I hope now AMD improve the ray tracing at best situation to beat Nvidia ray tracing this time and don't disappoint us....but I have a doubt if it can do it.
Well if more games start to use ray tracing AMD will need to do something.
While I am expecting RT performance to improve over the RT performance of the RX 6000 series (hopefully by a more significant amount), I don't expect it to even come close to nVidia's. And now with DLSS3 frame generation, it's a foregone conclusion that the RX 7000 series would be left behind. That doesn't bother me, as long as pure rasterized gaming performance is up there with Lovelace's (like the RTX 4090) without FSR or DLSS in the mix, I'd be more than happy to part with 1k USD for the RX 7900XT - I feel the expected asking price of 1.2k USD for the RX 7950XT is a tad much, honestly, at that price level, I might as well get *gasps* the RTX 4080 16GB.
In games, feels like RT is used "because it exists", but game developers do not seem to put much effort in how to use it in best possible way. In future when you can light the entire game with RT, it is going to be great, but since it can only be used very limitedly with todays hardware, it is often used more like a gimmick.
AMD has to improve RT performance and a lot, but how fast is the question as the way things are, there isn't that much use for it currently, or does someone know a modern game, where it makes a big difference? Control maybe? Maybe RT can be made more efficient, because if we just wait for more and more horsepower to fix it, that will take a long, long time.
Also I don't gert frame generation. It is almost the same as motion blur. If you get 30 fps and game is sluggish, it is still sluggish if you enable frame generation as responsiveness does not change. Only place it might do any good is videos. If you record something at 30 fps and can generate frames in between, that might actually work as latency no longer matters.
AMD again should improve performance, stability and support of productivity software with new drivers. Blender for instance, there is no competition. Nvidia wins.
According to your theory, AMD will never be able to surpass Nvidia in improving and developing ray tracing!
It is still your theory...may be right may be wrong...that's depends on the near future
"According to your theory, AMD will never be able to surpass Nvidia in improving and developing ray tracing!"
?
I said ray tracing is demanding, that existing hardware can not run any modern game if it was fully raytraced and that unless more efficient way to raytrace is developed, it will take a long time before fully raytraced games run well with nothing but brute force.
The problem with DLSS3 as it exists now is, that although framerate goes up due to DLSS3 introducing a generated frame between every "real" frame, frame latency is also introduced.
Say, for example, IF the RTX 4090 can hit 100fps for a certain game without DLSS3 being used, as compared to 190fps with DLSS3 being used, it'd be smoother all round without DLSS3 because with it enabled, frame latency goes up and this might affect gameplay. For slower moving game, like Flight Sim/CBP2077/RPG games, where super fast response isn't quite needed, DLSS3 is superb. But, when games are faster paced, that's when DLSS3 frame latency becomes a factor.
That's why I prefer a GPU to be powerful enough, and fast enough natively in games (without the use of DLSS/FSR). This would eliminate the issues that come with use of FSR and DLSS, in other words, a GPU powerful enough for native 4k gaming with high framerate.
Thing is, if you get enough fps already, why do you want frame generation. If you don't get enough fps, frames in between real ones don't improve sluggish latency and game feels like running in the water, no matter fps counter shows nicer numbers.