Metro Last Light early benchmarks on gtx 670

[cmdrdredd]

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...

Post AA with a sharpening filter can be very pleasing to the eye. The various fxaa injectors out there for titles like skyrim do a good job of removing the blurriness of the image after fxaa is applied.

 

[2is]

Well I've got a 2nd 680 in transit and I'm gaming at 1200p so I should be alright.

 

[SirPauly]

Post AA with a sharpening filter can be very pleasing to the eye. The various fxaa injectors out there for titles like skyrim do a good job of removing the blurriness of the image after fxaa is applied.

Indeed! There are mods to sharpen the image for ones subjective tastes and tolerance levels.

 

[Grooveriding]

Post AA with a sharpening filter can be very pleasing to the eye. The various fxaa injectors out there for titles like skyrim do a good job of removing the blurriness of the image after fxaa is applied.

End of the day comparing the two, MSAA and moreso SSAA, look noticeably better than any implementation of a post-AA filter will with any amount of tweaking.

Crysis 3 has the best implementation of post-AA filtering I have seen and still looks better with MSAA instead of using the other AA modes where some use a pure post-AA filter and others varying degrees of actual anti aliasing mixed with the usage of a post or other filters.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/03/12/crysis_3_video_card_performance_iq_review/8

Overall, FXAA does a good job of providing antialiasing with no performance hit. If you look real closely, astute observers might notice some texture blurring and detail loss on high resolution textures. It is a small, minute thing, and some people don't even notice it, but it is technically there.

Post-AA filters are not altogether terrible but they are not in the same league as MSAA or SSAA if you are particular about not having any texture distortion/loss and enjoy a crisp image. Then you have one of the most damning statements I have seen about an AA mode that incorporates the use of a filter that comes later :

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/03/12/crysis_3_video_card_performance_iq_review/9

This last screenshot demonstrates up close how detail is lost in the high resolution textures due to the blurring. The stone wall simply has less detail with TXAA enabled. Also, the vegetation here is extremely blurry with TXAA enabled.



Overall, TXAA should be avoided. We don't know how this quality of TXAA got implemented into the game and left there. It seems like somebody took the day off when quality control of TXAA image quality rolled around that day. TXAA destroys the gameplay experience in Crysis 3.

I agree using AA filters has its place if you are trying to get better performance and that is the main point of post-AA filtering; good enough for minimal performance costs, but not as good as the other options. Post-AA and AA filters do not provide the quality of MSAA and SSAA if available. Still the use of a mix of true anti-aliasing and a filter can deliver a pretty good result like you see with SMAA manage in Crysis 3, it's the best use I have seen, but the blur/texture reduction is still there.


Then you have extremes like TXAA using a mix of anti-aliasing and its own filtering technique, which completely destroys image quality. Hopefully Crysis 3 is the last we will see of that garbage now that Crytek is part of AMD's gaming evolved.

 

[SirPauly]

Gets old! One can use a mod to improve a softer image!

 

[cmdrdredd]

Gets old! One can use a mod to improve a softer image!

Yes and anyone who keeps touting msaa is in denial because the future is not in vram and performance hogging msaa at all. Many engines don't even support it.

 

[bystander36]

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.

I agree. Just turn off DoF and PhysX, and the game ran great, except for the Library area with the gorillas.

I could not hardly see a difference in that game with PhysX, so I didn't bother with it and I did play with DoF some, when I had 6950 CF.

 

[Grooveriding]

Yes and anyone who keeps touting msaa is in denial because the future is not in vram and performance hogging msaa at all. Many engines don't even support it.

Like I said earlier, deferred engines are starting to show up with SSAA because of the MSAA issues. MSAA can still be made available though if the developers take the time to implement it. See: Crysis 3 & Battlefield 3. MSAA isn't going anywhere and we are seeing more usage of native SSAA support in games than we did in the past, it's a good thing.

You can use low-quality filtering AA methods or high quality proper anti-aliasing. Again like I said earlier, it is a shame that the performance penalty for anti-aliasing is increasing, probably why now room is being made to accept lower quality methods to reduce aliasing such as the filtering methods.

 

[SirPauly]

The only nit-pick I have is a blanket nature of image quality based on a static image and its clarity.

For Crysis 3 there is this to help if a gamers doesn't care for the default setting:

r_Sharpening - Crysis 3

Controls the level of the post-processing image sharpening filter. Higher values give more sharpening, but too high values will create artifacts. A value of 0.0 is off

And for other titles if a gamer desires more subjective quality, including clarity, there is the SweetFX mod!

If one doesn't desire a softer image, you can actually tweak to improve to one's subjective taste and tolerance.

 

[SirPauly]

Like I said earlier, deferred engines are starting to show up with SSAA because of the MSAA issues. MSAA can still be made available though if the developers take the time to implement it. See: Crysis 3 & Battlefield 3. MSAA isn't going anywhere and we are seeing more usage of native SSAA support in games than we did in the past, it's a good thing.

You can use low-quality filtering AA methods or high quality proper anti-aliasing. Again like I said earlier, it is a shame that the performance penalty for anti-aliasing is increasing, probably why now room is being made to accept lower quality methods to reduce aliasing such as the filtering methods.

Who are you to offer what is proper?

 

[SirPauly]

Yes and anyone who keeps touting msaa is in denial because the future is not in vram and performance hogging msaa at all. Many engines don't even support it.

I'm all for MSAA and SGSSAA but also for FXAA and TXAA based on all these features offer different strengths depending on a gamers platform, application, subjective taste and tolerance.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I'm all for MSAA and SGSSAA but also for FXAA and TXAA based on all these features offer different strengths depending on a gamers platform, application, subjective taste and tolerance.

Right, but the way things have been heading with multi monitors, maybe multiple 4K monitors. SSAA and MSAA will just not work out for performance reasons.

 

[SirPauly]

And potentially memory footprints and was one of the strengths of CSAA. I'm vocal for flexibility based on gamers needs and platforms differ and why I have trouble with blanket views.

To me, Crysis 3 had a ton of flexibility with anti-aliasing and even offered a sharpen ability for gamers that may desire crisp gaming.

 

[blastingcap]

Metro 2033's lighting was pretty good for its time, but DoF was more like WtF, and the tessellation was basically wasted as it didn't materially improve graphics or gameplay despite costing a chunk of performance.

 

[toyota]

Metro 2033's lighting was pretty good for its time, but DoF was more like WtF, and the tessellation was basically wasted as it didn't materially improve graphics or gameplay despite costing a chunk of performance.

the tessellation did not cost hardly any performance from what I have seen. of course thats because it was hardly used.

 

[Grooveriding]

From these benches it looks like tessellation still is not a performance killer. In 2033 the DOF setting killed your framerate and looked worse imo. Of course Last Light seems to have SSAA to kill performance and gpu physx to cut it in half.

I hope they include an in game bench when it comes out next week.

 

[poohbear]

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.

really? game plays flawlessly maxed out @ 1080p with my setup, i can't imagine 1600p would make it slow to a crawl?

 

[blackened23]

really? game plays flawlessly maxed out @ 1080p with my setup, i can't imagine 1600p would make it slow to a crawl?

Oh okay. Sure it does. Now fire up the built in benchmark and prove it to everyone. With details maxed. I want physx on, I want DOF on, DX11 maxed, with anti aliasing. Prove the lengths of your exaggeration to everyone. The built in benchmark reports your settings, so max everything out. Go on, do it, and screenshot it for us.

This isn't the built in benchmark, but as a frame of reference:

Thats what the Titan gets at 1600p, and that isn't the built in benchmark. The sequence Guru3d uses is substantially less demanding. So i'm sure your setup runs it faster than the 38 fps for the GTX 680 shown above, and that is using a substantially less demanding sequence like I just mentioned. Go on, show us what you got. Or if you have a far different definition of "flawless" than I do, you can go ahead and explain to us as well.

Here we are 3 years after release and single cards can't max Metro 2033 out at 1600p. Like I said, the game is fun and I enjoyed it a lot. But I still maintain that the engine is garbage. But I can overlook that if the game is actually fun, and it was.

 

[toyota]

really? game plays flawlessly maxed out @ 1080p with my setup, i can't imagine 1600p would make it slow to a crawl?

maxed out on a gtx670?

how about some reality for you. http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_670/18.html

27 fps without physx. and thats just the average so there will be minimums in low 20s and even below. I know first hand because I had a gtx670 FTW card.

 

[2is]

really? game plays flawlessly maxed out @ 1080p with my setup, i can't imagine 1600p would make it slow to a crawl?

It's not at all difficult to imagine. 1600p has twice as many pixels as 1080p

 

[Final8ty]

End of the day comparing the two, MSAA and moreso SSAA, look noticeably better than any implementation of a post-AA filter will with any amount of tweaking.

Crysis 3 has the best implementation of post-AA filtering I have seen and still looks better with MSAA instead of using the other AA modes where some use a pure post-AA filter and others varying degrees of actual anti aliasing mixed with the usage of a post or other filters.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/03/12/crysis_3_video_card_performance_iq_review/8



Post-AA filters are not altogether terrible but they are not in the same league as MSAA or SSAA if you are particular about not having any texture distortion/loss and enjoy a crisp image. Then you have one of the most damning statements I have seen about an AA mode that incorporates the use of a filter that comes later :





http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/03/12/crysis_3_video_card_performance_iq_review/9


I agree using AA filters has its place if you are trying to get better performance and that is the main point of post-AA filtering; good enough for minimal performance costs, but not as good as the other options. Post-AA and AA filters do not provide the quality of MSAA and SSAA if available. Still the use of a mix of true anti-aliasing and a filter can deliver a pretty good result like you see with SMAA manage in Crysis 3, it's the best use I have seen, but the blur/texture reduction is still there.


Then you have extremes like TXAA using a mix of anti-aliasing and its own filtering technique, which completely destroys image quality. Hopefully Crysis 3 is the last we will see of that garbage now that Crytek is part of AMD's gaming evolved.

i noticed the detail loss right away and the darkening of the textures.

 

[poohbear]

maxed out on a gtx670?

how about some reality for you. http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_670/18.html

27 fps without physx. and thats just the average so there will be minimums in low 20s and even below. I know first hand because I had a gtx670 FTW card.

Well there must be something ure missing. My 2500k is running @ 4.4ghz, have it on ssd, & i have 16gb RAM @ cl9, maybe that has something to do with it being smooth as butter.

Also, this game is a RPG, so smooth gameplay is perceived very differently than a fps which needs fps in the 50ish area.

 

[Dankk]

Oh okay. Sure it does.

Maybe 25 fps is his idea of "smooth".

 

[blackened23]

Well there must be something ure missing. My 2500k is running @ 4.4ghz, have it on ssd, & i have 16gb RAM @ cl9, maybe that has something to do with it being smooth as butter.

Look pal. We all know you're exaggerating. I don't know what your deal is, but your definition of "flawless" must be so out of line with my definition of flawless, that it blows my mind right now. All I gotta say is: Prove it Built in benchmark. Screenshot. Go.

Also, this game is a RPG, so smooth gameplay is perceived very differently than a fps which needs fps in the 50ish area.

Did you just state that the game is a RPG? It has RPG elements but it is action to the core. I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, are you referring to the same game we are?

 

[2is]

I'm going to have to have poohbear's back on the 1080p claim. I have a 680 and averaged better than those numbers at TPU are showing.