# Metro Exodus horrible performance



## stoggs1 (Feb 17, 2019)

Hey guys, I just purchased Metro Exodus last night and low and behold the game runs like absolute garbage on my pc even on low.

My specs are a gtx 970, FX 8320 @ 3.8ghz and 16 gbs of ram.

Now I know my system is outdated especially the cpu, however this is the first modern game I have played that is unplayable on my pc.

I am getting 20 to 30 fps on low.  

Is their anything I can try to improve performance?

Thank you.


----------



## erocker (Feb 17, 2019)

You could try fiddling with some settings (make some higher) to put more load on the GPU as opposed to the CPU, but going by benchmarks you're not going to get much more out of it.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 17, 2019)

stoggs1 said:


> Hey guys, I just purchased Metro Exodus last night and low and behold the game runs like absolute garbage on my pc even on low.
> 
> My specs are a gtx 970, FX 8320 @ 3.8ghz and 16 gbs of ram.
> 
> ...


Are you on 1080p? If you're at a higher res, try going down to 1080p. Also, turn anti-aliasing down or off and turn shadows down or off. Those two setting changes will improve your frame-rates.

However, you trying to play a brand new AAA title on a CPU that is 7 years old and a GPU that is 6 4.5 years old. Sadly, it might be time to consider an upgrade. You can get a first gen Ryzen for a good price used and a GTX 1070 for a similarly good price. If you like a bit of help finding a good deal on parts, I'd be happy to help you look or give you some ideas.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 17, 2019)

Push that FX8320 higher, it should be doing at least 4.2GHz.


----------



## Wavetrex (Feb 17, 2019)

It's very likely the game engine needs decent "single threaded" performance, something that FX is terrible at (it's even slower than Core2).
The visual settings (low/high) are probably GPU related only. Your CPU simply can't keep up.

Get a Ryzen 2600 and you're set.

That 970 should still be good enough for a while.
p.s. - Your financial pain will be in the RAM more than the CPU/Mobo, it's quite expensive still



newtekie1 said:


> Push that FX8320 higher, it should be doing at least 4.2GHz.


That will not help. FX IPC is around 50% of modern processors. Even at 5Ghz, it's at the speed equivalent of a 2.5Ghz modern one, so extremely slow.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 17, 2019)

newtekie1 said:


> Push that FX8320 higher, it should be doing at least 4.2GHz.


That's a good point as long as their mobo & PSU can handle it.


Wavetrex said:


> It's very likely the game engine needs decent "single threaded" performance, something that FX is terrible at (it's even slower than Core2).
> The visual settings (low/high) are probably GPU related only. Your CPU simply can't keep up.
> Get a Ryzen 2600 and you're set.
> That 970 should still be good enough for a while.


That CPU is not as bad as a lot of people make it out to be. It also depends on what the OP can afford. A GPU would be a much better upgrade to do first, IMHO.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 17, 2019)

The FX chip is definitely going to be holding you back.

Some people will defend them for days, because there are situations where they hold up just fine - this doesnt seem to be one of them.

I would definitely look into a CPU upgrade before a GPU upgrade, and since you have decent DDR3 ram dont look past a second hand intel platform, a 4xxx CPU would give you quite an FPS boost for little cost (as long as you get a decent clocked one, a K chip on a Z board if you can get it cheap)


----------



## qubit (Feb 17, 2019)

Yup, the GPU and especially the CPU are holding you back for sure. A CPU and GPU upgrade will likely solve the problem.

However, the game has the Denuvo DRM in it, which might well be making all the difference here between terrible performance and passable performance. Personally, I won't buy a game with it on principle, no matter how much I like the game and this one looks very good indeed.


----------



## stoggs1 (Feb 17, 2019)

I understand what you are all staying, in fact I am in the process of building a newish pc, I already have most of the parts ordered.

However I thought my current system would be able to play this game at least on medium, especially since it can run pretty much every other game at high/very high settings 1080p 45 to 60 fps, including far cry 5, resident evil 2 remake and battlefield 5.

I am trying to running metro at 1080p as well.


----------



## hat (Feb 17, 2019)

If you're getting similar FPS on medium or even low as you do on high, what you have is a CPU limitation. The processor just can't keep up with running the game fast enough to allow the GPU to pump out enough frames.

MSI Afterburner comes with an optional overlay that will display stats you can select on screen while in game. If you see low FPS, low GPU load, and high CPU load... bingo, you've got yourself a bottleneck.


----------



## moproblems99 (Feb 17, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> GPU that is 6 years old



I was surprised when I read this.  Seems like yesterday I bought my 980.



qubit said:


> the game has the Denuvo DRM in it, which might well be making all the difference here between terrible performance and passable performance.



I thought TPU did an article not terribly long ago comparing an uplay with Denuvo vs. a Gog version and there was only minimal impact.  May not have been TPU.



stoggs1 said:


> However I thought my current system would be able to play this game at least on medium



Yeah, in looking at the review.  I think the 970 is holding you back more than the FX.  Not that I am endorsing the 8320 because that isn't helping.  Exodus seems pretty intense on the GPU.


----------



## stoggs1 (Feb 17, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> I was surprised when I read this.  Seems like yesterday I bought my 980.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I don't know, I saw a few videos of people benchmarking the 970 with metro exodus and they where averaging 60 on high and 40 on ultra, yes it would dip, but it was running better than what it does on my pc.

I will try a few things but if I can't get it to run well I will just wait until I get my new pc before I play it.

Thanks.


----------



## cdawall (Feb 17, 2019)

It's an old rig. Welcome to two generations ago's midrange gpu with known weak points and a cpu that was weak in release date.

Drop settings down and hope for the best.


----------



## qubit (Feb 17, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> I thought TPU did an article not terribly long ago comparing an uplay with Denuvo vs. a Gog version and there was only minimal impact. May not have been TPU.


I dunno, you might be right. I just remember reading that Denuvo is very invasive on a system, sometimes causing problems with the regular functioning of File Explorer and things like that since it's running in the background 100% of the time and also reduced game performance by running the game in a virtual machine. This is why I won't touch a game that's infected with this garbage.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 17, 2019)

...if you have Windows 10, you no longer need to guess where the bottleneck is.  Open Task Manager before running the game, go to the Performance tab, then run the game until you hit a point of obvious poor performance.  Quickly switch to Task Manager and look through the options on the left (GPU, CPU, HDD, SDD, RAM, etc.) and see which ones are hitting 100% and which ones aren't.  You can change the CPU graph to show load per virtual core.  If any of those were hitting 100% with the poor performance, you know where your problem is.

If v-sync is off, GPU should always hit 100% but nothing else should.  If v-sync (or some kind of frame rate limiter) is enabled and it is hitting 100%, then the GPU is the bottleneck (incapable of hitting the target/monitor Hz).


Judging by this video, GTX 970 can't maintain 60 fps at 1920x1080 in D3D11 (quality high, HairWorks off, motion blur low, no AA, x16 AF, 1.0 shading rate, tessellation on, Advanced PhsyX off):


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 17, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> I was surprised when I read this. Seems like yesterday I bought my 980.


Oops! You're right it was 2014, so 4.5 years ago. Seemed longer to me..
(Post corrected)


----------



## stoggs1 (Feb 17, 2019)

Well after overclocking my cpu and gpu and tweaking some settings in nvidia control panel such as the refresh rate( which was stuck at 30hz, yes i am an idiot lol) and using riva tuner to cap my fps, I am actually getting much better performance.

Running it at ultra and it hovers around 40 fps.  Not to bad. 


Thanks for the help guys and happy gaming.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 17, 2019)

Some people are disagreeing which part is holding you back, but i've got first hand experience with FX systems with 970s and 980's - many were built as VR systems by a friend who went by clock speeds/paper specs vs first hand experience/benchmarks

All of them benefited FAR more from a CPU upgrade (FX 8350 to a 2500k was the most shocking improvement, since its older) than a GPU upgrade, its the single threaded performance that kills them. 970 will definitely do fine at 1080p, with some settings turned down (medium seems reasonable)


----------



## stoggs1 (Feb 17, 2019)

Mussels said:


> Some people are disagreeing which part is holding you back, but i've got first hand experience with FX systems with 970s and 980's - many were built as VR systems by a friend who went by clock speeds/paper specs vs first hand experience/benchmarks
> 
> All of them benefited FAR more from a CPU upgrade (FX 8350 to a 2500k was the most shocking improvement, since its older) than a GPU upgrade, its the single threaded performance that kills them. 970 will definitely do fine at 1080p, with some settings turned down (medium seems reasonable)


I am currently running the game on ultra, hovers between 40 and 60 fps.  I had the refresh rate sate to 30hz in nvidia control panel (I forgot to change it as I had recently reinstalled windows 10 due to a virus) which was why I was getting really bad performance.  Changed it to 60 hz and and all is good now.

But its odd because I was playing Titanfall 2 before I changed the refresh rate and it ran perfectly fine as well as Resident Evil 2 Remake.  O well Metro is playing very well for me now. 

I


----------



## droopyRO (Feb 17, 2019)

Some games use your desktop refresh rate. So if that is 30Hz, then the game will be set at 30FPS. In other games, you can select the refresh rate you want to use at that particular resolution.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 18, 2019)

droopyRO said:


> Some games use your desktop refresh rate. So if that is 30Hz, then the game will be set at 30FPS. In other games, you can select the refresh rate you want to use at that particular resolution.


This is true.



Mussels said:


> All of them benefited FAR more from a CPU upgrade (FX 8350 to a 2500k was the most shocking improvement, since its older) than a GPU upgrade, its the single threaded performance that kills them. 970 will definitely do fine at 1080p, with some settings turned down (medium seems reasonable)


I have seen this too. It really depends of the game and this is one I don't have. However, my experiences with the GTX970 have been less than stellar and with a brand new AAA title like this, 4GB VRAM is a limiting factor more than the 8320 OC'd will be given that he has 16GB of ram. An RX 480/580 8GB or GTX 1060(6GB)/1070 would provide a much better upgrade for this and other newer games.


----------



## Vayra86 (Feb 18, 2019)

Let's face it, the FX 8320 will hold even a 970 back. Not by much, but certainly by a noticeable %, depending on the game it can even amount to a significant performance loss. The CPU upgrade path is most certainly the first consideration here for the near future. GPU wise, a 970 can keep up at 1080p medium just fine and it has 4GB VRAM which is sufficient, but the FX will struggle more often than not. If OP targeted 60 FPS / medium~high, the FX is what stops him, not the 970.

Regardless, that wasn't the issue here, but mostly to clarify.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Feb 18, 2019)

if previous metro games are an indication,single threaded performance is all that matters.
40-60 is more or less what you can expect from 970.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 18, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Let's face it, the FX 8320 will hold even a 970 back. Not by much, but certainly by a noticeable %, depending on the game it can even amount to a significant performance loss.


Have to disagree with this. I have recently upgraded someone from an 8350 OC'd to 4ghz to an Intel 8700K based system and they had a *EVGA GTX960 SC*. I had showed him what a 1070 could do for him in that system and while he was impressed, he wanted to do the full upgrade. The fact was, that with the 1070 in his FX system(and he only had 8GB of ram) the frame-rates in his games more than doubled. With the 1070 and 8700K the frame rates almost tripled.

If the OP( @stoggs1 ) did a similar upgrade to a 1070 and OC'd their 8320 a little more(an easy task), much better performance would be gained rather than doing a CPU upgrade first. Yes, the FX CPUs are old and long in the tooth, but they are not the useless junk everyone seems to think they are. A GPU upgrade will serve much better short term.


----------



## kastriot (Feb 18, 2019)

Time for new rig.


----------



## crispysilicon (Feb 18, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> I have seen this too. It really depends of the game and this is one I don't have. However, my experiences with the GTX970 have been less than stellar and with a brand new AAA title like this, 4GB VRAM is a limiting factor more than the 8320 OC'd will be given that he has 16GB of ram. An RX 480/580 8GB or GTX 1060(6GB)/1070 would provide a much better upgrade for this and other newer games.



This. I have no problem hitting over 5GB of VRAM usage at 1k on many AAA titles. My 7970 was retired for lack of VRAM not lack of processing power.


----------



## qubit (Feb 19, 2019)

crispysilicon said:


> My 7970 was retired for lack of VRAM not lack of processing power.


Ditto my MSI 780 Ti overclocked edition and that had 3GB. I reckon 6GB would have stretched it for another year, maybe. Seems a shame to replace the whole card when it just wants a memory upgrade.


----------



## Animalpak (Feb 19, 2019)

Geforce Experience would definately help anybody with any system. You can tweak whatever you want in the application. From optimal ( the settings they recommend based on your setup or maximum quality ( you can try and see what your system is able. 

I suggest you to download and use Geforce Experience.


----------



## king of swag187 (Feb 19, 2019)

its quite CPU intensive, and FX was never the best even when launched.



Animalpak said:


> Geforce Experience would definately help anybody with any system. You can tweak whatever you want in the application. From optimal ( the settings they recommend based on your setup or maximum quality ( you can try and see what your system is able.
> 
> I suggest you to download and use Geforce Experience.


Of no use


----------



## Mussels (Feb 19, 2019)

Animalpak said:


> Geforce Experience would definately help anybody with any system. You can tweak whatever you want in the application. From optimal ( the settings they recommend based on your setup or maximum quality ( you can try and see what your system is able.
> 
> I suggest you to download and use Geforce Experience.



geforce experience is a lot worse than just changing game settings yourself, no one here would recommend it for that


----------



## Animalpak (Feb 19, 2019)

Mussels said:


> geforce experience is a lot worse than just changing game settings yourself, no one here would recommend it for that



Well for who is not an expert, because you need alot of knowledge of graphics settings before change them by yourself. Because you can make the game worse if you change the wrong ones.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 20, 2019)

Animalpak said:


> Well for who is not an expert, because you need alot of knowledge of graphics settings before change them by yourself. Because you can make the game worse if you change the wrong ones.



completely not true, games always have a simple low-medium-high option. If that's too complicated for someone, they need to ask their parents for help.
GFE will change random arbitrary settings that you have no way to undo, so when it makes things worse.. you're screwed, because you don't know what was changed.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 20, 2019)

Animalpak said:


> Well for who is not an expert, because you need alot of knowledge of graphics settings before change them by yourself. Because you can make the game worse if you change the wrong ones.





Mussels said:


> completely not true, games always have a simple low-medium-high option. If that's too complicated for someone, they need to ask their parents for help.
> GFE will change random arbitrary settings that you have no way to undo, so when it makes things worse.. you're screwed, because you don't know what was changed.


I have to agree with Mussels here. Geforce Experience is not the best way of changing settings. It's meant to be simple and easy to use, yet become anything but when it get's settings wrong as it often does. When I install drivers, I always select advanced setup and select only drivers and Physx.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Feb 20, 2019)

Mussels said:


> completely not true, games always have a simple low-medium-high option. If that's too complicated for someone, they need to ask their parents for help.
> GFE will change random arbitrary settings that you have no way to undo, so when it makes things worse.. you're screwed, because you don't know what was changed.


yup,I hate it.
I use gfex cause I use nv freestyle and ansel as well as screenshot+recording features extensively,but I hate going into gfex console cause I always fear I'll clock something that'll automatically "optimize" (screw up more like) my settings.


----------



## silentbogo (Feb 20, 2019)

Mussels said:


> GFE will change random arbitrary settings that you have no way to undo, so when it makes things worse.. you're screwed, because you don't know what was changed.


... or have completely wrong and unverified settings. Like that one time when I accidentally forgot to disable automatic optimisation and it kept setting Dishonored to 1366x768 min on my GTX1060 with 4k screen, or recommending to run half of supported games with DSR


----------



## sepheronx (Feb 22, 2019)

Friend was telling me all he can get out of metro Exodus is 10mins before it crashes.

His system:

Core i5 3570K
16gb DDR3 1600 ram
Can't remember which Asus board
Sapphire nitro 580 8gb GPU
550W Corsair PSU

Resident evil 2 Remake runs perfectly fine but metro Exodus doesn't.  Any suggestions?


----------



## Mussels (Feb 22, 2019)

Metro has been working beatifully for me, managed a 3 hour stint with no issues (spent a lot of time fluffing about with the corsair icue integration, since my systems heavily corsair RGB'd)


----------



## Gasaraki (Feb 22, 2019)

Nope. That's all the performance you going to squeeze from the FX.


----------



## stoggs1 (Feb 23, 2019)

Update I upgraded to a 2600k overclocked to 4.4 ghz and with my 970 I'm averaging 60 on high and 50 on ultra. 

My old cpu was bottlenecking pretty bad.

I will have a gtx 1070 in a couple of days.  Can't wait to throw that in and see how well it plays after that.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 23, 2019)

stoggs1 said:


> Update I upgraded to a 2600k overclocked to 4.4 ghz and with my 970 I'm averaging 60 on high and 50 on ultra.
> 
> My old cpu was bottlenecking pretty bad.
> 
> I will have a gtx 1070 in a couple of days.  Can't wait to throw that in and see how well it plays after that.


With that combination you're going to have solid performance and a lot of fun! Game on, man!


----------



## stoggs1 (Feb 23, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> With that combination you're going to have solid performance and a lot of fun! Game on, man!


Thanks I'm pretty impressed with this 2600k, despite its age it kicks ass.

I had no idea how much that amd cpu was bottlenecking my 970.

I am also running metro from a brand new 480 gb add, would that also help frame rate?

It definitely helps load times the game loads in less than 10 seconds lol.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 23, 2019)

stoggs1 said:


> I am also running metro from a brand new 480 gb add, would that also help frame rate?


Did you mean SSD? Guessing yes. That will help loading times, both in game play and between levels. Beyond that, your FPS depends on CPU/Memory/GPU/Monitor specs.


----------



## stoggs1 (Feb 23, 2019)

Yes I meant an ssd, and I knew it helped with load times I was wondering if it helped with your frame rate.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 23, 2019)

stoggs1 said:


> Update I upgraded to a 2600k overclocked to 4.4 ghz and with my 970 I'm averaging 60 on high and 50 on ultra.
> 
> My old cpu was bottlenecking pretty bad.
> 
> I will have a gtx 1070 in a couple of days.  Can't wait to throw that in and see how well it plays after that.


I ran my GTX 1080 on a 4.8Ghz 2500k, as long as your ram speed is 1866+ you wont bottleneck that GPU (I ran 4.8/2400 and had fantastic performance, only upgraded for NVME)


----------



## stoggs1 (Feb 23, 2019)

Mussels said:


> I ran my GTX 1080 on a 4.8Ghz 2500k, as long as your ram speed is 1866+ you wont bottleneck that GPU (I ran 4.8/2400 and had fantastic performance, only upgraded for NVME)


I am very happy with the 2600k so far, my pc seems a lot faster with it over my old fx 8320, but I also attribute some of the performance gain to switching to an ssd.


----------



## spectatorx (Feb 23, 2019)

As a warning to owners of radeon r9 380 or 380x, do not try to play metro exodus on these gpus, especially on 2GB variants of 380, game is unplayable at acceptable settings, i had to lower resolution to 1280x720 and put details to high to have framerate on acceptable to me level. Exodus is the same story as 2033 at launch. First time i was playing 2033 i had to do the same but on phenom II x4 b35 and radeon hd3850. I need top navi, now 






 Also some users, me including, experience crash/infinite black screen loading right after intro and can't get into main menu, this problem is related to dx12 as switching to dx11 "fixes" this. My 2700x does well but gpu is holding me down.

@OP, congrats on your cpu upgrade. 2600 is an awesome cpu but old, save some money and perform proper upgrade sooner or later to something latest and with ddr4. For example ryzen 2 which is supposed to launch in next few months or i7-8700 on intel's side.


----------



## stoggs1 (Feb 23, 2019)

spectatorx said:


> As a warning to owners of radeon r9 380 or 380x, do not try to play metro exodus on these gpus, especially on 2GB variants of 380, game is unplayable at acceptable settings, i had to lower resolution to 1280x720 and put details to high to have framerate on acceptable to me level. Exodus is the same story as 2033 at launch. First time i was playing 2033 i had to do the same but on phenom II x4 b35 and radeon hd3850. I need top navi, now
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wanted to go with a newer platform but my total budget was $500 for my build, which included the cpu, motherboard, solid state drive, power supply, secondary hard drive and video card.  I actually went over budget by about 40 bucks.

If I would have got a newer cpu and board I would have to make some sacrifices.   I plan on sitting with my current platform for about a year and hopefully next year I can move to a newer i7 or Ryzen build.

The reason I went with a 2600k is despite its age it can keep up with alot of the newer cpu's from several benchmarks I have seen and its powerful enough to drive a 1080 ti.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 23, 2019)

Literally the only flaw for a 2600K build, is the fact its locked to PCI-E 2.0 even if the motherboard is compatible with 3.0

That wont hold back even a GTX1080, but it did limit the board manufacturers of the era - so you'll find very few SATA III ports, very few USB 3.0 ports, and those ports may well run slower than on modern platforms. That said, CPU, GPU and RAM performance is still REALLY competitive (as long as you OC past 4GHz/1866Mhz)


----------



## stoggs1 (Feb 23, 2019)

My cpu is at 4.4 ghz but I can't get my ram past 1700 mhz, it locks my pc up.

How would I fix this?  Strangely enough I didn't have that issue with my Amd platform.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Feb 23, 2019)

stoggs1 said:


> My cpu is at 4.4 ghz but I can't get my ram past 1700 mhz, it locks my pc up.
> 
> How would I fix this?  Strangely enough I didn't have that issue with my Amd platform.


How much volts are you giving the RAM? but in all honesty another 100mhz or so on the RAM isn't going to give you any kind of noticeable boost so I'd probably leave it as is.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 23, 2019)

stoggs1 said:


> My cpu is at 4.4 ghz but I can't get my ram past 1700 mhz, it locks my pc up.
> 
> How would I fix this?  Strangely enough I didn't have that issue with my Amd platform.


Have you manually adjusted all your voltages?  There are a few cpu related voltages that can be seriously high if left to auto.  I’d bet that affects the IMC too. 

I remember a great Sandy Bridge overclocking guide. Let me see if I can locate it.

Edit: Located.  I used this when I had a 2600k.  Good stuff!

https://www.overclock.net/forum/5-i...srock-edition-985.html#/topics/1198504?page=1


----------



## Mussels (Feb 24, 2019)

stoggs1 said:


> My cpu is at 4.4 ghz but I can't get my ram past 1700 mhz, it locks my pc up.
> 
> How would I fix this?  Strangely enough I didn't have that issue with my Amd platform.



My organic memory failed me, sandy bridge maxed out at 1866 on the ram, with ivy bridge (my old 3770k) required for 2400.
(I did a CPU upgrade while keeping the system the same, since i had a Z68 board)
You may not get the ram much higher than you already have.


----------



## hat (Feb 25, 2019)

I can't get my 1866MHz ram to even boot at 2133, even if I slam it with voltage and loosen timings to stupid levels where it would perform worse than the 1866 XMP profile it comes with out of the box... whether it has more to do with the CPU (I have a 2600k as well) or the sticks themselves, I don't know... but you're not in that boat by yourself.

That said, hope you enjoy the 2600k. Like you, I am at 4.4GHz. I still haven't really tried any games other than 7 Days to Die, but it's good to hear it keeps up well with the supposedly monstrous Metro Exodus. My 4.4GHz is rock solid stable though... the only issues I've faced so far were a single oddball BSOD after dusting out my PC (?) which involved re-seating the graphics cards... and I had some trouble with audio, but installing the latest Creative drivers fixed it. Before that I just plugged the card in and let Windows do its thing. I suspect a less than stellar Windows Update might be to blame for that one, though... who knows? I'm sure my chip can go higher, but I just don't have the cooling for it. The h70 is a fair performer, but it definitely isn't for pushing the max possible OC...


----------



## Mussels (Feb 25, 2019)

@hat  you wont pass 1866 on that CPU, the board shows the options in case you have an ivy bridge CPU installed


----------



## Super XP (Feb 25, 2019)

Build yourself a nice Ryzen 7 based PC. Pick up a RX 580 8GB or an equivalent Nvidia and you can't go wrong.


----------



## Naito (Feb 25, 2019)

Mussels said:


> (I did a CPU upgrade while keeping the system the same, since i had a Z68 board)



Sorry the slight thread hijack, @stoggs1.

Mussels, did you see much of an FPS advantage after shifting from a 2600K/3770K to the 2700X?


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 25, 2019)

Naito said:


> Sorry the slight thread hijack, @stoggs1.
> 
> Mussels, did you see much of an FPS advantage after shifting from a 2600K/3770K to the 2700X?


My guess is yes. The memory subsystem improves dramatically over the older DDR3 and the 2700X has better IPC than the 2600K/3770K CPU's.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 25, 2019)

I ran at 5.2Ghz on the 2500k, 4.8 on the 3770k, and then moved to ryzen. 1700 @ 3.8Ghz, then to 2700x.
The OC'd intels had the same performance as the 2700x single threaded, but obviously get smashed multi threaded. The 1700 lagged behind a bit, should have got an X chip first time around.

I do apologise for the thread hijack as its only somewhat relevant to the topic of metro performance/the OP's potential future upgrades.


----------



## las (Feb 25, 2019)

Yep it's the FX CPU. Even at 5 GHz it will be slow and hold you back.


----------



## sepheronx (Feb 25, 2019)

Think I figured out my friends metro Exodus crashing issue.

After I played it for an hour and half, it crashed. Not only that, it rebooted the PC.  Once it rebooted, I checked HWInfo and saw that on idle, the 3570K was idling at 60C which tells me it overheated and crashed. Got him to order a new cooler for $30CAD as it's a tower cooler with 4 heatpipes so it should be enough. And some extra fans.


----------



## Hockster (Feb 25, 2019)

Most recent patch improved DLSS and RTX performance.


----------



## Super XP (Feb 25, 2019)

Hockster said:


> Most recent patch improved DLSS and RTX performance.


Still not impressed by DLSS. Better disabled IMO


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 26, 2019)

sepheronx said:


> Think I figured out my friends metro Exodus crashing issue.
> 
> After I played it for an hour and half, it crashed. Not only that, it rebooted the PC. Once it rebooted, I checked HWInfo and saw that on idle, the 3570K was idling at 60C which tells me it overheated and crashed. Got him to order a new cooler for $30CAD as it's a tower cooler with 4 heatpipes so it should be enough. And some extra fans.


Holy crap that's a high idle! How's it doing now?


----------



## sepheronx (Feb 26, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Holy crap that a high idle! How's it doing now?



Dunno. He lives quite a ways from me and he nor his roommate has any idea about PC's in terms of installation and what not. So they have to wait for me till next weekend so I can go over and help him with his issue.


----------

