Ray tracing is so new people have been dying to see some real benchmarks, and the developers have had to disappoint them thus far because they haven't had the video cards themselves for any length of time. The reviewer describes the benchmarks as among the worst he's ever seen, which is not an exaggeration. A shooter like Battlefield V requires at least 50fps for a good experience on a PC today, and over 80fps at above 1080p resolution. The crucial thing to note is the Nvidia tensor cores required so long to crunch the numbers for the ray tracing, that half the power of the rest of card isn't used because it puts out such a low frame rate. Battlefield V is merely the first game to be tested, and I'm looking forward to someone testing Metro: Exodus when they release their RTX updates, but it looks like ray traced video games will require a few more years before anyone can really enjoy the experience. Two RTX cards can be used and the new sli technology is quite impressive, but that's a grand total of $2,500.oo for just the video cards, and I have no clue if it would help the ray tracing benchmarks. The strongest implication to me, is that ray tracing requires higher speed fpga circuitry and HBM4 memory to become a consumer reality, because you really want more like three times as much ray tracing in a video game as these cards can produce. It could even require a shrink beyond the current 7nm, and there's just no way to say for sure. By late next year or 2020 we should see AMD and Intel offering alternatives and the interesting thing to note is they both have their own variations on fpga circuitry that might make a big difference. Intel develops all their own circuitry or buys companies that make it for the most part, while Nvidia's fpga tensor cores are IBM technology, and AMD has partnered with one of the largest and oldest manufacturers of fpga circuitry. Video game developers could quickly find a variety of ways of running ray traced games significantly faster, but the frame rates are so low in even 1080p it will remain a novelty for some time to come. In the long run, path tracing is the way to go, but we'll have to wait and see what Intel and AMD can produce before we have any idea how long path tracing might take to come to market. Basically, I'd say Nvidia added ray tracing to these video cards only because they wanted to introduce it to public and, more importantly, introduce all the other technology their tensor cores empower, which are considerable. Unfortunately, as useful as these fpga circuits are, nobody has been able to use them for video gaming and home applications before, and it could easily require three years just for the developers to sort out all the fundamental ways they can be used. Physics, AI, and the obvious applications only begin to scratch the surface, with Nvidia working on their "infinite resolution" system that should enable significantly faster downloads. Battlefield V was a 45gb download and the recent patch was 55gb, with those kinds of downloads being ridiculous with todays internet speeds. About the one thing I can think of that these graphics cards are actually good for right now is photography and video editing, or playing 1440p or higher video game resolutions with high frame rates, and no ray tracing. The cheapest RTX video card is about right for 1080p resolutions.