-
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.
Dying Light PC Performance Thread
- Thread starter batman2million
- Start date
Yes it has:
Today you can't just disable shadows or major parts of the lighting. There are still a lot of settings in games nowadays but the difference in terms of graphics are really small. You still can get 2-4 times more FPS when turning down certain settings, but you won't see that difference that you saw back then in 2007. And I think it's a good thing.
Lets take Dying Light, you can double your framerate by reducing draw distance from 100% to 35%. You can disable Nvidia DoF and get additional +30% FPS. Your game will look just as nice. The scaling is still there.
Corpsepyre
Banned
What settings should I use? R9 270x here.
Awesome, will try out as soon as I get home!
You've probably saved me some massive headaches, because I've been trying to get fullscreen to work all night to no avail x_x
Crimsonclaw111
Member
I heard this game has OR support? Heard it does.
5930K@4.4GHz
Holy fucking shit
Good guy Techland - Gives you the ability to play in 3D without having to spend lots of $$ on an Oculus
Looks like I'll be holding off for a while on getting this one
Shame cause it looks really fun.
88 min FPS with 970 SLI? How?
Somebody get me that i7
Locked 60 fps using SMAA injection at 1080p. Distance view and FOV as default values. HBAO+ enabled, motion blur enabled, horrible built in AA disabled. To avoid regular hitching when turning the camera, I have to lower texture detail from HIGH to MEDIUM (2 GB GPU), but surprisingly texture resolution is about the same.
As the Geforce guide suggested the high texture setting is mostly for caching.
Benchmarking in the prologue?
IcyRhythms
Member
PC game release in 2015 where the title uses 100% of one core and around 10% of the others you have lol
Fucking garbage
Fucking garbage
Haswell i5-4670k with a GTX 660, running in Manjaro (GNU/Linux) with the latest Nvidia drivers. Indoor areas are fine, but outdoor I'm getting easily less than 20 fps.
Par-the-course judging by the other posts in this thread, and on other forums I was going to boot into Winbloze and install it there, but based on what I'm reading it sounds like that would be fruitless; same framerate issues there.
Par-the-course judging by the other posts in this thread, and on other forums
I was going to boot into Winbloze and install it there, but based on what I'm reading it sounds like that would be fruitless; same framerate issues there.Well that's a pretty beffy system.
My 4770K is running @4GHz, that shouldn't be a problem.
This benchmark has nothing to do with the real world. I'm not near that 88fps. My 970s are even overclocked and I turned Nvidia DoF off, set Textures to Medium & Draw Distance to 50%. I get around 40-60fps with drops to 30fps sometimes.
Try turning textures to medium. The nvidia guide posted earlier was saying the high setting acts as a higher texture cache to preload all the textures into memory, which eats up fucktons of VRAM, with reports of up to 4GB vram usage. Apparently there's no actual change in the textures themselves, though, so you're not really losing much in terms of immediate eyecandy
That x99 6 core monster in those benches is a lot more powerful than your 4770k, I would think.
I know, but pretty surprised with the performance after reading comments. Smooth as butter with my 680 combo and is pretty enough.
You should be fine. Do yoy have 3dmark? whats your score? You should be around this if not consider OC that i7.
TheFNEffecT
Member
Very interesting, this is definitely not the performance i'm getting out of my 295x2, it's definitely pushing out way more frames, although I did notice now in afterburner that the GPU usage is spiking rather than staying constant. I'll try some other profiles later tonight.
theimmortalbum
Neo Member
I've got a 2500k and a GTX 680. Seems like I should maybe avoid this on PC, then. That's a bummer, some guys I know picked it up there over PS4.
i5 4690k
16gb ram
2 x gtx970 sli
1080p
default "best" settings (I love when games default to that) which is everything maxed, draw distance halfway
only played 3omins or so but im getting 60fps with no drops on the tutorial, which probably doesnt mean anything until I get outside. I am getting some sound issues all of a sudden, like sound starts getting corrupted and laaaaaaging, its weird. I thought the game was crashing. Anyone had that?
edit: basically exactly this - http://steamcommunity.com/app/239140/discussions/0/613948093896035308/
16gb ram
2 x gtx970 sli
1080p
default "best" settings (I love when games default to that) which is everything maxed, draw distance halfway
only played 3omins or so but im getting 60fps with no drops on the tutorial, which probably doesnt mean anything until I get outside. I am getting some sound issues all of a sudden, like sound starts getting corrupted and laaaaaaging, its weird. I thought the game was crashing. Anyone had that?
edit: basically exactly this - http://steamcommunity.com/app/239140/discussions/0/613948093896035308/
2500k + GTX770 am cry
Yep, same here. This is the first game I've played where I don't think it runs acceptably compared with how it looks. I can run pretty much every other game at high or highest settings and get to near-60, but here it's hitchy and unpredictable as hell. I hope it can be fixed.
LOL this is pretty much why I ordered a Gsync monitor, getting that this Thursday.
A way better upgrade than most GFX cards these days, and thats only due to shit optimizations of current games.
Turin Turambar
Member
I'm not very happy with the performance in highend amd gpus, I think it's 6-7 fps less than it should be.
Dropped the texture quality to medium, and the draw distance down to three increments. Framerate went from a low of probably 10 all the way up to 20, with the outdoors probably hovering around 30 most of the time.
Game went from unplayable to playable, which is all I'm looking for at this point until the developer can (hopefully) do some optimization.
Edit: Should also add, I'm thrilled to death to have a Linux version. I've been using GNU/Linux since 1996, and this is the first time ever that there has been a day one, native Linux version of a major game release for a title that I was interested in. Hope this release is foreshadowing good things in the future.
Well, I got only that result: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/5689392? & http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/5689504?
Should I reinstall Windows 8.1?
In my short experience with the game thus far, not necessarily. It looks like there is marked difference between Medium and High textures, mostly the signage.
I restarted the game upon switching texture quality, just to make sure the new settings took full effect.
Screenshot comparisons below:
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/111933
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/111935 (Disregard the weapon blurring in the "High Textures" screen, it's due to motion blur)
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/111936 (May be due to the motion blur again, but the "High Texture" screen seems to have the more detailed weapon texture)
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/111938 (Finally, some textures don't seem to fully load with "Medium" activated. Though I must note, that sign did revert to the quality of the other "Medium" sign textures with a couple of game restarts; seems random with "Medium" activated)
My PC specs and in-game settings can be found in my previous post here:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=149363855&postcount=219
You have 8GB RAM I don't know if thats enough, look at knitoe RAM usage:
5930K@4.4GHz
Honestly you should always set yourself up for disappointment with them. They basically aren't worth buying for a gaming rig, or at all really, unless you're just looking for a cheap cpu to throw into a computer for someone who's using it for general usage.
They're so bad I feel bad for people who end up buying them when I look at the benches in every performance thread =\
I don't think that's a problem right now.
That's far from stable 60fps. Everything on High, Nvidia DoF Off, 50% draw distance, 2560x1080 resolution.
Both GPUs don't go near 100% GPU usage. They are always around 50%, is that normal?
LordAmused
Member
Playing with a Haswell 4690K @ 3.5GHz, coupled with an ASUS GTX 970 4GB STRIX, 8GB Ram @ 1920x1080:
- Frames fluctuates between 40 and 85 with V-Sync forced OFF through nVidia Control panel.
- Everything at high, HBAO + enables and all the other gimmicks.
- Game freezes for a second or two sometimes near cutscenes.
- Most recent driver 347.25
- Overall a great experience, but definitely needs more optimization.
- Frames fluctuates between 40 and 85 with V-Sync forced OFF through nVidia Control panel.
- Everything at high, HBAO + enables and all the other gimmicks.
- Game freezes for a second or two sometimes near cutscenes.
- Most recent driver 347.25
- Overall a great experience, but definitely needs more optimization.
Homunculus
Banned
I picked up the game when I got home and this is my current status:
i7 950
6GB RAM
GTX 970
With all of the settings maxed out and with a resolution of 1980 x 1200, the game will run at a very steady 60FPS. However, the game cannot be played for more than ten minutes at a time because of my available memory. Not the VRAM for my card (I have no stuttering), but the system RAM gets completely pegged and the game will crash and take windows with it.
So, it looks as if I won't be able to play Dying Light until I get that 6GB of RAM upgraded to something more along the lines of 12GB.
i7 950
6GB RAM
GTX 970
With all of the settings maxed out and with a resolution of 1980 x 1200, the game will run at a very steady 60FPS. However, the game cannot be played for more than ten minutes at a time because of my available memory. Not the VRAM for my card (I have no stuttering), but the system RAM gets completely pegged and the game will crash and take windows with it.
So, it looks as if I won't be able to play Dying Light until I get that 6GB of RAM upgraded to something more along the lines of 12GB.
Or halfway competent optimization.
either way DX12 and Mantle are designed to uncouple CPU performance with GPU, that should save the life of these halfway competent game developers...
look, it's using all 16 cores/threads in 5960X!
CyberPunked
Member
What did you use to inject SMAA?
SweetFX with bolotaur 64 bits dxgi.dll
yeah this game happily chills at nearly 5 gb ram usage for me (16 gb ram):
no wonder the initial system requirements recommended more than 8gb lol
RenegadeXV8
Banned
Well, fwiw, changing graphic settings does absolutely nothing for a 290X. Same average FPS on very low to very high.
It's either horrendously CPU bound (even on a 4770K) or AMD didn't get to look at the code.
It's either horrendously CPU bound (even on a 4770K) or AMD didn't get to look at the code.