Metro 2033™ - PC Specs Revealed

[eric66]

if its running in dx9 mode then its impossible for a deferred renderer it to have d3d msaa. you can turn it on but either cap bits or incorrect results will stop it from working.

then run it on dx 10 mode whatever poor exxcuses eidos should have done there job better

'Developed under NVIDIA's The Way it's Meant to be Played program, and featuring NVIDIA's PhysX technology, the game's launcher disables in-game AA when it detects AMD's ATI Radeon graphics hardware. AMD's Ian McNaughton in his recent blog thread said that they had confirmed this by an experiment where they ran ATI Radeon hardware under changed device IDs. Says McNaughton: "Additionally, the in-game AA option was removed when ATI cards are detected. We were able to confirm this by changing the ids of ATI graphics cards in the Batman demo. By tricking the application, we were able to get in-game AA option where our performance was significantly enhanced." He further adds that the option is not available for the retail game as there is a secure-rom.' direct quote i never played that game nor do i have ati card but not allowing someone to use already exisiting feauture is ..... don't know fill in the blank by yourself

[NaMcO]

Dirty.

[Carfax]

NaMcO can you comment on the CPU usage?

How much of your CPU is the game using?

[NaMcO]

I've seen peaks of 60% which is nice to see for a change. Game makes use of all 4 threads (i don't use HT), i can monitor usage throughout the game on my external LCD in realtime, that makes it easier to keep track.

[Carfax]

Looks like the game is using the CPU then.. With HT enabled, usage will probably hover around 30% or so I'd wager.

We're getting to the point where quadcores are almost becoming a necessity for gaming.. Dragon Age Origins uses lots of CPU as well, but it's graphics are vastly inferior to Metro 2033s.

, I wonder how this game is going to play at 2560x1600, since thats the resolution I play at. I don't think I will be able to run this game at all, until I get my GTX 480...or two of them.

[NaMcO]

Not at full candy, i seriously doubt that, but DX10 looks about the same and pushes way more FPS. Things might change with DX11 nVidia's, who knows?

[[XC] Oj101]

wow ignorancy ftw that aa thing worked on ati cards too at least in demo version so how about allowing ati users to enjoy aa also since they value there ati customers according to you

So you are indeed suggesting that they jeopardized potentially half of their sales... To please NV? Are you trolling or joking?

I'm going to give you $5 per month if you start bunking work in the afternoons from 13:30 onwards

[Trembledust]

My settings were (just for a test) everything maxed out (DX10 and DX11) but AA set to AAA. Getting ~42fps in DX11 mode and ~47fps in DX10 mode with 1920x1200 resolution. If i drop the settings to HIGH the framerate climbs to the 60's and makes the game playable either in DX10 or DX11 mode. Always with AA set to AAA.

A few youtube links with videos running at maximum settings at 1920x1200 which i made:

Video 1 (small)

Video 2

Video 3

Keep in mind that framerate took a big hit because of FRAPs.

Not bad @ fps. I didnt like the non interaction with the enviornment i.e. when moving past tree branches but seems ok. Does seem like Stalker though. I'm downloading the game now. I'll try it out in a few.

[vitchilo]

40 fps with a 2000$+ computer? Scary.

[NaMcO]

40 fps with a 2000$+ computer? Scary.

105fps inside the houses and it's a $5000 computer

[eric66]

So you are indeed suggesting that they jeopardized potentially half of their sales... To please NV? Are you trolling or joking?

I'm going to give you $5 per month if you start bunking work in the afternoons from 13:30 onwards

thats too low for my standars how about 10 seriously you can read right ? i am not going to waste my time on this issue anymore so think what you want i don't care

[Trembledust]

105fps inside the houses and it's a $5000 computer

lol..nice comeback @ 5k rig.

Ok I played with a 5870 oc'd a bit to 900 core, Xeon W3520 @ 4.2ghz w/ htt on, 6gbs of ram, Seagate perpendicular HD, etc.

Game settings...everything maxed, at 1920x1200 res in DX 11 and I averaged 25-30 fps. Dx 10 about 60-65.

Game isn't really impressing me visually though. Textures are great and wat not but not liking the char details. Gun I used didn't seem to capture recoil to well. I'll test the game again on gtx 285 sli set up in a few.

[Macadamia]

Guys, do you know what TWIMTBP is? It doesn't mean that NV told them how to hurt competitors' performance, but rather worked on enhancing the game for NV hardware. Think about it realistically. If NV were to get a developer to make a game run on NV hardware only, ATI guys wouldn't but the game. Why would a developer hurt their sales to such an extent unless NV were to pay for every POTENTIAL sale lost, costing NV a fortune? TWIMTBP doesn't affect ATI performance in the slightest, and unless ATI gets in there with the developer to tweak performance on their own hardware the developer is left to their own devices. I'm sure you can see the logic in this when a TWIMTBP game runs better on other hardware, no?

That's a very big claim.
TWIMTBP = possibility of using nVidia's shader libraries, see World In Conflict (took forever for ATI to unf**k), Borderlands (for all intents and purposes being UE3 shouldn't even run that slow on Radeons) and NFS Shift (more of PhysX and the underlying graphics engine pre 1.2 patch).


Oh and I haven't tried out 2033 yet but so far from videos I'm pretty disappointed. Seems to be another screenshot-game: looks lovely in those but the real assets are pretty horrendous.

[Roger_D25]

Guys, do you know what TWIMTBP is? It doesn't mean that NV told them how to hurt competitors' performance, but rather worked on enhancing the game for NV hardware. Think about it realistically. If NV were to get a developer to make a game run on NV hardware only, ATI guys wouldn't but the game. Why would a developer hurt their sales to such an extent unless NV were to pay for every POTENTIAL sale lost, costing NV a fortune? TWIMTBP doesn't affect ATI performance in the slightest, and unless ATI gets in there with the developer to tweak performance on their own hardware the developer is left to their own devices. I'm sure you can see the logic in this when a TWIMTBP game runs better on other hardware, no?

I'll probably get flamed for this but I couldn't agree with you more, thanks for posting this!

[Silver Bullet]

For anyone that's getting a black screen on start-up, you'll need to disable (in Nv or ATI control panel) the 2nd monitor (turning it off doesn't help).

[Amorphous]

Or they could be saying that a DX9 card at least as powerful as a GT 220 is in the minimum spec to run the game, but a DX10 compliant, mid-range GPU or better is recommended. It could be a lot clearer.

I can only laugh at those specifications for a console port. It means either its super badly coded or super badly ported.

And what the hell:

* DirectX 9, Shader Model 3 compliant graphics cards (GeForce 8800, GeForce GT220 and above)
* DirectX 10 compliant graphics card (GeForce GTX 260 and above)

Whoever wrote this had no idea which cards are capable of which Directx version, had they?

[flopper]

What's up with the 8GB recommendation though? My next build was gonna have 6GB and I figured that would be overkill.

your not a xtreme user then

[N19h7m4r3]

your not a xtreme user then

You're not allowed to say that Mr.6GB hehe

Can someone actually test to see how much RAM this game actually uses please?

[Olivon]

My 8800 GTS 512 (GTS 250 freqs and Q9550_3.8GHz) cannot handle this game @Max settings on 1680X1050, really big slowdowns.

[crash5s]

your not a xtreme user then

I don't see what point there is to that. If they make a game most people can't run well, it will have problems and people will have a legit gripe that PC gaming is an over expensive waste of cash.

It's uber high system requirements that are hurting PC gaming.

[ajaidev]

My 8800 GTS 512 (GTS 250 freqs and Q9550_3.8GHz) cannot handle this game @Max settings on 1680X1050, really big slowdowns.

My friends GTS 250 does not seem to work well either with that resolution. Tough it seems GTX 275 was more than enough cant wait to get the game for myself tough loved the feel of the game...

[Hell Hound]

I don't see what point there is to that. If they make a game most people can't run well, it will have problems and people will have a legit gripe that PC gaming is an over expensive waste of cash.

It's uber high system requirements that are hurting PC gaming.

The hardware to develop it is uber high end.Pc release of a game is like releasing the source code,so you will need hardware close to what I used to develop it.

[trinibwoy]

your not a xtreme user then

Well that's not even an option. The next step up is 12GB

[Nightcover]

I get massive stutter with anything above medium with 8800GT SLI at 1024*768

[crash5s]

The hardware to develop it is uber high end.Pc release of a game is like releasing the source code,so you will need hardware close to what I used to develop it.

I'm aware of that.

The thing is, it's not like it was back in the day where massive memory and CPU upgrades showed greater performance in day to day tasks as well as gaming. We've long since passed the point where average, or even below average, spec hardware is acceptable for what most people need to do.

Making a game with specs so high that you'd have to go well beyond a functional PC, really closes you off to a bunch of the market. And it's not going to force the market to upgrade. Because until MS Office, IE, facebook, and youtube require quadcores, gigs of ram, ect, most people don't have a need for that.