Metro: Last Light Video Card Performance and IQ Review @ [H]

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
52,942
Metro: Last Light Video Card Performance and IQ Review - Today we look at 4A Games Metro: Last Light. Running the 4A Engine it supports modern DX11 effects including tessellation, and NVIDIA PhysX, providing realistic simulations of particles, water, cloth and fog. We'll evaluate this game using today's latest video cards including GTX TITAN and GTX 780, for a total of eight video cards.
 

Modred189

Can't Read the OP
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
15,571
But great write up. I never got around to more than an hour or so of the first game.Should probably get to that before this one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
689
I want to know how shooting a wall creates extra matter, what kind of voodoo is this!

Game looks amazing, look forward to playing it.
 

GuruX

Gawd
Joined
Jul 8, 2001
Messages
639
If I disable PhysX I wonder what settings I could enable on my Geforce 660 for playable performance. (I'm going to assume there is no way I could enable PhysX at 1080p).
 
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
689
One thing I would LIKE to see physics engines do is influence character movement

Such as a running character may slip on bullet casings(or heck imagine bioshock and dropping marbles to mess up big daddy), or you could unload a pile of them then run another way and have something knock them over. RPG games where you can cause the cave to collapse or falling debris to take out creatures etc.

Boy oh boy that'd be swell!
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
33,799
So it sounds like there is some real PhysX load in this game...


Interesting.


I wonder how much GTX460 (768MB) will do as a dedicated PhysX card here... I've entertained the idea of just removing it so many times now, because it gets so little use...
 

Rhialto

Gawd
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Messages
545
Wonder if you'll also investigate 3D? Unless no author like this. For over a year now I only play all my games in stereoscopic 3D and it's awesome. Sure not everyone love 3D as I do, so no need to troll about it. Some would also enjoy it but get mysterious headache... :p I wish you could enjoy it as much as I do.

Usually when playing in stereoscopic 3D you can lower AA to a strict minimum or even disable it as it's not very important, all the added depth take over AA visuals.

Haven't played this one yet but I played Metro 2033 in 3D and from what I remember I was able to play it at max setting without AA. I also usually lower AF to 2x or 4x as I find it hard to notice the visual impact of higher values.

I also play D3 in 3D since the 1st day, there are some very cool places. More recently, I started playing MWO after finding out how to enable 3D (before it's officially supported) and I'm having a blast.
 

Krenum

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
18,755
The game is truly amazing to look at. The best looking game to date IMO.


Catacombs + Nightvision O_O
 

Blkout

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
2,276
Boost clock speed needs to be fixed on page 2 of the review under video card configuration. Its listed as 680MHz. I know its a typo.
 

trick0502

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 17, 2006
Messages
5,498
did you try to run like a 670/660 or 7950/7870 at 25x16 with .5 ssaa enabled? i assume the fps would be acceptable, but i was wonder how the image quality would be? because if you try to run any of those cards at that resolution you would have to lower the setting, but with this option you could keep the settings higher.
 

Milena

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Messages
444
Great review, as usual :)

Graphics are not quite the same league like Crysis 3 but the leveldesign and atmosphere makes more than up for that. Besides Tomb Raider Metro LL is my GOTY so far even though I saw all kinds of bugs on my first run, stuck AI, display driver crashing randomly, enemies stuck, and the odd stuttering. Once its fixed I do my ranger hardcore run.
 

J Macker

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 25, 2001
Messages
10,172
I disagree with the matchups for the video cards. Comparisons should be made based on price.
Why are you comparing the Geforce GTX 670 vs. a 7950? The 7950 is $100 cheaper.

Typical price ranges for video cards (without rebates) are:
Radeon 7970: $380-$450
Geforce 670 $370-$480

Radeon 7950 w/Boost: $280-320
Geforce 660 Ti $280-$340

Radeon 7870 Ghz $220-$260

AMD & nVidia have done well with covering the different price brackets, but the competitor for the Radeon 7950 is the 660 Ti, and NOT the 670. The GTX 670 is about $100 more expensive or 33%. That gets an 18% performance increase or the ability to turn PhysX on.

Is PhysX worth $100 increase in price? To some users, sure.

Likewise the only competitor for the 7870 Ghz should be the vanilla 660, which retails for near the same price.
 

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
20,980
I disagree with the matchups for the video cards. Comparisons should be made based on price.
Why are you comparing the Geforce GTX 670 vs. a 7950? The 7950 is $100 cheaper.

Typical price ranges for video cards (without rebates) are:
Radeon 7970: $380-$450
Geforce 670 $370-$480

Radeon 7950 w/Boost: $280-320
Geforce 660 Ti $280-$340

Radeon 7870 Ghz $220-$260

AMD & nVidia have done well with covering the different price brackets, but the competitor for the Radeon 7950 is the 660 Ti, and NOT the 670. The GTX 670 is about $100 more expensive or 33%. That gets an 18% performance increase or the ability to turn PhysX on.

Is PhysX worth $100 increase in price? To some users, sure.

Likewise the only competitor for the 7870 Ghz should be the vanilla 660, which retails for near the same price.

Agreed, but then what would they have to test the 680, 780, and Titan against? So the way my mind reads the tests is that the AMD cards always win because they are significantly cheaper than the competition. That's why there is an AMD card in my PC right now and on into the future until Nvidia will price match the AMD solutions.

Is the performance disparity worth $100? Not to me. The tests just make me feel better about my purchases. :) Now I know this is [H]ardocp so $100 is nothing to a lot of people and that's cool with me too. But that difference weighs heavily in my decisions sometimes.
 

J Macker

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 25, 2001
Messages
10,172
Agreed, but then what would they have to test the 680, 780, and Titan against? So the way my mind reads the tests is that the AMD cards always win because they are significantly cheaper than the competition. That's why there is an AMD card in my PC right now and on into the future until Nvidia will price match the AMD solutions.

Is the performance disparity worth $100? Not to me. The tests just make me feel better about my purchases. :)

Easy. Simply state that AMD has nothing at the "high end" and the fastest Radeon you can buy is a 7970 (the 7990 is not available for purchase at retail).

That, or make comparisons without labelling results as "High end" and "Mid-range".
The GTX 780 competition from AMD is crossfire 7950's ($600). Then they can talk about microstutter and how it sucks and the GTX 780 is better. No, I'm not trolling.

I don't know anybody who thinks of "Mid-range" as a $300 graphics card except on [H]. In real life, "mid-range" is $150-$200. Many of my friends think I'm crazy for spending $300 on a video card.

The effects are pretty cool.

I agree. But is it worth 33% increase in price? That is the only "advantage" the GTX670 has. Is it an "advantage" when there's a commensurate 33% increase in price? I wouldn't call it an advantage.
 

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
20,980
Easy. Simply state that AMD has nothing at the high end and the fastest Radeon you can buy is a 7970 (the 7990 is not available for purchase at retail).

That, or make comparisons without labelling results as "High end" and "Mid-range".
The GTX 780 competition from AMD is crossfire 7950's ($600). Then they can talk about microstutter and how it sucks and the GTX 780 is better. No, I'm not trolling.

I don't know anybody who thinks of "Mid-range" as a $300 graphics card except on [H]. In real life, "mid-range" is $150-$100. Many of my friends think I'm crazy for spending $300 on a video card.

Agreed again about what consumers who are out leisurely shopping think when they see a video card for $300. I used to work retail and it was almost impossible to move a card that was over $150 unless they were charging it to a credit card which meant they couldn't really afford it in the first place. But the audience here at [H]ardocp is a little different than the the average consumer pushing a cart full of groceries. They tailor to the high end much more than the low end of things. Thus their ratings and groupings are logical for the audience that they attract.

The only issue is what was in your original post where you disagreed with the groupings due to the price difference. I sometimes wonder if AMD wants to be known as the cheap solution or as the value leader. Not calling for them to raise prices to match Nvidia, but I wonder if the price disparity connotes that AMD is a poor knockoff brand and Nvidia is better made. I know better of course, but still makes you wonder what others are thinking when they see a card having to compete against another card $100 more.

I'm not blaming anyone at [H]ardocp for anything related to taking sides, or being biased. That never crossed my mind. I love the testing and it always brings me back.
 

g1xx3r

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
5,498
Can't wait till this game is actually playable on cards at 4X SSAA, it really really improves texture quality.

I'd consider this playable albeit I dont know how SSAA the benchmark uses.In game I use 2xSSAA.

Benchies on Sig Rig

Options: Resolution: 1920 x 1080; DirectX: DirectX 11; Quality: Very High; Texture filtering: AF 16X; Advanced PhysX: Enabled; Tesselation: Very High; Motion Blur: Normal; SSAA: ON;


Average Framerate: 48.00
Max. Framerate: 124.72
Min. Framerate: 6.69

In game I am mostly over 60fps..It is true that SSAA is power hungry though.Same bench with SSAA off gets me avg 75fps so its about a 30% hit.
 
Last edited:

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
33,799
Easy. Simply state that AMD has nothing at the "high end" and the fastest Radeon you can buy is a 7970 (the 7990 is not available for purchase at retail).

That, or make comparisons without labelling results as "High end" and "Mid-range".
The GTX 780 competition from AMD is crossfire 7950's ($600). Then they can talk about microstutter and how it sucks and the GTX 780 is better. No, I'm not trolling.

I don't know anybody who thinks of "Mid-range" as a $300 graphics card except on [H]. In real life, "mid-range" is $150-$200. Many of my friends think I'm crazy for spending $300 on a video card.



I agree. But is it worth 33% increase in price? That is the only "advantage" the GTX670 has. Is it an "advantage" when there's a commensurate 33% increase in price? I wouldn't call it an advantage.


Why argue semantics? None of us are here to pass judgment on others hardware choices or what is mid or high to them.

Use it as a guide. If you think the extra effects are worth the money, spend it, if you don't don't.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
33,799
Agreed again about what consumers who are out leisurely shopping think when they see a video card for $300. I used to work retail and it was almost impossible to move a card that was over $150 unless they were charging it to a credit card which meant they couldn't really afford it in the first place. But the audience here at [H]ardocp is a little different than the the average consumer pushing a cart full of groceries. They tailor to the high end much more than the low end of things. Thus their ratings and groupings are logical for the audience that they attract.

I've never understood this.

1.) Most people need a PC regardless, for work/school/whatever.

2.) A desktop is cheaper (and better ergonomically) than a laptop.

If a gaming PC replaces the need for a console, and you are willing to spend $600 for a brand new console (like the case was when the PS3 was new) what is the problem with spending $300 on a video card?
 

twzTechman

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
223
First of all great review! I am torn on this game over what resolution to run. I have a 30in 2560x1600 monitor and a GTX680 video card. Do I drop the resolution to 1980x1080 and turn up the physX and tessellation or run at 2560x1600 with no physX and normal tessellation. I generally run the higher resolution, but I just did Tomb Raider at the lower resolution (with everything turned up) and it looked great.
 

trick0502

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 17, 2006
Messages
5,498
First of all great review! I am torn on this game over what resolution to run. I have a 30in 2560x1600 monitor and a GTX680 video card. Do I drop the resolution to 1980x1080 and turn up the physX and tessellation or run at 2560x1600 with no physX and normal tessellation. I generally run the higher resolution, but I just did Tomb Raider at the lower resolution (with everything turned up) and it looked great.

try to run it at 25x16 very high w/physx enabled and .5 ssaa. report how it looks and the fps you get.
 

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
20,980
Zarathustra[H];1039919011 said:
I've never understood this.

1.) Most people need a PC regardless, for work/school/whatever.

2.) A desktop is cheaper (and better ergonomically) than a laptop.

If a gaming PC replaces the need for a console, and you are willing to spend $600 for a brand new console (like the case was when the PS3 was new) what is the problem with spending $300 on a video card?

Consumers that are on their first PC purchase or used to using laptops will balk at a $300 accessory, but spending $600 on a PS3 is fine because it is the equivalent of purchasing a whole entertainment device to them. They will spend $599, $999, $1,199 for a PC. But when you show them the accessories, they think you're trying to sell them Monster Cables. I was good at selling accessories because I could explain it in a manner that they understood. I would receive awards and was even featured in our local newspaper for my attitude and caring about the customers. Funny but true. :)

Hope that explains it. Sorry if I took the thread off topic as I'm more interested in Metro Last Light now that I see ATI cards doing just fine in the game. I mean AMD. Darn it!
 

MrLonghair

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
1,764
Masterpiece of a game for what they had to work with, and I wish the developers the very best and a continued long life and that they don't burn out..

..but Metro 2033 to this, goddamn what janky goddamn game engines. Flat out the auto adjusted gates on a fresh 7870, chug chug chug slideshow - deactivate junk - smoother than a Taco Bell shit.

Then a friend also gets in on the THQ free 2033 deal at the time and fires it up on his old AMD box with a 660Ti, smooth right from the start, same settings.

Hope AMD being in PS4 & Xbox One marks the end of PC game engines fucking people over. The game reviewers are sick and tired of it - yes, all five of the ones who still haven't given up and gone with Nvidia.

DEATH TO THE WAY ITS MEANT TO BE PLAYED AND SIMILAR CAMPAIGNS.
 

BoogerBomb

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 10, 2003
Messages
6,470
Wonder if AMD will do all the bitching and crying that they didn't get to optimize the game code like Nvidia did. I too hate that developers only allow one vendor to help with game code. I would want my game to run equally well on both sides.
 

Brent_Justice

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2000
Messages
17,755
AMD and NVIDIA performance is very close this round, in this game, unlike it was in Tomb Raider. I was surprised how close in performance the 680 and 7970 GE are in this game. I don't feel held back on AMD hardware at all in this game. Save for of course PhysX support.
 

cannondale06

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
16,180
why is the 660ti struggling so much here? 670 has higher settings and still is getting 20% better performance. other reviews show just over 10% difference at the same settings.
 

socK

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 25, 2004
Messages
4,215
Tessellation seems like it can be a decently heavy effect on my 7870 in certain areas.

I think the performance is really quite good for how it looks. 1680x1050, very high, high tessellation and performance is very good most of the time. Has AMD even gotten their driver hax out for this game yet? I expect there's some room for improvement yet once they do.

Also I enjoy the 1 fucking second load times on my SSD. Next level is loaded by like the time the first word is spoken.
 

spaceman

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
14,873
Game runs awesome on my 7950. Very high with normal tess and blur, physix off I get 100-300fps. Probably around 140 fps average.

13.6 beta drivers
 

Drepd

n00b
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
61
based on current pricing between the 780 and the 680 which newegg shows to be around $200.....all you get for that extra $200 is you can turn your tessellation up in this game?
 

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
33,799
This review almost made me buy the game...

...until I saw it was $49.99 on Steam.


Unless it's a game I've been following every step of development over on the forums, and have been excited about since it was announced, I will never spend that much money on a game.


Maybe when it hits the magic $19.99 mark....
 

spaceman

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
14,873
Zarathustra[H];1039922087 said:
This review almost made me buy the game...

...until I saw it was $49.99 on Steam.


Unless it's a game I've been following every step of development over on the forums, and have been excited about since it was announced, I will never spend that much money on a game.


Maybe when it hits the magic $19.99 mark....

Bought mine on the forums for $20. Works on steam no sweat.

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1760497&highlight=
 

cannondale06

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
16,180
Zarathustra[H];1039922087 said:
This review almost made me buy the game...

...until I saw it was $49.99 on Steam.


Unless it's a game I've been following every step of development over on the forums, and have been excited about since it was announced, I will never spend that much money on a game.


Maybe when it hits the magic $19.99 mark....
what price were you expecting for a game that just came out? and as already mentioned you can get it for your magic mark right now in the FS section.
 

cannondale06

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
16,180
Zarathustra[H];1039922707 said:
Guess I haven't bought a new game in some time! :p
you can clean up newly released games in the FS section right now. I have jumped on nearly all the newest games and its come out to be about 8 bucks a piece. 10 bucks is usually my limit unless I am really desperate.
 
Top