Just saw this. Pretty impressive stuff.

No RTX isn't a scam. Ray tracing was always possible on traditional GPUs/CPUs. RTX GPUs add dedicated pipelines to calculate rays and triangle intersections, thus making simulation of ray tracing more feasible across the board (granted they don't use a different technique such as voxel-based GI). The fact that this can be done on an AMD GPU just means good optimization with standard rendering cores. DXR doesn't have a strict set of implementation requirement, and Nvidia just decided that using dedicated hardware is more efficient.

RT cores accelerate linear algebra operations that are used to compute line intersections, so any ray/path traced scene using this technique will see better performance on an RTX card, end of story.

Both games could have won GOTY. I do have my own stance on what I've seen of RDR2. Red Dead 2 seems like an expected evolution of the franchise. Like almost all western open world games I have played, my disappointment in these games stem from the assumption that the sheer extravagance of its excesses bears some sort of inherent artistic value. You're just left with a labyrinthine chore of an open world that repeatedly undermines its own intent.

RDR2's gorgeous expanse is irredeemably cheapened by a mistaken belief that "more" equates to "depth." All of the detail is wonderful and beautiful to experience and look at, but once the novelty wears off, a creeping, empty joylessness settles in instead. Throwing in pointless shit is not what makes a virtual world feel like a lived-in experience. RDR2's selective realism shatters all illusion that its obsequious fetish for detail contributes to immersion in its story.

And this describes pretty much every Rockstar game ever made. Red Dead 2 is the GTA IV of this generation.

Everyone I've talked to said that Microsoft's approach was superior. Well, these results show that people will prefer true instant gaming if they can't tell the difference between a stream and a local game.

I've been saying this since 2008, cloud gaming is the inevitable future. Most casual consumers won't care about the input latency or how it all works. All people care about is playing high tier games with the smallest barrier to entry and cloud gaming offers exactly that.

Right. Pretty much every argument I've heard against cloud gaming is not at the fault of the tech itself, but the ISPs. Comcast/Xfinity is the true enemy here. If the internet provider and the service were from the same company, (for example Google's Project Stream and Google Fiber), the experience would be far better. As it is now, the quality of any cloud gaming service is at the mercy of the ISP.

OnLive made efforts to work with ISPs to get the best possible pathway to their data centers. They tested many scenarios to make sure the experience was consistent from user to user.

I believe it is inevitable. It isn't a matter of if, but when. Cloud gaming enables anyone to experience any game on any device. The only drawback is our internet infrastructure, which is continually improving.

It will come to the point where the average consumer won't notice the difference as input lag comes down to the speed of light. The economic benefits for developers and consumers are plentiful and immense. No pay wall to experience games.

it is very good

if they talk to mee

Have you heard of solid state batteries? They can charge within seconds and discharge rate is fully controllable. And like I said before, batteries aren't the full picture. Most people just talk about batteries when it comes to EVs and don't realize that they are ignoring the rest of the tech involved in making the car efficient.

Tesla's inverters, controllers and software are second to none and they are the key to how their cars achieve 300+ mile range along with amazing performance figures. This is how Tesla is going to achieve 610 miles of range and a 1.9 seconds 0-60 in the new Roadster just using 21700 cells.

Tesla developed silicon carbide inverters for the performance version of the Model 3 which allow more power output and efficiency.

Yep. And internal leaks suggest that Tesla's figures are very conservative (as they always are). During test runs, there are reports of the Roadster hitting 80 in 2 seconds.

And it's not all about the battery when it comes to efficiency. Tesla has designed a very robust inverter system in their early years and they have been iterating and improving it ever since the first Roadster. The Model 3 is equipped with a very capable 300Kw+ inverter architecture that allows near-Model S performance in a less expensive package. That combined with amazing software is what allows these amazing performance figures. The actual tech is what separates Tesla from all other EV makers.