Metro Exodus benchmarks

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Sep 9, 2017
65
13
41
#26
The shading with RTX is impressive in this game, it's adding more depth and immersion and I like it. Some people won't like it though, as it becomes too dark in particular areas for you to see the enemy.

Overall, the game is working great on both brands. Another quality release for 4A Games.
 
Jul 24, 2017
64
1
41
#27
Probably a stupid comment, but how is enabling DLSS any different than adjusting the resolution slider in a game's graphical options? To me, it looks like you're loosing a fair amount of sharpness just to gain performance. Except you could do the exact same thing by decreasing the internal resolution a bit and get similar performance boosts, but not lose that much in image quality.
DLSS is different from traditional upscaling because the algorithm used for upscaling has been trained on a game-by-game basis by Nvidia's deep learning supercomputers (hence the name). The RTX GPUs are therefore equipped with this extra data about how to upscale certain patterns and objects within the specific game world, which theoretically results in clearer upscaling with fewer artifacts.
 

railven

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2010
6,385
72
126
#28
"TAA blur" isn't that noticeable when you sit at TV distance.
I think this is the missing link for me. I'll have to test it once I get my RTX back.

With more "couch PC gaming" becoming a norm, I wonder if NV is betting that the DLSS blur won't be a big issue to couch gamers. I find myself couch gaming more and more. With more once console exclusives launching on PC, my consoles don't get as much use and some of these games translate horribly to keyboard+mouse so if I'm going to use a controller I'm going to lounge on the couch.

I think at my sitting distance (and deteriorating eye sight) I probably won't mind DLSS so much, but RTX (at least in BF5) is beautiful and if that's the compromise to get acceptable frame rates...then let the natural course of age take its course on my eyes haha.
 

ozzy702

Senior member
Nov 1, 2011
840
137
136
#29
Hopefully they get the DLSS blur reduced (isn't there a higher level DLSS mentioned somewhere). I'm really tired of pretty much all the blurry nonsense these days. Maybe more time with NVIDIA's datacenters and some fine tuning will result in a better product. As is now I'm not a fan.
 
Jun 8, 2003
14,083
107
126
#30
https://wccftech.com/day-1-metro-exodus-update/
Quote:
Day 1 Metro Exodus Update Released; Offers Motion Blur Options, RTX Improvements, DLSS Tuning, HDR Saturation Tuning and Much More

PC SPECIFIC UPDATES:
• Tuned HDR saturation
• RTX Improvements / Bug Fixing
• Added DLSS Support
• Additional HUD removal options (coming soon to console) when playing in Ranger Mode
• Added Motion Blur options (coming soon to console)

ADDITIONAL PC FIXES SINCE REVIEW CODE WAS SENT:
• Fixed Locking of player input after scene of rescuing Yermak
• Removed v-sync option from benchmark launcher
• Tuning and fixes for Atmos audio system
• Fixed memory corruption in DX12
• Fixed crash on launching game on old AMD CPUs
• Fixed crash after changing of resolution and Shading Rate to 4k/4x on Video cards with 2Gb and less
Fixed blurred UI when DLSS is enabled
• Fixed visual artifacts for RTX high mode
• Fixed input lock in when patching gas mask during combat
• Fixed forcing to V-Sync on after alt-tabbing the game running at maximal available resolution for the monitor
• Fixed crash when pressing ALT + Tab during start videos
• Fixed forcing of V-SYNC mode if the game resolution is different than the desktop
DLSS can be applied in the Benchmark
• Tuned DLSS sharpness to improve image quality
• Updated learned data for DLSS to improve image quality with DLSS on
 
Jul 24, 2017
64
1
41
#32
I think this is the missing link for me. I'll have to test it once I get my RTX back.

With more "couch PC gaming" becoming a norm, I wonder if NV is betting that the DLSS blur won't be a big issue to couch gamers. I find myself couch gaming more and more. With more once console exclusives launching on PC, my consoles don't get as much use and some of these games translate horribly to keyboard+mouse so if I'm going to use a controller I'm going to lounge on the couch.

I think at my sitting distance (and deteriorating eye sight) I probably won't mind DLSS so much, but RTX (at least in BF5) is beautiful and if that's the compromise to get acceptable frame rates...then let the natural course of age take its course on my eyes haha.
Yeah I only use my PC with my TV any more, even for non-gaming tasks. Sure the UI in Windows looks a little grainy because I have to turn up the scaling because of the distance, but I don't really care how Windows looks, I care how content looks. And gaming is much more relaxing when I can kick back on my couch. I have a homemade lapboard too for my mouse and keyboard so I don't miss my desk at all.
 
Nov 16, 2006
1,376
106
106
#33
Curious to see how the game looks after the day 1 patch: DLSS looked no better than old school upscaling in those initial screenshots.

I'm a little surprised, NV (and by extension it's partners that are showcasing NV tech) are normally well aware of the "first impressions" property of launch reviews and the importance of getting that good launch review.

Weird that they seemed to have dropped the ball a bit on both BFV and Metro.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
5,698
10
126
#34
Oct 27, 2006
19,566
101
106
#35
I think you're being premature with your assessment. NVidia knows exactly what's going on, and have promised further updates to remedy the situation for both BFV and Metro Exodus:

NVidia DLSS, your questions answered.
This is a good explanation of the shortcomings, reasoning, and potential of the tech.

However, I'm not sure it exactly justifies it from a transistor budget.

If we accept that an RTX die is :

~50% 'legacy' features
~25% Tensor cores
~25% RT cores

Then, with the same transistor count and die size, one could hypothetically have a 50% faster GPU with the 25% Tensor removed and replaced with additional standard cores/HW. Eg; 100+50+50 = 200, so 150+50 instead.

If this holds up, then you end up with a GPU that instead of having to rely on DLSS and all the mixed results, simply having 150% performance across the board. Like, DLSS is supposed to make 4k more feasible for slower GPU, but wouldn't an extra 50% of raw grunt make the leap to higher native resolutions be more reasonable by comparison? Certainly it would be hugely more effective across ALL titles rather than depending on specific DLSS support with all of the compromises it comes with :

Per game support
Per resolution support
Only useful at certain framerates, and seemingly useless for high Gysnc/Freesync ranges
Legacy games, thousands of them, almost certainly never supported

Etc.

If we read between the lines a bit, I think Tensor does have great potential with deep learning, professional and academic applications, all kinds of cool stuff. I just remain unconvinced that it is something that will ever be 1:1 worth the trade-off for gaming.

RT on the other hand, despite my reservations about these early days (I feel like it should have probably cooked on Quadro/Tesla type cards for a couple of gens at least), actually will have an important upgrade to bring to gaming, undeniably.

It's an interesting situation. I definitely wouldn't characterize Nvidia as being greedy here, these die sizes are gargantuan, it just feels like the pro/con/cost/performance metrics are a bit borked here. I have to imagine that RTX2 will be a fairly massive improvement starting from this as a baseline. 5nm or 7nm, and no longer comparing directly to a previous gen where so much was sacrificed by ratio just to fit this stuff on.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
5,698
10
126
#36
You guys should be playing this game. It has the most realistic graphics I've seen from any game for a long time, and it still manages to run very well for the most part:

 

alcoholbob

Diamond Member
May 24, 2005
5,855
49
106
#37
This is a good explanation of the shortcomings, reasoning, and potential of the tech.

However, I'm not sure it exactly justifies it from a transistor budget.

If we accept that an RTX die is :

~50% 'legacy' features
~25% Tensor cores
~25% RT cores

Then, with the same transistor count and die size, one could hypothetically have a 50% faster GPU with the 25% Tensor removed and replaced with additional standard cores/HW. Eg; 100+50+50 = 200, so 150+50 instead.

If this holds up, then you end up with a GPU that instead of having to rely on DLSS and all the mixed results, simply having 150% performance across the board. Like, DLSS is supposed to make 4k more feasible for slower GPU, but wouldn't an extra 50% of raw grunt make the leap to higher native resolutions be more reasonable by comparison? Certainly it would be hugely more effective across ALL titles rather than depending on specific DLSS support with all of the compromises it comes with :

Per game support
Per resolution support
Only useful at certain framerates, and seemingly useless for high Gysnc/Freesync ranges
Legacy games, thousands of them, almost certainly never supported

Etc.

If we read between the lines a bit, I think Tensor does have great potential with deep learning, professional and academic applications, all kinds of cool stuff. I just remain unconvinced that it is something that will ever be 1:1 worth the trade-off for gaming.

RT on the other hand, despite my reservations about these early days (I feel like it should have probably cooked on Quadro/Tesla type cards for a couple of gens at least), actually will have an important upgrade to bring to gaming, undeniably.

It's an interesting situation. I definitely wouldn't characterize Nvidia as being greedy here, these die sizes are gargantuan, it just feels like the pro/con/cost/performance metrics are a bit borked here. I have to imagine that RTX2 will be a fairly massive improvement starting from this as a baseline. 5nm or 7nm, and no longer comparing directly to a previous gen where so much was sacrificed by ratio just to fit this stuff on.
Nvidia basically just did not spin a big gaming die this generation because AMD provided no competition. If AMD actually caught up with a big Navi, Nvidia will won't just have a mid size gaming die (2080) and a cut down Tesla (2080 Ti), they will actually have a big die for gaming if the market demands it. It's just right now the competition hasn't forced them to lay down the design for one.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,457
66
126
#38
You guys should be playing this game. It has the most realistic graphics I've seen from any game for a long time, and it still manages to run very well for the most part:

I would be playing it if they had not pulled it from Steam.
 
Oct 27, 2006
19,566
101
106
#39
Nvidia basically just did not spin a big gaming die this generation because AMD provided no competition. If AMD actually caught up with a big Navi, Nvidia will won't just have a mid size gaming die (2080) and a cut down Tesla (2080 Ti), they will actually have a big die for gaming if the market demands it. It's just right now the competition hasn't forced them to lay down the design for one.
I may be understanding this wrong, but from what I can see, RTX *are* quite large :

1080 7.2B / 314mm
1080ti 12B / 471mm
2060 10.8B / 445mm
2080 13.6B / 545mm
2080ti 18.6B / 754mm

As we can see there, even the 2060 is nearly the same size/transistor count as 1080ti, and 2080 and 2080ti especially are enormous. It's just not as obvious in relative terms because so much die space and transistor budget was spent on RT/Tensor.

Like on 12nm, how much bigger could they have gone (disregarding my hypothetical about an alternate branch of non-Tensor or non-Tensor AND RT current gen 12nm Nvidia products.
 
Nov 16, 2006
1,376
106
106
#40
I think you're being premature with your assessment. NVidia knows exactly what's going on, and have promised further updates to remedy the situation for both BFV and Metro Exodus:

NVidia DLSS, your questions answered.
-I'm simply saying that NV doesn't traditionally "fine wine" things and just gets them out the gate running well, because they understand that the launch review is what everyone sees for the rest of time, not all the subsequent improvements. it's why cards like the 290x were forever branded as jet turbines even after AIB cards brought temps and noise well under control.

In this case, the opposite has happened and outside of even the cards themselves which had no RTX capable software to show off at launch, the RTX capable software that has launched was initially very underwhelming in terms of visuals and performance (even if it has gotten better since then).

It's just very unlike NV's SOP.
 

ozzy702

Senior member
Nov 1, 2011
840
137
136
#42
I would be playing it if they had not pulled it from Steam.
This. I don't want a ton of platforms. I already have Steam, Origin, Battle.net and Ubisoft (free games from GPU purchases over the years). Really, I pretty much only use steam and origin and doubt I'd use origin if not for Battlefield.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,457
66
126
#43
You know the Epic launcher is free to download, right? It even runs on the exact same hardware you use to run Steam!
Yes, but I have about 35.00 already in my steam wallet, and also got a 50.00 Steam gift card for Christmas. And although I am not a particular fan of Steam, like other posters have said, I have Steam, Origin, and Battle.net already. Dont really want another one to mess around with, plus every platform has give problems of one sort or another at some time, so I dont want another one.

Not going to pay full price for a new game out of pocket to another platform when I have that much money already in my Steam account. Will wait for a sale or for it to eventually to come to Steam.
 

Stuka87

Diamond Member
Dec 10, 2010
4,034
65
106
#44
Probably a stupid comment, but how is enabling DLSS any different than adjusting the resolution slider in a game's graphical options? To me, it looks like you're loosing a fair amount of sharpness just to gain performance. Except you could do the exact same thing by decreasing the internal resolution a bit and get similar performance boosts, but not lose that much in image quality.

The ray tracing is a different thing, since it looks good in certain areas of the game, but doesn't seem to make much of a difference in other parts of the game. Sounds like to me most people would be happy playing the game with RTX off. To me, it's just a nice bonus; not a "must have" feature needed to enjoy the game.
Manually lowering your resolution actually provides a much better image while giving the same performance. So, it really is better to just set your resolution down.
 

Qwertilot

Golden Member
Nov 28, 2013
1,410
37
106
#45
That definitely should not be the case if DLSS is even remotely working.
 
Jun 8, 2003
14,083
107
126
#46
Manually lowering your resolution actually provides a much better image while giving the same performance. So, it really is better to just set your resolution down.
Do you have a link that actually says that? From a day one patched review? or do you own a RTX card and this is what you are seeing?
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
3,064
341
136
#47
Do you have a link that actually says that? From a day one patched review? or do you own a RTX card and this is what you are seeing?
Knock yourself out. You can even skip ahead to the direct 1700p vs. 4K DLSS comparison.


PS: even if we were to take the Hardware Unboxed analysis with a grain of salt, images don't lie. Something bad happens when DLSS is used in games instead of canned benchmarks. This is not the DLSS I saw in Port Royale or the original demo benchmark, where 4K DLSS was as good as 1800p TA in terms of quality.
 
Jun 8, 2003
14,083
107
126
#48
Knock yourself out. You can even skip ahead to the direct 1700p vs. 4K DLSS comparison.


PS: even if we were to take the Hardware Unboxed analysis with a grain of salt, images don't lie. Something bad happens when DLSS is used in games instead of canned benchmarks. This is not the DLSS I saw in Port Royale or the original demo benchmark, where 4K DLSS was as good as 1800p TA in terms of quality.
Has BF5 gotten a DLSS patch or was it just a performance patch?
I believe only Metro has gotten a DLSS patch? correct?

they need to fix BF5 , well lets hope so ,because that's not acceptable.
thanks for the input
 

Stuka87

Diamond Member
Dec 10, 2010
4,034
65
106
#49
Do you have a link that actually says that? From a day one patched review? or do you own a RTX card and this is what you are seeing?
This was done for FFXV, as at the time it was the only game with DLSS support. However, they have screenshots to compare, as well as benchmarks. Running the game at 1440 with TAA provides better performance than DLSS at 4K (Which actually renders at 1440 and then upscales). They were actually able to get the same frame rate by rendering at 1800P.

Now, obviously FFXV was the first game to support this, and was kind of a tech demo. We need the same test run on Metro, although we already known visuals degrade a fair amount with DLSS on.

https://www.techspot.com/amp/article/1712-nvidia-dlss/
 

Stuka87

Diamond Member
Dec 10, 2010
4,034
65
106
#50


ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS