Dying Light: Performance Analysis And Benchmarks

[InvalidError]

>>I guarantee you if Intel decided to drop gpu from the chips, and dedicate the transistors to CPU ONLY, their cores would go up by more than 5%

>No, they wouldn't.

Sure sounds like you're saying impossible (that is a categorical denial there - NO THEY WOULDN'T) to go up past 5% even if all transistors were dedicated to CPU (which happens to be about 47% more transistors, be it for cache, etc whatever).

And I still stand by that statement: if they doubled the core transistor budget without a die shrink or fabrication process refinement to help pack more logic between data latches within the same timing closure budget, they would not be able to use the extra space without drastically lengthening the pipeline, sacrificing nearly half the clock speed or a milder combination of both. In other words, the amount of useful logic that can be crammed in CPU cores is bound by fabrication process. Liberating the space used by the IGP does not change that.

 

[disturbed force]

Strange, how is my crossfire 4GB 290X set up getting steady 60 FPS with very high textures @ 4K while the author is getting upper 20's?

Either the author isn't smart enough to know how to turn on AFR mode on his crossfire profiles (not a good trait for PC reviewer), or he intentionally tried to get horrible results on purpose (also not a good trait for a PC reviewer).

Any chance of an explanation for this?

Calling crock!

I think you're the only person on the internet getting a min of 60 fps in a modern and demanding title while running 4K on a dual card setup. Your setting also sound different than his.

Plus, the reviewer didn't even use CF or SLI - only single cards. I don't even think there's CF and SLI profiles out for this game yet.

Sorry pal but it's not crock, I run crossfire 290x with high textures, very high shadows, high foliage, AO on, nvidia options off, AA off, view distance at about 60% and I get a consistent 60fps and smooth as silk.

You can run MultiGPU setup's without a profile, the only thing that is wrong is flickering when blood, water or spit hit the screen but it's not that bad.

 

[Newbbuilder11]

Strange, how is my crossfire 4GB 290X set up getting steady 60 FPS with very high textures @ 4K while the author is getting upper 20's?

Either the author isn't smart enough to know how to turn on AFR mode on his crossfire profiles (not a good trait for PC reviewer), or he intentionally tried to get horrible results on purpose (also not a good trait for a PC reviewer).

Any chance of an explanation for this?

Calling crock!

I think you're the only person on the internet getting a min of 60 fps in a modern and demanding title while running 4K on a dual card setup. Your setting also sound different than his.

Plus, the reviewer didn't even use CF or SLI - only single cards. I don't even think there's CF and SLI profiles out for this game yet.

Sorry pal but it's not crock, I run crossfire 290x with high textures, very high shadows, high foliage, AO on, nvidia options off, AA off, view distance at about 60% and I get a consistent 60fps and smooth as silk.

You can run MultiGPU setup's without a profile, the only thing that is wrong is flickering when blood, water or spit hit the screen but it's not that bad.

I run a 280x TOXIC by sapphire, I run it on High, Nvidia options off, view distance max. If i try to run it any higher i get these flickers. They went away after i turned everything Nvidia off and set it down to high. Now i play a smooth consistent beautiful game on my HDTV.

 

[GObonzo]

8GB 290X- started at game's release with settings maxed 1440p using an FX8350 @ 4.8GHZ, got 50+fps. now with an i7-4790K @ 4.6GHz, get ~60fps.

AMD worked great even before patches. i don't get the reason behind some claiming 10fps upon release of the game with similar setups.