Support NeoGAF

[Azax]

3570k
GTX 780
16 GB RAM

Texture Quality - High
Shadow Map Size - Medium
Foliage Quality - High
View Distance - 0
Ambient Occlusion - On
HBAO+ - On
Depth Of Field - Off
Motion Blur - Off
Anti-Aliasing - On
Field of View - -10

Apparantly Field of View at -10 gave me better frames

Having 60 frames all the time. Sometimes dips to 55.
And I'm talking about being outside with zombies.

 

[d00d3n]

I was looking forward to testing the game this evening, but unfortunately the game crashes when loading the main menu (I assume, it is right after the intro video). Beta being sold as full game?

specs: 3570k@4.6, 8 gig ram, 2x780, win7 64bit

 

[Vuze]

The FOV impacts performance pretty severely. Went from using a modifier of +16 to the default +0. Using three steps in the draw distance slider and everything else at max @ 1080P I now get 58fps as a min running around just outside the tower instead of 48 with the higher FOV. Sucks while being in front of a monitor, but playing on a television this would be ideal.

You're pretty damn right! Performance is much better with lower FOV but ugh... not very comfortable.

 

[Derpcrawler]

CPU: Core i7 5820K@4.4Ghz
RAM: 16Gb DDR4-3000
SSD: 1Tb Samsung Evo
GPU: GTX980 SLI @1357Mhz


I get pretty stable 60FPS+ frame rates so far at 1440p with slight dips into low 50s here and there, everything is maxed out except for default view distance.

Spoiler

I don't know what poor framerate you guys are talking about.

 

[cripterion]

the environment shakes and sort of, vibrates when using sli for me.

Maybe it's the way it's meant to be played?

 

[Dralex789]

nvidia 680
16 gigs of ddr3 ram
windows 7 64 bit
i7-4790 @4ghz

I was getting ~60+ fps inside when the game started with everything but vsync cranked to the max, running at 1920x1080. When I went outside, looking some directions, it was fine, others it would drop to ~3fps. Only thing that would fix it was dropping textures to medium but I wanted to find a better solution.

My fix was to reinstall to my solid state hard drive which turned those drops to ~15fps.

Also just figured out if I drop shadows to medium and keep everything else cranked back to high (including textures) and now 45+ fps in any direction, outside.

Hope that helps. Oculus testing comes tonight....

 

[Haunted]

Well, it is a Techland release.

 

[Dictator93]

Edit: Might have to do with the VRAM? High textures results in 3.5-4GB VRAM usage.

I hope this turns out not to be true.

My brother has the same PC basically (970 SLI with 1440p). I feel like I screwed him over with my rig recommendations since this 3.5GB busniess.

 

[Robert J. Sullivan]

Quick question, how's mouse input ?

 

[Faith]

Ok now I get 40-60fps without stuttering. I turned on Vsync and Tripple Buffering in the Nvidia Control Panel.

If you are using a GTX970 (or even 2 of them in my case), I wouldn't go for High Textures. The VRAM problem (>3.5GB) is killing the performance.

 

[Homunculus]

Ok now I get 40-60fps without stuttering. I turned on Vsync and Tripple Buffering in the Nvidia Control Panel.

If you are using a GTX970 (or even 2 of them in my case), I wouldn't go for High Textures. The VRAM problem (>3.5GB) is killing the performance.

Actually, the performance problem seems to stem from the view distance. It appears that other 970 users aren't experience problems with max textures, but that view distance is crushing the performance.

 

[CyberPunked]

I'm getting about 40-60fps with very little stuttering.
SLI 980s
i7 3930k
Max settings @ 4K

 

[Intheflorsh]

I'm getting rock solid 60 FPS with my 660ti after setting shadows to medium and using external vsync.

The only issue I have is that I'm getting massive hitches whenever I'm grabbed by a zombie.

 

[Faith]

Actually, the performance problem seems to stem from the view distance. It appears that other 970 users aren't experience problems with max textures, but that view distance is crushing the performance.

Read this:

From testing, it appears that there is no difference in quality between the two settings, and that High may merely be storing more textures in memory on suitably equipped GPUs. For example, running around an area on Medium resulted in a modicum of texture pop-in and VRAM usage of around 2GB. Repeating the test on High resulted in zero pop-in and VRAM usage that topped out at 3.3GB, though during longer gameplay sessions usage of nearly 4GB has been observed.

Nvidia Dying Light Guide

I think I'm going to stick with Medium textures and 50% draw distance.

 

[Peterthumpa]

Ok now I get 40-60fps without stuttering. I turned on Vsync and Tripple Buffering in the Nvidia Control Panel.

If you are using a GTX970 (or even 2 of them in my case), I wouldn't go for High Textures. The VRAM problem (>3.5GB) is killing the performance.

Haha, poor NVIDIA. Now a GTX970 is, at it's best, a mid-range card with insufficient memory to run graphically average games.

Dat hyperbole.

 

[gossi]

Make sure you drop textures to medium and try turn draw distance. On high it pushes ~4gb of VRAM, after the opening tutorial section.

 

[garath]

Ok now I get 40-60fps without stuttering. I turned on Vsync and Tripple Buffering in the Nvidia Control Panel.

If you are using a GTX970 (or even 2 of them in my case), I wouldn't go for High Textures. The VRAM problem (>3.5GB) is killing the performance.

Is this what we have to look forward to? Every new game now is going to be people recommending 970 users turn down textures because of the 3.5gig issue?

Read this:
I think I'm going to stick with Medium textures and 50% draw distance.

So how long did you play before you saw VRAM usage exceed 3.5gigs? And what kind of performance dip did you get when that happened?

Personally I'd be more annoyed at texture pop-in at Medium that the article cites.

 

[riflen]

Ok now I get 40-60fps without stuttering. I turned on Vsync and Tripple Buffering in the Nvidia Control Panel.

This game uses a DirectX render. The triple buffering setting in NVCP only affects OpenGL games. If you want correct triple buffering, you should run the game in borderless windowed mode (if it's available).

EDIT: I see you're using SLI, so borderless windowed mode is out of the question for you. Sorry. The good news is you're already getting the benefits of a multiple buffer render queue by using SLI mode, so your frame rate can be arbitrary and not limited by monitor synchronisation rates when Vsync is enabled.

 

[Phinor]

With a 970, I'm consistently between 3.50-3.58GB VRAM at 1080p and max settings (except for view distance). There's some pretty severe stuttering/fps drops every now and then and obviously the view distance is the real killer. GPU usage drops from 99-100% down to 60% or so when viewing long distances.

Also still getting headache with FOV at maximum setting so there's something going on with that first person view.

Couple of patches and we should be good to go?

 

[RadioSupreme]

Asus Z97A mobo
GTX 770 2GB
8GB RAM
i5-4590 3.3 GHz

Kinda nervous to get this even tho I really want it. I don't want another Far Cry 4 Fiasco on my hands where I jumped from 60fps to 18 in the blink of an eye

 

[Homunculus]

With a 970, I'm consistently between 3.50-3.58GB VRAM at 1080p and max settings (except for view distance). There's some pretty severe stuttering/fps drops every now and then and obviously the view distance is the real killer. GPU usage drops from 99-100% down to 60% or so when viewing long distances.

Also still getting headache with FOV at maximum setting so there's something going on with that first person view.

Couple of patches and we should be good to go?

Most likely.

I'd say that, over time, as patches and drivers are rolled out that we'll see improvements.

 

[Faith]

Btw, some good tips from the Nvidia Performance guide:

Comparison: http://international.download.nvidi...ia-depth-of-field-comparison-1-on-vs-off.html (I think off looks actually better)

You can set the rest to high, the difference isn't that big performance-wise. Draw distance has obviously the biggest impact on performance, and textures for PCs with a GTX970.

Comparisons:
http://international.download.nvidi...e-comparison-1-100-percent-vs-50-percent.html
http://international.download.nvidi...e-comparison-2-100-percent-vs-50-percent.html

I think 50% is a good compromise.

 

[miserable]

wait, are you guys referring to view distance when you say FOV?

cause i'm not seeing an FOV option from those screenshots

 

[knerl]

CPU: Core i7 5820K@4.4Ghz
RAM: 16Gb DDR4-3000
SSD: 1Tb Samsung Evo
GPU: GTX980 SLI @1357Mhz


I get pretty stable 60FPS+ frame rates so far at 1440p with slight dips into low 50s here and there, everything is maxed out except for default view distance.

Spoiler

I don't know what poor framerate you guys are talking about.

Two 980's and you don't even get a stable 60. Hope you're being sarcastic.
For two 980's that is absolute shit.

 

[Nyteshade517]

wait, are you guys referring to view distance when you say FOV?

cause i'm not seeing an FOV option from those screenshots

The FOV slider is in the Game settings not the Video settings

my setup is...

i5-4690K
R9 290X
8GB RAM

Once you have to go outside that's when some issues are coming up but with tweaking some settings by what I have seen here I am getting a good performance so far. Not a locked 60 FPS but for me personally it's enough until any patches or drivers are put out.

 

[martino]

crossfire 7870xt
i7 950 @3.9 ghz

My cpu cry so much...i'm going from 27-60 depending on the scene
Open ones are usualy 30-35 no matter graphic option (max on worst all but draw distance than hurt framerate more if i go above 25%

i'm hugely cpu bottlenecked here.

 

[matrixman92]

Intel Core i5-3350p CPU @ 3.10GHz
Nividia GeForce GTX 760 4Gb
8.2 GB RAM
Windows 7 64 bit


The game is pretty much unplayable to me. Im not usually critical on frame rate, but this actually hinders the game. It is sub 20 fps for me, with some very nasty screen tearing. Not sure what the deal is. Put literally every setting to its lowest setting, and turned all features off...still the exact same. Might need to wait till I can upgrade my PC for this one. I fear for when the Witcher 3 comes out.

Edit: this is all from the very beginning of the game, which I read is the part that runs the best

 

[Modest Mauser]

What's up with so many new games on PC requiring such nice hardware and then still running so poorly?

When I built my first gaming PC ~5 years ago it was a budget build but it handled all the most popular games just great. Last year I upgrade to a GTX 770 and I'm already having terrible performance in games with just average visuals. Has it been like this before?

 

[knerl]

Intel Core i5-3350p CPU @ 3.10GHz
Nividia GeForce GTX 760 4Gb
8.2 GB RAM
Windows 7 64 bit


The game is pretty much unplayable to me. Im not usually critical on frame rate, but this actually hinders the game. It is sub 20 fps for me, with some very nasty screen tearing. Not sure what the deal is. Put literally every setting to its lowest setting, and turned all features off...still the exact same. Might need to wait till I can upgrade my PC for this one. I fear for when the Witcher 3 comes out.

Edit: this is all from the very beginning of the game, which I read is the part that runs the best

If it's the same even on the lowest settings I have no clue. The 760 is otherwise known to not be fast enough to effectively handle more than 2GB VRAM. Don't know how good your CPU is. That being said this game is still performing really bad on the most high-end rigs.

 

[GavinUK86]

If you choose the "0x080116F5 (Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield: Hardline)" SLI compatibility bit in inspector it stops the flickering. I've also found that turning off AA fixing the "vibration" if you wanna call it that.

So with:

• i7 2600k
• 8gb ram
• GTX 660 SLI

running at 1080p and everything on max, minus textures as High seems to need more than a 2gb card, it hovers around 45. I've locked it to 30 with Afterburner and it's pretty playable now.

 

[MaLDo]

Sweetfx x64 from bolotaur works perfect to inject SMAA.

 

[Karak]

Sweetfx x64 from bolotaur works perfect to inject SMAA.

I didn't try but thats great news

 

[Snoogans2you]

What's up with so many new games on PC requiring such nice hardware and then still running so poorly?

When I built my first gaming PC ~5 years ago it was a budget build but it handled all the most popular games just great. Last year I upgrade to a GTX 770 and I'm already having terrible performance in games with just average visuals. Has it been like this before?

New console integrated graphics that share RAM for GPU and CPU would be my guess. Probably makes it tricky to port over now, and unless someone takes the time to do it right (Shadow of Mordor for example) you're left with rushed, unoptimized ports.

 

[pa22word]

What's up with so many new games on PC requiring such nice hardware and then still running so poorly?

When I built my first gaming PC ~5 years ago it was a budget build but it handled all the most popular games just great. Last year I upgrade to a GTX 770 and I'm already having terrible performance in games with just average visuals. Has it been like this before?

Yes.

You built a pc in the middle of the dead years where console hardware was totally stagnant for 8 years, and most resource intenstive games were speced against said hardware. Now that console hardware has been boosted the baseline has changed, and games are being spec'd against much higher requirements.

This was why back when the new consoles game out I tried to warn everyone off buying new gpus until the situation settled a bit and we got a better idea of how things were going to be spec'd for the coming years instead of doing some loose guess work and hoping for the best. What's ended up happening is it looks like 4gbs vram is becoming the baseline to shoot for, which obviously leaves a lot of people in the dust and will leave people who upgraded in the middle of things who were previously used to just hammering through everything with blunt force having to accept compromises on performance in places in order to play games, and this has obviously led to some very pissed off people. Just look at basically any Aaa launch in pc perf threads the last year or so for examples >.>

Now I'm not saying DL is the best example because the game obviously has some issues with multicore support, but you can still kind of see some of the same attitudes prevalent as the other pc perf threads with people who thought they were entitled to high framerates and high resolutions getting smacked back down to earth by the law of physics

 

[Joey Ravn]

My OS Language is set to English, my keyboard is set to Spanish and I recently played Dead Island and didn't face this issue.

You made me curious about it tho, will report tonight on dying light's behaviour.

does it help to set up two languages you can switch with alt-shift?

I don't remember how I solved it in Dead Island, to be honest. The issue stemmed from having a "weird" combination of Location, Input Language and Display Language. And by "weird" I mean simply not using a default setting. For example, I'm in Spain, with a Spanish Keyboard and an English (US) OS.

I'll try again later. I've upgrade my Windows 8.1 to 10 TP and I had to set my location to the US for Cortana to work. Maybe it solves my issues with Dying Light? Who knows...

 

[Kezen]

people who upgraded in the middle of things who were previously used to just hammering through everything with blunt force

I don't know which period you are referring to but even when games (understand : multiplatform releases) were tailored around 360/PS3 specs maxing out games at 60fps was absolutely not easy on the hardware. The situation has hardly changed in that regard, and people expecting to do that on a regular basis are free to delude themselves.

If anything I'm surprised how easy the transition has been even though we have not seen the best consoles can do yet. Multiplats run at console settings on mid-range hardware even the most tech pushing ones.
I don't doubt Dying Light is any different, but if you want to crank all the sliders to the max and 60fps this was never going to require any less than top end hardware, that's partly what it exists for.

 

[d00d3n]

I was looking forward to testing the game this evening, but unfortunately the game crashes when loading the main menu (I assume, it is right after the intro video). Beta being sold as full game?

specs: 3570k@4.6, 8 gig ram, 2x780, win7 64bit

I just managed to start the game. Solution: Force Geforce Experience custom setting, tilted towards performance as much as possible.

 

[Snapshot King]

What's up with so many new games on PC requiring such nice hardware and then still running so poorly?

When I built my first gaming PC ~5 years ago it was a budget build but it handled all the most popular games just great. Last year I upgrade to a GTX 770 and I'm already having terrible performance in games with just average visuals. Has it been like this before?

The game ran much better just a week or two ago. Something happened to it that fucked it up.

 

[LabouredSubterfuge]

I found the new Nvidia 947.27 drivers to be incredibly unstable and experienced driver crashes every other minute (even when just browsing the internet).

Anyone else experience this?

 

[abracadaver]

horrible performance in this game

I5 3550 (3,3Ghz) + R290

with medium to high settings I get like 25fps outside

 

[knitoe]

I found the new Nvidia 947.27 drivers to be incredibly unstable and experienced driver crashes every other minute (even when just browsing the internet).

Anyone else experience this?

Runs fine for me. Try reinstalling using the CUSTOM > Fresh Install option. If it's still crashing, is your video card overclock, whether by manually or factory? If yes, run the card at the normal stock speed and test.

 

[b0bbyJ03]

I don't know which period you are referring to but even when games (understand : multiplatform releases) were tailored around 360/PS3 specs maxing out games at 60fps was absolutely not easy on the hardware. The situation has hardly changed in that regard, and people expecting to do that on a regular basis are free to delude themselves.

If anything I'm surprised how easy the transition has been even though we have not seen the best consoles can do yet. Multiplats run at console settings on mid-range hardware even the most tech pushing ones.
I don't doubt Dying Light is any different, but if you want to crank all the sliders to the max and 60fps this was never going to require any less than top end hardware, that's partly what it exists for.

I'm pretty new to PC (just built last year) but would it be safe to say that games are not scaling as well as they used to. In other words, a few years back if you had high end hardware you could at least turn the settings down until you hit 60 fps (this is all judging by what i've heard from other people). It seems like in the current state of things it doesn't matter what you turn down, 60 fps stable is impossible (far cry, Evil within, watch dogs, dying light, etc). since i've built my pc this has been very common.

 

[Kezen]

I'm pretty new to PC (just built last year) but would it be safe to say that games are not scaling as well as they used to. In other words, a few years back if you had high end hardware you could at least turn the settings down until you hit 60 fps (this is all judging by what i've heard from other people). It seems like in the current state of things it doesn't matter what you turn down, 60 fps stable is impossible (far cry, Evil within, watch dogs, dying light, etc). since i've built my pc this has been very common.

60fps is absolutely possible even with max settings for Watch Dogs, FC4 and Dying Light but it requires very burly hardware. The Evil Within is a different case since it does not officially support 60fps, although you can get pretty close.

From what I can gather 60fps is not any more difficult to achieve (in conjunction with maximum settings) than it was years ago with high-end hardware of the time. There were many games requiring two GPUs for max settings + 60fps even though those games were made with 360/PS3's limitations in mind.

 

[b0bbyJ03]

60fps is absolutely possible even with max settings for Watch Dogs, FC4 and Dying Light but it requires very burly hardware. The Evil Within is a different case since it does not officially support 60fps, although you can get pretty close.

From what I can gather 60fps is not any more difficult to achieve (in conjunction with maximum settings) than it was years ago with high-end hardware of the time. There were many games requiring two GPUs for max settings + 60fps even though those games were made with 360/PS3's limitations in mind.

Well i guess i meant more in terms of scalability. like crysis games for example, it still takes a top end set up to run them at max but otherwise you can scale them to run at 60 fps with no problems. the graphical settings actually make a difference. seems like the scalability has change. its not what it was. That is more what i was asking. has that part of it changed?

 

[Efren is G.O.A.T.]

i5-3570k
gtx780 dcu2 Oc
8gb ram

1080p
Everything at max and viewing distance at 50%

Pretty smooth for me!

 

[ClaptoVaughn]

i5-3570k
gtx780 dcu2 Oc
8gb ram

1080p
Everything at max and viewing distance at 50%

Pretty smooth for me!

But the important question is, is it as smooth as butter?

 

[impact]

What's up with so many new games on PC requiring such nice hardware and then still running so poorly?

When I built my first gaming PC ~5 years ago it was a budget build but it handled all the most popular games just great. Last year I upgrade to a GTX 770 and I'm already having terrible performance in games with just average visuals. Has it been like this before?

People keep buying games with poor performance and optimization (on consoles and PC) so we keep getting games with poor performance and optimization

 

[b0bbyJ03]

People keep buying games with poor performance and optimization (on consoles and PC) so we keep getting games with poor performance and optimization

idk if this is true. sometimes it takes a few instances of something to happen to recognize the pattern. 2014 changed my buying habits. I didn't pick this game up because of it, and im sure other people are doing the same and waiting on word that it works well.

 

[Kezen]

Well i guess i meant more in terms of scalability. like crysis games for example, it still takes a top end set up to run them at max but otherwise you can scale them to run at 60 fps with no problems. the graphical settings actually make a difference. seems like the scalability has change. its not what it was. That is more what i was asking. has that part of it changed?

I can agree with the claim that some recent games such as Unity or Dying Light are less scalable than some of the most demanding games during the PS3/360 era.
But what has not changed is that they demand top end hardware if you don't want compromises. You can find very similar cases during the 7th gen era.

 

[d00d3n]

For people with an Oculus Rift connected to their PC: Are you having issues running the game in real fullscreen mode? If this is the case, disconnect your Rift. Allowed me to run real fullscreen.