Image: UL

It’s still unclear how AMD’s new Radeon RX 6000 Series graphics cards perform on the ray-tracing front, but prospective owners will be able to determine that upon their release with UL’s updated 3DMark benchmark suite, which now includes a feature test for DirectX ray tracing.

UL notes that the test comprises a fully ray-traced scene, which means that it’ll push the Ray Accelerators in the Radeon RX 6900 XT, Radeon RX 6800 XT, and Radeon RX 6800 to their very limits.

The DirectX Raytracing feature test should serve as a definitive way of deducing how AMD’s RDNA 2 GPUs compare to NVIDIA’s GeForce RTX 30 Series in regard to ray tracing.

“The 3DMark DirectX Raytracing feature test is designed to make ray-tracing performance the limiting factor,” UL noted. “Instead of relying on traditional rendering, the whole scene is ray-traced and drawn in one pass.”

“The result of the test depends entirely on ray-tracing performance, which means you can measure and compare the performance of dedicated ray-tracing hardware in the latest graphics cards.”

UL’s 3DMark benchmark suite is available on Steam for $29.99. An optional upgrade that contains Port Royal, the company’s original ray-tracing test, can also be purchased for $2.99.

As UL points out, NVIDIA’s monopoly on real-time ray tracing will end on November 18 with the launch of AMD’s Radeon RX 6000 Series graphics cards.

Don’t Miss Out on More FPS Review Content!

Our weekly newsletter includes a recap of our reviews and a run down of the most popular tech news that we published.

Join the Conversation

10 Comments

  1. They lost me at having to pay $30 for a crappy benchmark that has no bearing on how well it will do in a real game. Here’s to hoping Blender can add raytracing for AMD cards into their product and then that will be easy enough to find just raw raytracing throughput. Also, does anyone know how this is implemented? I mean, is it testing all parts of raytracing, or heavily favoring certain aspects? Still, I guess another tool to use to compare with, just not sure how useful of a metric it will be.

  2. [QUOTE=”Ready4Droid, post: 22659, member: 245″]
    They lost me at having to pay $30 for a crappy benchmark that has no bearing on how well it will do in a real game. Here’s to hoping Blender can add raytracing for AMD cards into their product and then that will be easy enough to find just raw raytracing throughput. Also, does anyone know how this is implemented? I mean, is it testing all parts of raytracing, or heavily favoring certain aspects? Still, I guess another tool to use to compare with, just not sure how useful of a metric it will be.
    [/QUOTE]
    Wait for a sale. I bought it years ago for $10.

    This is a new benchmark that is completely rendered using DXR 1.1 according to UL, meaning no rasterization. The original Port Royal benchmark was the same, only using DXR 1.0.

  3. It would be a nice edition for Tech reviewers to get some numbers laid down and shared for the current 3000 series cards to see how they will stack up using the Direct X implementation of Ray Tracing.

  4. UL… if that is United Labratories, is a entity unto themselves in bed with nobody. My company has to deal with them and the biggest problem we have is their a bit behind the times in what equates UL certified. But this may be a different UL I didn’t look into it.

  5. [QUOTE=”Grimlakin, post: 22667, member: 215″]
    UL… if that is United Labratories, is a entity unto themselves in bed with nobody. My company has to deal with them and the biggest problem we have is their a bit behind the times in what equates UL certified. But this may be a different UL I didn’t look into it.
    [/QUOTE]
    No, it’s the same company known as Underwriters Laboratories who now owns Futuremark. On the UL Benchmarks website you can see the familiar logo on the top-right. Futuremark is not used for any type of certification.

Leave a comment