Dying Light Benchmarked, Performance Review

Dying Light Benchmarked, Performance Review

I am posting the GPU performance in 1920x1080, 2560x1600 and CPU performance:

This is an really bad benchmark. They benchmarked in the tower. That is a terrible representation of the games performance. The game's fps tanks when you go outside, which is where you spend the vast majority of the time. They even admit the game performs way worse outside than in their benchmark. Then they say that people should just pretend their results were for 50% view distance instead of 100% view distance instead of actually benchmarking outside

Thats just incredibly lazy. Techspot should just delete this and do a real benchmark

worst benchmark i have ever seen.

51 frames on a celeron g8120

Bwahaha , are you fucking kidding me, I didn't know these guys were such noobs lmao

48 fps is fine by me.

I mean the game doesn't justify it's performance by graphics but all those people complain about it's unplayable is just ridiculous

It could be a lot worse, my minimum FPS is 40, PS4's max FPS is 30 and I wouldn't be surprised if it dipped.

Well I don't remember DI being well optimized either, so this doesn't surprise me ... and as with DI, I will be picking this up a year later off a Steam sale.

Not sure why everyone is having problems. It's locked @ 60 FPS for me @ 1440P w/ X2 290's.
Highest settings w/ 50% view distance.

people are having problems because they have an outdated pc for top end gaming. They still think their 5 year i5 -2500 and 3 year old gtx 660ti can achieve max settings but that dream couldn't last forever, however I personally think this is a good thing. Developpers should push the enveloppe, I was sick (and a lot of others with me) with the last gen high res games.

I'm not having problems, but I can't max out the game, so it's quite simple if I want higher quality I need to buy a better system.

So fine rub it in mr 'i don't know why people are having problems' with an i7-477k at 4.4 ghz and 2 R9 290's :) I'm browsing shops right now

Guyz, the reviewer mentioned the problem you have:

Post-test notes:

After further investigation we have learned a few things about Dying Lights performance with the latest v1.2 patch. The performance we found indoors is accurate, however many reviews show performance to be around half what we saw. The issue seemed to be the draw distance, which doesn’t have an impact inside, even when looking out over the landscape as we did.

Our test does include a section where the player walks to the edge of the tower and looks out over the landscape, here the frame rates actually increase significantly which was unexpected.

As it turns out the draw distance isn’t an issue here either as finer details are not displayed. It isn’t until you hit ground level and walk outside that the frame rates take a huge hit with the draw distance set to 100%. Backing the draw distance off to 50% restores performance and gamers will see the numbers we showed in this article.

It is believed that the draw distance performance at 100% can be cured via a patch and if this is the case then the performance we showed inside will be much the same outside as well. For now although we tested with 100% draw distance the results should be treated as though the distance was set to 50%.

It seems the problem is the draw distance at 100%.

That's why @insane_metalist doesn't have any problem at 1440p.

But most of you are right. They should have an indoor test and an outdoor test...

I have a 4770K and a GTX 970 and the game runs like crap. There's no reason I shouldn't be able to max this game out at 1080p yet my PC is struggling with the view distance at 40%. I'm about to just turn it all the way down. Not to mention the custscenes keep freezing on me. It's not because people have old PCs, it's just not a well optimized game.

The graphics and view distance are pretty good, it may not be well optimized but it's not like you should be able to max it this out just because you have a gtx 970. I put the view distance of 40 percent, resolution on 1000p, disabled nvidia hbao and the game runs pretty much perfect.

Fact is that the game is unoptimized, it does not matter if your running an i5 from years ago or gtx 660 ti or what ever, that fact is that the based on the requirements the developers suggested you should have, does not allow the game to run smoothly. When people have pc's that surpass the hardware requirements have issues, its not because they push the envelope its because they cant code properly. One major problem with Dying light is that it does not make use of 4 or more threads, the fact that an i3 4430 does better then an i5 4670k means one thing poor cpu coding.

And because of limited cpu usage prevents the gpu's to get the data they need because the cpu is struggling to to do every thing along one or two cores.

Which explains viewing range issues.

Techspot does really lazy reviews. People should stop posting their results. GameGPU seems to be the place to go nowadays for PC benchmarks.

Exactly what I thought when I read the article this morning.

Again, the game lets you crank view distance to way higher than the console versions so it's not like it's running better on the console. Some games let you turn up specific settings to crazy high levels and View Distance in this game is one of those types of settings. People get obsessed with running "maxed" but you have to realize that max settings in one game is not necessarily the same as max settings in another. The PS4 version of the game runs with a view distance set to approximately 0% by how the PC version measures it, so 30-40% is pretty good.

-Byshop

On a side note, can anyone else find games on "Be the Zombie" mode?

I found a few games the first time I installed it but since then, it's a barren wasteland....

Yes it does run smoothly, My cpu is barely better than the minimum requirements . I played with people online who have a 7770, they use a lower detail settings and view distance than me but the game runs smooth for them. Recommended settings doesn't necessarily mean maximum settings, it was never like that.

What does it matter that it doesn't make perfect use of quad core, Why does it have to cater only quad cores when it can also run of a dual core. You may call it unoptimized but there are so many cpu's out there that if they would optimize it for quad cores and above only , people with slower systems and less cores, like a lot of laptops have, wouldn't be able to run it. A game studio is not charity, the more people they can reach the more profit they can make. So who can blame them that they optimize the game first for biggest group.

The people that have issues want to play the game at max settings yet they don't have the hardware to do it. They use cpu's that are 5 year old and 1 high end gpu and they expect to max it out at full hd, lmao. If you tried that in the past, your pc would have simply shut down. Of course in the past it was much easier. You had only 1 core and the fastest one got the best performance. Now it's more about balance. There are people that have 8 core amd's, but that's not balance. A fast i5 is much better balance.

You want to max it out? buy better hardware. If they could have optimize it better, they would have done it because that always works in their favor. I'm just glad I got a new great game and I would really wanted to run the game at better settings as well but I can't or I have to upgrade, and that's always fun as ever.

p.s. I know one thing if I didn't sell that I7-3820 last year i would have run this game a lot better, of course I would have less money in my pocket. I really don't know to what I would have to upgrade to run this game better though and not buy an i7, i'll probably wait for skylake. (yes, it's me, the army of darkness)

So much BS in this post.....

I see some people never change

So, you are saying that developers should not advance PC gaming because some people have old hardware? We need to keep moving forward. Games need to take advantage of multi-core and hyperthreading. It is good to make games scalable, but we should not be holding back the modern computing architectures.

It does make a difference though, this is 40 percent vs 100 percent view distance

40 percent

100 percent

I see some dont look at the facts.... The game is poorly coded to make use of multiple cores.... Which does limit gpu's abilities.

There is no excuse in this day and age to release a multiplat game that only uses 1-2 threads. If the game was coded correctly to use at least 4 threads, its a guarantee that those 5 year old cpu's like the i5 2500, would perform as well or better that that i7 5960x does in its current state. And if the game made use of 8 threads those AMD FX 8's would do nearly the same type of performance as 3rd gen i5's using all four cores.

@steaminpotatoes: It's more than that,

There are a ton of details that you simply cannot see on the lower view distance, a lot of textures are simply missing on the lower view distance. Some objects are simply gone, like when you look to the left on the picture, a whole city block is dissapaered, broken windows are just holes, balconies missing, colors just turned grey. The other type of trees just make it look a lot more artificial.

This is also on a resolution of 1000p, so a much sharper image, like you would have with 4k , would amplify the difference in detail.

This is also with nvidia hbao disabled.

The simple fact is , that higher view distance looks more realistic, simply because it's more realistic. You can put your pink glasses on and say that it isn't important, but to me and a lot of other people it is.

view distance in dying light = cast shadows on distanced objects according to GI's light direction and increase all object's LOD level by one notch, especially trees since they are rigged by physics animation. Difference will became very notable only when you stand on top of a crane or a very tall building, which doesn't happen very often, Dev did a very good job by providing peak LOD loop on all objects within 100 feet even at view distance 0% plus you will be spend most of your time running on the road or jump from 2 story buildings from time to time fighting zombies, which is what dying light is all about, that's why majority players won't notice view distance 0-100%

<---- From someone playing at view distance 75%

So the most recent update as of 16 hours ago limited the view distance slider so what used to be 60% is now 100%. They also added an additional setting to the Shadow Maps (very high). There's also other general optimizations they claim. I seem to never get less than 60 FPS now....

Takes many attempts to get into a match, but I always see many matches available.

* EDIT: I've been playing this game for about an hour;

There's no way to change texture quality, this is probably a poor port without optimization: game doesn't run any better with all graphics turned off, it got places where it dips to 20-30 for a sec then comes back for that good 50fps stuff.

It's a shame, I was hoping for this game; the game is playable tough - I hope they'll fix those annoying dips.

For overall game experience well it's alright and all, it's like they've added a storyline to DayZ / Rust with those air drops.

If you just played it, it's running a lot better than it was when everyone was complaining about performance, but they still have a lot of work to do. I think it's not as optimized for AMD as it is NVIDIA.

Actually now I've changed the texure quality to medium instead of high and I think the game runs better, either that or they've done some optimization

LOL their first CPU optimization patch was limiting the view distance

It already performs a lot better after the last patch so it doesn't require any mega-CPU. Still, I think they have yet to actually code the game to take really advantage of multicore CPUs. So i3 dual cores would even be fine playing this game.

Optimization and cutting some settings back are pretty much the same thing. If they felt like the view distance slider went unnecessarily high - I believe them, because I personally had difficulty spotting any differences between having view distance at 50% and 100% pre-patch. Also, they must've done other things. I don't think my current view distance settings are different than what they were pre-patch (never had my view distance maxed, more like at 60%), so aside from the view distance thing I think my game is just running better.

Why is the R7 265 listed as an R9?

Pretty much this.

I tested the game with the CPU Control tweak method that some gamers have resorted to pre-patch and post-patch. But what KHAndAnime said, sums up my experience thus far. While using CPU Control, I experienced more stuttering (post-patch). Then, I tested it without CPU Control, and it ran a lot smoother and more consistent. I tested it out just for curiosity's sake.

View distance, whether it is at max or 0, does not seem to be affecting my performance either way. While view distance seems to be hitting the performance more than anything, I don't see it as being a dealbreaker as I could not notice much of a difference, if any. Perhaps, it was the way they handled LOD.