It is technically GPU agnostic, the injected renderer should run on any hardware that supports Vulkan raytracing. The design of the renderer certainly plays to the strengths of Nvidia's architectures though, so performance is quite bad on AMD cards.
performance is terrible on just about everything. even a 4090 doesn't get above 30 fps on rtx portal without dlss helping out at 4k. A 4090!
Honestly, this seems to be nvidia's way of making everything look slightly better while requiring massively stronger hardware. It feels like this was purposely done to disadvantage amd and intel
Remember when they came out with slightly stronger tessellation unit? The result was Nvidia paying developers to do this:
"Unnecessary geometric detail slows down all GPUs, of course, but it just so happens to have a much larger effect on DX11-capable AMD Radeons than it does on DX11-capable Nvidia GeForces. The Fermi architecture underlying all DX11-class GeForce GPUs dedicates more attention (and transistors) to achieving high geometry processing throughput than the competing Radeon GPU architectures."
I wonder if certain sponsor didnt suggest removing images to techreport. Sounds preposterous until one remembers Intel commissioned tomshardware story from 2001 https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/hot-spot,365-4.html Turned out it was mostly a lie of omission and tomshardware published a retraction, but neither that retraction http://www.tomshardware.com/column/01q4/011029/index.html or its archive.org copy are available anymore. archive.org returns "Sorry. This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine." for that one single retraction link. Curiously original now confirmed to be wrong story is still there for everyone to read 22 years later, imagine that.
The PS5 runs most games at 4k 60. Granted, it's scaled on some games, but that really doesn't matter when it's being outputted to a TV sitting 10 feet or more away from the viewer.
I get why they did what they did, because most TVs now days are 4k, but if you know enough about the limits of human vision, it's pretty clear that 4k is a waste for console gaming. It makes much more sense on PC, but even there the biggest noticeable difference is reading text, not playing games.
It was only this latest generation of consoles that started giving a shit about framerates again because they basically hit diminishing returns on pumping more triangles into every mole of every NPC, and resolutions were good enough at 4k, so framerates were suddenly something important enough to care about.
But the PS4/Xbone/Switch and prior 3D consoles certainly treated 30fps (sometimes less) as a standard in most cases. There's a reason people want to get Bloodborne ported somewhere else, because currently the only way to play it (PS4) is locked at 30fps.
