Metro Exodus horrible performance

[stoggs1]

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Now I know my system is outdated especially the cpu, however this is the first modern game I have played that is unplayable on my pc.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

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]

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Now I know my system is outdated especially the cpu, however this is the first modern game I have played that is unplayable on my pc.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

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]

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

 

[Wavetrex]

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

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

GPU that is 6 years old

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

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.

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]

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



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.



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.

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

Time for new rig.