Metro 2033 Performance review

[Madcatatlas]

Call me blind, by i didnt notice anything different on hallway pictures and i was thinking the right close up was the one with tessalation on....

Looks like a big glitch(heard anything from the game devs on this?) or really bad code/programming. And i have no clue about coding/programming. Just looks unnatural for something with no to almost no visual impact, to have such impact on the fps.


question: are those pictures being fair to the quality you see on your screen?

 

[MarcVenice]

Mrk6, did you look at the gun ? Also, did you look at the back of his helmet, that thingy looks better. It's REALLY in the details though, and it looks like as if tesselation isn't used for the whole character.

 

[MrK6]

Mrk6, did you look at the gun ? Also, did you look at the back of his helmet, that thingy looks better. It's REALLY in the details though, and it looks like as if tesselation isn't used for the whole character.

Ah, good eyes. On the gun, part of the scope and the top barrel (?) look more... balloony? I can't really say it's an improvement on the scope, but I do think the barrel looks better. On the NPC, the only portion I can definitely say looks better with tesselation is the shoulder plate. Again, totally not worth it, especially if you have to look this hard to see anything. I've played a little more now and noticed the frames plummeting at certain potions for no reason. I then noticed I had "Advanced PhysX" ticked, so I throw that off (I think it's the "smoke" effects in the lighting) and do some testing. I also have some more general screenshots.

question: are those pictures being fair to the quality you see on your screen?

More or less, I think it looks much better in motion. The motion blur is kind of over done in the game, but everything else looks pretty good. I'll throw in many more screenshots once I finish testing out PhysX (I have a funny feeling I'll end up disabling it, but I'll see).

 

[MarcVenice]

MrK6, on the npc, look at the back of their heads. Big difference there too.

Here's some numbers:

MAX DX11: 45,5 / 71,4
MAX DX11 DoF: 30,5 / 49,3
MAX DX11 Tes: 32,0 / 56,3
MAX DX11 Tes DoF: 26 / 42,2

So DoF hurts the most, then Tesselation.

I got these numbers indoors, with lots of npc's around, some nice lighting, and a big tunnel. I'm pretty sure that outdoors, performance will be less.

 

[aggressor]

Sounds like there's an issue with either DoF or Tess with crossfire cards since you only get 1-3fps with it on whereas I get around 20 with a single 5850.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

This is hilarious. People say this game doesn't look as well or run as well as Crysis, yet when Crysis came out the same people said Crysis is unoptimized garbage and the graphics aren't worth the performance penalty. Those same people even said Far Cry 2 looked as good as Crysis but ran much better. If developers do not push PC hardware you guys complain, if they do, you guys complain.

 

[PUN]

My i7 is at 4.2 with HT on, 5870 crossfire. 2560x1600, DX11, tessellation on, depth of field off, settings to very high, the game is -barely- playable. High action scenes it enters unplayable territory.

It does look good, I'd say this is the best looking game out bar Crysis, which looks better. The lighting and smoke effects are impressive, there is way too much use of motion blur though, to the point it looks silly and overdone, and there is no option to disable motion-blur ??? Why ?!

I'm betting performance on 5970 and crossfire setups will improve when ATI implements a driver update with a profile for the game. Albeit this is clearly nvidia's go-to marketing game for Fermi's release. Expect to see the game bundled with the 470 & 480 and review sites and forum marketers pushing benchmarks of this game on Fermi hardware like nobody's business. Batman AA, anyone ?

The game is playable at max at 1920x1200 on my setup though, unfortunately it looks not so hot on my panel at non-native res.

My i7 920@4 + 5870 runs fine at 2560x1600 everything maxed + tes minus DoF. Graphics on the other hand is crap like the AvP.
ME2, MW2, BC2, and Crysis are in a different league.

 

[AzN]

Is this game that good?

 

[PUN]

Is this game that good?

Nothing too great. Typical 34.99 low budget game.

 

[tviceman]

Is this game that good?

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/53802/Metro-2033-Released-In-Russia-Latest-Reviews

It's getting some pretty good reviews and especially since it isn't a massively hyped game with an overblown budget, I tend to trust the reviews more.

 

[Grooveriding]

My i7 920@4 + 5870 runs fine at 2560x1600 everything maxed + tes minus DoF. Graphics on the other hand is crap like the AvP.
ME2, MW2, BC2, and Crysis are in a different league.

Sorry but I am going to have to strongly challenge your statement. My rig has no issues and performs as well as it can. You do not run this game on Very High DX11 at 2560x1600 on a single 5870 smoothly.

Game does not look like crap, it does not look as good as Crysis, but certainly looks better than me2 and mw2. BC2 may be debatable, but all told, it looks better than BC2.

There is no way you play this game maxed on a 30" panel with a single 5870, give us a rest.

 

[Grooveriding]

This is hilarious. People say this game doesn't look as well or run as well as Crysis, yet when Crysis came out the same people said Crysis is unoptimized garbage and the graphics aren't worth the performance penalty. Those same people even said Far Cry 2 looked as good as Crysis but ran much better. If developers do not push PC hardware you guys complain, if they do, you guys complain.

Yes but we have the metric of Crysis to measure this game against. No one argued Crysis was not amazing graphically when it came out, just that it ran like a pig. We're only now at the point that we can play the game on its full settings.

This game looks good, but Crysis is a better looking game in quite a few ways, view distance, texture detail, shadows to name a few. But this game runs like a pig in comparison.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Yes but we have the metric of Crysis to measure this game against. No one argued Crysis was not amazing graphically when it came out, just that it ran like a pig. We're only now at the point that we can play the game on its full settings.

This game looks good, but Crysis is a better looking game in quite a few ways, view distance, texture detail, shadows to name a few. But this game runs like a pig in comparison.

I beg to differ.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Ah, good eyes. On the gun, part of the scope and the top barrel (?) look more... balloony? I can't really say it's an improvement on the scope, but I do think the barrel looks better. On the NPC, the only portion I can definitely say looks better with tesselation is the shoulder plate. Again, totally not worth it, especially if you have to look this hard to see anything. I've played a little more now and noticed the frames plummeting at certain potions for no reason. I then noticed I had "Advanced PhysX" ticked, so I throw that off (I think it's the "smoke" effects in the lighting) and do some testing. I also have some more general screenshots.
More or less, I think it looks much better in motion. The motion blur is kind of over done in the game, but everything else looks pretty good. I'll throw in many more screenshots once I finish testing out PhysX (I have a funny feeling I'll end up disabling it, but I'll see).

The barrel is round and circular with tessellation, unlike the other picture without tessellation. Do you see how it's like a decagon instead of a circle?

 

[Daedalus685]

I beg to differ.

If anyone argued that Crysis did not look gorgeous it was because they were jealous of others 8800Ultra SLI rigs and the mortgage that would have set them back at the time.


In respect to the screen shots... What is the deal with the foggy halo around the goggles on the NPCs helm? That crops up in other screens as well on hands and what not... looks really annoying if you notice it in game play. Is the game prone to texture bugs?

 

[Grooveriding]

I beg to differ.

Not sure how you can, you can't run either game at its maximum settings to compare. If you are just going on screenshots, that's hardly enough to formulate an opinion.

 

[PUN]

Sorry but I am going to have to strongly challenge your statement. My rig has no issues and performs as well as it can. You do not run this game on Very High DX11 at 2560x1600 on a single 5870 smoothly.

Game does not look like crap, it does not look as good as Crysis, but certainly looks better than me2 and mw2. BC2 may be debatable, but all told, it looks better than BC2.

There is no way you play this game maxed on a 30" panel with a single 5870, give us a rest.

Mine runs avg of 25fps under everything maxed with AA & DoF off. AF at 16x doesn't affect the Framerate but AA seems to kill it.
Check your driver or scaling issues on your CF. BTW, this game recommends 8GB RAM, try sticking another 2GB on your system.

Game does not look like crap but it's no where near MW2, ME2 or BC2....you better get your eye glasses out. I almost thought it was made from the same maker of AvP.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

I'm saying other people said Crysis didn't have great graphics. I agree that they were just saying that because they could not max it out. A lot of people are saying the same about this game for the same reason. Am I saying this game looks better than Crysis? No. Am I saying this game looks way better than ME2, MW2, BC2 and every other game other than Crysis? Definitely.

 

[PUN]

I'm saying other people said Crysis didn't have great graphics. I agree that they were just saying that because they could not max it out. A lot of people are saying the same about this game for the same reason. Am I saying this game looks better than Crysis? No. Am I saying this game looks way better than ME2, MW2, BC2 and every other game other than Crysis? Definitely.

ME2, MW2, BC2 looks much better than Crysis/warhead/farcry2 which dates back 3 years+.
This game on the other hand uses a dark setting to emphasize its details on few objects on its screen. I find it inconsistent throughout the game and fluidity of each character is not even there.

Take a look at these images from AvP. It looks great on screenshots but it fails miserably ingame.
http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/objects/...ges/aliens-vs-predator-20090520104729554.html

I am a strong follower of IGN reviews. When they say 7.5/10 on graphics, it's really 7.5 in my book.

 

[toyota]

Mine runs avg of 25fps under everything maxed with AA & DoF off. AF at 16x doesn't affect the Framerate but AA seems to kill it.
Check your driver or scaling issues on your CF. BTW, this game recommends 8GB RAM, try sticking another 2GB on your system.

Game does not look like crap but it's no where near MW2, ME2 or BC2....you better get your eye glasses out. I almost thought it was made from the same maker of AvP.

you think MW2 and ME2 look better? really?

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

ME2, MW2, BC2 looks much better than Crysis/warhead/farcry2 which dates back 3 years+.
This game on the other hand uses a dark setting to emphasize its details on few objects on its screen. I find it inconsistent throughout the game and fluidity of each character is not even there.

Take a look at these images from AvP. It looks great on screenshots but it fails miserably ingame.
http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/objects/...ges/aliens-vs-predator-20090520104729554.html

I am a strong follower of IGN reviews. When they say 7.5/10 on graphics, it's really 7.5 in my book.

First of all, I can't even believe your first sentence. Second, those screenshots are on the Xbox 360.

 

[PUN]

First of all, I can't even believe your first sentence. Second, those screenshots are on the Xbox 360.

yes, which means under 2560x1600 resolution they tend to look better. My point is, the game can look good on screen shots but botched up in real game play. Stalker, AvP and Metro 2033 is a fine example

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

yes, which means under 2560x1600 resolution they tend to look better. My point is, the game can look good on screen shots but botched up in real game play. Stalker, AvP and Metro 2033 is a fine example

Right...

 

[evolucion8]

ME2, MW2, BC2 looks much better than Crysis/warhead/farcry2 which dates back 3 years+.
This game on the other hand uses a dark setting to emphasize its details on few objects on its screen. I find it inconsistent throughout the game and fluidity of each character is not even there.

Take a look at these images from AvP. It looks great on screenshots but it fails miserably ingame.
http://xbox360.ign.com/dor/objects/...ges/aliens-vs-predator-20090520104729554.html

I am a strong follower of IGN reviews. When they say 7.5/10 on graphics, it's really 7.5 in my book.

You are nuts, MW2 has ugly textures and very few simple shaders with blocky shadows, BC2 has ugly textures with average shadows and ugly alpha text aliasing, ME2 has nice lightning effect, but lack in textures, horrible shadows and not many shaders on screen. Crysis is simply the best currently in terms of graphics for now. AVP2 looks good, but still falling short of Crysis.

 

[PUN]

You are nuts, MW2 has ugly textures and very few simple shaders with blocky shadows, BC2 has ugly textures with average shadows and ugly alpha text aliasing, ME2 has nice lightning effect, but lack in textures, horrible shadows and not many shaders on screen. Crysis is simply the best currently in terms of graphics for now. AVP2 looks good, but still falling short of Crysis.

You got it all confused.
ME2 does not have a nice lightning effect compare to BC2 and MW2.
ME2 lacks textures? I'd say too much textures and shaders which makes it look good.

AvP does not look good. In fact, it falls short of every game in the past 5 years.
DX11 kink still has not been fixed, and again it's fluidity of characters are just not there.