• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Most graphically demanding games

I'm still a bit dubious, but given how demanding Metro 2033 is already, I don't think it's really relevant for a couple of years until hardware catches up with it. To run it smoothly at my resolution maxed out (minus the PhysX of course) even with just the basic adaptive anti-aliasing would require the equivalent of eight HD6970s. Imagine adding MSAA and PhysX to that. I'm not even using eyefinity either.
 
DJ_007 said:
just got metro 2033 last nite.. my machine seems to kinda plow right through it all maxed settings, amd hardware at that, and it looks absolutely beautifull.
Click to expand...

Turn on the post processing depth of field and msaa to 4x.

your "plow right through it" just turned to 15 fps.
 
I was surprised actually, Crysis 2 really isn't that bad compared to some other titles, including the original!
 
metro is probably the most intense game atm. plus cf doesnt really work properly microstutters like crazy. 2600k at 4.8 + 6990 at 6970clocks only gets 40fps on max 19*10.
 
Do you guys think MW3 will be close to BF3 in terms of being demanding of video card performance?
 
i think its a legitimate question.. from the gameplay footage iv seen is looks absolutely beautiful, but its still a console port..
 
w00t69 said:
Turn on the post processing depth of field and msaa to 4x.

your "plow right through it" just turned to 15 fps.
Click to expand...

i did check and i didnt have MSAA4x on, so i turned it on, fraps is reporting between 35 and 55 fps.. no 15...
 
DJ_007 said:
i did check and i didnt have MSAA4x on, so i turned it on, fraps is reporting between 35 and 55 fps.. no 15...
Click to expand...

That seems wrong based on EVERY other benchmark out there. Something is off.
 
Metro 2033 ran really well for me at 1600p on high settings with DOF turned off and AAA. I could have gotten away with Ultra High but I prefer smoother framerates and didn't see a whole lot of visual difference.

Just finished it a few nights ago and I have to say I loved it. Really looking forward to Metro Last Light!
 
figured i would post my benchmarks from the metro benchmark utility..

metrobenchy1.jpg

metrobenchy2.jpg

metrobenchy3.jpg
 
DJ_007 said:
just got metro 2033 last nite.. my machine seems to kinda plow right through it all maxed settings, amd hardware at that, and it looks absolutely beautifull.
Click to expand...

Metro was released when the 5850/70 were out. It raped those cards.
We have to judge game performance based on the hardware available when the game was released.

For me, they are(In no particular order):

Crysis Series
Metro 2033
BF3 Beta
 
DJ_007 said:
figured i would post my benchmarks from the metro benchmark utility..
Click to expand...

Okay so, couple of things:

1) I thought for some reason you were running at 1920x1080. Those results make more sense at 1600x900. And I re-read your posts and you did indeed say that, so my bad. However, on to point 2...

2) Your average framerate seems to be 25-30 FPS, not the 35-55 FPS you had previously claimed.

I will also say that I ran the Metro benchmark on my GTX 280 SLI setup and got similar average framerates (25-30 FPS), but the game definitely felt really slow...probably because there are points in the action where you hit minimum FPS, which is often very low (0-10 FPS) but near the beginning and end you can hit like 100 FPS, so it kind of throws off the average in terms of overall feel.
 
Last edited:
Comparative hardware demands (average frame rate / minimum frame rate) - higher figure = more demanding

Call of Duty 4: 55/85 (80/120 with AA)
Call of Duty Black Ops: 150/170
Battlefield 3 Beta: 290/400
Crysis 2: 290/375 (345/485 in DX11 mode)
Crysis 1: 260/490 (355/670 with AA)
Metro 2033: 310/570 (DX10 VH AAA, 470/830 for DX11)
 
You mean DX9 :p - Even in DX9 Crysis 2's pretty much as bad as the Battlefield 3 Beta, not that you need such a high frame rate for a single player game though.
 
Bah. metro 2033 is not that terrible.

Here it is at 2560X1600 4AA. Average 66 fps. With only 3X6970 Tri-Fire. I tamed the monster, a TWIMTBP title, with a lowly AMD set-up. Would like to see a 580 Tri-SLi set-up beat that score just for fun... :)

4aal.jpg
 
MavericK96 said:
Okay so, couple of things:

1) I thought for some reason you were running at 1920x1080. Those results make more sense at 1600x900. And I re-read your posts and you did indeed say that, so my bad. However, on to point 2...

2) Your average framerate seems to be 25-30 FPS, not the 35-55 FPS you had previously claimed.

I will also say that I ran the Metro benchmark on my GTX 280 SLI setup and got similar average framerates (25-30 FPS), but the game definitely felt really slow...probably because there are points in the action where you hit minimum FPS, which is often very low (0-10 FPS) but near the beginning and end you can hit like 100 FPS, so it kind of throws off the average in terms of overall feel.
Click to expand...

As anyone who has used the benchmark utility can see about half of the scenario portrayed in the benchmark is completely implausible in real game-play, there is no way you could be sprinting through that many grenades and machine gun fire without dying in that game, so in real gameplay yes the framerates will be more like the first and last bit of the benchmark as 80% of the game is spent in narrow dark corridors..
 
Warcraft II, Starcraft, Diablo, AoE

Sorry, couldn't resist... :) Made we laugh when someone mentioned a game that runs on 2007 console hardware... lol.
 
DJ_007 said:
As anyone who has used the benchmark utility can see about half of the scenario portrayed in the benchmark is completely implausible in real game-play, there is no way you could be sprinting through that many grenades and machine gun fire without dying in that game, so in real gameplay yes the framerates will be more like the first and last bit of the benchmark as 80% of the game is spent in narrow dark corridors..
Click to expand...

QFT
+1,000
 
many games have mods and texture packs that breath new life into them and make them much more graphically demanding. E.G. Stalker Complete which is a mod for stalker shadows of chenobyl that I'm currently playing. When you get some real good hardware it's nice to play your games again with these mods as the games feel fresh and you feel awesome running them because the experience is much better. I'm loving Stalker Complete right now.
 
Speaking of Metro...

What settings are the ones that cause the most framerate loss/least visual degredation?

I did a benchmark with DoF off, Tess On, Adv. PhysX On, MSAA 4x, and the average was supposedly around 30 FPS, but the minimum got down to around 10 and it seemed sluggish overall.

What should I turn off first?
 
DJ_007 said:
As anyone who has used the benchmark utility can see about half of the scenario portrayed in the benchmark is completely implausible in real game-play, there is no way you could be sprinting through that many grenades and machine gun fire without dying in that game, so in real gameplay yes the framerates will be more like the first and last bit of the benchmark as 80% of the game is spent in narrow dark corridors..
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is kinda true. I'm wondering what the weird slowdown in the middle of the benchmark is, since sometimes it seems like there's not even that much going on but you get epic lag.
 
MavericK96 said:
Speaking of Metro...

What settings are the ones that cause the most framerate loss/least visual degredation?

I did a benchmark with DoF off, Tess On, Adv. PhysX On, MSAA 4x, and the average was supposedly around 30 FPS, but the minimum got down to around 10 and it seemed sluggish overall.

What should I turn off first?
Click to expand...

I'd probably say from most harmful to least harmful:

Depth of field
Physx
MSAA
Tesselation

But the AA and PhysX might be the other way round.
 
yeah id put the physx right up top. it made the most difference in my benchmarks.
 
I watched some videos and TBH it doesn't look like Adv. PhysX even makes that much of a visual effect. A bit more particles, whoop dee doo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top