# Is Metro 2033 badly optimized?



## bebbee (May 30, 2010)

when a 5870 cant play at full settings with over 30fps  then something is fishy in here, like crysis.


either Nvidia or ATI paid them to make it demanding on purpose to sell their cards or they didnt optimize it based on lazyness or other factors.

and this is the reason why i never paid for any games because you never know how the game will play.

we shouldnt just tak whatever they give.  we are not sheeps.

we should email them, fax them and complain. instead of just upgrade. its what they want.


----------



## AKlass (May 30, 2010)

nvidia paid since it uses physx


----------



## bebbee (May 30, 2010)

unfortunately  these days greedy developers take bribes from ATI and Nvidia in order to artificially make their games demanding.

Crytek comes to mind. shame on them. i will never pay for their games.


----------



## DrPepper (May 30, 2010)

Or the graphics are that good it lags on a 5870. Simple as. Also if you have physX enabled without a physx card it runs like crap.


----------



## CJCerny (May 30, 2010)

I think you guys are way off base. Why write a game that doesn't run a large number of PC's out there? It doesn't make economic sense to make your audience smaller than it has to be, even if a video card company is contributing cash to you. Besides, the amount of money that Nvidia pays developers to include the PhysX is really not substantial at all. It's just sloppy programming or not enough time testing on older hardware at lower settings. There's no conspiracy at work here. Relax.


----------



## bebbee (May 30, 2010)

There is conspiracy. 

Metro 2033 isnt graphically that good to be that demanding.

I dont like Nvidia or ATI. they are profiterring gluttons which outsmart us for their own good.

I wish death to Nvidia and ATI.  I hope they go out of business soon.


----------



## DrPepper (May 30, 2010)

bebbee said:


> There is conspiracy.
> 
> Metro 2033 isnt graphically that good to be that demanding.
> 
> ...



Enjoy your S3 Chrome 540 GTX then. There is no conspiracy. The game has kickass graphics, some of the best I've seen. 2033 uses some pretty advanced ambient occlusion by the looks of it which is a massive drain on GPU resources.


----------



## bebbee (May 30, 2010)

this game is just bulking up some of the effects that are most demanding for what overall only equates to a slight visual gain.


----------



## qubit (May 30, 2010)

bebbee said:


> There is conspiracy.
> 
> Metro 2033 isnt graphically that good to be that demanding.
> 
> ...



I bet you wish people would rape their women and eat their babies, too.   Are you a moon landing denyer by any chance? (Yes, they did land on it).


----------



## Cold Storm (May 30, 2010)

Now. what is the system your even running it as? this is the second thread that you've talked about games being "crap" due graphics.. There's more to a system then just the card it self.


----------



## AsRock (May 30, 2010)

DrPepper said:


> Enjoy your S3 Chrome 540 GTX then. There is no conspiracy. The game has kickass graphics, some of the best I've seen. 2033 uses some pretty advanced ambient occlusion by the looks of it which is a massive drain on GPU resources.



Yeah,  even in DX9 it looks pretty sweet.  The one thing that bugs me about the game more than any thing is the lack of control over the graphic options.

physX enabled with out a card for it will lag the f ing crap out of it when there is explosions. Other wise i think the game runs really nice but like Fallout 3 more with it having more to do about outside.


----------



## bebbee (May 30, 2010)

qubit : actually yeah i dont believe that US ever landed on the moon. and yes it IS conspiracy, and a very obvious one.

just look at their lame videos, its obvious that its made in a studio. LOL

their landing on moon conspiracy is just as bad and lame as them fighting with terrorism.

anyway, if Crytek decided to make Crysis 2 as unoptimized as the first one just because nvidia or ati paid them to, then they will face the piracy once again.

i hope they learnt their lesson.

Developers should make games for low end and medium video cards. not high end.


----------



## aCid888* (May 30, 2010)

bebbee said:


> I'm an idiot, report me please for trolling my way to success..or trying to at least...



As you wish.




About the game; it isn't that great to be honest and Crysis wasn't either....you can have all the eye candy in the world but if the game play sucks then the game is useless in all honesty.


----------



## bebbee (May 30, 2010)

aCid888: what? I didnt say that!!!

dont accuse me of something that i didnt say.

u are giving the false information.


----------



## erocker (May 30, 2010)

aCid888* said:


> As you wish.



Please show me where he posted that he called himself an idiot. You bring the moderators attention into a thread where you call others names? 

Let's keep this conversation on topic (moon landing and terrorism? c'mon ), not resort to name calling and be civil. Failure to comply with the forum guidelines will result with infractions.


----------



## Dent1 (May 30, 2010)

bebbee, what is your full system spec i.e. motherboard, CPU, and ram


----------



## newtekie1 (May 30, 2010)

The game looks damn good, one of the best I've seen.

Also, it is not baddly optimized, and neither was Crysis.  Just like Crysis, Metro2033 is one of the first games of a new generation, that actually uses next generation DX features.

Crysis was one of the first games to actually use DX10 features to a great extent in the game, and it showed by having pretty much the best graphics for its time, and it also really pushed graphics hardware.

Metro2033 is the same.  It is one of the first games to use DX11 features, particularly tessellation, which is very GPU intensive, and has a massive performance hit.

Now, being the first use really use the latest DX versions, both games were not as optimized as they could have been.  There is a pretty major learning curve when a new DX comes out.  It is sort of like when consoles come out.  The developers can use all the features right away, but over time they learn how to implement those features better, giving better graphics and better performance.  If you take a game at the begining of a consoles life cycle, and compare it to a game released at the end, graphicly the games look like they are totally different generations.  The same goes with DX versions.



AsRock said:


> Yeah,  even in DX9 it looks pretty sweet.  The one thing that bugs me about the game more than any thing is the lack of control over the graphic options.
> 
> physX enabled with out a card for it will lag the f ing crap out of it when there is explosions. Other wise i think the game runs really nice but like Fallout 3 more with it having more to do about outside.



Disabling the "Advanced PhysX" option, removes the hardware accelerated PhysX that runs on the GPU and only enabled the PhysX that runs on the CPU.  This is the case with ATi and nVidia cards.



bebbee said:


> qubit : actually yeah i dont believe that US ever landed on the moon. and yes it IS conspiracy, and a very obvious one.
> 
> just look at their lame videos, its obvious that its made in a studio. LOL
> 
> ...



Yeah, and those images that people, independent astronomers have taken, that show the things we've left behind, the lander base, the rover, foot prints...  I guess all of those are fake too?

Also, all of the games you've mentioned, Crysis and Metro2033, play just fine on low-end and medium video cards.  However, they will not do it with maxxed out settings.  But that is a good thing, if mid-range graphics cards could max out games, they would always look worse then what is possible and people with high end cards would be unhappy.  Personally, I like having the option to make the games look absolutely stunning if I want to, while still having the ability to set modest setting to run on lower end hardware.  I like it a whole lot better then if I was forced to always use the settings for modest hardware...

Oh, and by the way, I played through and beat Crysis on an X800XL, I played it a lot during downtime at work.  And I'm playing through Metro2033 on a 9600GT, again during down time at work.



erocker said:


> Please show me where he posted that he called himself an idiot. You bring the moderators attention into a thread where you call others names?
> 
> Let's keep this conversation on topic (moon landing and terrorism? c'mon ), not resort to name calling and be civil. Failure to comply with the forum guidelines will result with infractions.



Well he quotes a post that has been editted, so you are the only one that can see what the original post was...

It wouldn't be the first time someone editted a post to make it look like they didn't say something they really did to make someone else look bad, that is why the system to let mods view the edits to a post was implemented.


----------



## fullinfusion (May 30, 2010)

Huh? what game? dx9 blows


----------



## bebbee (May 30, 2010)

Dent1: i have Core 2 Duo E4500 at 3.00ghz, 3GB DDR2 ram, 2 hard drives, old CRT monitor 1600*1200 res and overclocked GTS 250 512mb.


----------



## erocker (May 30, 2010)

Turn down the game graphics settings. Your computer isn't "high end" enough to play at higher settings.


----------



## Dent1 (May 30, 2010)

bebbee said:


> Dent1: i have Core 2 Duo E4500 at 3.00ghz, 3GB DDR2 ram, 2 hard drives, old CRT monitor 1600*1200 res and overclocked GTS 250 512mb.




Well your system isnt exactly a spring chicken, should still play Metro well at medium.




bebbee said:


> when a 5870 cant play at full settings with over 30fps  then we



But I really do not get your premise for talking about the 5870 and Metro if you do not own the 5870. Why speak on the performance of hardware you do not own. Unless you are talking about a review where the 5870 performed poorly?


----------



## Cold Storm (May 30, 2010)

why don't you add it to your specs.. it would help us much more.. Just like the other thread..


And like the other thread, i'm With Erocker on it.. just finished a bit of metro2033, on single card. I probably dipped to 32 at the most with 40 being a staple in the "dead city" area. That's very high, AAA, 8x..


----------



## bebbee (May 30, 2010)

the problem with metro 2033 is on certain lighting areas where when u look at the light, u get big performance hit, and when u face back u get the speed again. why is that?

why those lights can be so demanding when u are front of them????  

it doesnt make sense.


----------



## Cold Storm (May 30, 2010)

If your talking about the game via a 5870, you gotta look at the factor that it was developed for Nvidia's software in mind.. It's going to do a lot better with nvidia because of how it can render the game due to physx.. But, even with a 5870, I don't see any studier on a single card.. nothing to make me mad that I'm using a single card on the game.


----------



## erocker (May 30, 2010)

bebbee said:


> the problem with metro 2033 is on certain lighting areas where when u look at the light, u get big performance hit, and when u face back u get the speed again. why is that?
> 
> why those lights can be so demanding when u are front of them????
> 
> it doesnt make sense.



I guess you need to understand how to code and design games for it to make sense. Apparently your video card (most cards) have problems rendering the lighting effects in this game. A 5870 stock will give you close to 30 fps at 1920x1200 while a GTX480 will give you close to 35 fps on average. It's a demanding game for graphics enthusiasts. My setup can run it at highest settings, but it's still a hog.


----------



## Dent1 (May 30, 2010)

bebbee said:


> the problem with metro 2033 is on certain lighting areas where when u look at the light, u get big performance hit, and when u face back u get the speed again. why is that?
> 
> why those lights can be so demanding when u are front of them????
> 
> it doesnt make sense.



It does make sense, your video card has a 512MB frame buffer which is probably 1 reason why. This is a classic example of turn the textures and lighting down and be humble as your card isnt the best around.


----------



## bebbee (May 30, 2010)

i think i have listed my specs on my profile. can u see it?

but sadly there isnt alot of options that u can customize it.

no customizeable graphics option.

its either normal, high or very high. 

u cant tick or untick the graphics u do or dont want.


----------



## erocker (May 30, 2010)

bebbee said:


> i think i have listed my specs on my profile. can u see it?



You have to tick the little box in the UserCP to allow other people to see them. 

V Can't see yours Dent1.


----------



## Dent1 (May 30, 2010)

bebbee said:


> i think i have listed my specs on my profile. can u see it?



No we can not see your specification, remember to hit "save changes" at the bottom 
http://forums.techpowerup.com/profile.php?do=specs


----------



## bebbee (May 30, 2010)

now u can see my specs 

I think I will upgrading my CPU to a quad core. most likely Q8400, and overclock it with my motherboard.

and i will try to save up for a modern video card, most likely a 5830 and overclock it.


so with an overclocked Q8400 and and an overclocked 5830, do u think it will be much better than the system i have now?


----------



## newtekie1 (May 30, 2010)

bebbee said:


> i think i have listed my specs on my profile. can u see it?
> 
> but sadly there isnt alot of options that u can customize it.
> 
> ...



I will say that I don't like the fact that you can't really customize the graphics settings.  There really should be a custom option to let you turn on and off what you like.


----------



## erocker (May 30, 2010)

bebbee said:


> so with an overclocked Q8400 and and an overclocked 5830, do u think it will be much better than the system i have now?



It will be better, but it still won't be able to max out this game. If you're concerned mainly about this game I would recommend a GTX 470 or better.


----------



## Cold Storm (May 30, 2010)

E.. I know you got the game.. what's your frame rate for it with the gt 240 going?


----------



## Dent1 (May 30, 2010)

bebbee said:


> now u can see my specs
> 
> I think I will upgrading my CPU to a quad core. most likely Q8400, and overclock it with my motherboard.
> 
> ...



The 5830 isn’t a great card for the price, the 5770 is a better choice for the price : performance ratio. Saying that though your current GTS 250 isn’t a bad card, I wouldn’t replace it unless I was getting something significantly better i.e. 5850/5870. Your main issue is your processor, its old, a dual core and sitting at only 3GHz you need to overclock it alot higher, shoot for 3.5-3.8 GHz to max out these new games.

To answer your question a heavily overclocked Q8400 + 5830 should be able to play Metro 2033 at high settings but it isn’t the best investment. Why drop money to play 1 game on high, just be content with medium settings and keep your money in your wallet.


----------



## bebbee (May 30, 2010)

i have 250 not 240.

I can play this game maxed out on 1600*1200 and its quiet playable but the fps is mostly below 30. like 25 or 24.    

and on certain areas it gets to 12fps but its rare.

anyway, i finished the game maxed out with my system.

but i wish i could disable aa .


----------



## newtekie1 (May 30, 2010)

Dent1 said:


> The 5830 isnt a great card for the price, the 5770 is a better choice for the priceerformance ratio. Saying that though your current GTS 250 isnt a bad card, I wouldnt replace it unless I was getting something signifcantly better i.e 5850/5870. Your main issue is your processor, its old, a dual core and sitting at only 3GHz you need to overclock it alot higher, shoot for 3.5-3.8 GHz to max out these new games.
> 
> To answer your question a heavily overclocked Q8400 + 5830 should be able to play Metro 2033 at high settings but it isnt the best investment. Why drop money to play 1 game on high, just be content with medium settings and keep your money in your wallet.



Actually, it is in games like Metro2033(high tessellation/DX11 games) where the HD5830 really shows its muscle over the HD5770.

When you look at 1680x1050, the HD5830 can manage a playable 25-30FPS, but the HD5770 is more in the 20-24FPS range, which might not seem like a lot but it really is a difference between smooth and not smooth.


----------



## bebbee (May 30, 2010)

but im afraid if i buy 5770, i wont notice much speed over my oced 250. 

a 5770 is pretty much behind 4870 or 260 in most games.


----------



## Dent1 (May 30, 2010)

bebbee said:


> i have 250 not 240.
> 
> I can play this game maxed out on 1600*1200 and its quiet playable but the fps is mostly below 30. like 25 or 24.
> 
> ...




Well that lays the problem then, your rig overall isn’t going to cope with 1600x1200 well, maybe 1440x900 or 1280x1024 is better suited for it and quite frankly you shouldn’t be running it at "maxed out" settings. It was your choice to do so, in the video card settings within the game you could of selected "medium" or balanced the detail accordingly.


----------



## bebbee (May 30, 2010)

yeah, i plan to play the game again with dx10 and very high at 1280*1200 res. 

it will be smoother. but i am not very sensitive about having low fps.

i can still play games if i get 20fps and above. it doesnt annoy me.

but with 1280*1200 res, i should see a big performance improvement over 1600*1200.


----------



## Cold Storm (May 30, 2010)

Bebbee, I was refering to Erocker since I know he has the game on steam and he has a 240 paired with his crossfire 5850's.. Seeing what the frame rate was on cross-fire of his cards, then with the physx card..


----------



## Dent1 (May 30, 2010)

bebbee said:


> but im afraid if i buy 5770, i wont notice much speed over my oced 250.
> 
> a 5770 is pretty much behind 4870 or 260 in most games.



Not true, the 5770 is faster than the 4870 and GTX260, do not let old drivers fool or distort the review. However the 5770 isnt only slightly faster than the two mentioned.

But you are right the jump from a GTS 250 to a 5770 is small and its made even smaller by your CPU bottleneck.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 30, 2010)

erocker said:


> Turn down the game graphics settings. Your computer isn't "high end" enough to play at higher settings.



Who is "high end" enough then? 

Honestly I haven't seen anything in 2033 that should be a massive drain on any of the top tier GPU's. At the same time I don't thing there is any conspiracy ether. Its just one of those games that looks nice but I feel isn't as polished in the back-end as some are. Why because even the best Fermi has problems pushing it AND its made by Russians. We all know they are always drunk on vodka.


----------



## erocker (May 30, 2010)

Cold Storm said:


> Bebbee, I was refering to Erocker since I know he has the game on steam and he has a 240 paired with his crossfire 5850's.. Seeing what the frame rate was on cross-fire of his cards, then with the physx card..



It's about 42-55 fps. I don't think the PhysX card is working with this game, I need to test further.


----------



## bebbee (May 30, 2010)

Can anyone link me to a latest review with newest drivers on 5770?????


----------



## Cold Storm (May 30, 2010)

erocker said:


> It's about 42-55 fps. I don't think the PhysX card is working with this game, I need to test further.



From what Rm told me, he's using 4870's with a gts 250, is that you only see the difference with water, shadows, and glass.. anything that has a reflection you really see the difference. Just wanted to see if another set up, was like that as well..


----------



## mdsx1950 (May 30, 2010)

bebbee said:


> i have 250 not 240.
> 
> I can play this game maxed out on 1600*1200 and its quiet playable but the fps is mostly below 30. like 25 or 24.
> 
> ...



You can't run it on highest settings because you got no Direct X 11.  Invain you wasted the gameplay by playing it at 25fps, since even on medium, the graphics look really good.



bebbee said:


> but im afraid if i buy 5770, i wont notice much speed over my oced 250.
> 
> a 5770 is pretty much behind 4870 or 260 in most games.



The 5770 is comparable to a 4890. But due to the memory bandwidth and bus, the 5770 performs slightly below the HD 4890. But with OC it should be able to surpass the 4890. 

*HD 5770*

Core Clock:	850 MHz
Memory Clock:	2400 MHz (4800 DDR)
Pixel Fill Rate:	13600 MPixels/sec
Texture Fill Rate:	34000 MTexels/sec
Memory Bandwidth:	76.8 GB/sec
Max Power Draw:	108 W
Memory Type:	GDDR5
Memory Bus Type:	64x2 (128 bit)
DirectX Compliance:	11.0
OpenGL Compliance:	3.2
PS/VS Version:	5.0/5.0
Process:	40 nm


*HD4890*

Core Clock:	850 MHz
Memory Clock:	1950 MHz (3900 DDR)
Pixel Fill Rate:	13600 MPixels/sec
Texture Fill Rate:	34000 MTexels/sec
Memory Bandwidth:	124.8 GB/sec
Max Power Draw:	190 W
Memory Type:	GDDR5
Memory Bus Type:	64x4 (256 bit)
DirectX Compliance:	10.1
OpenGL Compliance:	3.1
PS/VS Version:	4.1/4.1
Process:	55 nm


----------



## erocker (May 30, 2010)

Cold Storm said:


> From what Rm told me, he's using 4870's with a gts 250, is that you only see the difference with water, shadows, and glass.. anything that has a reflection you really see the difference. Just wanted to see if another set up, was like that as well..



It does indeed work. You also get a little bit of physics when shooting a wall. Bits of dust will hit the floor and there's a particle effect. Framerates are still bleh, but they are an every card at max settings. 4x MSAA simply doesn't work for me either. 4-5 fps slideshow. That I don't understand. Since ATi is perfectly capable of handling MSAA, there is a problem that needs to be fixed somewhere.


----------



## Cold Storm (May 30, 2010)

erocker said:


> It does indeed work. You also get a little bit of physics when shooting a wall. Bits of dust will hit the floor and there's a particle effect. Framerates are still bleh, but they are an every card at max settings. 4x MSAA simply doesn't work for me either. 4-5 fps slideshow. That I don't understand. Since ATi is perfectly capable of handling MSAA, there is a problem that needs to be fixed somewhere.



Maybe it's a problem with drivers.. I don't think that ATi would set the drivers up right for this game due to it being a "nvidia" type of game.


----------



## newtekie1 (May 30, 2010)

Cold Storm said:


> Maybe it's a problem with drivers.. I don't think that ATi would set the drivers up right for this game due to it being a "nvidia" type of game.



That was going to be my guess, ATi just probably hasn't optimized that yet in their drivers, or it is a bug in their drivers with the game.

If my GTX470 can handle 20-30FPS with maxed settings including 4xAA@1080p, then his setup should be smoking the game even at a higher resolution.  I need to drop my 9600GT back in my main rig and see framerates are with the PhysX load taken off the GTX470.


----------



## lyndonguitar (May 30, 2010)

Is the bebbee banned? it says on his profile.  this guy is getting on my nerves. Looks like he hates everything other than his rig. 

well back on topic.

Metro 2033 IS A GOOD GAME.  played it. maxed it out. 1440 x 900 though. It has great graphics. well not really as wowing when crysis came out in 2007 but still is good. Anyways Crysis 2 will be out so we will be wowed again.

The only things i don't like in Metro 2033 is the lack of graphics options customization and the animations of children(or adult also?) when running. when they turn they looked like robots and the animation is not smooth.  look at 0:48


----------



## Cold Storm (May 30, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> That was going to be my guess, ATi just probably hasn't optimized that yet in their drivers, or it is a bug in their drivers with the game.
> 
> If my GTX470 can handle 20-30FPS with maxed settings including 4xAA@1080p, then his setup should be smoking the game even at a higher resolution.  I need to drop my 9600GT back in my main rig and see framerates are with the PhysX load taken off the GTX470.



Yeah, I'm thinking real hard on if I want to go nvidia again for the fun of it or what.. Love the ati cards I have. But, it does seem that Metro can be a "battlefield BC2".. Won't really work right till a few drivers from now.



lyndonrakista said:


> Is the bebbee banned? it says on his profile.  this guy is getting on my nerves. Looks like he hates everything other than his rig.
> 
> well back on topic.
> 
> ...



Bebbee was a ban evader.. Yeah, I'm feeling that they needed to allow us to do more in the options then what they showed.. but, then again, we can all say this.. It was on the Xbox 360.. So, PORT.. Damn them.


----------



## phanbuey (May 30, 2010)

Its not THAT badly optimized... the game looks amazing on medium graphics - which is a strain by themselves on an OC'd 260 216 at 1650x1080.  It ran good when I had my SLI setup going.


----------



## bswavey (May 30, 2010)

lyndonrakista said:


> Is the bebbee banned? it says on his profile.  this guy is getting on my nerves. Looks like he hates everything other than his rig.
> 
> well back on topic.
> 
> ...



 Got on my nerves as soon as this thread started....anyway, I've got 2 5750 Vapor Xs flashed to Vapor 5770s in Xfire and I did the 'ol play for 10 seconds, hit escape, adjust video settings, return to game, play for 10 seconds, hit escape, adjust video settings, return to game, rinse and repeat until I achieved a playable framerate.  Had to lower my resolution a bit and I stuck with the "normal" quality setting, DX11 enabled with tessellation and advance depth of field checked, with no AAA.  Graphics are AMAZING in this game and the atmosphere is where it really shines.  The attention to detail in underground gathering spots is second to none.  Agreed that more control over the finer graphic settings is needed, and that the children are a bit creepy lol....


----------



## Marineborn (May 30, 2010)

*strolls in and sighs* bebe why are you complaining about a 5870 not being able to play it good Your not even using one, i run 2x5850's IN dx11 everything maxed out and on and tessellation on all that good jazz with PHYSICS turned off for the reason that there pointless and just hurt framerates and run from 30-50FPS and the game looks absolutely gourgeus, the ambient effects are out of this world, your might not beable to see this seeing you have to it in dx9, i still looks good, possible if you maybe watched some videos of it in dx11 you would see this, i honestly think this game had set the new standard for graphics and gameplay i beat it the other day, awesome ending.


----------



## qubit (May 30, 2010)

bebbee said:


> qubit : actually yeah i dont believe that US ever landed on the moon. and yes it IS conspiracy, and a very obvious one.
> 
> just look at their lame videos, its obvious that its made in a studio. LOL
> 
> their landing on moon conspiracy is just as bad and lame as them fighting with terrorism.



I see you've been banned for some reason, unfortunately. Anyway, regardless of who's right, you're always welcome to discuss stuff like this over at sister forum www.generalnonsense.net 

Start a thread and then send me a PM over there if you want to discuss this further with me.


----------



## DannibusX (May 30, 2010)

erocker said:


> It's about 42-55 fps. I don't think the PhysX card is working with this game, I need to test further.



I tried to play a little with PhysX enabled last night.  I don't think my card did a thing to effect it because it was still choppy as hell.

Is it possible that having DX11 enabled is borking the nVidia card since it's not DX11 compliant?


----------



## currahee440 (May 30, 2010)

Oh wow. The topic was started by that guy ... I think he was a troll... I mean he said I should have gotten a 5830 instead of a 5770 because obviously it's a lot better .... oh wait the 5830 is more powerful but it has the same bandwidth as the 5770 .... ANYWAY.

Metro 2033 is an outstanding game. And I agree I think people just say "Oh this game is bloated"... but in reality the graphics cards aren't good enough to handle them at current gen  I'd say it takes about 2-3 generations before a new gen gfx engine can render things above 60fps. But at insanely high resolutions with 4xFSAA I'd say 30fps at max res is a winner.

Remember there was a time (pre R300) where FSAA was pure luxury to have.. now everyone's expecting it to be standard hehe.


----------



## Fourstaff (May 30, 2010)

Is Metro 2033 the next Crysis?


----------



## Marineborn (May 30, 2010)

currahee440 said:


> Oh wow. The topic was started by that guy ... I think he was a troll... I mean he said I should have gotten a 5830 instead of a 5770 because obviously it's a lot better .... oh wait the 5830 is more powerful but it has the same bandwidth as the 5770 .... ANYWAY.
> 
> Metro 2033 is an outstanding game. And I agree I think people just say "Oh this game is bloated"... but in reality the graphics cards aren't good enough to handle them at current gen  I'd say it takes about 2-3 generations before a new gen gfx engine can render things above 60fps. But at insanely high resolutions with 4xFSAA I'd say 30fps at max res is a winner.
> 
> Remember there was a time (pre R300) where FSAA was pure luxury to have.. now everyone's expecting it to be standard hehe.



eh, i have everything maxed in dx11 all AA up with physx turned off  get about 40-60, 60 is if im staring at a wall, LOL! but thats with 2 5850 toxics


----------



## lyndonguitar (May 30, 2010)

Fourstaff said:


> Is Metro 2033 the next Crysis?



you can say that. but it didn't wow me that much.


----------



## dies900 (May 30, 2010)

I have a single 5850 clocked at 1000/1200 and I once turned physx off and I didnt like the atmosphere it was boring there was no deep fog or any kind of realistic effects for some reason, dont know why actually. and it is a shame physx enabled the game is a littlebit choppy but not low frames. I was wondering maybe cause I got e8500@3.84?maybe this game really needs a quad core cpu?


----------



## KingPing (May 30, 2010)

I always like to play games maxed out, but if i don't see any real difference while playing the game i turn off the setting, in Metro 2033 i play it in very high but in dx 10, no tesselation, i can't tell if its on or off while PLAYING the game. I think the game runs fine, it looks good in medium, it looks very good in high, and some cool effects are added in very high. with my 5850 i run it in very high at 1440x900, and with a 5770 in high at 1920x1080. My father PC run it with an old 8800GTS and a Pentium dual core 2180, i cant ssay the same for BC2.
 Bad Company 2 is a port, runs like S***, looks like S***, Moves like S***, i have no problems runing it, but if that game runs in a Ps3 and a 360, it should run all maxed out in a 8800GTS.


----------



## DrPepper (May 30, 2010)

Damn who banned him !!! I wanted to ask what he was smoking so I could have some.


----------



## Stak (May 30, 2010)

Hey, i own a gtx470 and it runs mostly between 30-40 fps dx11 very high AAA physx 16xaf and without microstuttering. So i dont see any problems as it looks stunnig. And there are parts where i get 40-60 fps and parts where i get 30- fps for example those parts with very intensive lighting. Its not poorly optimized its just a very heavy game.


----------



## mdsx1950 (May 30, 2010)

Thank god. The OP was getting on my nerves. Oh well he must be happy with the one and only exclusive GTS 250 in the world that can surpass even the GTX 480. 

OT: Simple answer to the thread title is NO.


----------



## Stak (May 30, 2010)

DrPepper said:


> Damn who banned him !!! I wanted to ask what he was smoking so I could have some.



This is the best reply till now


----------



## rizla1 (May 30, 2010)

bebbee said:


> Developers should make games for low end and medium video cards. not high end.



i hope you are joking!

my dualcor and gtx 260 could get playable at medium on 2033 metro now with quad an gtx260 i get 75 fps all full settings on metro it is a great game definetly not unoptimised like say crysis or stalker clear sky.


----------



## qubit (May 30, 2010)

Surely with the OP banned and the subject not exactly inspired, this thread would be better off closed?


----------



## REALIN (May 30, 2010)

Fourstaff said:


> Is Metro 2033 the next Crysis?



No, it's Crysis 2. 

But seriously, Metro 2033's light effects really made me impressed!


----------



## Tatty_One (May 30, 2010)

bebbee said:


> There is conspiracy.
> 
> Metro 2033 isnt graphically that good to be that demanding.
> 
> ...



Don't buy their cards then, go for a lovely Intel integrated chipset GPU   Enjoy a life of pacman and lemmings!


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (May 30, 2010)

KingPing said:


> Bad Company 2 is a port, runs like S***, looks like S***, Moves like S***, i have no problems runing it, but if that game runs in a Ps3 and a 360, it should run all maxed out in a 8800GTS.



The consoles versions of the game is not on max settings.... None of them ever are, thats the difference, your 8800GTS should not be able to run BC2 maxed out, that game looks amazing, and it's optimization is about as good as it gets, it actually uses all 6 of my cores. And it runs well on lower end systems too, so I'm not sure if you know what you are talking about. My friend plays with a 5770 on all high settings, hbao off, low aa and low af, at 1920x1200 and it runs great.


----------



## LiveOrDie (May 30, 2010)

runs good for me lol


----------



## lyndonguitar (May 30, 2010)

Yeah BF:BC 2 is a pretty well optimized game, Runs SO SMOOTH in mine, and has actually GREAT graphics(yea more optimized than crysis). thats how a game should be. Now i can't wait for the real Battlefield: BATTLEFIELD 3. i always keep thinking that BFBC is just a spinoff of the BF series and a "test game" for the real deal.


----------



## Stak (May 30, 2010)

BC2 runs like crazy! i run it always 55+ fps in single player ecxept for some crazy explosions and even better at MP.  At 1680*1050 16xAF all maxed even AA at 32x. so its one awesome game. dx11 of course and it looks 100* better than on consoles.


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (May 31, 2010)

Badly optimized? hmm.. Its not. It really has lots of subtle effects on top of subtle effects that would tax the GPU. Subtle effects that the average joe cant comprehend and goes comparing the game vs CoD4, and say CoD 4 is more 'optimized' and looks better just because 60fps is what the term "looks better" equates in his brain.



lyndonrakista said:


> Yeah BF:BC 2 is a pretty well optimized game, Runs SO SMOOTH in mine, and has actually GREAT graphics(yea more optimized than crysis). thats how a game should be. Now i can't wait for the real Battlefield: BATTLEFIELD 3. i always keep thinking that BFBC is just a spinoff of the BF series and a "test game" for the real deal.


It runs smoother vs Crysis yes. Thats because it has lesser shader and post processing effects vs the latter. Motion blur is taxing.. that parralax occlusion consumes 5-8 fps, god rays, full scene ambient occlusion (including tree leaves), insane amounts of folliage containing collision detection on ALL entities, etc.. If you scale Crysis down to BFBC2 graphic settings (yes, to me I can clearly see what effects that bc2 lacks vs Crysis), I bet more or less both would churn out the same fps amount.


----------

