Metro: Last Light calls for GTX Titan to have an 'optimum' experience

By on April 18, 2013, 12:30 PM

If you plan to play Metro: Last Light with eye-candy liberally applied, you'll probably want to check your expectations at the door unless you have a fairly solid rig. Publisher Deep Silver has announced the various degrees of system specifications you'll need to play at minimum, recommended and optimum settings.

If you're just hoping to play with whatever configuration will let you make it through the experience, the title can be run with as low as Windows XP 32-bit, a 2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB of RAM, and a DirectX 9-compliant graphics card in the realm of an Nvidia GTS 250 or an equivalent from AMD's Radeon HD 4000 series.

The developer's recommended hardware skips forward to the present day, suggesting that you play on a machine with Windows Vista or later, a 2.6GHz quad-core processor such as a Core i5, 4GB of RAM and a DirectX 11-ready card that's in line with the GTX 580/660 Ti or an AMD counterpart such as the HD 7870.

Meanwhile, if you have any intentions on learning what 4A Games considers an "optimum" experience, the studio says you'll need at least a 3.4GHz Core i7 or similar multi-core processor, 8GB of RAM and a GPU in the territory of a GTX 690 or GTX Titan -- a claim we're eager to test when we inevitably bench the game.

As a side note, it's worth mentioning that the rumor about Nvidia bundling Metro: Last Light with its graphics cards turned out to be true. You'll get the sequel free of charge if you purchase a GeForce GTX 660 or better sometime between now and June 15 when the promotion expires (the game launches on May 14).




User Comments: 42

Got something to say? Post a comment
4 people like this | Guest said:

"Can it play Metro?" just doesn't have the same ring to it as "Can it play Crysis?"

Zeromus said:

No video is showing up!

10 people like this | mailpup mailpup said:

Maybe you need a Titan to play the video.

1 person liked this | Guest said:

Bahahahahahahahahaah epic

Guest said:

This game will be 20 bucks in 3 months!

that is when I get it :)

Critica1Hit said:

Maybe you need a Titan to play the video.

LOL this is it, from now on is: "Maybe you need a Titan to [do X]"

Thanks Metro, you're still not here yet I know you won't be forgotten...

Staff
Matthew Matthew, TechSpot Staff, said:

Nice one mailpup . The video should be fixed guys, thanks.

1 person liked this | JC713 JC713 said:

Ok... you need a Titan to play this yet the game still supports Windows XP... let's get real here.

freythman freythman said:

Looks like my new machine is already obsolete!

MrBungle said:

I wonder what resolution that recommendation is for?

I just bought a second 680 to get ready for this game... hopefully I don't need 3 for 2560x1440.

JC713 JC713 said:

I wonder what resolution that recommendation is for?

I just bought a second 680 to get ready for this game... hopefully I don't need 3 for 2560x1440.

If it is 60 Hz I think you will be fine. Turning down AA to lower levels wouldnt hurt since it is memory sucking eye candy that isnt even necessary. Games look great at 4x AA.

3 people like this | Footlong Footlong said:

GPU marketing: where poorly optmized games try to sell overpriced GPU. Anyone played the original, I did and let me tell you that game is not that pretty to require soo much gpu power.

Zeromus said:

Nvm it's working. Because I got the Titan

Guest said:

Nice... then they blame piracy for low sales...

MrBungle said:

GPU marketing: where poorly optmized games try to sell overpriced GPU. Anyone played the original, I did and let me tell you that game is not that pretty to require soo much gpu power.

Nah, its not poor optimization its using polygons where most games use textures, soft-shadows, smoke, particle effects, etc... Very expensive on the processing side but refreshing to see someone push the envelope.

Personally I'm happy to see games that bring high-end rigs to their knees, graphics have be pretty much stagnant for far too long.

ghasmanjr ghasmanjr said:

I wonder what resolution that recommendation is for?

I just bought a second 680 to get ready for this game... hopefully I don't need 3 for 2560x1440.

If it is 60 Hz I think you will be fine. Turning down AA to lower levels wouldnt hurt since it is memory sucking eye candy that isnt even necessary. Games look great at 4x AA.

If it's sucking down memory, 16gb of ram couldn't hurt. That's how I got BF3 to start working with triple screen setup using sli 680s.

MrBungle said:

I wonder what resolution that recommendation is for?

I just bought a second 680 to get ready for this game... hopefully I don't need 3 for 2560x1440.

If it is 60 Hz I think you will be fine. Turning down AA to lower levels wouldnt hurt since it is memory sucking eye candy that isnt even necessary. Games look great at 4x AA.

If it's sucking down memory, 16gb of ram couldn't hurt. That's how I got BF3 to start working with triple screen setup using sli 680s.

Already running 16GB of RAM.

Guest said:

Ill bet my entire computer I can turn shadows aa and vsync off and still be able to run this fine on my hd7770 ghz edition. lol

St1ckM4n St1ckM4n said:

GPU marketing: where poorly optmized games try to sell overpriced GPU. Anyone played the original, I did and let me tell you that game is not that pretty to require soo much gpu power.

Nah, its not poor optimization its using polygons where most games use textures, soft-shadows, smoke, particle effects, etc... Very expensive on the processing side but refreshing to see someone push the envelope.

Negative. My GTX295 at 1920x1080 lagged on Medium. Inside a tunnel. Metro 2033 was a terribly optimised game, fact.

Posting optimum specs of a Titan is all well and nice to get the hype machine rolling, but they have a lot of work to do to make it optimised and actually worthy of the Titan. Heck, they don't mention resolution even.

I'm all for hardcore games that push your rig, but they need to be properly coded to begin with.

2 people like this | JC713 JC713 said:

If it's sucking down memory, 16gb of ram couldn't hurt. That's how I got BF3 to start working with triple screen setup using sli 680s.

RAM is different from the GDDR5 on the GPU. I guess it was chance that that is what helped you. RAM isnt shared with the GPU.

baN893 baN893 said:

If it's sucking down memory, 16gb of ram couldn't hurt. That's how I got BF3 to start working with triple screen setup using sli 680s.

RAM is different from the GDDR5 on the GPU. I guess it was chance that that is what helped you. RAM isnt shared with the GPU.

Mhm, I was going to point out the same thing. On another note, really excited for this game.

soldier1969 soldier1969 said:

2 x 4gb 680s SLI @ 2560 x 1600, 512GB SSD, 16gb ram, I should be ok. Will see...

St1ckM4n St1ckM4n said:

2 x 4gb 680s SLI @ 2560 x 1600, 512GB SSD, 16gb ram, I should be ok. Will see...

You should just put that in your sig. 80% of your posts contain it.

MrBungle said:

GPU marketing: where poorly optmized games try to sell overpriced GPU. Anyone played the original, I did and let me tell you that game is not that pretty to require soo much gpu power.

Nah, its not poor optimization its using polygons where most games use textures, soft-shadows, smoke, particle effects, etc... Very expensive on the processing side but refreshing to see someone push the envelope.

Negative. My GTX295 at 1920x1080 lagged on Medium. Inside a tunnel. Metro 2033 was a terribly optimised game, fact.

Posting optimum specs of a Titan is all well and nice to get the hype machine rolling, but they have a lot of work to do to make it optimised and actually worthy of the Titan. Heck, they don't mention resolution even.

I'm all for hardcore games that push your rig, but they need to be properly coded to begin with.

The 295 came out in 2009... thats like 6 decades in computer years.

Bad coding is when you have a rig that has 6 or 8 threads available with one pegged the rest idle and the game lagging to death. (see Empire Earth II or Supreme Commander) Just because you don't notice all the little things that the graphics engine is doing on the screen doesn't mean that its badly coded. There are some pretty complex graphical effects going on in metro 2033 and likely more in last light. Much of that graphical flare is hidden because the game is very dark, however just because its not visible doesn't mean that the GPU isn't rendering it. I see a lot of people accusing devs of "bad code" in numerous forums all over the web and I would be willing to bet that half of them don't even know what a compiler is.

kebab2000 kebab2000 said:

Crytek can learn a thing or two (or five lol) from these chaps.

Guest said:

Not saying that metro is like crysis 2, but anyone remember the tessellation?The insane amount of uneeded tessellation in crysis2 just to make cards run harder than they needed to

Techreport has an article on it, just "google crysis2 tesselation techreport"

St1ckM4n St1ckM4n said:

@MrBungle

GTX295 was and is a beast. It's DX10 only, so any DX11 performance-hits do not apply to it. It was paired with i7 920, so it wasn't bottlenecked.

Inside scenes with graphics on medium should not lag. There's no lighting issues, not many polygons, not much perspective, narrow corridors, limited variety in textures, ver minimal distance draw. This was a year after the release, on patched game and fully up-to-date drivers. No excuse that SLI wasn't working. The game would literally lag on random parts of the map, even the less-demanding parts. The interwebz is full of forum topics saying "wtf why so buggy".

I'm not trying to argue, and I'll leave it at this - but there is simply no way that the game shouldn't be running smooth as butter.

PC nerd PC nerd said:

I'm still running a 955BE/6850.

No way in hell I'll be able to run this game properly.

spydercanopus spydercanopus said:

I have played nearly every blockbuster released for the last 15 years, but I could not manage to get past a couple hours of Metro 2032. But honestly I only bought it at the time because it had DX11 when only it and Lost Planet had it.

Azama Azama said:

I wonder what resolution that recommendation is for?

I just bought a second 680 to get ready for this game... hopefully I don't need 3 for 2560x1440.

If it is 60 Hz I think you will be fine. Turning down AA to lower levels wouldnt hurt since it is memory sucking eye candy that isnt even necessary. Games look great at 4x AA.

If it's sucking down memory, 16gb of ram couldn't hurt. That's how I got BF3 to start working with triple screen setup using sli 680s.

He (most likely) means onboard GPU memory, not system RAM.

Azama Azama said:

Crytek can learn a thing or two (or five lol) from these chaps.

Personally, from playing around with the first Metro, I think Crytek's done a better job at optimization.

Believe it or not, I am more interested in the AI shown in the video above, contrast that with the dumb-as-a-pile-of-bricks AI of Crysis 3. This seems like fun. Fingers crossed.

amstech amstech, TechSpot Enthusiast, said:

2 x 4gb 680s SLI @ 2560 x 1600, 512GB SSD, 16gb ram, I should be ok. Will see...

You should just put that in your sig. 80% of your posts contain it.

Agreed.

Plus, thats an average setup these days.

Jim__Raynor said:

So we need a 4000$ PC to play this game On highest quality ...

1 person liked this | MrBungle said:

So we need a 4000$ PC to play this game On highest quality ...

I would prefer the ability to push the graphics to a level that required hardware beyond the limits of what is available at any price today... but crippling a $4000 PC is a good start.

MrBungle said:

@MrBungle

GTX295 was and is a beast. It's DX10 only, so any DX11 performance-hits do not apply to it. It was paired with i7 920, so it wasn't bottlenecked.

Inside scenes with graphics on medium should not lag. There's no lighting issues, not many polygons, not much perspective, narrow corridors, limited variety in textures, ver minimal distance draw. This was a year after the release, on patched game and fully up-to-date drivers. No excuse that SLI wasn't working. The game would literally lag on random parts of the map, even the less-demanding parts. The interwebz is full of forum topics saying "wtf why so buggy".

I'm not trying to argue, and I'll leave it at this - but there is simply no way that the game shouldn't be running smooth as butter.

Not trying to start an argument/flame war either, just saying some of what goes on with graphics takes more horsepower than people realize. Also remember the GTX 295 only has an effective 896MB of RAM, if VRAM is the limiting factor you won't get reasonable frame rates no matter how much GPU processing power you throw at it.

I'd be interested in seeing benchmarks comparing the performance between a GTX 295/GTX 480/GTX 570 since all of them have relatively close power from a processing standpoint but varying quantities of VRAM.

1 person liked this | JC713 JC713 said:

So we need a 4000$ PC to play this game On highest quality ...

Well, if you buy a Titan, you probably have the money for a good CPU like a 3930K. So yeah, that will bring you to about $3k. I bet you can play it on max with less than a 2K budget if you crossfire 7970s.

Guest said:

There is this big talk about rigs and not a single soul mentioned that the graphics in the video is not very impressive. At some point it does not really matter if a massive processing power is required or not, since it does not translate into impressive graphic in this particular game. Maybe it's subjective but Crysis 3 looks better, even on youtube clips, same as BF4 teaser.

Guest said:

Optimum settings-"this is what our partners want to push"

ghasmanjr ghasmanjr said:

He (most likely) means onboard GPU memory, not system RAM.

Yeah, I actually thought it was an onboard GPU memory problem but I thought outside the box and gave it a shot and voila. Sometimes you never know if something will work until you try it

2 people like this | captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

RAM is different from the GDDR5 on the GPU. I guess it was chance that that is what helped you. RAM isnt shared with the GPU.
But Mon Frere, "once upon a time", it used to be. That's of course back in the dark ages, when men were men, and 13 year old girls weren't FBI agents, You know, the days before chivalry died an ignominious death, by the hand of internet trolls such as myself.

With that said, I'm going to "de-euphemize" the New, "Metro" hype:

"The graphics in this game are so bloated, we expect $50.00 back from Nvidia from every "Titan" we sell for them with it. Now that we've convinced you you really do need 2500 x 1600 and something, all settings on maximum, for a "pleasurably gaming experience", the sky's the limit. If you buy two Titans and put them in SLI, we'll give you an "Attaboy Legion" shoulder patch...(wait for it)....free with purchase. (Allow 6 to 8 weeks for delivery).

I'd be thrilled if they'd re-release "X-Wing" @ 1680 x 1050. Hell, I might even buy a video card.

Sotiroubas Sotiroubas said:

Nice ''rouskagia'' accent...

JC713 JC713 said:

Captain, you crack me up lol.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.