Microsoft's DirectX Raytracing API Makes Photorealism Easier

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Contributor

Kevin Carbotte is a contributing writer for Tom's Hardware who primarily covers VR and AR hardware. He has been writing for us for more than four years.

  • robax91
    "likes of ADM and eventually Intel" did you mean AMD?
    Reply
  • Warsaw
    ADM and Intel? To whom is this competitor of Intel? ;)
    Reply
  • islandwalker
    Thanks ROBAX91. Fixed.
    Reply
  • comedichistorian
    What the hell are they trying to show me in that Battlefield V shot exactly? That Raytracing adds flames? I'm probably missing something obvious like usual so please school me lol
    Reply
  • bit_user
    21373286 said:
    What the hell are they trying to show me in that Battlefield V shot exactly?
    This is a still frame that's taken from a video you can find on Youtube. The flames are actually seen in the reflection off a car's body.


    If you watch the whole video, I think they might be trying to tell FPS players that they can gain an advantage with ray tracing, by being able to see behind them or around corners, off the reflection of objects, puddles, windows, (eyeballs ;-) etc.

    Traditional rasterization can do reflections, but not accurate ones. In raytracing, the easiest way to do reflections is also the accurate way.

    Also, I just found this official narrated version that breaks it down and shows effects in the original you might've missed.

    Reply
  • mitch074
    Funny how everybody is on dxrt when AMD's open source RT technology, ProRender Radeon Rays, has been out for 6 months...
    I wonder how funny it would be if, right after a DXRT title comes out, it turns out to be available and enabled on Vega!
    Reply
  • bit_user
    21373591 said:
    Funny how everybody is on dxrt when AMD's open source RT technology, ProRender Radeon Rays, has been out for 6 months...
    They're different animals. Rays is equivalent to Nvidia's OptiX - they're for CG artists and other professional applications.

    The main difference is that DXRT is designed for realtime rendering of dynamic environments - very different than what Rays and OptiX is designed for. One of the main issues is in how quickly the scene graph can be updated, from one frame to the next. For non-realtime purposes, the scene graph can be static and relatively more expensive to build, but must scale to far more complex geometry. For realtime, you can optimize around simpler scenes, but it's got to be much lower overhead.

    21373591 said:
    I wonder how funny it would be if, right after a DXRT title comes out, it turns out to be available and enabled on Vega!
    Yeah, it would be ironic if DXRT actually came from Team Red, while everyone just assumed it was Nvidia pushing for it. But, if you search on linked-in to find the current employer of notable academics and researchers behind ray tracing, you'll find they're all now working for Nvidia.

    I think it's safe to say AMD was caught off-guard. It probably won't be until at least Arcturus that they can respond with any sort of comparable hardware acceleration. Until they do, enabling ray tracing on AMD hardware will probably be a performance killer.
    Reply
  • rantoc
    Raytracing will be a perf killer no matter what but with dedicated hardware it will be far more efficient. We will likely have a hybrid ray/raster for quite some time due to that but i'm happy someone took the bold step forward. In retrospect it kinda reminds me from going from basic textures to shaded, that step introduced way better gfx but was a performance killer in the beginning... today it's used _everywhere_ in real time. It will be the same for raytracing in due time so be happy someone took a real step forward rather than just become better at whats already present.
    Reply
  • Gilles_2
    well AMD can do RT with GCN, but power used for RT won't be available for rasterization, unlike nvidia which made a special part of the chip just for RT
    now if AMD goes big with 7nm GPU they could do it and don't care, letting user choose how much they want to allow for RT
    Reply
  • nufelevas
    I do not nottice ray tracing in REAL LIFE. Why I should pay a fortune to have it in games?

    Games need much better physics. Destructable environments, movable objects, persistent world madifications made by the user, so te player can leave a mark on the world, and use it to his advantage.

    Raytracing is far beyond the level of graphic detail I can notice or care.
    Reply