@Wasdie: no, he actually meant that this new technology doesn't improve graphics very much yet is very expensive and some PC gamers are hyping it despite of this.
Well the new technology does improve graphics quite a bit, if you're dumb enough to build a game specifically for that hardware with Nvidia's priority system.
Beyond that it's not on hardware companies to make better graphics, but rather to just build more powerful hardware. Hardware companies don't write the software that actually produces the image.
Hardware companies are in a bind. Yes there is specific hardware that *can* be used to aid the graphic programmers, but often that's going to be very specific for an individual task and not be backwards compatible with older cards so the vast majority of graphic programmers will not utilize the specific hardware as they don't want to make a renderer that only works with the absolute latest GPUs. Despite this, Nvidia still pushes forward with some of those things maybe if only to try to persuade the future direction of graphics rendering. Realtime ray tracing is better than rasterisation from a pure image quality perspective. That's not really debateable. It's just that the performance of such rendering is abysmal compared to rasterisation, which can get you 90% as close to ray tracing in terms of image quality.
The new cards are expensive mainly because they can be thanks to crypto miners, but they are going to be significantly more powerful than the current run of Nvidia high end cards. So I still don't get what his point is. Everybody considers these really expensive, nobody is disagreeing with that. How does this "expose" PC gamers?