Metro Last Light early benchmarks on gtx 670

[blackened23]

Remember when crysis 1 ran at 1280x1024 at 27fps and it didn't have issues with gameplay?

I actually ran crysis 1 on my CRT at 1280x1024 on a core 2 (IIRC) and it ran very well for the time. The two counter points I would like to mention here are:

1) I can overlook sluggishness if the game is good. I've stated many times that Metro 2033 was a good game with a terrible engine. I will always maintain this stance, because here we are 3 years later and most single GPUs still struggle with Metro 2033 near maxed out.

2) I can accept sluggish performance, again, if the visuals can back up that loss of performance. I feel crysis 1 justified the loss of performance through outstanding visuals. I did NOT get that same feeling with Metro 2033.

Anyway, I guess this entire discussion is getting tiresome. We'll just have to wait and see when Last Light is released whether the game is good, and whether they were able to fix the engine.

 

[toyota]

Remember when crysis 1 ran at 1280x1024 at 27fps and it didn't have issues with gameplay?

go play Crysis 1 at an average of 30 fps and then play Metro 2033 at the same average. having extensively tested both games over the years I can say Crysis 1 will feel much smoother. Metro 2033 might be fine if you can get a steady 30 fps but on max settings that will not happen and there are severe dips.

 

[Jaydip]

He is calling it a RPG probably as we can make choices which can result in one of the endings.Also you are playing as Artyom a pre-made character with an established history.Honestly now a days the differences between each genre is pretty blurry.But it is a FPS first and foremost. Edit: If you like FPS there is just no reason not to own Metro, they offered it free for some time.

 

[blackened23]

He is calling it a RPG probably as we can make choices which can result in one of the endings.Also you are playing as Artyom a pre-made character with an established history.Honestly now a days the differences between each genre is pretty blurry.But it is a FPS first and foremost.

You really can't make any case for Metro 2033 being a RPG, RPGs are about character progression, experience. Additional game systems such as stat improvement, talents, gaining experience, and character improvement from that gain in EXP. This is precisely what happens in games like system shock 2, which is a true action/RPG hybrid - there is continual character progression. This is not the case in Metro 2033.

Metro 2033 is a shooter from start to finish, you buy your ammo and are provided weapons. At no point and time do you choose talents for your character, and at no time is there any sort of game mechanics related to character progression and improvement. There is only buying or picking up ammo and guns. Again, you really can't make a case for Metro 2033 being a RPG. I'm pretty sure poohbear has never played it.

 

[bystander36]

Remember when crysis 1 ran at 1280x1024 at 27fps and it didn't have issues with gameplay?

I remember lowering settings because it did cause me issues at 27 FPS. I tweaked and tweaked until I could stand it at 40+ FPS.

 

[Jaydip]

You really can't make any case for Metro 2033 being a RPG, RPGs are about character progression, experience. Additional game systems such as stat improvement, talents, gaining experience, and character improvement from that gain in EXP. This is precisely what happens in games like system shock 2, which is a true action/RPG hybrid - there is continual character progression. This is not the case in Metro 2033.

Metro 2033 is a shooter from start to finish, you buy your ammo and are provided weapons. At no point and time do you choose talents for your character, and at no time is there any sort of game mechanics related to character progression and improvement. There is only buying ammo and guns. Again, you really can't make a case for Metro 2033 being a RPG. I'm pretty sure poohbear has never played it.

I agree with your points.But it is not uncommon to mix rpg elements with FPS.So you can always say you are role playing as Artyom

 

[SirPauly]

Both physx and DOF incur an outrageous performance hit in Metro 2033,

Can you offer PhysX on and off in Metro 2033?

Curious with the outrageous hit.


http://www.overclock.net/t/786535/brettjvs-metro2033-physx-benchies#post_10143575

 

[tviceman]

You really can't make any case for Metro 2033 being a RPG, RPGs are about character progression, experience. Additional game systems such as stat improvement, talents, gaining experience, and character improvement from that gain in EXP. This is precisely what happens in games like system shock 2, which is a true action/RPG hybrid - there is continual character progression. This is not the case in Metro 2033.

Metro 2033 is a shooter from start to finish, you buy your ammo and are provided weapons. At no point and time do you choose talents for your character, and at no time is there any sort of game mechanics related to character progression and improvement. There is only buying or picking up ammo and guns. Again, you really can't make a case for Metro 2033 being a RPG. I'm pretty sure poohbear has never played it.

Actually, physx does not incur much of a hit at all in Metro. I've ran multiple benchmarks in the past and posted results in a discussion directly about physx in this game.

 

[SirPauly]

The irony is I desire physX to be a performance hit in Metro: last light -- more dynamics hopefully compared to Metro: 2033.

 

[2is]

The fact that these guys still haven't uploaded a screenshot from the built in benchmarking application, and one of them claimed "Metro 2033 is a role playing game".

These facts are extremely telling. Neither of them own the game in all likelihood; of course metro is smooth at 20 fps. So normally, I see nonsense here all the time and I don't care - but this time, it's time to call someone out on their egregious exaggerated claim. And when we call them out on their BS and being FOS, you know, it's our fault. We're nerds for calling them out. We don't have lives. And they're off to the gym to hang out with their friends and booze with movie stars. Sure they are.

I highly doubt either of these guys own the game. Period. Especially anyone who claims "Metro 2033 is a role playing game.". And i'll stick by that statement since neither, STILL, have uploaded a benchmark that takes 25 seconds to run. They don't own the game. Talking out of their rear. It's pretty simple. And when confronted about it, we'll just get a circular argument about "I don't care what you think, i'm not uploading a benchmark". There's really nothing left to discuss about this.

Anyway, like I said the game is a great game. The engine is highly questionable, but I can overlook these things. In the meantime, don't make exaggerated claims about the game and performance maxed out.

My apologies to have wounded you so deeply. I had no idea the emotional attachment you had with this... benchmark. This may make you go over the edge, but I assure you I own the game. I'd post a screenshot of my steam library but I'd rather just see your reaction instead.

 

[blackened23]

Can you offer PhysX on and off in Metro 2033?

Curious with the outrageous hit.


http://www.overclock.net/t/786535/brettjvs-metro2033-physx-benchies#post_10143575

It was 71.63 without, so perhaps I was wrong in that detail. Not much (actually no perceptible) difference in visuals, but like I said I suppose I'll concede your point - Aphysx doesn't affect performance much at all, I was wrong.

 

[blackened23]

My apologies to have wounded you so deeply. I had no idea the emotional attachment you had with this... benchmark. This may make you go over the edge, but I assure you I own the game. I'd post a screenshot of my steam library but I'd rather just see your reaction instead.

Wounded me, lol. If it makes you feel better to think that, go for it. I just think it's hilarious that you were both clearly FOS and willing to argue despite how FOS you are. 20 fps is smooth. Okay, if you say so. There really is nothing left to discuss. You already established that you won't run a benchmark or screenshot anything (due to being FOS), so nothing surprising there really, we're done here - nothing left to discuss.

 

[SirPauly]

http://chattypics.com/files/CaptureJPG_ru8nx3j8aa.jpg

It was 71.63 without, so perhaps I was wrong int hat detail. Not much (actually no perceptible) difference in visuals, but like I said I suppose I'll concede your point.

That was disappointing to me was the lackluster dynamics with Advanced Physics on with Metro:2033 -- hopefully Metro: Last Light improves upon the dynamics.

 

[Grooveriding]

Crysis 1/Warhead played smoothly at even 30fps. When the game was released that was the best you could hope for if you were trying to run ultra and had a pair of 8800GTX in SLI.

Metro 2033 plays horribly at low framerates, like most games do, Crysis 1 being one of the exceptions. My 680SLI setup tanked in 2033 with the game maxed out, the AA and DOF settings crushed it. Even my Titans have noticeable drops in the game, those two settings are just ridiculous overhead. Anyway, the thread was about Last Light, not 2033

Last Light is using the same base engine with refinements, so I'd assume it will still be like most games where you'll want at least 40fps, in my preference 60fps, to have a good experience. From these benches it looks like they've thrown out DOF and the past AA setting for SSAA to bring your framerate down to nothing and gpu physx to cut it in half.

2033 had a benchmark that was added to the Steam version of the game with the 1.1 patch. Hopefully Last Light includes one at release. Should be a cool game to compare system performance on. Looking at these benches I'm guess I have no hope of running the highest SSAA setting and due to poor gpu utilisation when running SLI and using gpu physx will have to disable gpu physx if I want to run the highest settings. Hopefully not though, it would be that or lower resolution.

 

[Headfoot]

I like the rest of your post, but tell this quoted bit to people running 120Hz monitors. Within days of moving to 120Hz 90fps became the new acceptable minimum for me. 120fps is better. 60fps upsets me. It is far from perfectly smooth after comparing it to 120fps.

Well yes, I am in fact agreeing with you. If you have a 120hz monitor your perfect minimum jumps up to 120hz. The average gamer still probably has a 60hz monitor which is why I quoted it as an example. Personally I'm reluctant to upgrade to 120hz because then I'll want to buy a really expensive GPU to power it

 

[2is]

Wounded me, lol. If it makes you feel better to think that, go for it. I just think it's hilarious that you were both clearly FOS and willing to argue despite how FOS you are. 20 fps is smooth. Okay, if you say so. There really is nothing left to discuss. You already established that you won't run a benchmark or screenshot anything (due to being FOS), so nothing surprising there really, we're done here - nothing left to discuss.

Point me to where I said 20fps is smooth? If you can't, we'll know who's FOS.

We both already know the answer to this since we both know I never uttered those words. The fact that you bolded it emphasizes nothing more than your douchebaggery.

You keep saying there's nothing left to discuss, but you keep discussing.

 

[scaramoosh]

It'll be shit like the first game, could never get the thing to run in fullscreen lol. The game doesn't look good enough to run so bad, it's like ARMA 2, runs like shit, doesn't look impressive. Yet you can have a game like Crysis 3 or BF3 or anything on UE3 apart from RO2, that looks 10 times better and runs 10 times better as well.

I'll pass lol.

 

[Black Octagon]

Well yes, I am in fact agreeing with you. If you have a 120hz monitor your perfect minimum jumps up to 120hz. The average gamer still probably has a 60hz monitor which is why I quoted it as an example. Personally I'm reluctant to upgrade to 120hz because then I'll want to buy a really expensive GPU to power it

Ah ok very good. FYI I'm only on a single 7970 (I refuse to buy a Titan and found microstutter from 2 7970s unacceptable), but I can still get 90-120fps in most games by turning down the settings (not resolution but other features). Maximum smoothness is far more important to me than "maxing out" games. The claims in this thread that 30fps in any game is 'smooth' make me shake my head with dismay, and even with a bit of jealousy

 

[alcoholbob]

If you played Crysis 1 on Ultra, even on $10k hardware, it was 20fps for about 2-3 years, and IMO with the motion blur it did seem playable at that fps.

 

[poohbear]

Lol this thread is hilarious & scary @ the same time! Ive never seen someone so riled up about a video game benchmark as blackened23. U are defending this game as if its ur religion, u sound like a religous fanatic but....over a 3 year old $5 video game. U realize how pathetic u sound? who cares if others perception of "smooth" is different from u? I never had a problem with metro, it was smooth & ran fine on my system. Go ahead throw another temper tantrum & see if i care.

To the guy who said i shouldnt call u nerds, there are certainly degrees of nerdiness. Look at my postcount & see my join date, i dont spend most of my time on these forums & yes i certainly have a much more active social life wherein dont care if someone thinks im BSing about how i perceive a game to be smooth. It ran smooth for me, & i stand by that.

 

[Headfoot]

Ah ok very good. FYI I'm only on a single 7970 (I refuse to buy a Titan and found microstutter from 2 7970s unacceptable), but I can still get 90-120fps in most games by turning down the settings (not resolution but other features). Maximum smoothness is far more important to me than "maxing out" games. The claims in this thread that 30fps in any game is 'smooth' make me shake my head with dismay, and even with a bit of jealousy

I find that I'm the same way. I generally will turn stuff down so it runs around 45 fps with dips no lower than 30-35fps if its an action game, otherwise my performance in the game usually suffers. That's why I've stuck at 1680x1050 for so many years, easier to push fewer pixels!

Some games I don't care too much as long as the UI remains responsive, like in Civ 5. I probably run it at around 35 fps but I don't really mind because its turn based anyways

 

[toyota]

Lol this thread is hilarious & scary @ the same time! Ive never seen someone so riled up about a video game benchmark as blackened23. U are defending this game as if its ur religion, u sound like a religous fanatic but....over a 3 year old $5 video game. U realize how pathetic u sound? who cares if others perception of "smooth" is different from u? I never had a problem with metro, it was smooth & ran fine on my system. Go ahead throw another temper tantrum & see if i care.

To the guy who said i shouldnt call u nerds, there are certainly degrees of nerdiness. Look at my postcount & see my join date, i dont spend most of my time on these forums & yes i certainly have a much more active social life wherein dont care if someone thinks im BSing about how i perceive a game to be smooth. It ran smooth for me, & i stand by that.

lol at the irony of you defending such a bs claim. its as if you and your buddy there think the rest of us are too stupid to test things ourselves. and you are pitiful trying to make this personal and act as if you are better than others cause you dont spend as much time here or that you have to go to the gym or go meet friends for dinner. you know nothing about him nor me and have no idea about our social lives. you only say that nonsense to try and make yourself feel better. and you keep going to that well a lot too so that really shows what type of person you are.

 

[2is]

There's me who said I averaged higher fps in the game than tpu reports
There's Poohbear tat says his game runs fine

There's you and black who have what could be considered nothing short of a spaz attack and nerd rage at the mere claim someone could have averaged higher than TPU

Then we have someone who posted a screenshot that DID average higher than TPU

We had another guy point out that in-game performance is much better than what the benchmark is able to get, which is entirely possible since my claim is based on my gameplay, I've never even ran the benchmark.

Then you proceed to need rage some more and get further upset by a stranger who insinuates he's got a better social life than you do. He may not know you and neither do I, but based on your behavior here I'd say there is more than a small probability that he's correct.

Is really not that serious. Yeah, you tell someone theyre FOS or that they're lying you should expect some insults thrown back in your direction. You're a grown man, gtf over it.

 

[toyota]

There's me who said I averaged higher fps in the game than tpu reports
There's Poohbear tat says his game runs fine

There's you and black who have what could be considered nothing short of a spaz attack and nerd rage at the mere claim someone could have averaged higher than TPU

Then we have someone who posted a screenshot that DID average higher than TPU

We had another guy point out that in-game performance is much better than what the benchmark is able to get, which is entirely possible since my claim is based on my gameplay, I've never even ran the benchmark.

Then you proceed to need rage some more and get further upset by a stranger who insinuates he's got a better social life than you do. He may not know you and neither do I, but based on your behavior here I'd say there is more than a small probability that he's correct.

Is really not that serious. Yeah, you tell someone theyre FOS or that they're lying you should expect some insults thrown back in your direction. You're a grown man, gtf over it.

and here you go again spewing bs. I told you OVER and OVER that I have scored right in line with what tpu shows for the gtx670 and gtx660ti I have used across various drivers. your ignorant comeback, since you have no actual tests, is that some guy with an oced 7870 using different drivers got a higher score. so you grasp at straws to try and extend that to maybe the 670 card scores higher. that was nothing more than a hope or theory that did NOT pan out. AGAIN we have tests RIGHT NOW. hell here is mine with the gtx660ti oced a bit like I mentioned earlier thats scoring a wee bit below stock 670. as you can see it drops in the low 20s and even teens and is a slideshow in spots. actul gameplay is better but still way too sluggish in spots to be considered anywhere near smooth.an oced 670 would maybe be 12-15% faster at BEST than my slightly oced gtx660ti. the minimums would still be pitiful onmax settings even if he could average 30 fps or a little better. now both of you stfu and show some of your tests, real game or benchmarks, and show framerates being playable the whole time.

 

[2is]

And I've told you over and over that I did better in game, not in the benchmark. You can keep telling me the same irrelavent thing and it won't change what I'm telling you.

My claim bothers you, that much is obvious. If I cared as much as you do, I may have been bothered enough to download the game and record averages through the first chapter... But I don't. My last reply wasn't even about the game, it was about your "I can dish it out but I can't take it" behavior.