dying light runs like poop

i5 2500K @ 4ghz

8gb DDR3

SLI GTX970 @ 1450 core 7400 mem

game runs like total poo maxed out, 60% view distance, 1080p.

we are talking sub 30FPS in some areas....

devs clearly dont give a shit about optimization anymore... and im tired of spending serious $$$ just to get mediocre performance. i dont even want to know what this game would run at if i tried 1440p....

I watched some streams yesterday and I could notice the dips pretty bad. Sodapoppin's game would just lock up.

they'll probably release a patch or benchmarks will show that you need a 5960x lol

The game seems to be a cpu hog since the minimum requirements being an i5 2500.

Well, if you every played Dead Island 1 and 2 you would know this company just don't care about having an optimized game.

SLI doesn't work, AMD cards are running worse then Nvidia cards, CPU utilization is 100% on 1 core, FPS dips in the 40-50 range.

It's going to take them usual 6 or so months to get the game even half way optimized. Then the community is going to have to do the rest posting tweak guides and tools to even make the game playable.

I learned my lesion not to buy from them Day 1. If they want my money it's only going to happen when it's priced $5 or less.

You shouldn't buy a game day 1 if your a PC gamer to be perfectly honest.

I'm never buying a game day 1 again and I'm never buying and I'm never getting a high end GPU again simply because of this reason... Developers have no problem releasing buggy and unoptimised games, I'm not paying £400 for a GPU to get 30FPS at 1920x1080. I would much rather get a £200 GPU and lower the settings to get 60FPS.

That sounds like peasant talk.

I am going to try this on the weekend, I hope it won't work like crap because Dragon Age Inq actually runs pretty good on max settings with MSAAX2

I had a HD 4890, GTX 680 and GTX 780 Ti... I would gladly get a GTX 980 Ti when it comes out, I am so please with how my temp card is doing that I don't see why I should bother paying 3-4 times the price just to play on Ultra settings.

It doesn't help that games like this exist.

Optimised games run at 60FPS on medium/high and look better than this game on Ultra. Battlefield 4 is a good example... 2560x1080 on Medium-High I get 60-70FPS average, this game?... On the lowest settings I get 30-40FPS with dips to 20FPS.

I would much rather buy a new lens for my Nikon D750 than get a high end card... Let alone two of them.

On the contrary, peasants can't lower settings and resolution for better performance; if they get 30fps and below they're stuck with that "cinematic" experience.

Anyways, I just watched TB's port report and it seems like View Distance affects framerate heavily, and turning it down has little effect on visual quality.

It just sounds like you are strapped for cash. You claim to have had a 780 Ti (great card) and now you have a 270 (bad card). Why downgrade? Then, you are talking about money for a camera lens. It seems like you are trying to find excuses to settle for the low end card and not go for a card that you really want. If you can't afford it, that is fine. Just be straight about it. Don't knock the high end cards, because you know they are vastly superior to the 270.

Turn SLI off.

I'm hearing SLI and ATI cards are having issues.

Or wait for the patch that will fix it.

my game actually never drops below 30. But i lowered the resolution to 1000p and lowered the view distance to 40 percent. I also disabled vsync

It's true. But not just for PC gamers either - it's beginning to ring true for console games too. LBP3, for example, was broken at launch - to the point where people received refunds.

I don't doubt that optimization issues will be fixed, it's just a question of when...

As for me, Dying Light runs great on my single GTX 980. I experience some stuttering with the view distance maxed, but if I turn it down just a couple ticks, it goes away almost completely. Game looks great. Still - I don't really think I should be experiencing any stuttering on any setting whatsoever.

@cyloninside: Have you tried this

There's no mystery about dying light's performance, if your CPU is anything less than a high end 4th-5th gen I-5/ I-7, then you are getting 40ish fps max even with the best GPU available. and AMD users are pretty much chit out of luck. I can only suggest drop draw distance as low as possible, it max out all core loads. But then those with latest intel build and 9 series nvidia card are likely have little trouble, playing it on my X99 built, even with 2 GTX980, sometimes cut scene still give me micro shutter.

I think that's exaggerating a bit. I have a 1st-gen i7 and the majority of my play experience is at 60+ FPS. But I'm overclocking to 4.2 currently. But I think since it's so dependent on the first core, overclocking seems to make all the difference.

Can you record a footage or take few screenshots with fps/settings displayed? I don't doubt GTX970/980 users can hit 60fps from time to time , but gaming experience as a whole is not about peak fps for the time being, 6 hrs in, you will see gun fights, intense run and chase, big time explosion etc, that's where the stress test really begin.

I've come to realize that anytime a game has a Nvidia logo plastered on it, it will most likely run like poop.

Only if you don't have an NVIDIA card, lol..

Sad, but true. Even for Nvidia users. Ubisoft set the bar low and others devs don't care to raise it.

That's a lot of work for something I don't really care to prove. I'd have to take a vid to demonstrate the performance I'm getting. If I'm not panning and looking out towards a bunch a buildings, my FPS is 60+, if I'm looking around really fast or doing fast movement, my FPS is less than 60. That's assuming that my draw distance is maxed. I have the DD turned down a couple clicks, so it doesn't dip under 60 that often.

I really want to pick this game up for realz but I don't like that you have to pay extra money for the PvP mode, too much money. Not really digging the optimization that much either. Less than max settings, not constant 60+ fps, blurry graphics, tons of jaggies (poor AA implementation), etc.

Probably will Redbox for PS4 if I choose to play any more.

EDIT: Fuggit, it's already pretty cheap on the key-sites, even if I buy the DLC separately. Going that route. I might take a vid demonstrating my performance later.

Edit 2: Double confused. I see a bunch of people complaining you have to pay for the "Be the monster mode" but on Steam it shows that it's part of the base game.

@cyloninside: Turning down the viewing distance, problem solved. After I turned it down the games runs silky smooth with every other setting maxed.

And it has the worst chromatic aberration ever!!!

just did a WHOLE bunch of settings tests on framerate. literally nothing in the game has a single effect on framerate outside of view distance. i can turn every single option to off and low, but have view distance on max, and my framerate will stay exactly the same (~30fps). turning everything back to max, and lowering view distance to 40% or below, the game returns to 50-60FPS with occasional hiccups (still poor for an SLI setup). i even went into DSR resolutions and my framerate still didnt fluctuate...

it looks like if you dont have the absolute top end CPU available... you cannot run this game at greater than 40% view distance. anything more and you will be lucky to hit 40fps. either there is something seriously wrong with that setting, or the game is just balls in terms of optimization.

@GameFan1983 said:

There's no mystery about dying light's performance, if your CPU is anything less than a high end 4th-5th gen I-5/ I-7, then you are getting 40ish fps max even with the best GPU available. and AMD users are pretty much chit out of luck. I can only suggest drop draw distance as low as possible, it max out all core loads. But then those with latest intel build and 9 series nvidia card are likely have little trouble, playing it on my X99 built, even with 2 GTX980, sometimes cut scene still give me micro shutter.

This^

OP: Keep in mind that view distance at 50% is considered high settings by the devs and way above the PS4s view distance which is at 0% or even lower.

It also doesn't help that most of the load is on the first core. Multithreading will hopefully be improved in upcoming patches. Your SLI 970s are hardly being used at all because they're limited by the CPU.

I get 50-60 fps in 1440p with my 970 SLI setup because of my faster CPU, which is a i7 3930k, clocked at 4 Ghz (hexa core sandy bridge) with view distance set to 60%

You could probably increase your resolution as well, the GPUs are not the problem.

The devs could have avoided a lot of complaints if they set 50% as the max view distance, or even as low as PS4s, or if they labeled the slider properly and made it clear that anything above 75% is for extreme high end CPUs only.

That's the "blur" I was describing :p Didn't know that has such a specific term

@Ben-Buja said:

@GameFan1983 said:

There's no mystery about dying light's performance, if your CPU is anything less than a high end 4th-5th gen I-5/ I-7, then you are getting 40ish fps max even with the best GPU available. and AMD users are pretty much chit out of luck. I can only suggest drop draw distance as low as possible, it max out all core loads. But then those with latest intel build and 9 series nvidia card are likely have little trouble, playing it on my X99 built, even with 2 GTX980, sometimes cut scene still give me micro shutter.

This^

OP: Keep in mind that view distance at 50% is considered high settings by the devs and way above the PS4s view distance which is at 0% or even lower.

It also doesn't help that most of the load is on the first core. Multithreading will hopefully be improved in upcoming patches. Your SLI 970s are hardly being used at all because they're limited by the CPU.

I get 50-60 fps in 1440p with my 970 SLI setup because of my faster CPU, which is a i7 3930k, clocked at 4 Ghz (hexa core sandy bridge) with view distance set to 60%

You could probably increase your resolution as well, the GPUs are not the problem.

The devs could have avoided a lot of complaints if they set 50% as the max view distance, or even as low as PS4s, or if they labeled the slider properly and made it clear that anything above 75% is for extreme high end CPUs only.

Well, the dream couldn't last forever. i5-2500 performance was high end till... now

I'm running it on 50% view distance and everything maxed on a laptop with a i7 CPU. I get around 40-60 FPS. Never below 40 FPS even when there's a lot of action. I don't think it has to do so much with the hardware, the game just needs a patch.

Going off Total Biscuit's PC Port Report video, the game has horrible threading. It puts almost all the stress on a single thread.

The SLI profile Nvidia put out works fine, just your GPUs won't do much since the CPU isn't feeding it well enough.

My GTX 780 Ti died... Look in the benchmark thread for my name. I ordered a temp card the R9 270 to hold me over AMD and Nvidia pull out their big guns.

That's until the recent bombardment of unfinished games and poorly made ones came around.

Also Being smart with money isn't the same as not being able to afford things.

I am not knocking high end cards... I am knocking the developer who really don't give a s*** what card you have and that list of developers is getting bigger by the minute.

Personally I hate it, besides a few games like Alien Isolation doing it right, most of the time it's overdone and usually poorly. Games like Destiny, Lords of the Fallen and now Dying Light hurt my eyes due to overdoing it. It should be subtle, not all out, I don't know why devs are obsessed with it nowadays, it rarely works.

I do believe him, I always thought in the past those bloomfield cpu's were a lot slower than the sandy clock for clock, but the difference is really not that big and at 4.2 ghz he probably matches the i7- 4770 at stock speeds. The biggest differences with those cpu's is maximum clock rates and power consumption. So if you compare a highly overclocked bloomfield with a stock clocked haswell then the speed gets levelled. An i7-4770 is benched at average 54 fps and minimum 34fps at maximum settings with a gtx 980. His gtx 980 is factory overclocked as well and if he turns down the view distance a bit, like he said, 60-ish fps is certainly possible.

His power consumption for the cpu is probably through the roof though but his gtx 980 should level it a bit.

i googled it and my eyes hurt just looking at static images of it. i think it's one of those things devs slap on without any artistic or technical judgement but can then be claimed to make the game look better. at one point all the games coming out had insane reflections or bloom or motion blur to the point where it was just visually overwhelming.

on topic: i have a core i5 3450, so i am not expecting good things.

Just finished downloading it and played a few matches of "Be the Zombie"

Everything on high except turned off HBAO+ and Motion Blur (draw distance at 50%).

Game works smooth on those settings for me (50-60fps).

yeah it seems to run a lot better on nvidia cards

And that i7 is no slouch either

I turned on my Steam FPS counter and took a bunch of screenshots hoping the counter was going to be in there but unfortunately it wasn't. Basically I was going to post screenshots of my i7 930 getting 60+ FPS in most situations with the view distance at 60%. If there's a lot going on and I'm moving around fast, the lowest it'll bog down to 40, which is pretty good considering PS4 plays at 30 fps.

and view distance at lower than 0% lol

http://www.hardcoregamer.com/2015/01/28/dying-light-face-off-pc-vs-ps4/131644/

nevermind about what i posted earlier.... even with the view distance turned down to about 30%, the game still runs like shit. i have tried every possible combination of settings and the only one that has ANY affect on performance is view distance. turning any other setting down results in maybe a 1 or 2 frame increase....

bah....DA:I looks better than this game and runs at a constant 60FPS effortlessly.... clearly there is something wrong with this game. or... its just time to retire the 2500K. i got like 5 years out of mine so i cant consider that bad at all.

the game not well optimize ............................. 290x2 and when i load the 2nd area it goes like 15 fps , maybe cause i enforce crossfire ... i ll do more tries today .

Should have waited on reviews.

If you look at the benchmarks it's only obvious you get this kind of frames, If you want better performance you'll need to upgrade the cpu and maybe even the gpu. I would start with overclocking your i5-2500k a lot higher than 4 ghz.

You could also buy a gtx 980 or another gtx 970 since the gpu power seems to being doing a lot as well, especially combined with very fast cpu's.

I certainly do not agree that dead island looks better than dying light though.

That's a broad generalization and not necessarily accurate. Many ports play better on PCs, but even for ports that don't it's not always because they are poorly optimized but because the PC counterpart allows you to turn the graphical settings up way past what they run at on the console. Dead Rising 3, for example, is a pretty crappy port but it runs fine on a decent PC if you leave it at the console's equivilent settings (internal render 720p, 30FPS) so you don't get a performance disadvantage by getting the PC version. The PC version just gives you greater flexibility to modify the experience, so the first thing everyone does is crank it up to at least 1080P with full settings and apply the ini file mod to enable 60FPS, which of course the game can barely run at on any system and certainly comes nowhere near that on the Xbox One.

@commander: Right now a second GPU won't help this game because there's no support for SLI/Crossfire yet. I've got dual 980GTXs and running this game in windowed or fullscreen makes no difference in terms of frame rate.

-Byshop

Well this benchmark seem to think otherwise, of course this game runs at max settings with an overclocked i7-5960x. Don't know what cpu you have or what settings your using.

There's is a profile you can download for sli, I don't know if it works, but apparently it should

@commander: It's worth a shot, but the developer was pretty clear that they weren't going to support dual GPU at launch. That said, that doesn't necessarily mean it can't work but often when this is the case running dual GPU either causes glitches or decreases perf. The game runs well enough on one card so I admit I hadn't put a lot of effort into trying to make it run better so my research on the topic has been minimal.

-Byshop

That sucks that your 780 Ti died. What happened with the warranty?

I replaced the stock cooler with a and while moving house it fell down a flight of stairs turns out in both cases its not under warranty.

The game has terrible threading. It stresses 1 core all the way up to 100% while it only mildly stresses a 2nd core

Heck even an old 7850 is been bottleneck by my i5 4440 in this game .Gpu usage drops to low-mid 80% when outside ( though i do manage to stay at 35+ minimum and draw distance 50%)

In motion it's a hell of a lot worse.

I had a little trouble at the start of my first session. This is how I got my game smooth.

- Turn view distance all the way down (no real difference graphically for some reason but significantly higher performance)

- Turn Motion blur off

- if trouble with screentearing and using Nvidia, open the controlpanel, select Dying Light in 3D settings and adjust Vsync to Adaptive

No I can play the game smoothly with Textures, Shadows and Foliage on highest setting, HBAO+, FOV, AOC and AA on.

i7 2600k @ 4.0 Ghz, GTX 780.