Metro 2033 more demanding than Crysis in terms of performance?
 

I've been reading up about the upcoming PC game "Metro 2033" and it's supposed to be even more performance demanding than Crysis. It's a RAM and graphics hog. It's the only game thus far which would actually touch 8+ GB of RAM. The GPU recommendation is the the GeForce GTX 480 "Fermi" cards, preferably in SLI. I didn't think any game would overtake the performance demand of Crysis, other than Crysis 2.

Do you think Crysis 2 and Metro 2033 would be similar in hardware demand?

Upcoming?

If they really put that down in writing... it's pretty stupid since the GTX480 aren't out yet.
How can one recommend to use a GPU which isn't available for sale?

games been out for a while, and it is a performance hog. ATI 5K card owners seem to have no trouble with it, and they say the graphics is great.

I cant see this being as demanding as the 'tech demo' also known as CrySis :D

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=117501

there ya go 8 pages of information on the game, and responses to performance

I must say this is the most demanding game (other than Crysis) that I have ever played. Unsure if more demanding than Crysis though.

If you take away the DX11 features then not really.

Crysis is pretty much doable at 40+ frames, and even more with some simple .cfg adjustments, as long as FSAA is off(and edge[leaves blur] is on) [(and even then you can have AA on indoors and everything is fine)].

Metro takes a decent hit with it's MSAA applied, but in a good portion of areas, it's not that bad. It's when you run into certain particle fields or advanced lighting scenes, that everything starts to come crashing down, which suggests it's probably more a physics thing (and possibly also driver related).

On average, the games are about equal in their own respective ways.

However since Metro offers DX11, then that's a level unattainable by Crysis, and thus it would technically make it more demanding.

Interestingly enough, the game Risen has a very Crysis like feel with regards to it's art and texture style. A lot of times it feels like you're playing Crysis RPG when you're out and about the forest areas. Of course the texture resolution isn't AS high, and there's not a bunch of smoke and dust and explosions, but with AA and some config tweaks for inreased visuals, it slams the GPU more than Crysis.

I didn't realize that Metro 2033 was out yet.

Oh it is my monkey friend, and it is one demanding game:laugh:

Just my honest opinion . . . I can't claim that Metro is more demanding than Crysis . . . it uses features and hardware that Crysis won't, but this game runs damn near perfect on my setup - all in all, it performs equally to Crysis, per my hardware setup.

Although, I'm limited to DX10 (ATM) . . . So I can't compare Metro "maxed out" against Crysis. In theory, though, as had been pointed out, DX11 should bring a whole new aspect to it.


Even still, if you're looking for a game that's more demanding than Crysis; STALKER: Call of Pripyat easily takes the cake, in my book . . . and the official CoP Benchmark released by GSC IS NOT a good indicator of how CoP actually runs in-game.

Trust me man, DX11 in this game is a system killer, if you want to play at full detail with DX11 features and AA on, you will need a HD5850 crossfire setup or better. You might be able to play full detail without AA on a HD5870 but you will have to play at a lower resolution:cry: well thats my experience so far, a HD5970 is perfect for this game, I kinda wish I still had one:rockout:

true story. its a beatifull games in dx11, when i play i sometimes just have to stop and look around at the detail on everything, its plain amazing

Yeah I have been doing that as well, mainly when you get outside for the first time, I was looking at the detail for so long, I couldnt believe i was playing a game, and that wasnt even on full detail, cant wait for those HD5970 4gb versions to come out, same with 4gb RAM sticks:toast:

yeah thatll be fricking sweet chaos, makes me feel like i should have waited, but im happy with my 5850's they perform very well

the game is only really demanding when you blow something up with physx on, with my GTX 280 oc'd if I blow up something with adv physx on framerate goes from like 50 to 5 instantly.

Lol, I bet your 2 HD5850's kick arse especially when they are overclocked:toast:

I played the intro last night on metro 2033 with my 9600GT on low and it wassnt too bad.

on dx11 very high 2560x1600 4xaa it's officially slower than crysis 2560x1600 ultra 4xaa .. i just tested

dx10 i run this fine no problems at all.. everything max at 1920x1080

5 FPS?

What cards were you using Wizzard?:eek:

turning off the DX11 features will provide a massive performance increase for literally what is almost an impossible to tell difference.

the advanced DOF setting absolutely murders framerate, it's so hilariously subtle and framerate crippling that i'd say it's borderline broken.

Agreed. DOF seems broken as well as MSAA. This game is more demanding than Crysis the way it is now.

Not to mention most of the game is done in dark closed areas. I could run the game on very high when I was in the metro but I soon as I went outside I had to switch it to High. Fps would dip in the 20's for me.

Another poorly optimised game that runs like crap without even looking that amazing then (I have looked on You Tube etc, don't seem like all too mouth-watering graphics at all).

I wonder if if in 5 years time we will still have METRO 2033 as a benchmark for DX 12 GPU's running with octacore 10GHZ CPU and 32GB RAM (this has been the way Crysis has went, which also isn't even that cool anymore yet still runs like crap on even the most high end systems).