The Official Metro Exodus Performance Guide Has Been Released

cageymaru

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
21,726
4A Games has released its performance guide for Metro Exodus without DXR or NVIDIA RTX features turned on. Only an NVIDIA GTX 670 or AMD Radeon HD 7870, Intel CORE i5-4440, and 8GB of ram is needed to achieve 1080p | 30 FPS. An NVIDIA RTX 2060 or AMD RX VEGA 56, Intel CORE i7-4770K and 8GB of ram is need to run at 1080p | 60 FPS.

High settings are going to require an NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti / RTX 2070 or AMD RX Vega 64, 16GB of ram paired with an Intel CORE i7-8700K to achieve 1440p | 60 FPS. For Extreme settings, PC gamers are going to need a beastly system that consists of an Intel CORE i9-9900K, 16GB of ram and an NVIDIA RTX 2080 Ti. This will allow those enthusiasts to achieve 4K | 60 FPS gaming nirvana. Click through the image below to see a larger spec chart.

Metro Exodus will support Ray Traced Global Illumination on NVIDIA's range of RTX cards. In the coming days, 4A will release RTX-specific performance profiles.
 
Odd recommendations for the "high" preset. They equate a 2070 with a 1080 Ti when a 2080 would be more appropriate. In fact, the 2080 is not mentioned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: filip
like this
My poor RX 580 @ 1440p :( But its Metro so I expect nothing else lol.
 
You can beat money that those requirement also add in ray tracing. Which isn't needed at all.

Just my 0.02c
 
Really looking forward to this one. Considering how conservative most developer recommendations are for games I'd take it with a grain of sand what is needed for this thing. Even with my 2080TI I've got doubts about 4k/60fps but here's hoping for the best. Will be curious to say the least about DX12 also
 
I'll attempt running this game at 4k60 on a 1080 ti. I played the first one at 30fps at 1080p as my GPU could barely handle it.

Like the last two, I bet lowering several settings will dramatically increase performance.

This was one of the few games I played where max settings does feel worth it.


I played the redux games on a GTX 650m laptop and when overclocked, was able to maintain 50-60fps at 1080p. Not max settings.

The 3rd looks to be the biggest graphical jump in the series. Should be a great game for benchmarking once we get sick of it.
 
"Recommended" settings are just billboards.

So no AMD cpu is recommended?

Game devs need to publish settings sensitivity charts and bare minimum specs.
 
umeng2002 said:
"Recommended" settings are just billboards.

So no AMD cpu is recommended?

Game devs need to publish settings sensitivity charts and bare minimum specs.
Click to expand...

The CPU recommendations are just lazy. I would be shocked if a 6c is actually needed to maintain a paltry 60fps.

I will try to find the most CPU demanding area in the game to see however.

If a 4c is all that's needed they should just say that. A lot of people take those recommendations very seriously.

edit:



These recommendations are pretty accurate.
 
Multi-GPU? Looks like a game that could greatly benefit from increase rendering capability. This game has to be the most stunning image quality I've seen on game footage. Absolutely amazing lighting. I look forward to playing it.
 
AMD loses quite a bit of money because of this crap, and customers are mislead about the choices they have of a product, i think this could be raised as an anti-trust issue, especialy if AMD brings the list of games sponsored by the competition in the last decade.
seriously no Ryzen at all, and 2 GPU choices for nvidia against 1 for AMD.
you go to the the biggest player base segment and you recommand a decade old AMD GPU that is no longer sold or produced since 2013, but nvidia current gen.
then the 2nd largest player base where AMD has a better offering gets skipped in favor of a higher segment.( and the reason is not performance)
no way in hell these are not deliberate and targeted choises, they are carefully picked.
 
alamox said:
AMD loses quite a bit of money because of this crap, and customers are mislead about the choices they have of a product, i think this could be raised as an anti-trust issue, especialy if AMD brings the list of games sponsored by the competition in the last decade.
seriously no Ryzen at all, and 2 GPU choices for nvidia against 1 for AMD.
you go to the the biggest player base segment and you recommand a decade old AMD GPU that is no longer sold or produced since 2013, but nvidia current gen.
then the 2nd largest player base where AMD has a better offering gets skipped in favor of a higher segment.( and the reason is not performance)
no way in hell these are not deliberate and targeted choises, they are carefully picked.
Click to expand...

Eh? They recommend the 670 or 7870 for the same settings, both released within months of each other early 2012

Then it moves to placing the Vega 56 next to the 2060 which seems an accurate comparison.

Moving on they say the 2070/1080ti or Vega 64. If anything that is erroneous in a beneficial way to both companies. Neither the 2070 or Vega 64 match the 1080ti with is more closely performing the same as a 2080 which is never even mentioned.
 
Nolan7689 said:
Eh? They recommend the 670 or 7870 for the same settings, both released within months of each other early 2012

Then it moves to placing the Vega 56 next to the 2060 which seems an accurate comparison.

Moving on they say the 2070/1080ti or Vega 64. If anything that is erroneous in a beneficial way to both companies. Neither the 2070 or Vega 64 match the 1080ti with is more closely performing the same as a 2080 which is never even mentioned.
Click to expand...

that is exactly why they added a 670 for ppl like you to compare it to a 7870, but the point is nvidia gets a current gen recommendation while AMD doesn't.
and no vega 56 isn't really accurate either, if accuracy is the point vega 64 wouldn't be at 1440p 60, the 2 cards have less than 10% performance gap, and when benchmark will come out, you will find 580/590 closer to 1080p 60 than vega 56.
and your last comment about 1080Ti and vega 64 shows exactly what i mean.
don't be too naive and assume good faith, and please spare me the comments like fanboy or conspiracy, but rather learn to read the patterns, break down the different choices made and analyze the intended result from each one, compared to a different choice, especialy if the person went out of their way to pick a counter intuitive choice.
 
I wonder if Exodus is using it only for lighting as opposed to reflections as Battlefield 5 did what the performance impact would be it almost seems like the ray casting for reflections were more hard hitting than expected. Especially when you try rendering 30-60 odd people in multiplayer at the same time for the sake of having reflections.....

1- I can't understand why B5 did that
2- can't even remotely understand why you would test it in those conditions -2 many variables not enough constants, and it creates worst case scenario numbers that you would never encounter in the actual(single player) game, because what idiot uses features like these at the cost of FPS and possible stuttering in a competitive environment?
 
Brackle said:
You can beat money that those requirement also add in ray tracing. Which isn't needed at all.

Just my 0.02c
Click to expand...

In a stealth/horror game more accurate lighting "isn't needed" - WTF is wrong with you, this is the 100000000% use case scenario for RT to absolutely make sense in using it, not a competitive online multiplayer series like B5 in which lighting really wasn't important.

Just stop with the fucking hate train already - Path tracing and ray tracing are the future of rendering, get over it.
 
Interesting, 1440p/60 ultra you need 1080Ti, but for 4k/60 extreme settings, you need 2080Ti, which is not that much better than 1080Ti, to be honest.
 
alamox said:
that is exactly why they added a 670 for ppl like you to compare it to a 7870, but the point is nvidia gets a current gen recommendation while AMD doesn't.
and no vega 56 isn't really accurate either, if accuracy is the point vega 64 wouldn't be at 1440p 60, the 2 cards have less than 10% performance gap, and when benchmark will come out, you will find 580/590 closer to 1080p 60 than vega 56.
and your last comment about 1080Ti and vega 64 shows exactly what i mean.
don't be too naive and assume good faith, and please spare me the comments like fanboy or conspiracy, but rather learn to read the patterns, break down the different choices made and analyze the intended result from each one, compared to a different choice, especialy if the person went out of their way to pick a counter intuitive choice.
Click to expand...

I don’t think you have any fucking clue what you’re talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top