Wookienopants wrote:The Bob
Tim Sweeney wrote:"For comparison, 64KB stores a whole frame of 8-bit color data in DOOM in 1992. So, one DOOM screenful of data per pixel at 4K resolution at 60 frames per second."
Thing is, while it got all the headlines, RTX uses DirectX Raytracing, which isn't locked to a vendor. AFAIK, "RT cores" (and also the AI-focused "Tensor cores") aren't really anything majorly different from the general purpose compute shader cores on all graphics cards. Once AMD release a DXR compatible driver, they'll have realtime raytracing as well - and ideally Battlefield 5's raytracing will "just work" once the AMD driver support is there, as it goes through the DXR HAL.mistercrayon wrote:The proof will be in the pudding imho. The numbers may be ridiculous but RTX felt like a genuine step change in what goes on our screens.
"Cost concerns" is why Xbone launched with 32MB* of "high-speed" eSRAM that had 102GBps bandwidth to the GPU, where the PS4's had all 8GB addressable with 176GBps bandwidth. Which is why games were 1080p on PS4 and 900p on xbone. I'd hope they learned from that mistake, as they certainly seemed to push harder in the round 2 of PS4 pro vs boneX.Yossarian wrote:Cost concerns mean that they almost certainly won’t. The only way I could see it happening is if the rumoured new X equivalent comes in at a silly price.
djchump wrote:Xbone launched with 10MB of "high-speed" eSRAM
djchump wrote:"Cost concerns" is why Xbone launched with 10MB of "high-speed" eSRAM that had 102GBps bandwidth to the GPU, where the PS4's had all 8GB addressable with 176GBps bandwidth. Which is why games were 1080p on PS4 and 900p on xbone. I'd hope they learned from that mistake, as they certainly seemed to push harder in the round 2 of PS4 pro vs boneX.Yossarian wrote:Cost concerns mean that they almost certainly won’t. The only way I could see it happening is if the rumoured new X equivalent comes in at a silly price.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!