Luke's remark emphasizes that ray tracing is an inherent feature, not something to be debated.
Luke's remark emphasizes that ray tracing is an inherent feature, not something to be debated.
Radeon GPUs lag significantly behind Nvidia in ray tracing capabilities. Performance issues like the 12GB requirement on the 7700XT highlight this gap, especially when compared to the 8GB on the RX 7600. Many games currently lack solid ray tracing support due to its relative novelty. Unless a title is specifically designed to leverage it effectively, ray tracing often remains underutilized. If you truly need ray tracing and can't compromise, switching to Nvidia would be the only viable option. Personally, skipping this feature doesn’t mean missing out on much, especially if you’re content with your current setup.
Thanks to everyone so far. I’m not really focused on RayTracing because it leads to problems like in that video: although it can appear impressive in a small room, elsewhere the lighting becomes very harsh (refer to the attached screenshots). At lower settings, I don’t exceed 35 frames per second. I’m uncertain whether the lightning effects stem from accurate real-world simulation or if the ray calculations are off. My GPU does have special ray tracing features, but I don’t use them. Unfortunately, there’s no alternative without spending extra money. Also, when I lower the quality to low or mid levels, the game looks terrible—low-res textures and washed-out upscaling. In Hitman this impacts model detail too; the trees in the first level look like plain green blocks, missing individual leaves without high-quality rendering. There should be two types of solutions: high-end cards that can deliver full HD at 60+ FPS, and those who simply can’t afford it, nor should they pay for unnecessary ray tracing cores. Plus—what other purposes could those extra units serve besides real-time ray tracing in games like GPGPU computing? Then I’d have a better use for them.
Even when side by side we compare, RT usually doesn’t stand out as clearly better or worse. It often appears different, yet I struggle to pinpoint why lighting seems so much improved—especially with shadows. The only real issue is when reflections are very obvious, but overall performance remains solid. Still, it’s a promising direction for several reasons. I believe it’s a strong technology that will continue advancing. We’re still in the early stages.
Others have mentioned it's the graphics card. My setup includes a 7900-XTX, though its ray tracing capabilities aren't outstanding. I purchased it at a discount—about $150 less than retail—which matched the price of the XT 20GB. It fully utilizes my 3440x1440p 144Hz display in most recent games using both High and Ultra modes, delivering solid raster performance without needing much VRAM. Higher-end cards generally have more RT cores, which applies to both AMD and Nvidia. The 7900-XT/XTX are the only AMD options that can handle ray tracing effectively. For instance, Dead Space 2023 Remake includes ray tracing but only in a limited way—just ambient occlusion at native resolution. At full settings, I achieve 144+ FPS with no upscaling or frame generation, and the average remains between 130-140 FPS. However, when I turn on that single ray tracing feature, my performance plummets below 100 FPS, only reaching triple digits in specific sections. It's encouraging that AMD is finally improving ray tracing enough for meaningful results in titles like Dead Space 2023 Remake, but powerful cards are still necessary for broader support. These are my personal recordings from that period. I don’t have a capture card or separate machine, so the GPU manages both gaming and recording simultaneously, which slightly impacts performance. WITHOUT ray tracing: WITH ray tracing.
Thanks for the update. I originally intended a more powerful 6000 series GPU, but the local store offered a solid deal on the 7700xt after purchasing my remaining components there. The performance versus cost made it a clear choice. Unfortunately, the extra RT-cores can't be used elsewhere, which is frustrating since I had to invest money just to understand how to use them effectively. Still, I’m hoping for at least a reasonable deal on my current setup in Germany, where the dealer charges only about 5%—which seems much more competitive than the 15%-20% rates I see elsewhere.
Just ignore the RT, I own a 4070 Super and it looks great in games like Cyberpunk 2077. I also played that game back when I had a 3060—definitely not capable of handling high frame rates without straining. Go all out with rasterized performance or adjust your RT settings so you only use it minimally. For me, reflections in CP were key, but shadows weren’t as important. So don’t worry too much. Most games don’t need it unless you really want to tackle Alan Wake 2.
Ray tracing often changes the way light interacts with surfaces, sometimes making scenes appear more lifelike. However, the goal isn't always realism. In titles like Cyberpunk, developers often reduce visibility in shadowy zones because ray tracing would make them even darker. Still, many games employing ray tracing still rely on rasterization for certain lighting effects. Reflections remain the most striking feature of ray tracing. Using rasterized screen-space reflections limits rendering to what's visible on the screen, which means objects behind you won't appear through glass or windows. Ray-traced reflections let you see what's hidden behind obstacles, like a body of water reflecting the landscape ahead. You can test this by positioning yourself in front of a reflective surface with a background view—watch as the reflected scene disappears once it's no longer rendered. If you want realism but need performance, opt for reflections when possible. Cyberpunk’s “path tracing preview” is pushing boundaries, showing how far ray tracing can go. High-end GPUs today handle 2D games smoothly at impressive frame rates, so developers focus less on raw power and more on visual fidelity. In the coming years, we’ll likely see GPUs capable of rendering rasterized content at hundreds of frames per second regardless of quality. At that point, performance will be the key metric, not rasterization speed. Past generations struggled with 3D rendering in older consoles; now even basic systems can run classic titles. Technology keeps improving, and what once seemed tough will soon become standard.
Ok, I have to admit: That video looks amazing - but I still spotted a few "flaws" which I think wouldn't work this way in real life: The first motocycle scene from 1:41 to 1:48 where the entire scene gets somewhat of an overall tint from the lights on the left - of course a concrete wall looks a bit different depending on the light that illuminates it - but your entire field of view? The gate at 2:20 - that's surely not how it would look like in real life: It has a somewhat of "heat glow" to it like the insides of a toaster while it's toasting. But in bright daylight this effect wouldn't be that noticeable - maybe at night - and even then only depending on the overall weather and moisture. 3:47 the wall at the right side: That's way too relective for a wet brick wall - even if that wall would be completely soaked it wouldn't be reflective as a mirror. Don't get me wrong - yes, this is complaining at a very high level - and overall it looks amazing for a video game - but require a monster of specialized hardware while giving up so much overall performance "just" for this? At least for me that's not worth the look nor the money. @Stahlmann Thanks for the explanation with the window - I wasn't aware of it. But it explains why Hitman all of the sudden want 3x the vram when I enable RT: Because it has to render all stuff in a 360 sphere around me instead of just a 90 degree squard-off circle of my FOV - that's quite an impact. Overall I guess I still just don't understand raytracing enough to evaluate it's impact properly. But when looking at the history of 2d and 3d as layed out by Stahlmann - back in the late 90s our systems had issues to keep up with Half-Life 1 because even specialized 3d accelerators, what became modern gpus, just hadn't the required technology yet. Fast forward to today every cpu can render it in 4k with just software rasterizing without a gpu actually 3d accelerating it - and this time we speak about Half-Life 2 and its back-then revolutionary Source engine. I guess in 10 years we will look back at this and maybe our kids will say something like: "How you played games back then without RT?" ... somewhat like the videos when the 2000s staff had to test hardware from the 90s and struggled hard with it.
Entry-level and mid-range GPUs are gradually adopting real-time ray tracing while maintaining solid frame rates. Black Myth: Wukong presents another example. As realistic rasterization methods evolve, the additional load from ray tracing becomes less significant. Hardware Unboxed reported only a 6% performance drop when enabling "Full Ray Tracing" at medium settings alongside the Cinematic preset, particularly on Nvidia platforms. AMD experiences roughly a 50% reduction in performance with medium RT settings.
There are additional videos on this YouTube channel that display a broader range of environments and lighting scenarios. While it may not be flawless, it significantly enhances realism compared to standard gameplay. Overall, it's impressive for its level of detail, particularly in close-up shots with still vehicles. The reflections play a major role in creating the illusion. I understand compromising performance is acceptable as long as the frame rate remains above 60 FPS.