Control PC Requirements and What Ray Tracing Will Look Like

News
By
published
Image 1 of 2

Nvidia wants everyone to know that real-time ray tracing isn't just for people with the most expensive graphics cards or developers with the backing of big-budget publishers. The company today revealed updated PC requirements for Control, the upcoming action-adventure title developed by Remedy Entertainment coming out August 27.

Image 1 of 2

Control will debut on PC, PlayStation 4 and Xbox One. Remedy said on its website that the game "will challenge you to master a combination of supernatural abilities, modifiable loadouts and reactive environments" after a secret government agency in New York is invaded by "an otherworldly threat." We wouldn't be surprised if that meant the game relied on a lot of atmospheric horror--which is where ray-tracing can shine.p

A quick refresher: ray tracing is a rendering technique capable of generating increasingly photorealistic graphics with better lighting and shadows than other rendering techniques. It requires a lot of performance, though, and most ray tracing was pre-rendered using powerful systems. Nvidia introduced real-time ray tracing with its RTX graphics cards to make it more accessible to game developers and ideally enable better in-game graphics from there.

Image 1 of 2

Nvidia is currently bundling Control and Wolfenstein: Youngblood with qualifying RTX graphics cards via the Super Fast Supernatural Bundle; details about the promotion can be found on Nvidia's website.

Note that Remedy doesn't expect people to buy the most expensive RTX graphics cards to enjoy Control--an RTX 2060 will be enough to enable ray tracing. More details about the title's required and recommended specs are below.


Photo Credits: Nvidia

Nathaniel Mott
Nathaniel Mott
Freelance News & Features Writer

Nathaniel Mott is a freelance news and features writer for Tom's Hardware US, covering breaking news, security, and the silliest aspects of the tech industry.

23 Comments Comment from the forums
  • bit_user
    Aside from the first screenshot, I'm more surprised by the lack of differences.

    Graphically, I don't think I'd mind playing it without RTX.
    Reply
  • hannibal
    Yeah... and run 120fps instead of 50fps...
    Reply
  • s997863
    Reminds me of PhysX in Batman Arkham Asylum (papers flying), and DirectX10 in Crysis (sun rays): Insignificant effects at an unreasonable performance cost, all of which could easily be implemented much better using other hardware/software methods already available at the time.
    The third screenshot doesn't even make sense: why can't you have the shadows off the grills on the pipe? If the level is static (won't move or change) then this could be done way back in quake 2. The real use for ray-tracing is to have dynamic moving shadows, like the imps in Doom 3.
    Reply
  • sharkpoonstock
    It's like Asscreed 3, the remaster that makes it more SD. Moores law has been dead for a decade or two.
    Reply
  • Growle
    This is about as exciting as I expected it to be...
    Reply
  • salgado18
    This is what happens with proprietary tech: nice stuff has to be optional and irrelevant to the game, because other people that don't have the hardware must enjoy the game without them.

    It's sad, really, because PhysX on hardware could enable so many cool gameplay opportunities, if games could depend on it. Also, more GPUs could be sold, second cards for physics effects could become normal, etc. But limiting it to CPU simulation with Radeon cards mean devs can't make a game around it, limiting the appeal to... papers on the ground.

    Nvidia can have all the top tech they want, going the proprietary route means not just us consumers, but they lose too.
    Reply
  • righto
    Reply
  • derekullo
    bit_user said:
    Aside from the first screenshot, I'm more surprised by the lack of differences.

    Graphically, I don't think I'd mind playing it without RTX.

    You can't see how much clearer her reflection is in the second image or how you can see a reflection of the ceiling in the 3rd image?

    Granted being able to see the reflection of the ceiling in a puddle probably wouldn't help you telekinetically rend a foe in twain ... unless the enemy is hiding on the ceiling spiderman style, in which case we torch the room because spiders hate fire.

    Playing without RTX is perfectly fine as long as you accept that puddles will always be a shade of gray.
    Edit: Or a blurry bitmap of what the developer thinks you should see

    #PuddlesMatters
    Reply
  • Warsaw
    I'm always about increased graphical fidelity in games or added effects that give it more realism. However, I must say with these screenshots from the game, there is little that impresses me. Yes, I would like the more realistic reflections of the puddles in my game. But at the same time, it's not showing me much that really draws my attention towards RTX.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    derekullo said:
    You can't see how much clearer her reflection is in the second image or how you can see a reflection of the ceiling in the 3rd image?
    Heh, the two reflection examples you cite don't need RTX, and I feel the non-RTX reflection of her was intentionally distorted. It looks more realistic to me, anyway.

    derekullo said:
    Granted being able to see the reflection of the ceiling in a puddle probably wouldn't help you telekinetically rend a foe in twain ... unless the enemy is hiding on the ceiling spiderman style, in which case we torch the room because spiders hate fire.
    It would be poor game design for extra graphical options to make a difference in playability, especially when most people can't use them.
    Reply