Except PhysX is now used nearly everywhere. You just don't explicitly see it anymore because it is turned on implicitly. More games today use PhysX for their physics simulation than any other middleware out there. Ray tracing will eventually evolve the same way once we get past the initial hump of it being a marketing point.
It's also a great example of not worrying about a feature Gen 1. As I remember it, by the time that PhysX was actually used and something you might say "hey, look at this, its cool" in many games, the stand alone PhysX cards were not fast enough to actually do the job. You were much better off not buying a PhysX card and just waiting for it to actually be in games first.
This is true, but almost nothing uses the Proprietary GPU accelerated PhysX anymore. So why buy into the GPU Proprietary RTX, and just wait for the ubiquitous multiplatform implementation to proliferate?
No, I mean PhysX. It is a middleware solution for physics that is primarily CPU-based these days. Even console games are using it. It is integrated into Unreal Engine and Unity, notably, and runs on every system (PC, Switch, PlayStation 4, Xbox One). "Hardware-accelerated" PhysX that runs on a GPU is rare these days, but still used occasionally.
I remember playing and programming 320x200 and 320x240 (mode 13h unchained, aka x-mode or mode x depending on who you talked to). We've come a long way, but pixel density is getting to the point that increases aren't making as large of a visual difference as it used to. Going form 320x200 to 640x480 was a large difference to my eyes. Going up to 1080p also increased the perceived detail a lot. 1080p to 1440p is a smaller increase but still easily noticeable by most. 4k depends on the screen size on whether it's noticeable for me. Smaller screens I can't really tell the difference besides my icons are smaller if I don't set scaling. 8k seems like a solution looking for a problem at this point. I find things like better contrast, brightness and HDR bring a lot more to a screen than pushing more pixels. I would take a 1440p monitor with HDR over a 4k monitor without as the visual fidelity is much better. Of courser if I can have both, great, but my point was simply pushing more pixels doesn't always increase the visuals as much as other methods. As you said, it's a moving target though, 60fps used to be the gold standard, now 120, 144, etc are becoming the norm. But just as pushing higher resolutions is having limited returns, so does pushing higher frames... while most people would notice the difference betwen 30hz and 60hz... not as many would notice 60hz to 120hz.. and even less 144hz to 200+hz. I'm not saying nobody would notice, just the # of people who would benefit decreases significantly. Those are also typically the players who are turning off most of the visuals to get higher frame rates, so visual fidelity isn't their top priority, fast response times are.
I just can't go back from my 50" 4k TV, having 4 1080p rdp screens is a blessing for my job.32" is the sweet spot for me with 4K. Nice and sharp. Also great size for actual work without snapping your neck at desk distances.
Anyhow, looking forward to how AMD tackles RT, maybe even turn some of the Raster Elite Purists on to some fun.
And now console gamers will be able to play at 60fps and even 120fps at 1080p
Th leaks show it outperforming the 2080ti, but falling short on the 3080... If indicative of actual performance it's about in line with my expectations... Ok for a first try, but not as good as Nvidias second try. Will have to see how it matures a bit and real games get tested. I don't see how it would lower IQ for a given setting... If your casting out the same rays using the same api, you should be getting the same results. If you meant you have to lower quality settings to get the same speeds this would make sense, but it's more of an either or, not both.