Metro 2033 + Nvidia lulz

[Caydr]

Metro 2033 is coming out soon. Upon viewing the trailer, I immediately suspected a connection with STALKER - something about it just seems very familiar. Sure enough, leading developers involved in the project worked on STALKER!

So survival-horror fans have at least two great titles to look forward to in the near future. (together with Call of Pripyat)

Now onto the lulz. Check the game's system requirements, which you can find listed on various sites, or just look at the Steam page here.

Ok, minimum requirement isn't too unusual. Usually you'll get a "Geforce xxx / Radeon xxxx or better", but just listing the Nvidia card isn't crazy or anything. Move on to the "Optimum" system: 8 gigabytes of memory, and... A Geforce GTX 470/480.

These cards haven't even been manufactured yet and there is no way of knowing for sure exactly how they will perform in this (or any) game. They're a totally new architecture, so it's not even a matter of saying "well it's about xx% faster than a GTX 280", because things like anti-aliasing or anisotropic filtering might render completely differently. The 5xxx series for example completely messed up bloom on some games until it was patched.

What I'm waiting for is this: the game will be released and the developers will say something like "oh, these DirectX 11 features aren't available on ATI cards since they weren't available during development", like with Arkham Asylum's anti-aliasing being broken only on ATI cards. And yet up to this point the only possible DX11 hardware they COULD HAVE USED would have come from ATI.

This kind of over-aggressive PR is becoming standard fare for NV now. Was it Assassin's Creed that ran faster on ATI hardware because of DX 10.1 support, and then NV forced them to remove the 10.1 support in a patch so they'd have the upper hand again?

Pisses me off. Alright, most of that was speculation, but you shouldn't list a nonexistent piece of hardware as something that will provide optimum performance, that's just dickish. In order for the game to actually BE optimized for the 470/480, they would have to be sent one hot off the first run in the next few days, and then spend the rest of their development time finding ways to make sure the 480 runs the game faster than anything else - probably by artificially deflating performance on ATI cards. Queer as all hell...

[SinbadEV]

nVidia has always been a LOT better at marketing/convincing developers to develop for their cards...

My guess is that as some deal for listing nVidia cards (and the new ones for "Optimum Performance"), in exchange 4A Games will get first run (or even test build) cards along with pre-release drivers and specs to help them work with them...

[Caydr]

I suppose that would help explain it - though I imagine 4A games, like everyone else, expected 4xx cards to be launched about 6 months ago and not... so troubled in general.

[Master-Athmos]

It's a TWIMTBP title so it's no wonder you might see slight preferations of NVIDIA products just as probably not as good optimized shaders & stuff for non NVIDIA products. Listing the new GeForce cards of course is a bit sassy but as SinbadEV said developers in general can get their hands on non-final stuff - you actually might call that an internal beta test...

Not mentioning ATI cards in the recommended specs probably is that way due to them using PhysX and as TWIMTBP title it probably also will feature some minor GPU calculated stuff "justifying" that only NVIDIA cards are worthy of being listed as recommended...

[Caydr]

Valid points, however the fact remains that due to extremely low yields the Fermi cards can't have been allocated to developers in large numbers. Already it looks like the card is going to be almost a paper launch due to low volume. It's almost a certainty that the developers are for the most part developing on ATI DX11 cards with one or two guys at the end of the whole process who can test with the hardware that they as a company are endorsing.

I don't like companies that operate so heavily as just a PR machine - Apple's another one. They put together good hardware but that's it - they literally "put it together", yet they have a cult following that seems to think that Apple in some way actually has better hardware than the competition, justifying the 50% price difference.

Nvidia's PR machine is all that's keeping them from being a laughingstock right now - they can't sell any of their current products at a profit while being price competitive, and their big next-gen chip is a so big and error-intolerant it can't be manufactured in volume, not to mention being hot, power-hungry, and not performance-competitive even at launch (if the many corroborating leaked benchmarks are accurate). To add insult to injury, retailers have it for pre-order at double the price for performance-equivalent ATI cards. It's the Geforce FX all over again, but worse in many ways.

[Beherith]

I know the facts, no fermi, etc.

But the reason Nvidia is similar to apple is not just the "put it together", its the fact that the software works really well too.

Today I spent 4 hours trying to install the ATI drivers for a HD3650, and after finding a version that actually installed (its a really generic p4 system with winXP), the system hung for a whole minute every time when changing resolution.

ATI may have better bang for buck in relation to performance, but it seems that every time I actually want to use one of their products it just turns out to be a hassle.

[jK]

This kind of over-aggressive PR is becoming standard fare for NV now. Was it Assassin's Creed that ran faster on ATI hardware because of DX 10.1 support, and then NV forced them to remove the 10.1 support in a patch so they'd have the upper hand again?

wrong assumptions of a fanboy ...
1. They didn't removed the 10.1 code path because of NVidia! Their code was just unfinished and they didn't wanted to spend more money in a finished game. (nor does anyone knows if it really got faster after a fix)
2. DX10.1 is just bullshit, all the stuff that speed ups rendering was already in OpenGL2.0 (render to and reading from depthtextures etc.), so NVidia supports those already for YEARS. The only reason why NVidia doesn't support DX10.1 is the fucking redundant crap of hardware tessellation nobody needs! There were geometric shaders for a very long time now, which are even programmable.

Pisses me off. Alright, most of that was speculation, but you shouldn't list a nonexistent piece of hardware as something that will provide optimum performance, that's just dickish. In order for the game to actually BE optimized for the 470/480, they would have to be sent one hot off the first run in the next few days, and then spend the rest of their development time finding ways to make sure the 480 runs the game faster than anything else - probably by artificially deflating performance on ATI cards. Queer as all hell...

Games were always be programmed for a pc system that doesn't exist when the game is coming on the market (see Crysis, Farcry2, ...).

[Master-Athmos]

2. DX10.1 is just bullshit, all the stuff that speed ups rendering was already in OpenGL2.0 (render to and reading from depthtextures etc.), so NVidia supports those already for YEARS. The only reason why NVidia doesn't support DX10.1 is the fucking redundant crap of hardware tessellation nobody needs! There were geometric shaders for a very long time now, which are even programmable.

I guess you're mistaking something here. Tesselation is all about DirectX 11 - it only already should have been in 10.0 as Microsoft suggested it but NVIDIA blocked that and so it got delayed until DirectX 11. Actually 10.1 isn't such a big deal but technically NVIDIA is not able to do it with their DX10 cards. The new features are about things like dynamic cubemap arrays and always being able to handle 32bit float numbers which afaik isn't in OpenGL 2. Especially that whole numbers part can make certain operations either possible or faster. It enables you to do anti-aliasing even when using certain shader methods which "blocked" that option until that point. It also might save you some computations leading to some performance improvements here and there which is why things can run slightly faster on DX 10.1 hardware. With just ATI supporting that until recently (although the new 10.1 NVIDIA hardware isn't really made for gamers) pretty much nobody cares about it though. Except for Blizzard I guess which want to include it in SC II and Diablo 3. But if I understood this right that might be due to AMD now doing sort of their own TWIMTBP show and Blizzard is one of their partners...

[Neddie]

It isn't NV deciding on these optimal requirements. It isn't their PR department throwing down some edict.

[Caydr]

@JK, you're completely mistaken about DX 10.1, there's a tremendous performance difference between 10 and 10.1 considering that it's completely free. Read some articles on the subject comparing the same card running at 10 and 10.1. There are no major feature differences that I'm aware of, just better performance.

Stalker: Clear Sky for example benefits tremendously from 10.1 not only in terms of improved performance, but IIRC even allowing transparency anti-aliasing despite the engine using deferred rendering (previously impossible - IIRC).

Regarding Assassin's Creed getting 10.1 support nixed post-release, form whatever opinion you will, but please do so after researching the subject rather than labeling me a fanboy just because I'm informed. Edit: After re-reading your post you seem to believe DX10.1 was never released to the public - actually it was released supporting 10.1 but this was removed in a patch. This caused a visible, measurable framerate loss exclusively on ATI 10.1 cards and was the subject of some controversy.

Nvidia's had a bad run lately, during which I've been buying ATI (4890, 5850). Prior to that, I bought Nvidia (7800 GS, 8800 GTS. Prior to that, ATI again (9800 Pro). Prior to that, Nvidia (440 MX). Prior to that, I believe at some point I had a Trident card. I'm nobody's fanboy, I research my buying decisions to spread a limited budget as far as I can.

@neddiedrow: Who is recommending all that nonexistent NV hardware then, and for what reason? THQ? And are they doing it just for the good of their health?

Games were always be programmed for a pc system that doesn't exist when the game is coming on the market (see Crysis, Farcry2, ...).

Which were developed to run on WHAT pre-existing industry standard? DirectX 9. Nvidia hasn't even released a DX11 card yet, it's dubious as to what point 4A games received their pre-release Fermi card - if at all - and up to this point any DX11 development must have been done on ATI cards. It's BS.

But the reason Nvidia is similar to apple is not just the "put it together", its the fact that the software works really well too.

Today I spent 4 hours trying to install the ATI drivers for a HD3650, and after finding a version that actually installed (its a really generic p4 system with winXP), the system hung for a whole minute every time when changing resolution.

Have used OSX 10.6 several times in the last month by necessity (sister's college course "requires" a mac for Photoshop and I help her with some stuff). Unimpressed.

Anyway, use driver cleaner first or make a clean install, Nvidia drivers sometimes keep a death grip on your system. Same can be said of ATI drivers. I'd say I'd like to help, but I don't really care, incidental claims like yours are hardly indicative of a larger problem, more likely you have a previously-unnoticed driver conflict, got a bad card, or maybe you're just unlucky. Maybe your PSU isn't up to the task, who knows.

The overwhelming majority of ATI users and Nvidia users are satisfied with their purchase or they'd have returned it. Then you get the 10% who have problems and switch to the other team and put on the trollface about how much better their outlook on life is after the switch. It's like Democrats vs Republicans. Team A says something, 90% agree, 10% switch parties. Team B says something, 90% agree, 10% switch parties.

Everyone thinks their experience is unique or that they're making a difference, but in reality you're just mediocre. Well, except me of course.

[Master-Athmos]

@neddiedrow: Who is recommending all that nonexistent NV hardware then, and for what reason? THQ? And are they doing it just for the good of their health?

Non-exisant for the consumer doesn't mean non-existant for the developer. They for sure tested their game with some pre mass production cards and alpha drivers (especially when being a partner of a company you get stuff like that). As they now have a game which probably provides some DX11 effects just as GPU driven PhysX stuff there's nothing left to recommend except for an NVIDIA card which supports DX11. The upcoming Fermi GPUs thus are the only ones remaining...

It of course has sort of a bad taste to read such a recommendaton as a customer but it actually isn't a big deal either. So yeah their PR division maybe did a barefaced decision to list those GPUs there but nothing more...

[Caydr]

I am now about 3 hours into the game, it seems pretty good. Linear but solidly designed and very atmospheric. Performance seems to scale fairly well - you can use DX9 with low settings and it still looks as good or better than your typical console release.

Like Crysis, the game scales very nicely and on "very high" with DX11, it requires a computer from the future. I can confidently say that to run the game with the highest settings with 60fps on 1080p is simply impossible today, regardless of your budget. Lowering the resolution seems to have a pretty good effect though, and if your display scales the image nicely it's like free anti-aliasing... kind of. Curious thing, that: you can't disable anti-aliasing no matter what.

Actually, I think the fact that the game scales so well is part of the reason I feel a little reserved about it. It's SO DAMN PRETTY at the high settings that I feel like a goof playing it on anything less... but I'm forced to because of how demanding those settings are.

I don't think the developers were planning to use DX11 until very, very late in development. Moreso than you'd expect, I mean. Judging by the performance impact that comes from just switching from identical settings at DX10 to DX11, it feels like they made very little effort to implement things like tessellation efficiently and instead just produce tons of extra and unnecessary geometry.

DX11, when used properly, should theoretically be able to produce better performance with the same image quality, or similar performance with better image quality. Instead, they've got the same image quality with a massive performance hit as well.

The game also benefits tremendously from added CPU cores, from what I've read. My C2D E8400 @ 3.4 ghz is holding me back more than a little, I suspect, but I'm far from being tempted to burn up $500 or whatever for a quad core.

Pro tip: When advised to buy yourself some gas mask filters, actually do so.

[Caydr]

I take it back, I'm not sure why exactly but tonight I've been playing it in DirectX 11 "very high" detail mode at 1920x1080 with a very good framerate. The only thing I disabled was tessellation, one of only two settings you're actually allowed to adjust individually.

Between 70 and 40 FPS at least 90% of the time. I installed ATI's latest beta drivers, that might have something to do with it. They're supposed to improve performance a lot in a wide variety of games, but I don't think they could possibly be responsible for such a large increase.

[aegis]

dynamic tessellation was one of the huge features of dx 11

[Neddie]

So, would you recommend I purchase it?

[Hobo Joe]

But the reason Nvidia is similar to apple is not just the "put it together", its the fact that the software works really well too.

nVidia isn't like Apple at all, and nVidia software works well, Apple's doesn't.



Apple has some of the shittiest (commercial) software I've ever used, the only reason it's popular is a slick look and insane marketing. It's really terrible software.


@Cadyr, how similar is the game to Stalker? Really liked those games, but haven't found much else that's similar without sucking.

[1v0ry_k1ng]

completed the game on the xbox

its ok

[zwzsg]

@Cadyr, how similar is the game to Stalker? Really liked those games, but haven't found much else that's similar without sucking.

Metro 2033 also takes in some rusty post apocalyptical russia, but otherwise it's a much more corridory shooter than Stalker. But I didn't play it so.

What is that you like in Stalker, the art direction, or the open gameplay?

[Mav]

These cards haven't even been manufactured yet and there is no way of knowing for sure exactly how they will perform in this (or any) game. They're a totally new architecture, so it's not even a matter of saying "well it's about xx% faster than a GTX 280", because things like anti-aliasing or anisotropic filtering might render completely differently.

Uh... maybe software devs (at least, REAL software devs) get inside information and devices that you don't have? I bet you anything Metro devs have been playing with these cards for a while now.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/19/nvid ... ng-emerge/

Edit: also, from what I've been reading, the latest ATI cards are "DirectX 11" capable, but are lacking on a lot of features, especially tessellation.

Meanwhile, the new GTX cards are fully DirectX 11 capable, and are supposed to have much better performance on anything using the high-end DirectX 11 features. With Metro 2033 being a DX11 game, I'm not surprised that the GTX is the recommended card.