenecks with heterogeneous memory architectures and large data-sets. However bus saturation really hasn't been of issue to date except for highly specialized applications (ie: 4K/8K video editing).
 

knickle

Distinguished
Jan 25, 2008
219
7
18,695
3
Most of the bandwidth over the PCIe for games is for transferring textures and Draw call buffers. DX really limited the amount of draw calls you could do on a frame. However with the advent of Vulkan, a lot of these limitations can be bypassed. It's still difficult to saturate the PCIe v 3.0 bus with a single card, even at 4K for gaming.

The increased bandwidth should help eliminate bottlenecks with heterogeneous memory architectures and large data-sets. However bus saturation really hasn't been of issue to date except for highly specialized applications (ie: 4K/8K video editing).
It's difficult to saturate, yes. That's why I'm dreaming outside the box here, and yes I mean dreaming. Imagine treating the extra unused CPU cores as makeshift RT cores. That extra bus bandwidth could suddenly become useful and make 12+ CPU cores suddenly relevant. Again... dreaming here. :)
 
May 11, 2019
64
10
35
0
Yup. A lot of people have been talking about that DEMO that you don’t need Nvidia’s Turing or DXR support from Microsoft. This has always been true though. Nvidia didn’t invent the idea of running ray tracing on a GPU.

Nvidia’s Turing GPUs just contain some specialized function blocks to accelerate part of the ray tracing process more effectively.

It was an engine demo though. It’s much easier to deliver gorgeous graphics when the only thing the engine is doing is running graphics code. Delivering good real-time performance in a game requires managing physics, network code, player inputs, audio, and AI, just to name a few. Detail settings and target resolution will have a significant impact on GPU performance in ray traced games, just as they always have in rasterized titles.
is the demo now also available to try and download ??
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS