• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Dying Light GPU and CPU test

This game isn't hard at all? Seriously wtf..

If u want a hard game go play dark souls or super meat boy. Lol :)

or a tactical shooter, this game looks a bit slow and moronic, the Zombies just stand there...but i've read it's harder at night when they get more aggressive and mobile
 
or a tactical shooter, this game looks a bit slow and moronic, the Zombies just stand there...but i've read it's harder at night when they get more aggressive and mobile

Night is when you need to worry. During the day is when you explore and gather stuff. It's the whole premise really. If you go out at night you level 2 times quicker but zombies are quicker and stronger and bad ass types appear. Risk v reward.
 
ye u can just dropkick them in daytime but it can still end badly for u ! :)

anyway back on topic, gfx options, or lack of
i been playing without looking at fps, but when trying to tune it i've found the only thing that helps is view distance, which makes me think its cpu limited pretty hard, but only playing in window mode is my cpu usage even high, full screen it isnt but still same issue

the game wont even make use of 1 full core for me!?
anyway its a bit of a ramble feel free to ramble ur own findings :o
 
Playing it on my mates 5930 290x machine and with around max settings we are averaging around 60FPS most of the time. It's been pretty smooth sailing so far. His 5930 is running at 3.8 boost so not mega Overclocked.
 
super smooth on my i5 2500k @ 5ghz and 970 @ 980 speeds..

turned off motion blur and view distance at 50% and never drops below 50 fps outside!

50fps is not what i would consider super smooth try 60fps min anything below that is not worth it.

With pc games being released so broken these days , seems more relevant to try now before buy. I certainly like this game but unwilling to part with money untill issues are fixed.
 
Last edited:
I have found the below review...

http://www.techspot.com/review/956-dying-light-benchmarks/

....to be pretty reflective of my own experience of only reducing the draw distance view to around 50% as having the greatest impact in my consistent frame rates.

Since the latest patch I see (at 1440p) around 50+ FPS with all the settings as they were set by the game (except the noted draw distance and turning off motion blur) and it runs pretty well with my GTX 970 and 4.4GHz 3570k.....



The loading across the cores seems more even and the GPU loading seems to be always pretty much maxed out, as is the GPU's memory.
 
that core loading does look much better than what i was seeing yeh
but what about when turning things down? do your fps now shoot up since latest patch or nope?
thats the bit that amazed me that turning off the limited AA or any detail settings did nothing to help fps, ive mostly played it when streaming which doesnt help fps at all tho :)

being critical like i usually am on new games lol seems like a gsync seller, fine if you want to play at 60hz (mostly) but goodluck getting it stable above 100
 
^^^^ There are far too many variables when it comes to making changes and then testing them out for me, as long as I am not getting a problem I would sooner just play the game :)

I just turned the draw distance slider to half way (that might get fixed in a patch) and then turned off motion blur. I forgot to mention that I also disabled the film grain effect.

I was please to note that the load balancing seemed better across the cores and that the FPS has given the impression, so far, of being more consistent.

I haven't played enough since the last patch to see how it continues to perform but so far so good.

Thankfully, unlike some AAA titles of late, this one seems playable within the first week of release, for me.
 
50fps is not what i would consider super smooth try 60fps min anything below that is not worth it.

With pc games being released so broken these days , seems more relevant to try now before buy. I certainly like this game but unwilling to part with money untill issues are fixed.

I don't really subscribe to this school of thought, though I know people love their 120/144hhz monitors.

At the moment it's running at about 35fps for me (at 4k)

That's what I consider to be just about 'playable'. Far Cry 4 is about the same at 4k.

Locked 30fps can be fine if the game was designed with that in mind.

Once they sort out the Crossfire support it should hopefully be 60fps average (3 GPU's instead of 1) which will make the experience better, as 60fps always does.

But can I play it until then? Yep, quite happily.
 
yeh its a step up from unity and farcry, i dont want to sound mean about it lol
ive had a lot of fun playing it, nothing has been game breaking
i just think that not having a fps boost from turning down settings isnt right for a pc game :( lack of AA options is lame too

but playing single card, draw distance zero and motion off, everything else max, thats how ive been playing and pretty good
 
Wonder if my freezing issues (not crashing, just freezing for 3-5 seconds every so often) are ram related, because I only have 8GB and I see with MSI aterburner the game is using well over 7GB ram and 3.5GB vram :o

Going from 8 to 16GB, prior to the patch, made those disappear in my case. Still some some minor 1 second freeze at time when a zombie bites me or the scene goes to a conversation with an NPC and during gameplay just once in a while - nothing severe like that.
 
Last edited:
just playing sum splatsplat with the new patch and it does seem smoother now as cpu load better

changing gfx settings still has very little effect on fps but yeh whatever lol
 
Back
Top Bottom