They Fixed Ray Tracing Before Nvidia. (13x better)

Ray tracing “reinvention” (RTX 20-series / 2018 onward)

The video frames NVIDIA’s RTX generation (starting with 2018 live demos) as introducing the idea that future rendering will be hybrid:

• Ray tracing for parts of the image
• Rasterization for other parts
• Post-processing
• AI-driven pixel generation for pixels that would otherwise be too expensive/impossible to compute directly

Developers worldwide are described as “working hard on RTXing.”

---

Performance criticism of ray/path tracing in real games (Cyberpunk)

The speaker argues NVIDIA didn’t “solve” ray tracing performance, and that it remains expensive.

In Cyberpunk, enabling ray tracing (example: ray-traced reflections) is said to drop FPS significantly—roughly:

• ~90 FPS down to ~60 FPS, and worse depending on settings

For midrange/high prices (example: RTX 5060 Ti around $550–$600), some presets are still described as struggling:

• RT Ultra reportedly around ~37 FPS (with other effects like motion blur enabled)

---

Path tracing as the “quintessential” but brutally costly mode

The video distinguishes path tracing as computing the entire lighting engine using ray paths rather than traditional game engine lighting.

In Cyberpunk, path tracing is described as often unplayable without heavy concessions:

• FPS dropping to around ~20

To reach targets (e.g., ~60 FPS), the video claims the workflow involves:

• Upscaling (example: 720p → 1440p)
• Other compromises

---

Why path tracing is expensive (rays, bounces, denoising)

NVIDIA/official demos look good because they rely on:

• Limited ray counts / bounces
  • Example: only two bounces and very low rays per pixel
• AI denoisers / reconstruction to clean up noise

A key issue highlighted: denoising can cause artifacts, especially in low light. Examples include:

• Flickering grass
• “Crawling” reflections
• Temporally accumulating weirdness
• Unstable shadows/details

The video suggests these problems worsen at night because there’s less light information for the denoiser to work with.

---

AI “ray reconstruction” / DLSS feature

The speaker credits DLSS ray reconstruction (an AI feature on RTX GPUs) with stabilizing the image.

Reported improvement:

• The image becomes more stable
• Many issues are “pretty much solved”

Residual issues remain:

• Some temporal crawling persists
• Detail loss (e.g., face detail “pretty much gone” in shadows)

The video also claims games using path tracing often require ray reconstruction—for example:

• Resident Evil Requiem reportedly requires it with no option to disable

---

More rays/bounces via mods → better visuals, worse performance

The video claims users can download mods to increase ray tracing quality by raising:

• Rays per pixel
• Bounces

Example:

• Cyberpunk default: 2 rays / 2 bounces
• Modded: 6 rays / 4 bounces

Performance impact at 1440p + DLSS Quality (as reported):

• Default: ~58 FPS
• Higher quality: ~31 FPS

Conclusion: higher ray budgets can improve lighting/globals (e.g., better reflections/illumination), but the performance cost is large.

---

Comparison to other games and “low ray count” design compromises

The video discusses Resident Evil, described as looking “better” with more ray information.

It also mentions Crimson Desert—praised for performance and ray-tracing-driven reactivity—but argues it likely achieves this through extremely low ray counts:

• Claim: its circle-based rendering / ray traced global illumination (RTGI) runs at about 1/16 rays per pixel
• Comparison: Cyberpunk’s ~2 rays per pixel
  • Implication: far less compute (and therefore fewer rays/bounces and fewer visual fixes needed, but also different visual quirks)

---

Is ray tracing “ever going to be a thing”? (chicken-and-egg)

A recurring theme is that ray/path tracing needs massive compute, but:

• Games may not ship high-quality path tracing because not enough users have suitable GPUs
• Users may not accept ray tracing because it’s too expensive in performance terms

The video argues the industry is pushing toward path tracing as the future, but adoption is stalled by hardware cost and practical compromises.

---

Alternative approach: Unreal Engine 5 software ray tracing (Lumen)

The video cites UE5’s Lumen as a software-based ray tracing approach.

It argues Lumen can be impressive even with smaller teams, but still has flaws:

• Output resolution is said to be heavily reduced (example claim: ~25% of output resolution/base resolution)
• Resulting noise/instability and performance difficulty remain

---

Introduction of a non-NVIDIA/AMD alternative: Bolt / “Zeus” GPUs

The second half shifts from critique of current RTX/AMD approaches to a new company’s architecture.

Bolt (Zeus GPUs) is described as aiming for real-time path tracing by “leapfrogging” rasterization and conventional ray tracing designs.

Hardware described as unusual:

• Ethernet port (very high bandwidth claim: ~500 gigabit)
• LPDDR5X memory (instead of typical GDDR)
• SODIMM-style upgradeability (memory can be upgraded vs soldered memory on mainstream GPUs)
• Modular scaling via chiplets and shared IO/dies

Claimed performance/positioning

• Base GPU claimed 2.5× rendering performance vs RTX 5090
• Higher-end claims: 5× to 10× ray tracing performance vs 5090
• Pricing/market intent: higher-end cards supposedly below 5090 MSRP
• Target segment: mid-range/high-end, not only “exotic” ultra-expensive flagship

---

Architectural rationale and performance claims

Bolt’s pitch: current GPUs are oriented toward rasterization data flow, and ray tracing needs a GPU redesign.

The video claims Bolt dedicates significant resources to ray tracing and uses a more scheduling-oriented design:

• Some CPU-like cores on GPU clusters manage data flow/scheduling
• Accelerators handle ray tracing/media engines

Ray budget comparison at 4K 120 FPS (as presented by Bolt):

• Intel Arc B580: ~1 ray/pixel
• AMD 7900 XTX: ~2 rays/pixel
• RTX 5090: ~almost 8 rays/pixel
• Zeus GPUs: ~25–26 rays/pixel

The video questions how well these controlled test claims translate to real-world outcomes.

---

Target market and gaming uncertainty

Bolt’s stated plan is described as starting with:

• Creative applications
• Professional workloads

with gaming expansion later.

The speaker warns this architecture is weird/difficult, so gaming support might be problematic initially due to:

• Compatibility risk
• Performance risk for older or non-ray-tracing-heavy titles

---

Main speakers/sources (as mentioned)

• Gamers Nexus (named as someone who “put me on the map” about Bolt)
• Jensen (referenced in 2018 as presenting ray tracing with NVIDIA)
• Bolt/Zeus representatives (shown/quoted via architecture demos and technical claims)