Battlefield V First Ray Tracing Benchmarks In...

Nope, TC could only be classified as the earliest 'released game' with voxel cone-tracing not ray-tracing. They tried to do ray-tracing with SVO but couldn't. As I said CE had support for SVOGI long before TC had it in any form. Also Epic removed SVOGI from UE4 after the hardware for next-gen consoles were revealed, the elemental demo on PS4 is a classic example of that. There was a huge uproar over it when that happened where PC gamers were angry while cows were saying SVOGI was a waste of time and wouldn't even be done on PC's.

@dxmcat: are you saying that millions of problems with PC haven’t occurred over the years?

I mean, there’s like 100 million Steam users alone and that’s only currently.

Using the one console from years ago with major problems is fair game? Ok, fine then So is using PC’s over the years since 1. PC’s don’t have generations and 2. Have had problems since the beginning.

I’m sure you can google some trivial problem that a micro minority had with every console but the fact is that for the VAST majority consoles have worked every gen.

Why do you think they have the connotation of “plug and play” and “easy to use” etc.

Gone through more consoles due to hardware failure than I have PC (or components)

So yea.

@pc_rocks:

Cone tracing is a form of ray tracing:

Cone tracing

Cone tracing and beam tracing are a derivative of the ray tracing algorithm that replaces rays, which have no thickness, with thick rays.

Ray Tracing with Cones

A new approach to ray tracing is introduced. The definition of a "ray" is extended into a cone by including information on the spread angle and the virtual origin.

Like I said who you ask and the semantics of it. But the hint is in the name it self, cone tracing not ray-tracing. You're not shooting individual rays, there's no 'ray'. There's a reason Tomorrow Children opt for it. First they tried to do true ray-tracing they couldn't, then they tried to do SVOGI they couldn't, then they tried to do cone-tracing with SVO they couldn't. Finally they settled with cone-tracing and 3d textures. EVen your own links emphasize on its derivation and how it differs from a 'ray'.

Even if we neglect all that, Tomorrow Children isn't the first game to do it. 'True ray-tracing' to render the entire game has been done in Quake 2 Ray-Traced remake. TC can only be considered a first commercially released game with voxel cone-tracing. KCD will be a first commercially released game with ray-traced SVOGI. Nevertheless none of that are true-ray tracing in a traditional sense. BFV will be a first commercial game to utilize true ray-tracing.

EDIT: Just found out that KCD isn't the first game to feature ray-traced SVOGI. It was Miscreated created with Cryengine and released to public even before TC.

All I see is past debates coming undone before my eyes and I love it.

Yep, Shadow of The Tomb Raider also sees a 20 fps performance gain in DX12 over DX11. It's a huge difference.

Some people continue playing graphics, while others actually play games. I mean... this is great and all. Problem is, 99.9% of people wont have the ability to use it yet.. meaning? It wont be heavily support if much at all.

I just wish hermits would actually play games instead of obsessing over benchmarks that they'll never reach themselves.

There's no reason why a series that started on PC and spent half of its life exclusive to the platform should have such a low playerbase on its "main" platform compared to the console versions.

@Rockman999: I have played 41 hours of BFV already and there are plenty of people playing the game on PC.

In retrospect, I can do both graphics & gameplay. I get the best of both worlds on PC. Also, I'm playing BFV in 1440p/60fps and 1440p to me still looks freaking amazing.

Well that's the idea, benchmarking can be alot of fun to do on PC and I can play the game at the same time. Killing 2 birds with one stone is what PC gaming is all about :)

Battlefield games have always center around PC players and BFV is no different.

I spent a lot of time benchmarking and even more time overclocking..... it's extremely challenging and rewarding.

And is more enjoyable then the vast majority of games.

@scatteh316: Yeah sure...

Not me. There hasn't been a "need" to overclock since SVGA Quake put CPUs down to their knees. Once GLQuake pushed framerates comfortably above 30 fps, I quit overclocking.

As for benchmarks, I don't need it either. My screenshot grabber has a framerate counter. That's all I need. It's better for identifying potentially laggy areas within a game. Obviously, I have to be playing games.

I spent hours upon hours benchmarking Crysis 1..... trying to get it as close to 60fps as possible as I was CPU limited so overclocking was enjoyable and challenging.

I remember way back when hitting 4Ghz was the holy grail of overclocking and getting my CPU to it....... then getting my 2500k to the 5Ghz holy grail..... it's was so awesome.

And when you're on a PC forum like overclock.net you compete with each other which pushes you to higher and beat the others.

^^ Never done any serious overclocking in his life.

I liked it better when "dire need" dictated overclocking and benchmarks were used to test the results. PC gaming was in deep sh*t back then because of the performance roadblock brought about by 3D-rendered games (aka Quake). But, the problem only lasted a few months and was forgotten as soon as 3D accelerators appeared.

Nowadays? We all know they're just a dick-measuring contest. ;) But, oh well. More power to those who like it.

Me? I'm happy if the game is playable enough (+30 fps). If I hit +60 fps? Frosting on the cake.

@scatteh316: I've never really been into the benchmarks. I mostly use them to test out OC stability. I buy good hardware and OC so my games run better. I never cared much for leader boards or comparing results. I know a lot of people really get into it. It is like drag racing or running cars on the Dyno for PCs. hehe :)

And by drag racing, you mean going into Liquid Nitrogen CPU territory lol. That's beyond of a PC Enthusiast OC who takes benchmarks seriously lol. I barely do benchmarks myself and I only do those just to test out my hardware GPU/CPU.

I never used LN2 but I did sub-zero overclocking with a single stage phase cooler that would hold my 5.5Ghz 2500k at -30c.

Intel cold scaling was god awful compared to AMD back then and I got a 400Mhz clock speed increase on my at the time Phenom 2 X6 1075t which is currently still the highest clocked 1075t in the world on HWbot that doesn't resort to DICE or LN2.

If you were competing for benchmark scores you would use Intel CPU's but if you were looking for frequency results you would use AMD.