No fanboys please, let's try and keep this to a fairish comparison.

Now that the Crysis 2 DX11/Texture pack is out and has had a day to mature, the battle of the beasts may start.



Personally from what I've seen, both titles perform pretty much the same now, with Crysis 2 getting maybe 5 more fps.

Metro 2033 utilizes tessellation, DoF, and PhysX among other features to help really bring their DX11 graphics experience to life. Crysis 2 also utilizes many of the same features.

However, it does appear that Crysis 2 utilizes these effects to much less of an extent than Metro does.. Metro had these effects utilized and optimized throughout the entire development of the game while Crysis had three months to quickly throw out a patch so not as much could be utilized. It does seem utilized well, just not as well as it could've been if it was designed in mind from day one.

I personally also think that Metro 2033 just plain looks better. Both games have very different art styles and level design but when it comes down to just flat out graphics, physics, and an immersive experience, I feel that Metro 2033 is still the king of the hill.

There is also an oddball I will throw in here, Battlefield: Bad Company 2. It does perform very well and its pure graphical quality isn't as amazing as Metro or Crysis 2, but its Havok physics and mass warfare still make for an impressive experience worthy of an honorable mention in my opinion.

Feel free to comment with your opinion, and of course vote!

IM going to say Crysis 2, but Metro 2033 has some REALLY amazing visuals in places.

Hmmm.. as far as "detail goes" .. I'd have to say Metro 2033. All in all, I like Crysis 2 better, but I think the texture particle count in Metro 2033 is much higher.

Hmmm.. as far as "detail goes" .. I'd have to say Metro 2033. All in all, I like Crysis 2 better, but I think the texture particle count in Metro 2033 is much higher.

Metro 2033 has INCREDIBLY realistic DoF.

METRO 2033 IS THE BEST , Crysis 2 doesn`t stand a chance near it!

This is also the best 3D VISION READY game so far.
Deffinetly the winner in DX11 features and overall quality!

Metro 2033 hands down. Have you guys seen the textures on maximum settings? IT RIVALS CRYSIS1! oh yea and the DoF is just amazing.

Anyways you cannot compare two very different games.

Metro all the way! Even though it is SP only the immersive experience you get get is 10x that of crysis 2. Especially with the free dlc ranger modes with less health and almost no ammo. I started to play the SP of crysis 2 after installing the patches and it was still lame to me. I just can't seem to shake the experience of all the bugs, or the memory of the crysis 1 jungle in all its glory. But crysis 2 MP looks pretty good and metro doesn't have MP and I doubt it would play good if it did have it. Why didn't you throw Stalker COP in the mix? It has some good DX11 especially the lighting!

*bump*

Of course I knew the vote would be heavily biased... But atleast it seems that the actual comments are more reasonable and not biased towards Crysis 2.

So far I would say more people think Metro is better, because the vote will be flawed since we are in a Crytek forum, after all. XD

Keep the opinions coming!

Well to start, Bad Company 2 shouldn't even be on that poll. It's an awesome game, but if Crysis 2 is a console port, BC2 is a pathetic excuse for even a console port (graphically speaking, and soft shadows don't change anything). Battlefield 3, sure, but BC2..nah. The only good thing I can say about BC2 is it's nice quad core utilization.

Metro 2033 successfully pulls off what it tries to show, but I think its incorrect to say that Crysis 2 uses DX11 effects to less of an extent than Metro 2033. In Metro, all DX11 does is make objects more round (like lamps, people's heads, etc.). Tesselation isn't applied exensively to the environment itself. In Crysis 2 tesselation increases the poly count of walls and makes the ground vastly more realistic, as well as the water.

In both games DX11 barely makes a difference, if you're just playing the game and not actually looking for differences, you wouldn't notice. Seriously, how many times do you go up to friendly AI to examine how round their arms are of go up to a brick wall to see if the bricks are flat or realistic. And at the core, both engines are DX9 engines with minor DX10/11 features patched on. Even BC2's FrostBite 1.5, which DICE proclaimed as designed from the ground up for DX10 and 11, look exactly the same but runs vastly better in DX9.

Both games could technically add more effects, including things from Compute Shader, bu as a whole it boils down to performance. To average 35 FPS at 1920x1080 in Crysis 2 Ultra settings, you need a GTX 480. And exactly how many people have GTX 480+ cards? Metro 2033 is also insanely hardware intensive. DX11 is fast, but I don't think its new features are streamlined yet. Just like DirectX 10. It brought a few new things, but it destroyed performance. It took DirectX 10.1 to fix DX 10's mistakes.

As for graphics in the 2 games. It's hard to compare. Metro 2033 has more individual detail, but Crysis 2 has more scale. It's about preferance imo. Do you like a ton of detail in your close surroundings or do you like vast beautiful scenery.

Crysis 2 has more potential as a whole though. Not as of now, but who knows what the modding community will do with CryEngine 3? If they make epic mods like Extreme Config and Real Lifesis like they did for Crysis 1, then for sure Crysis 2 will win.

@Talon...I would recommend you to buy the game....its better to support Crytek then to support and company that develops COD

Well to start, Bad Company 2 shouldn't even be on that poll. It's an awesome game, but if Crysis 2 is a console port, BC2 is a pathetic excuse for even a console port (graphically speaking, and soft shadows don't change anything). Battlefield 3, sure, but BC2..nah. The only good thing I can say about BC2 is it's nice quad core utilization.

Metro 2033 successfully pulls off what it tries to show, but I think its incorrect to say that Crysis 2 uses DX11 effects to less of an extent than Metro 2033. In Metro, all DX11 does is make objects more round (like lamps, people's heads, etc.). Tesselation isn't applied exensively to the environment itself. In Crysis 2 tesselation increases the poly count of walls and makes the ground vastly more realistic, as well as the water.

In both games DX11 barely makes a difference, if you're just playing the game and not actually looking for differences, you wouldn't notice. Seriously, how many times do you go up to friendly AI to examine how round their arms are of go up to a brick wall to see if the bricks are flat or realistic. And at the core, both engines are DX9 engines with minor DX10/11 features patched on. Even BC2's FrostBite 1.5, which DICE proclaimed as designed from the ground up for DX10 and 11, look exactly the same but runs vastly better in DX9.

Both games could technically add more effects, including things from Compute Shader, bu as a whole it boils down to performance. To average 35 FPS at 1920x1080 in Crysis 2 Ultra settings, you need a GTX 480. And exactly how many people have GTX 480+ cards? Metro 2033 is also insanely hardware intensive. DX11 is fast, but I don't think its new features are streamlined yet. Just like DirectX 10. It brought a few new things, but it destroyed performance. It took DirectX 10.1 to fix DX 10's mistakes.

As for graphics in the 2 games. It's hard to compare. Metro 2033 has more individual detail, but Crysis 2 has more scale. It's about preferance imo. Do you like a ton of detail in your close surroundings or do you like vast beautiful scenery.

Crysis 2 has more potential as a whole though. Not as of now, but who knows what the modding community will do with CryEngine 3? If they make epic mods like Extreme Config and Real Lifesis like they did for Crysis 1, then for sure Crysis 2 will win.

I included BC2 mostly for **** and giggles.

You are correct, they are hard to compare since it is scale v. corridors... However from what I've seen, Metro does look better than Crysis 2 does.

Debating about hardware optimization could warrant a completely other topic... Both games fail to use multi-threaded rendering which is a DX11 exclusive feature and would massively boost performance. DX11 does have the tools to optimize, the problem lies within the developer themselves.. When a game is created console first, the developer looks at the PC platform and then throws on DX11 intensive features to please the enthusiast community instead of also using DX11 optimizations that must be coded for.

Hardware is a completely other thing... According to steam, the HD 5770 is the most popular video card, which is DX11... Therefore, optimizing for DX11 is certainly a profitable solution as long as the developer allows the end-user to enable and disable DX11 intensive features at their own will or have varying levels of say, how much objects will be tessellated.

For instance, Metro 2033 has options to disable both Tessellation and DoF while still running the game with the less intensive DX11 features... This ensures positive performance for mid-range 5770 users while also satisfying the enthusiast market consisting of GTX 480/570/580/HD 6970 users like me.

DX11 is still not used to its full potential in terms of optimizations and it is certainly not the failure DX10 was.

emperorCleon: I will purchase Crysis 2 when I fully see its worth when it hits below $25 so the DLC's bring it up to $45 and not over acceptable PC retail price.. Until it reaches that price, Crytek can kiss my ass.

On the other side, modders will most likely port over all the DLC maps for free so I have nothing to worry about other than getting the FY-71. ^-^

I'm sorry people but i will have to say crysis 2 has better graphics... why? well because in metro 2033 i barely saw any tessellation at all. Yeah sure cup of tea was round and lamp was round but i didn't see any walls or something like that tessellated. I would go for crysis 2 with DOF because it's much better utilized. In metro 2033 in cut scenes things that shouldn't have DOF have and it makes it all blurry (im really not faning or smth like that this is what i saw.).Tho i gotta say Metro 2033 > crysis 2 in physX. PhysX in crysis 2 is rather poor and it makes me a sad panda :/. Models of people in metro 2033 look like models from half life with good textures. Don't bash me i'm just judging the games as i see em

Well the engines don't use native DX11 multi-threading, bu CryEngine 3 itself is very nicely optimized for multicore processors. It uses my quad core effectively, and is supposed to be able to utilize 8 threads efficiently. If that power is going to the DX11 effects, I don't know.

Maybe I should add that Metro 2033 is a **** game . But that's off topic.

I'm sorry people but i will have to say crysis 2 has better graphics... why? well because in metro 2033 i barely saw any tessellation at all. Yeah sure cup of tea was round and lamp was round but i didn't see any walls or something like that tessellated. I would go for crysis 2 with DOF because it's much better utilized. In metro 2033 in cut scenes things that shouldn't have DOF have and it makes it all blurry (im really not faning or smth like that this is what i saw.).Tho i gotta say Metro 2033 > crysis 2 in physX. PhysX in crysis 2 is rather poor and it makes me a sad panda :/. Models of people in metro 2033 look like models from half life with good textures. Don't bash me i'm just judging the games as i see em

Metro 2033 tessellates where it is appropriate and is not as heavily used as Crysis 2.. When you do go above the surface in Metro 2033, you will see many things tessellated like the brick walls and whatnot.. In the subway not as much needs to be tessellated because it is mostly cement... The tessellation then is mostly limited to the train tracks themselves and the trolly cars along with the village doors/gates and other things that should protude appropriately (of which their isn't many).

Metro 2033 relies much more on DoF because well.. Its a freaking narrow subway that goes on endlessly. ^-^ DoF is used very heavily in Metro and this provides a huge performance hit compared to tessellation.

Crysis 2 is more open in scale and outdoors which requires more tessellation but alternatively, less focus on DoF.

Metro 2033 < Crysis 2 Tessellation
Metro 2033 > Crysis 2 Depth of Field


Also while this isn't limited to DX11, Metro has much, much higher resolution textures than what I've seen out of Crysis 2.. Overall combined with insane DoF and high res texture with the little tessellation where necessary, I think Metro stands out more than Crysis 2 does with its graphics. Sure Crysis 2 has more tessellation, but it is tessellating textures that for the most part, still look like ass... Although Crysis 2 has slightly more varied textures, that doesn't lead to a better graphical experience.

@ iPwn: personally I find Metro 2033 to be a vastly better game in terms of its story, and the gunplay is also pretty good... It's also pretty much the only linear game that doesn't make me scream in agony. ^-^ Crysis 2 relies more on tactical gameplay with its scale but I find the story and gunplay to be much less compelling... Playing Metro in Russian with English subtitles is about as immersive and emotional as it can get... It still makes me laugh when I hear them scream "Cyka" in Russian at those devils.

In terms of AI, both games have its good moments and then the other moments when the AI is absolutely horrendous.

Also, I believe you have multi-threaded rendering mixed up with multi-core support.. Multi-threaded rendering is supposed to clear up bandwidth channels on the GPU by rendering through several pipelines instead of choking it all under on render pipeline at the end of the computation... This results in faster computations and of course, a framerate boost. There are several articles out on the web that really go into detail about it and at this moment, Civilization V is the only game to use it correctly. Anyway, it is an interesting concept so you should read up on it.

D6 and the Librarians alone are better than everything in Crysis 2

*bump*

More comments and votes please! Must reach at least 100 votes for full satisfaction.

I say Metro2033 easily. It's a very different game visually, but Crysis2 doesn't even incorporate AA into it's settings, big fail to need to force it, then there's about 20 options and finding the best one is hard.

However metro seems badly optimised, this is my best effort at the Metro2033 Benchmark, just to pull smooth FPS I need my i7950@4.6GHz and both GTX480's at 900 core (from 700). Drawing 1KW from the wall shouldn't be needed, I mean the game doesn't look lifelike, but seems to be heavier on systems than it should be.

Using absolute maximum settings in DX11
1920x1080 Resolution (1080p)
DX11
Very High
AAA Antialiasing
16x Anisotropic Filtering
Tesselation
DOF on

Something is wrong with your CPU-Z.. The i7 950 is a 32nm transistor fabrication, not 45nm. :S

No, it's 45nm, the only cores that are 32nm and desktop are the Sandy Bridge series i7 or the Gulftown cores aka 980X for example.

In fact, it looks completely fake. You can't overclock an i7 950 by the multiplier, only the bus speed.

I'm pretty positive that Nehalem chips are 32nm. :S

Ugh... Nevermind, it is 45nm.

Still doesn't make sense to me how that multiplier is 23x though.

Now why would I bother faking it?

Nehalem is 45nm, WestmereEP is 32nm (the hex core extreme series and the high end new xeons)
Also Sandy is ofc 32nm.

I *wish* my 950 was 32nm.

Also that is the standard multiplier. Lets look at this, 133 is baseclock of all the skt1366 i7's , 23x133=3059MHz aka standard clockspeed of the i7 950.

You up the baseclock, VTT Voltage, Vcore, and viola you have overclocking.

Before accusing me of faking some pointless benchmark, maybe brush up on your chip info beforehand please.

metro2033.. WOW!!! played through it like 20x. Fully maxed out of course =]

I'm definitely going with Crysis 2. Crysis 2 is much more realistic than Metro 2033. I recently watched a gameplay footage of Metro 2033 recorded on max settings, and the game doesn't look near as good as Crysis 2 in my opinion. I think Metro 2033 is more on the "artsy" side, while Crysis 2 is more on the "realistic" side. If you compare some of the rubble on the floor in both games, you can clearly see that Crysis 2's rubble is tessellated much better and has more detail. That's just my two cents, though.

Here's a CPUZ online validation I took the same day
http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=1510526

Still haxing for boredom because you can't google to figure out 23 is the base multi on a 950?