• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Metro: Last Light system requirements are out (first game that recommends Titan?)

MDSLKTR

Member
Dec 5, 2008
7,200
3,790
1,250
Montreal
so high system requirements for a console port.




Console port indeed.
 

Bi50N

Member
Jan 12, 2007
162
0
0
London
twitter.com
Actually, in the official specs we released it states for Optimum:

"3.4 GHz Multi-Core e.g. Intel Core i7"

Not sure why your source has changed this to this as a 'Dual core i7...' That's not what we released... (LIVE EDIT - I see Nvidia corrected this)

The game outperforms Metro 2033 at the same spec. If you meet the 'recommended' spec (ie a 660 / 580) you should expect 1920 x 1080 at a very healthy frame rate

Also, your face will likely bleed from the reflected awesome, so I also recommend bandages.

And Nvidia will not mention competitors on their site. Hence the absence of 'equivalent' AMD cards. A 7870 is our 'recommended' AMD card, as confirmed in the Deep Silver release. I'm sure you can figure out the rest!

And yes, we have a co-marketing agreement with NVIDIA. It's not secret. In fact, they announced yesterday that they are bundling Metro with any GTX 660 and above

And lastly - please don't now hit me with an exact FPS estimate for your particular rig. I have no idea!
 

AndyBNV

Nvidia
Sep 26, 2012
1,232
0
0
Where did the specs in the OP come from? The Recommended and Optimum specs talk about Quad Cores and up:

Recommended System Requirements

Windows: Vista, 7 or 8
CPU: 2.6 GHz Quad Core, e.g. Intel Core i5
RAM: 4GB
Direct X: 11
Graphics Card: NVIDIA GTX 580 / 660 Ti or higher

Optimum System Requirements

Windows: Vista, 7 or 8
CPU: 3.4 GHz Multi-Core, e.g. Intel Core i7
RAM: 8GB
Direct X: 11
Graphics Card: NVIDIA GTX 680 SLI / NVIDIA GTX 690 / NVIDIA Titan

You can verify this by looking at the Deep Silver press release version on http://www.gamespress.com/release.asp?c=}%050k4
 

Ogs

Member
Feb 9, 2009
4,808
0
1,025
UK
I never really saw a problem with 2033's performance, other than a couple of settings that cripple frame rate (The DX11 options, and the light ray stuff, which looked just as good on the lower setting and ran great still).

Titan recommendation is probably just a tits crazy full blown max whack thing not a YOU NEED THIS.
 
May 22, 2011
7,255
0
0
Last Light optimization is miles better than 2033. I saw the alpha at GamesCom in 2011, and they had it running at that time on a 590.

The TITAN Optimum spec is every single thing on max at something like 2560x1440/1600. Oh and the specs come from Deep Silver, not us, per the suggestion above :)

You updated the specs to remove the 7.5GB hard drive space bit (among other changes). Was it a mistake or what?

edit

Where did the specs in the OP come from? The Recommended and Optimum specs talk about Quad Cores and up:



You can verify this by looking at the Deep Silver press release version on http://www.gamespress.com/release.asp?c=}%050k4

Your own page: http://www.geforce.com/games-applications/pc-games/metro-last-light/system-requirements
 

Technosteve

Banned
Oct 7, 2007
20,930
10
995
2033 was a hot mess of a game system spec wise, the sequel will also be a hot mess. I don't even understand why, the graphics for 2033 were not crysis level of amazing to justify the power you needed to run it.
 

Ty4on

Member
Jun 22, 2011
11,588
0
690
Norway
And Nvidia will not mention competitors on their site. Hence the absence of 'equivalent' AMD cards. A 7870 is our 'recommended' AMD card, as confirmed in the Deep Silver release. I'm sure you can figure out the rest!

Dunno if you can answer this, but Metro 2033 really liked fast memory and because of that performed better on AMD than Nvidia (you need a Titan to get 7970 memspeeds). Is it similar for Last Light?

I never really saw a problem with 2033's performance, other than a couple of settings that cripple frame rate (The DX11 options, and the light ray stuff, which looked just as good on the lower setting and ran great still).

Titan recommendation is probably just a tits crazy full blown max whack thing not a YOU NEED THIS.

Seems to be standard for all games. Add a bunch of stuff that takes 20% performance for slightly more realistic X. Can anyone actually tell the difference between Crysis 3 on high and very high?
 

Mithos

Member
Apr 26, 2006
6,134
473
1,520
Sweden
No worries, I'd own a card that is Titan powerful eventually, anyone want to tell me when its at $199 ;P
 

BlazinAm

Junior Member
Mar 11, 2012
4,013
7
620
www.twitch.tv
Is the game even 64 bit? You arent going to be using 8gb on a 32 bit system it doesnt work that way.

BTW they claim high res textures AGAIN (like in metro 2033) but it will be the same assets as the console version. If the console versions are the same size as the PC version I dont see where the magical higher res textures are coming from.

They are not compressed maybe.
 

DieH@rd

Banned
Dec 9, 2006
35,045
4
0
it only took a year and a half and my 6870 is already a piece of shit

Me and you are in the same boat, but I would not call it piece of shit. It can still play a lot of games with good quality settings. Im gonna wait for Radeon 8xxx line and pray for good price/preformance ratios.
 

Dictator93

Member
Jun 29, 2011
23,811
4
660
2033 was a hot mess of a game system spec wise, the sequel will also be a hot mess. I don't even understand why, the graphics for 2033 were not crysis level of amazing to justify the power you needed to run it.

You realize that metro runs all of its effects at screen resoultion right?

Unlike other games with half or quarter rez buffers, metro brute forces them to screen res so that they look good no matter which resolution you run at.

The deal is that they do not compromise.

The engine is actually great at scaling from what you can see even in the first game. People giving a stink about the "optimal" recommendations need to get a grip.
That most likely is referring to 2560X1440 with high levels of AA (supersampled, MSAA, etc...)
Hence why the 3Dvision requirements for that spec are the same due to 3Dvision monitors typically being 1080p and not 1440p.
I am not surprised at all by these specs.

Five bucks says 1080p with a GTX 580, post process AA, and 1 setting down from the very highest at 40-60 FPS is a shoe in. Quote me on this if you want.
 

DieH@rd

Banned
Dec 9, 2006
35,045
4
0
Five bucks says 1080p with a GTX 580, post process AA, and 1 setting down from the very highest at 40-60 FPS is a shoe in. Quote me on this if you want.

Yeah, this will happen. Performance hit between high and v.high in original Metro was huuuuuuuuuuge [and it did not bring much better IQ].
 

Technosteve

Banned
Oct 7, 2007
20,930
10
995
You realize that metro runs all of its effects at screen resoultion right?

Unlike other games with half or quarter rez buffers, metro brute forces them to screen res so that they look good no matter which resolution you run at.

The deal is that they do not compromise.

The engine is actually great at scaling from what you can see even in the first game. People giving a stink about the "optimal" recommendations need to get a grip.
That most likely is referring to 2560X1440 with high levels of AA (supersampled, MSAA, etc...)
Hence why the 3Dvision requirements for that spec are the same due to 3Dvision monitors typically being 1080p and not 1440p.
I am not surprised at all by these specs.

Five bucks says 1080p with a GTX 580, post process AA, and 1 setting down from the very highest at 40-60 FPS is a shoe in. Quote me on this if you want.

that's great and all but how does that make the game look better when it's running poorly for majority of users?
 

Dark Octave

Banned
Jul 2, 2007
24,352
0
0
www.adversarygames.com
Optimum System Requirements
Windows: Vista, 7 or 8
CPU: 3.4 GHz Multi-Core, e.g. Intel Core i7
RAM: 8GB
Direct X: 11
Graphics Card: NVIDIA GTX 680 SLI / NVIDIA GTX 690 / NVIDIA Titan
I said gat damn. I'm sure this game will look amazing though.

Anybody know how much a Titan will be?
 

Superflat

Member
Feb 23, 2013
4,791
0
0
WHERE AM I
twitter.com
Isn't it generally said that you should have a decent amount more power than the recommended settings say? My PC just got way fuckin outclassed.

Also, I don't know jack about this, but 7.5 gigs seems incredibly modest. Bioshock Infinite on PC was like 15 gigs, and that was mostly due to high res textures wasn't it? What's the difference here, if you know? Is it because it's a shorter game, or smaller in scale?
 

Dictator93

Member
Jun 29, 2011
23,811
4
660
that's great and all but how does that make the game look better when it's running poorly for majority of users?

Basically, every effect (transparency based stuff, post processes, etc) will not look low res and cheaply added. One of metros key features to its look is the volumetric lighting it employs. Volumetric light at lower than screen resolution looks pretty obviously fake.. and more often than not... not very good looking at all.

BTW, it does not run poor for all users. Go run metro 2033 again at a setting that is not Very high with 4XMSAA. It runs like butter.
Very high is meant for enthusiasts and near future hardware.
Heck, run it at Very High without the Advanced Depth of Field (a compute shader based depth of field which is automatic based upon depth and prevents color bleeding) and you will get similar performance.

I run the first game on Very High, 1080p, with Advanced DOF with 570s in SLI. I get 40-60fps through the whole game basically excluding a few parts where there are lots of volumetric effects (some outdoor scenes). Then it drops to about 30.

Does not sound bad to me for a game that is literally running everything at full force at its "highest setting".
 

Surface of Me

I'm not an NPC. And neither are we.
Oct 24, 2011
13,480
50
725
The deep south.
People complain about graphics not being good.

Good graphics come out.

People complain their old PCs can't run it at max settings.
 

Deadbeat

Banned
Jun 7, 2010
8,533
0
0
Guns Capital
Isn't it generally said that you should have a decent amount more power than the recommended settings say? My PC just got way fuckin outclassed.

Also, I don't know jack about this, but 7.5 gigs seems incredibly modest. Bioshock Infinite on PC was like 15 gigs, and that was mostly due to high res textures wasn't it? What's the difference here, if you know? Is it because it's a shorter game, or smaller in scale?
Its the exact same assets as the console version most likely.
People complain about graphics not being good.

Good graphics come out.

People complain their old PCs can't run it at max settings.
Great looking games on PC like BF3 run flawlessly.
 

Dictator93

Member
Jun 29, 2011
23,811
4
660
People complain about graphics not being good.

Good graphics come out.

People complain their old PCs can't run it at max settings.

exactly... it is ridiculous. Then they act like the game is not optimized or something.. the 4A lead tech guy is a genius. Read his interview with DF he had a couple years ago.. the guy was critiquing the renderer employed in Killzone 2 as being inefficient for using non-realtime lighting. And guess what... next iteration of the Killzone engine employed realtime world lighting due to efficiencies gains.
 

antitrop

Member
Feb 19, 2011
46,347
4
550
35
Colorado Springs, CO
twitter.com
I thought the whole thing about the Titan was that it was single GPU.

It is a single GPU. He's thinking of the GTX 690. Which is a $1,000 dual-GPU card with two 680s (underlocked like 590? I don't know).

I have a GTX 590, which is two underclocked 580s on 1 board. Problem is VRAM constraints, though. I only have 1.5GB of VRAM available to me. I don't know if Nvidia fixed all that bullshit for their 690, but I hope so. 590 launched with an incredible amount of issues, I regret purchasing it, but I can still play games downsampled at 60fps, so it's not a total waste.

In hindsight I should have just bought two 580s and put them in SLI for a nominal extra cost, my rig is two years old now, but that was top of the line when I built it.
 

Soyongdori

Member
Mar 9, 2012
3,910
0
0
home
Looks like it's time to upgrade. My "gaming" laptop I bought 2 and a half years ago is considered an ancient.

I shall never buy gaming laptop from now on. Sticking with desktop for gaming.
 

AndyBNV

Nvidia
Sep 26, 2012
1,232
0
0
Can someone stick this in the OP please? These comments are getting silly.

Optimum is talking about 2560x, max DirectX 11 game settings with full-res fullscreen effects, DirectX 11 object and environment tessellation, 2048x2048 textures, and hardware PhysX effects.

The game is highly optimized, allowing 4A to run all that stuff simultaneously at such a high resolution on one TITAN, two 670s, two 680s, or one 690. If it weren't optimized that would be impossible.

Source: Me.
Qualifications: Have played the game from start to end.