Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Can Metro 2033 be Maxed Out with a Radeon HD 6870 at 1680x900.

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 19, 2011 9:39:39 AM

System specs-

CPU- AMD Phenom X4 955@3.2
4GB DDR3 RAM
Mobo-ASUS M4A78LT-M
PSU- Cooler Master eXtreme 700.

I am planning to get the GPU for running Metro 2033 Maxed Out at 1680*900.
Can I do so?
Thanks.
a c 169 U Graphics card
August 19, 2011 10:22:10 AM

Yes you can max it out;however,I recommend running the game on DX9 since there is a huge FPS difference between DX9 and 11 but not much difference in terms of quality
a b U Graphics card
August 19, 2011 10:49:28 AM

You mean 1600x900?

I tried it on my system (i5 750@3.6, 4GB ram, HD5830)
Above resolution, very high settings(max), DX11, AAA, x4AF. I get about low 20s to upper 30s FPS usually hovering around 29/30.

Your card is slightly faster than mine so you might get higher frames/sec. I can't really tell the difference between high and very high anyways.
Related resources
August 19, 2011 11:54:19 AM

Thanks for replies... How about sacrificing some AA at DX11?
a b U Graphics card
August 19, 2011 1:21:52 PM

There is only two options: AAA or MSAAx4. Original settings in DX10 is around 40fps.
August 19, 2011 1:42:27 PM

I mean if msaax4 is off at dx11 then what fps can be achieved.
a b U Graphics card
August 20, 2011 4:32:38 AM

rickytrux11 said:
I mean if msaax4 is off at dx11 then what fps can be achieved.


There is no off option you have to pick either AAA or msaax4.
a c 217 U Graphics card
August 20, 2011 6:20:41 AM

That was high, not very high.

I'd also like to mention that DX9 vs DX11 has more differences than just tessellation. The shadowing is not as good either among other things.
August 22, 2011 7:21:19 AM

TEll me if I can Max out Metro 2033 at 1600x900. As i have used the word 'MAX OUT' it means DX11, but NOT DX9 or DX10.
a c 217 U Graphics card
August 22, 2011 1:44:20 PM

Quote:
yes u can.........as I have repeat over and over again, if my 6950 can do it at 1920*1080, ur 6870 can do it


ur 6870 will only be 10% slower, but will be rendering only 70% amount of pixels my card has to, if my math was right


Do you seriously get good FPS at Very high in DX11 with a 6870? I couldn't with a 6950. I couldn't even do high comfortably.

What FPS do you consider playable?
August 22, 2011 4:08:19 PM

Bystander@ Agreed.
greghome@ You got a HD 6950 for 1080p and you are NOT able to achieve playable FPS. Then how a HD 6870 will do at 1600x900? If you could get playable FPS at 1080p then it would have been a point.
a b U Graphics card
August 22, 2011 4:18:35 PM

Greghome has got a HD 6950 in which he plays the game ( Metro 2033 ) at 1920 X 1080 and he said he get's around 20-30 which is playable.
But since you've got a HD 6870, and since you're deciding to play the game at 1600 X 900, which has lower pixels than at 1080p, the game will run better and at higher frames. BUT if you're playing the game at the same resolution as greg does ( 1920 X 1080 ), then you'd get lower FPS than he does. ( same settings as well ).
Make sense ?
August 22, 2011 4:26:05 PM

But...according to techspot benchmarks the HD 6870 achieves 29 FPS with Tesselation OFF and Antialising OFF...., hence will must kill more than 5 FPS. Hence 29-5=24.
So, it 'CANNOT' be considered playable.
a b U Graphics card
August 22, 2011 4:32:54 PM

Firstly, you can't just compare the frames there. You just take an average.
HD 6870 scores 29 FPS average
The game is still playable even at 20-25 FPS, even though it isn't much.
Also, in Metro, you CAN'T turn off Anti aliasing. It should either be at Triple AA or AAA or at 4XMSAA.
August 22, 2011 4:36:49 PM

According to my knowledge, above 25 is considered playable FPS.
a b U Graphics card
August 22, 2011 4:46:56 PM

In some games, even 20 is playable. :) 
a b U Graphics card
August 22, 2011 4:52:14 PM

Gman450 said:
In some games, even 20 is playable. :) 

do you consider crysis 2 playable at 25-30 fps?Just asking
a c 217 U Graphics card
August 22, 2011 4:52:38 PM

Well, what you consider playable is debatable, but for me, playable is average 40+ FPS, with dips no lower than 30. FPS in the 20's and 30's make me motion sick. It also makes the UI input very sluggish and especially hard to play in a reaction based game.
a b U Graphics card
August 22, 2011 4:59:24 PM

celpas said:
do you consider crysis 2 playable at 25-30 fps?Just asking

Trust me, I've got a 8400, and I've played games like Metro at 8-12 FPS :lol:  and still beat the game.
For me, 25-30 is enough. Higher than that would be really nice as well a newer experience for me.

And yes, Crysis 2 is playable for me at 25-30 FPS.
August 22, 2011 5:05:03 PM

Even 25 FPS is even risky for gaming. And 20! is slideshow for me.
a b U Graphics card
August 22, 2011 5:10:20 PM

5-10 is more like a slideshow.
20, just barley the minimum.
August 22, 2011 5:16:45 PM

For 'me' man.....but you yourself consider 25 to 30FPS playable so how can you consider metro playable wid 20 FPS??
a b U Graphics card
August 22, 2011 5:40:35 PM

you wont be able to " max" it out. everything on but with DoF off you should be able to play at decent framerates.
a c 217 U Graphics card
August 22, 2011 5:58:14 PM

I have to ask some of you, who play at really low FPS. Is the increased visual quality really worth the loss of FPS?

In Metro 2033 especially. The main difference between high and very high is that very high calculates a lot more in real time. However, the precalculated routines work and look very good on high. There isn't a big difference in quality.

With a 6950 unlocked and overclocked, I played at Medium with MSAAx4 on. This was what I considered the best compromise in quality and smoothness.
a b U Graphics card
August 22, 2011 8:30:18 PM

bystander said:
I have to ask some of you, who play at really low FPS. Is the increased visual quality really worth the loss of FPS?

In Metro 2033 especially. The main difference between high and very high is that very high calculates a lot more in real time. However, the precalculated routines work and look very good on high. There isn't a big difference in quality.

With a 6950 unlocked and overclocked, I played at Medium with MSAAx4 on. This was what I considered the best compromise in quality and smoothness.

The main difference I can see is very high has some sweet motion blur and the lighting is way better even from high to very high.
a c 217 U Graphics card
August 22, 2011 9:21:42 PM

FlintIronStagg said:
The main difference I can see is very high has some sweet motion blur and the lighting is way better even from high to very high.


Is the difference worth playing the game with FPS in the 20's?
a b U Graphics card
August 22, 2011 11:37:09 PM

I dont get fps in the 20's, but if i did i would be lowering settings.
a b U Graphics card
August 23, 2011 7:15:08 AM

Quote:
if it has a nice story, if the gameplay is great, It's worth trying no matter how bad it performs on your system.
trust me, the game is rather playable at 25fps, considering that's the fps of most films,
usually I only get 20fps when viewing in game vistas, like gas formations in the game,

in combat, the frames usually stay around 25-30.
when just strolling around, i can get a good 40.




One more thing u have to note about Metro is, the main problem is not the average fps a card gets, but the microstutterings. hits u quite a lot in some cases,
it's either a build in feature or just mine not being updated.

nah, I get it occasionally on my system as well. I generally stay around 40-50 fps with occasional dips but the stuttering is still there a bit. Even if you play the game on medium it's still a blast and well worth the buy .
a c 217 U Graphics card
August 23, 2011 7:16:04 AM

Quote:
if it has a nice story, if the gameplay is great, It's worth trying no matter how bad it performs on your system.
trust me, the game is rather playable at 25fps, considering that's the fps of most films,
usually I only get 20fps when viewing in game vistas, like gas formations in the game,

in combat, the frames usually stay around 25-30.
when just strolling around, i can get a good 40.




One more thing u have to note about Metro is, the main problem is not the average fps a card gets, but the microstutterings. hits u quite a lot in some cases,
it's either a build in feature or just mine not being updated.


Do yourself a favor and try the game at Medium settings with 4xMSAA or High with AAA. You'll enjoy the experience a lot more. With two 6950's I was completely maxed with DoF on, without PhysX. FPS were always over 40 except for one outdoor moment before going into the library area, but before I had the two cards, I did play it with a single 6950 at medium.
a b U Graphics card
August 23, 2011 7:23:36 AM

bystander said:
Do yourself a favor and try the game at Medium settings with 4xMSAA or High with AAA. You'll enjoy the experience a lot more. With two 6950's I was completely maxed with DoF on, without PhysX. FPS were always over 40 except for one outdoor moment before going into the library area, but before I had the two cards, I did play it with a single 6950 at medium.

I prefer keeping dof off and running higher aliasing . I don't see much of a difference on very high with and without dof to justify the hit in fps that I get. I'd rather the blur effects and volumetric lighting than dof.
a b U Graphics card
August 23, 2011 11:09:43 AM

rickytrux11 said:
For 'me' man.....but you yourself consider 25 to 30FPS playable so how can you consider metro playable wid 20 FPS??

Because I have played Metro whereas you haven't.
a b U Graphics card
August 23, 2011 11:29:11 AM

rickytrux11 said:
For 'me' man.....but you yourself consider 25 to 30FPS playable so how can you consider metro playable wid 20 FPS??

FYI,metro is a playable game at 25-30 fps.Don't confuse games like crysis,metro with COD.These games were targeted specifically at the PC Platform and because of such optimisations these games feel good even in the twenties.I consider metro to be a little unoptimised though.I played crysis 2 at max settings dx 9 with my gtx 275 and the game actually looked better than metro 2033 even in interiors.Recently they even added real time reflections and SSDO and the game looks BETTER than metro whilst maintaining a higher frame rate.
a c 217 U Graphics card
August 23, 2011 1:49:55 PM

FlintIronStagg said:
I prefer keeping dof off and running higher aliasing . I don't see much of a difference on very high with and without dof to justify the hit in fps that I get. I'd rather the blur effects and volumetric lighting than dof.


With two 6950's unlocked and overclocked with an i7 at 4.0Ghz, I didn't need to compromise. Most the time I was over 50 FPS and always over 40 except for about 5 mins of the game, but nothing I did seemed to fix that particular spot and there was no action during that time (before you enter the library seemed poor).
a b U Graphics card
August 23, 2011 3:24:40 PM

bystander said:
With two 6950's unlocked and overclocked with an i7 at 4.0Ghz, I didn't need to compromise. Most the time I was over 50 FPS and always over 40 except for about 5 mins of the game, but nothing I did seemed to fix that particular spot and there was no action during that time (before you enter the library seemed poor).

Are you talking about the time when we exit the metro after Miller gives us directions to the library?I got 12 fps there on low settings. :lol: 
a b U Graphics card
August 23, 2011 3:27:08 PM

celpas said:
FYI,metro is a playable game at 25-30 fps.Don't confuse games like crysis,metro with COD.These games were targeted specifically at the PC Platform and because of such optimisations these games feel good even in the twenties.I consider metro to be a little unoptimised though.I played crysis 2 at max settings dx 9 with my gtx 275 and the game actually looked better than metro 2033 even in interiors.Recently they even added real time reflections and SSDO and the game looks BETTER than metro whilst maintaining a higher frame rate.

Im sorry, but i dont think any game will upstage metro's interiors until last light comes out. And Crysis 2 WAS targeted to consoles. Hence the last minute " oh *** DX11 patch". Crysis 2 was a console port with a patch nothing more
a c 217 U Graphics card
August 23, 2011 4:26:10 PM

celpas said:
Are you talking about the time when we exit the metro after Miller gives us directions to the library?I got 12 fps there on low settings. :lol: 


I think so. It's been a couple months, but that sounds about right.
a b U Graphics card
August 23, 2011 4:32:54 PM

And at the place where you meet with those apes ?
a c 217 U Graphics card
August 23, 2011 4:44:52 PM

Those apes were in the library area I thought. I didn't have problems with that spot, but the area leading into it, which I was mentioning above.
a b U Graphics card
August 23, 2011 4:46:57 PM

bystander said:
Those apes were in the library area I thought. I didn't have problems with that spot, but the area leading into it, which I was mentioning above.

Yeah some of the spots in that chapter with the volumnetric lighting and smoke effects really does a number on any system.
a b U Graphics card
August 23, 2011 4:48:15 PM

Just when Artyom enters, or when the level loads and he sees an ape( libranian ) eating/feeding on a dead guy or thing.
That spot right ?
a c 217 U Graphics card
August 23, 2011 4:51:33 PM

Gman450 said:
Just when Artyom enters, or when the level loads and he sees an ape( libranian ) eating/feeding on a dead guy or thing.
That spot right ?


I noticed problems in the outdoor spot and the first couple rooms right before that. Everything else was smooth.
a b U Graphics card
August 23, 2011 4:55:03 PM

Nah, its when you are in the depository with the other doods is the one spot i got really laggy just before artyom shoots the chandelier where the window is with all the lighting and smoke
a b U Graphics card
August 23, 2011 4:56:24 PM

Smoke is something that really kills the FPS in Metro.
a b U Graphics card
August 23, 2011 4:58:03 PM

I can put up with one spot of lag though if the rest of the game is smooth- and for me it was
a b U Graphics card
August 23, 2011 5:00:50 PM

I played the whole game with lag !
The worst was at the part at D6, where Miller and Artyom shot those amoebas ( green colored ball like structures that emerged from a pit or something ). That was the worst part of the whole game IMO.
a c 217 U Graphics card
August 23, 2011 5:02:07 PM

I agree. I also haven't played it in a couple months, so my exact spots may be slightly off and since we are all recalling an area within a few minutes of each other, I'm assuming we all had the same issues in the same area and just don't recall the exact spot.
a b U Graphics card
August 23, 2011 5:06:28 PM

Gman450 said:
I played the whole game with lag !
The worst was at the part at D6, where Miller and Artyom shot those amoebas ( green colored ball like structures that emerged from a pit or something ). That was the worst part of the whole game IMO.

I didnt recall that till now- yes worst spot. I had to turn it down to high from very high for that part. I totally forgot. Thats PC gaming for you though, theres always one spot in the game that is inexplicably laggy beyond all belief for no reason
a b U Graphics card
August 23, 2011 5:13:15 PM

The spots where metro 2033 lags are
1)The prologue when you go out with Miller at the beginning of the game
2)After leaving the metro when Miller gives you directions
3)At the end of the game when you are below the lighthouse.Apart from that the game was very smooth,I think 35+ fps nearly everywhere and with physx enabled

BTW In crysis 2 in dx 9 mode do you see any difference between ultra and extreme.I can't see any difference except for ultra being a touch brighter
Still I think crysis 2 interiors are waay better looking than metro.It may be because of a different environment though.Metro was a very colorless game.Everything was just too grey
a b U Graphics card
August 23, 2011 5:15:23 PM

celpas said:
The spots where metro lags are
1)The prologue when you go out with Miller at the beginning of the game
2)After leaving the metro when Miller gives you directions
3)At the end of the game when you are below the lighthouse.Apart from that the game was very smooth,I think 35+ fps nearly everywhere and with physx enabled

BTW In crysis 2 in dx 9 mode do you see any difference between ultra and extreme.I can't see any difference except for ultra being a touch brighter

There are certain differences, such as more shrubs. and.... uh... thats about it. The only significant differences you will see is when you enter DX11 mode. DX11 is basically what a console game would look like with tesselation sadly
!