Metro Last Light early benchmarks on gtx 670

[Grooveriding]

Some early benchmarks from pcgameshardware.de done on a gtx670. Really looking forward to this title to see if they raise the bar visually and the last game had excellent game play as well.

Looks like they've benched the game on high settings 3 times, each time testing one of three settings with the other two disabled; SSAA, physx and tessellation. They also have some comparison shots showing the differences with the various settings.

SSAA destroys your framerate on the higher settings, tessellation is pretty mild and gpu physx also crushes your framerate, cutting it in half. Looking on these results it's looking like to get playable frames it's going to mean disabling SSAA, gpu physx or spending at least a thousand dollars on video cards.

 

[Arkadrel]

Tessellation picture "on" and "off" look almost identical.

Hopefully thats not a representation of what the benefits in image quality in game,
for it are like (or its a massive waste of resources).

 

[Jaydip]

The choice of the processor is kinda weird.

 

[Arkadrel]

If a Phenom II x6 1100T + GTX 670;
with Very high Details + Tessellation + AAA&FXAA = 54+ fps,

That should be good though right?
I mean People with i7's overclocked can probably reach 70+ fps then same settings.

 

[blackened23]

I'm going to be real, and straight up for a moment.

As a preface, metro 2033 was a great game. I played through it fully multiple times, and saw both endings - I enjoyed the game. THAT BEING SAID, the performance cost (or LACK of performance, I should say) was unbelievable given the middle of the road graphics. There were certainly a ton of games that looked better and do look better than metro 2033 while performing way better. One from the top of my head is Witcher 2. The fact that at 2560x1600, with 680 sli, metro 2033 requires lowering quite a few settings for acceptable performance, is sad. Still to do this day I cannot run Metro 2033 maxed out or even close to maxed out at 1600p. Yet, the game doesn't even LOOK that great. Crysis 3 looks WAY better and has 16k textures - metro 2033 has 4k textures IIRC. Bf3 looks WAY better and performs significantly better at the same time. I can name more examples of games that just look a LOT better and perform a lot better. These guys don't know how to code a proper game engine - i'm not saying i'm the expert programmer, but they should really outsource a different engine if they're THAT incompetent.

Again, it was a great game. I think the engine is shite. Metro Last Light using the same dated shite 4A engine doesn't give me much hope, yet I hope i'm wrong. If I were to predict things, i'm guessing an outrageous performance hit for middle of the road graphics that look worse than other contemporary games. Metro 2033's 4A engine was shite, that's just the truth.

 

[bystander36]

If a Phenom II x6 1100T + GTX 670;
with Very high Details + Tessellation + AAA&FXAA = 54+ fps,

That should be good though right?
I mean People with i7's overclocked can probably reach 70+ fps then same settings.

The benchmarks don't seem to indicate a bottleneck, so it is quite possible the engine makes good use of threading or just isn't all that demanding on the CPU. I doubt an i7 will improve performance a lot.

It is not surprising really, as Metro 2033 also utilizes more than 4 cores.

 

[(sic)Klown12]

If a Phenom II x6 1100T + GTX 670;
with Very high Details + Tessellation + AAA&FXAA = 54+ fps,

That should be good though right?
I mean People with i7's overclocked can probably reach 70+ fps then same settings.

Depends. Some games, like the singleplayer in Battlefield 3, are entirely GPU limited so a faster CPU might not do much, if any.

 

[Jaydip]

If a Phenom II x6 1100T + GTX 670;
with Very high Details + Tessellation + AAA&FXAA = 54+ fps,

That should be good though right?
I mean People with i7's overclocked can probably reach 70+ fps then same settings.

Technically you use a CPU that is not going to be the bottleneck most of the time, we can't say that about 1100T.But your point is valid.

 

[Dankk]

I'm going to be real, and straight up for a moment.

As a preface, metro 2033 was a great game. I played through it fully multiple times, and saw both endings - I enjoyed the game. THAT BEING SAID, the performance cost (or LACK of performance, I should say) was unbelievable given the middle of the road graphics. There were certainly a ton of games that looked better and do look better than metro 2033 while performing way better. One from the top of my head is Witcher 2. The fact that at 2560x1600, with 680 sli, metro 2033 requires lowering quite a few settings for acceptable performance, is sad. Still to do this day I cannot run Metro 2033 maxed out or even close to maxed out at 1600p. Yet, the game doesn't even LOOK that great. Crysis 3 looks WAY better and has 16k textures - metro 2033 has 4k textures IIRC. Bf3 looks WAY better and performs significantly better at the same time. I can name more examples of games that just look a LOT better and perform a lot better. These guys don't know how to code a proper game engine - i'm not saying i'm the expert programmer, but they should really outsource a different engine if they're THAT incompetent.

Again, it was a great game. I think the engine is shite. Metro Last Light using the same dated shite 4A engine doesn't give me much hope, yet I hope i'm wrong. If I were to predict things, i'm guessing an outrageous performance hit for middle of the road graphics that look worse than other contemporary games. Metro 2033's 4A engine was shite, that's just the truth.

I think the developers at 4A said that Last Light will be better-optimized than 2033. (As for how much, I guess we'll have to actually wait and see.)

I agree Metro 2033 ran kinda like crap, considering the graphics quality. I've had two entirely new PCs since I first played it, and playing the game on DX11 Ultra with tesselation is still out of the question.

However, I wouldn't say that Metro 2033's graphics are "middle of the road". It looked great in 2010, and IMO it still looks pretty good today. It's not as good-looking as The Witcher 2, right; but to be fair, it came out over a year before TW2.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

Given the benchmarks, it seems to get higher FPS on the same hardware. Single 7970GHz OC/680 OC might end up maxing out the game at 1080p without any AA/Physx, unlike 2033.

 

[blackened23]

However, I wouldn't say that Metro 2033's graphics are "middle of the road". It looked great in 2010, and IMO it still looks pretty good today. It's not as good-looking as The Witcher 2, right; but to be fair, it came out over a year before TW2.

I think the graphics are OKAY. I don't like the cartoonish colors on the textures, although that's personal preference. I also don't like that most of the game is indoors and in tiny/small areas, although the game flowed very well and was still fun - I hear they're making more of the game outdoors in last light which is a good thing.

The main thing in my mind is the performance given the graphical fidelity: there is absolutely no way the decent-ish graphical quality in metro 2033 justifies the sluggish performance IMO. Consider that witcher 2 looks better and runs a lot better, as do crysis 3, bf3, and many other games. If I tried I could probably name a dozen others, but I won't - I think sluggish performance is fine as long as the graphics can back up and justify that loss of performance. I feel the balance is out of wack in metro 2033, though - hopefully Last Light corrects this. On a side note, the DOF implementation in 2033 is the worst I've ever seen - DOF tends to have a lot of variance in terms of quality across games, and the original metro was pretty bad in that respect. I've seen some other games do DOF very well, such as Witcher 2.

Like I said, since it's using the same (albeit updated) engine, I don't have high hopes for major corrections in performance deficiencies. I hope i'm wrong.
Either way, this has no bearing on the quality of the game itself. I can complain about the engine used in Metro 2033 all day but the fact of the matter is, it was a good game which I enjoyed. Even if Last Light has a terrible engine, I can personally overlook that if the game is fun.

 

[alcoholbob]

Metro 2033 runs like a Bioware in-house engine

 

[Makaveli]

I wonder how its going to run when you have a GPU dedicated to Physx.

 

[toyota]

I'm going to be real, and straight up for a moment.

As a preface, metro 2033 was a great game. I played through it fully multiple times, and saw both endings - I enjoyed the game. THAT BEING SAID, the performance cost (or LACK of performance, I should say) was unbelievable given the middle of the road graphics. There were certainly a ton of games that looked better and do look better than metro 2033 while performing way better. One from the top of my head is Witcher 2. The fact that at 2560x1600, with 680 sli, metro 2033 requires lowering quite a few settings for acceptable performance, is sad. Still to do this day I cannot run Metro 2033 maxed out or even close to maxed out at 1600p. Yet, the game doesn't even LOOK that great. Crysis 3 looks WAY better and has 16k textures - metro 2033 has 4k textures IIRC. Bf3 looks WAY better and performs significantly better at the same time. I can name more examples of games that just look a LOT better and perform a lot better. These guys don't know how to code a proper game engine - i'm not saying i'm the expert programmer, but they should really outsource a different engine if they're THAT incompetent.

Again, it was a great game. I think the engine is shite. Metro Last Light using the same dated shite 4A engine doesn't give me much hope, yet I hope i'm wrong. If I were to predict things, i'm guessing an outrageous performance hit for middle of the road graphics that look worse than other contemporary games. Metro 2033's 4A engine was shite, that's just the truth.

lol, a ton of games look better than Metro 2033? you cant even come up with but a few that you think look better and of those games only Crysis 3 looks better to me than Metro 2033. and Metro 2033 was released well before even Crysis 2. also if you use common sense and not run dof and use high instead of very high settings then even a mid range card can get close to 60 fps while still looking basically the same. hell I played the game just fine on a gtx260 running dx10 medium settings and the game looked stunning at the time and still looks damn good now.

 

[frowertr]

I wonder how its going to run when you have a GPU dedicated to Physx.

I didn't think people even bothered with doing that any longer...

 

[blackened23]

lol, a ton of games look better than Metro 2033? you cant even come up with but a few that you think look better and of those games only Crysis 3 looks better to me than Metro 2033. Metro 2033 was released well before even Crysis 2. and if you use common sense and not run dof and use high instead of very high settings then even a mid range card can get close to 60 fps. hell I played the game just fine on a gtx260 running dx10 medium settings and the game looked stunning at the time.

Yawn, If you say so. When you preface an argument with "lol" I know it's going to be an entertaining read. Anyway, My subjective opinion is it looks like ONLY OKAY compared to even crysis 2 or witcher 2 with cartoonish graphics to boot - and those games look better. Anecdotal evidence also seems to suggest that i'm not alone in thinking the graphics with DX11 features turned on made the game run terribly, here we are 3 years after release and rigs can't really, truly max it out. I can look up a dozen benchmarks to prove this, but I really don't feel like it. I know the game runs like garbage at 2560x1600 with physx and DX11 features turned on with GTX 680 sli. If you say your GTX 260 can max it out, if you say so toyota. If - you - say - so. I'm not saying I don't believe but I don't believe you. Or maybe you're running at a cheese resolution of 1650x1050. I don't know. Sounds like you're a pretty big metro 2033 fan, you sound pretty offended.

 

[Makaveli]

I didn't think people even bothered with doing that any longer...

Certainly do.

Its the only way to play borderlands 2 and Batman AC Game the year edition.

And the first metro games supports physx also.

My primary gpu is a radeon and I don't like missing out on stuff because of politics!

 

[toyota]

Yawn, If you say so. I think it looks like crap compared to even crysis 2 or witcher 2 with cartoonish graphics to boot. Anecdotal evidence also seems to suggest that i'm not alone in thinking the graphics with DX11 features turned on made the game run terribly, here we are 3 years after release and rigs can't really, truly max it out. I can look up a dozen benchmarks to prove this, but I really don't feel like it. I know the game runs like garbage at 2560x1600 with physx and DX11 features turned on with GTX 680 sli. If you say your GTX 260 can max it out, if you say so toyota. If - you - say - so. Sounds like you're a pretty big metro 2033 fan, you sound pretty offended.

no I am not big fan of the game at all. just to say it did not have good graphics is silly. imo Crysis 2 looks like a joke compared to Metro 2033.

and I said I ran it on dx10 medium settings with my gtx260 so where are you getting that I said I could max it out? you tried to reply so quickly that you paid little attention to what I even said.

 

[blackened23]

I didn't say the graphics weren't GOOD. I think they're pretty good, but this is something that is highly subjective.

The main thing is that with DX11 and physx features enabled, or even just DX11 maxed out - the game doesn't run as well as it should. That is a fact. My main qualm with Metro 2033 is not the graphics. My main qualm is the performance loss for the best graphical fidelity settings. You don't agree on the latter? I mean I can respect your opinion that the graphics are good. Subjective, as I said. But, again - it's all about the performance given for the graphics with DX11. Just not as good as it should have been.

Aside from the engine's issues with DX11, I still think it was a good game. I've stated this several times. If the game is good, I can overlook any shortcomings with the engine.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Lucky for me I won't need SSAA at 2560x1440

 

[blackened23]

Honestly not even sure why would add SSAA. I can't think of any contemporary game that pulls SSAA off well.... It wasn't in the original, either.

 

[alcoholbob]

SSAA 2x here I come!

 

[Grooveriding]

SSAA is the new reality if you want properly done AA with all these DX11 deferred games out there. It runs well in Tomb Raider on my system, but I don't think it's reasonable to need two Titans or a pair of 7970s to get proper anti-aliasing rather than a post-AA filter in any game...

 

[notty22]

My favorite type of sci-fi, is things like The Omega Man, I am Legend. I like the looks of those city scenes. Game should be fun. In the first game, I liked how the mutants circled you outside at a junkyard I believe. The sound gave the effect they were circling you in the dark.

 

[Silverforce11]

Metro 2033 ran fine if you disable DoF, that was the only feature that was poorly implemented, crushing GPU for debatable IQ gains (or loss IMO).

SSAA is always going to crush GPUs, nothing new there. PhysX again is looking to be a joke, requiring a 2nd dedicated gpu.

For its time, I thought 2033 gfx was fantastic. Storyline and gameplay was simply awesome.