Performance

[DaVegaNL]

Hi all,

 

What's your performance of a17e compared with a16.4? I have a feeling it's worse, perhaps a reduction of 30% for fps.

[Poojam]

Hi all,

 

What's your performance of a17e compared with a16.4? I have a feeling it's worse, perhaps a reduction of 30% for fps.

 

I would estimate about a 30-40% reduction in fps. AMD 8350 8 core, 16 GB ram, 64 bit Win 7, 980GTX here.

 

The lighting is washed out and it tends to hurt my eyes. Didn't spend much time fiddling with it though to see if it was just the custom setting from A16.4 throwing it all off. Textures on buildings look very low res and uninteresting to me. I was very underwhelmed by the "beauty" that everyone else keeps talking about.

[Kalden]

Not total stoppage, but definitely lag. Moving within the world isn’t as responsive. I do have an older PC, but it ran A16.4 just fine.

[lumpoycustards]

Harder to run for sure. I found dropping visual effects mostly didn't help - might as well run High as the visual difference is huge. The one thing that kicked it straight back to silky smooth is dropping the resolution. Fun Pimps were absolutely right to recommend this.

 

No complaints as my computer is 7 years old - now I have a reason to upgrade.

 

Also noticed the A16 stutter is gone which is great.

[Jude]

I'm runnin at 50fps, resolution set to 1900x1200 close to the same specs as Poojam, but an intel cpu

[Pico]

Also noticed the A16 stutter is gone which is great.

 

Yeah, I feel that's improved, although I'll need to be zapping around on a minibike to test that for sure.

 

I'm not sure overall how my settings compare with A16 (coz I set those a year ago), but it's going fine with a mix of Hi and Medium settings. I don't get excited about motion blur / sun shafts / water / reflections, so those things have been knocked back for whatever benefit it brings me.

 

My FPS varies between mid 20's and 60 mostly.

My GPU is fairly new, but my MOBO and CPU are old, and only dual core CPU, so I suspect my biggest hardware issues would lie there (or the old mechanical HDD). The GPU doesn't even raise a sweat.

[iejen]

I would estimate about a 30-40% reduction in fps. AMD 8350 8 core, 16 GB ram, 64 bit Win 7, 980GTX here.

 

The lighting is washed out and it tends to hurt my eyes. Didn't spend much time fiddling with it though to see if it was just the custom setting from A16.4 throwing it all off. Textures on buildings look very low res and uninteresting to me. I was very underwhelmed by the "beauty" that everyone else keeps talking about.

 

To be fair, I used a 8350 myself on A16 and since I changed to Intel I5-8400 all the issues you discribed vanished.

[DEADication]

Performance for me seems fairly equivalent to A16 minus the stutters.

Ryzen 1600 16 Gig Rx580 8 Gig @1920x1080

[SurvivalUK]

Performance seems bugged.

 

1080ti (1950mhz core / 6000mhz mem), 6700k @ 4.6Ghz, 32gb, 4k

 

Ultra preset, dof / motion blur off

 

60fps outdoors with loads of lush tress, pois, mountains, grass as far as the eye can see with full draw distance. Go into a small 2x1 hole i've cut into the second floor of a small house and fps tanks down to 25fps while mostly looking at bland textures inside of a build with a limited view distance of 15 blocks.

 

Change the above in-game quality settings to the low preset and a very similar experience. High fps externally but as soon as i enter the same wall cut out fps tanks down to 40 fps this time.

 

A16 general stutters while loading chunks of the map seems largely eliminated though.

[bouh]

for me A17 is worse than a16.4 in terms of FPS.

I have a loss of more than 20fps, and the LOD option does nothing at all.

I have the impression that it is attached to the rendering of trees, since when I change the option of trees then the LOD on a car changes.

And the option of FOV disappeared

[ricp]

So this is an observation rather than a complaint, but (imo) it's nigh on unplayable* on a medium to low setup.

 

[[ TL;DR at end ]]

 

My specs are FX8320/960GTX/16gb/SSD - and while you could shout at me, "but Ric, that's a 6 year old CPU what do you expect?" You'd be right, however similar games and considerably more complex ones run at a far better rate on this kit than the current 7DtD build. Even with every setting (and I do mean *every setting*) set to minimum and a resolution of 1600x900 (and yes it looks as awful as it sounds), I get a fairly stable 50-60 within an open forest with no zombies, but chuck in a few 'zeds' and put me inside a building then the FPS will spike erratically to below 20 and occasionally into single figures. Remember this is a 3.5Gz chip with 8 (or 4 depending on how you wish to slice that argument) cores and a still pretty(ish) decent nVidia card. People will say, "just upgrade your kit", and I will at some point but I am unable to just now. It's unrealistic to suggest I should spend 100's of £/$/€ just to be able to play one title (especially when other similar titles run "fine").

 

Any FPS lower than about 50 makes melee combat really shady on 7DtD - it always has - and let's not kid ourselves, this game has always run like treacle pours but in general you could finagle the setup to get an enjoyable albeit frustrating romp. Sadly this doesn't seem to be the case with the A17/195 build.

 

 

Of course there is the "It's only just released/it's an experimental build/it's still alpha/etc/etc" caveat. While obviously relevant (except the "it's still alpha" comment, that's just asinine 5 years or so into development) as it is just now it's unplayable* for what I'd say is a very decent percentage (albeit a minority) of those who played A16. It should be noted that there was never (and correct me if I am wrong here) a patch for A16 that solely addressed the problem of frame rate - more a case that FPS improved as the game as a whole developed. So I wouldn't expect one for A17 although it very much needs one**.

 

 

(*) 'unplayable' is a bit of a trigger word for some, it's obviously subjective and contextual, but as part of the game play is to kill zombies and interact with the environment, and as the current build limits those activities somewhat based on the kit you are running it on, it's not being uncharitable to say it's unplayable. Obviously I can boot it up, move around, craft and fight as you'd expect but it's unresponsive, laggy and ultimately a hate engendering experience - much as I'd like it otherwise - thus I term that "unplayable".

 

(**) I do want to highlight that in terms of optimising the game TFP have two hurdles to clear; one of them is their own core gameplay code and logic, the other is the unity engine it's built on. I am a developer (and many years ago a game developer) and I'd like to think that I can relate to the decisions TFP have made. I am not ranting or raving here, just making an observation, but it does seem like frame rate concerns were very much put on the back burner - and I understand why that would be the case as generally most devs use high powered machines and don't test on medium and/or low spec so the struggle that kit will have is not factored into the code. Also lots of testing will be done inside the engine (simply for ease) which in turn has an overhead and it's common to say "don't worry, it's laggy because it's running in the Unity developer environment, not as a stand alone, once it's stand alone a lot of that lag will be reduced" - something that does have some merit. All too easy to overlook issues if you don't experience them yourself.

 

 

[[TL;DR]]

 

A bittersweet moment for some. Others will simply update and go, while for a minority but certainly not a negligible percentage of people will immediately need to drop to the video menu and start to downgrade in hope of getting an experience that stays above 30FPS (the bare minimum to expect, imo). For me it's to the point that no matter the settings my kit will not run this game without "game-breaking" lag. For all the steps forward this is one massive leap back (a subjective claim of course).

 

 

I'd like to leave this on a positive note. The game does look better (when even just set to medium quality), the melee and overall feel seem like an improvement. All in all, and despite the fact it took over a year to get here, the game is definitely making strides forward. Especially the ambience of the game with the improved lighting and graphics. What's more, I actually like the "washed out look" - which seems to buck the trend so far! So you know, if I ever manage to run the game at a decent lick I'm sure it's going to be highly enjoyable. I've enjoyed the streamers getting their hands on it and it does look like cementing the 7DtD name solidly into the consciousness of the gaming community for at least another year so those are all pluses.

[JCrook1028]

Intel Core i7 CPU 860 @ 2.80GHz

16 gig of DDR 3 RAM

GeForce GTX 1050 Ti

No SSD

 

I definitely see a significant drop in performance. Running medium settings with 81 LOD and getting between 30-50 fps with dips into the 20's. I'm scared to see what horde night does tbh. A16 I ran higher settings and fps never dropped below 60, usually ran in the 80's. I sure hope they can tune this up some.

 

I'm not a fan of the new lighting at all. Washed out even with dropping the gamma down to 31. Say it's "HD" all you want but it really looks worse overall. Sure when you get up close the texture looks better but running around it looks really bad. Other than the sky, that's beautiful. Watched the moon last night in the rain and it was spectacular!

 

Zombie models look cartoon like and their movements are a joke. The new Buck is semi ok but that Doe..............looks like a mini Clarice from the 1964 Rudolph. Idk what Joel was thinking with that.........definitely more of a sheep\llama model than a deer. Ah well, it still tastes good cooked up with some eggs.

 

Overall tho LOVING A17! Combat took some getting used to but once you adjust the timing they drop very well indeed. Loving the skill/perk choice struggle! I even like the encumbrance tho I thought it would drive me batty. So far the only things really bugging me are the slooooow swings of the stone axe, the missing FOV and the single lcb block. Punching lefthanded throws me for a loop but seeing as how I only use my fists the first half day or so it's not really an issue.

[ricp]

I would estimate about a 30-40% reduction in fps. AMD 8350 8 core, 16 GB ram, 64 bit Win 7, 980GTX here.

 

A similar system to mine, albeit a slight buff (your 8350 > my 8320, your 980 > my 960). Out of interest what resolution/quality settings were you using for A16 and what sorts of FPS was that returning.

 

Oh, also, is your kit running at stock speeds or have you overclocked?

 

Thanks in advance.

[Maxwar]

My gaming PC is pretty decent yet performance is disappointing here. Bad frame rate, visual glitches and the game is choppy even when it runs at 60 fps ( which is quite unusual ) . I honestly tried the game just briefly. I did not really play much, instead I messed around with my video settings to try to improve disappointing performance. I use Vsync so FPS is capped at 60. Removing Vsync gave no improvement. The only way I could get to 60 fps was by setting video parameters very low and it was still running poorly at 60 FPS as I explained. On the other hand, jacking the parameters up made the game run slower but not all that much. The only thing I have not tried is setting resolution lower. I normally always use my native resolution (1920 x 1200). I will try lowering it next.

 

I run:

Intel i5 4670k

Asus Geforce GTX 970

16 Gb ram

windows 7 64bit

Game installed on SSD

 

While monitoring system ressources I noticed that the CPU usage was pretty low but GPU usage was through the roof. It is almost always at 100% even on low settings. I tried updating my video drivers which changed nothing. A16 was already pretty hungry on the GPU but not as bad as this. Hopefully this will be improved with upcoming patches.

[Linkhead2]

i think the problem is bewing the fact that all the textures have been edited, if you look at the wood textures, they have such detail and texture (as an example) Im getting an average of 20-50fps on maxed out

[ricp]

i think the problem is bewing the fact that all the textures have been edited, if you look at the wood textures, they have such detail and texture (as an example) Im getting an average of 20-50fps on maxed out

 

Although this is all conjecture, I would argue that isn't the issue, as even with all the settings at their lowest - thus removing the issue regarding HD textures (and trust me, at the lowest settings they are a world away from "HD"!) - results in a very low frame rate for me.

[icehot]

It's ok on my system, though I don't currently have an upgrade path other than GPU as I've only just updated to a ryzen 2700x - also have a GTX1080 gpu, so I guess I could look into getting an RTX2080Ti or something lol.

 

However in answer to the original post definitely a 30 to 40% reduction in FPS - I was getting 90 to 100fps most of the time in 16.4, now I'm dipping below 60fps. I've heard of others with 1080ti's having FPS issues as well, so I think there's probably some optimisations that need doing.

[Genesis92x]

I rarely post on these forums, just wanted to throw my 2 cents in. I believe the decrease in FPS has something to do with the new lighting?

 

I get good FPS outdoors, on day 5 (without a heavy saturation of zeds) I get around 100-150FPS. When I build a small wooden shack (6x6x3), and then look DOWN while in the middle of it, my FPS dips from 100-150FPS to 60-75FPS. This is not bad at all, however a friend of mine running on an older, but still good machine will get 30-35FPS outside of the player structure and dips down to 15FPS inside of the structure. This happens when entering any POI as well. Even lowering his graphics to the lowest does not help FPS.

 

I did notice one oddity in behavior while watching my performance. My GPU (GTX 1080TI) would go from 50% usage to nearly 90-95% usage when looking into my little shack. That's a fairly large difference for such a little structure, which is why I believe it may be related to lighting, somehow?

 

My CPU I7-8700K, seems to not choke anywhere, with two cores close to max.

 

My friend's GPU, a 970 I believe, was constantly sitting at 100% GPU usage the entire time, inside or outside of a POI.

 

If this helps anyone at all, here is a short video of what I am talking about:

 

It looks like my memory did not serve me well, but it gets the point across. I would assume that high GPU usage isn't a bad thing in general. Except when there really isn't too much action going on already. What if there was a horde attacking?

[EzunaAranna]

Dreadful.

 

Now uninstalled and done with this nonsense.

[Genesis92x]

Dreadful.

 

Now uninstalled and done with this nonsense.

 

I mean...it is the UNSTABLE build...

[ricp]

Dreadful.

 

Now uninstalled and done with this nonsense.

 

Got to say, comments like this are pointless. The first part is fine, you are entitled to your opinion and for me it also runs dreadfully. The latter, however, either smacks of you looking to get a rise or you've just thrown all your toys out of your pram.

 

The official version is still A16, so the idea of uninstalling and "being done" with the game because an experimental build doesn't match up to your expectation really doesn't reflect well upon you at all.

 

You've made no attempt to explain your specs or the resolution/quality you play at, or what settings you had with A16 and it's relevant performance. As I say, a pointless comment and a wasted opportunity to provide some level of sensible feedback to the subject.

[Fox]

Dreadful.

 

Now uninstalled and done with this nonsense.

lol, such a common overreaction. Kids these days just have no patience at all anymore. The update just released (and isn't even an official release yet)... as with all major updates, you need to wait for patches to release for ironing out the issues which usually happen pretty quickly.

 

I myself haven't tried the update and will likely not be trying it out until official release since I am in fact a patient person and don't feel like playing an unstable build, though reading comments here, I assume I'll be just fine with 60+ fps again.

[Wulf]

Performance is on par with a16 for me which is about 70FPS outdoors. Maybe a tiny little less.

 

Running an Intel Haswell Quad Core @ 4.2Ghz + AMD RX480 8gb + 16GB RAM. Running at 1080p.

 

Gfx card really doesnt matter much in this game (unless it's VERY old), it's all about the Single core CPU speed (having many cores is pretty much irrelevant for this game) and memory IO subsystem.

Adjusting gfx settings doesnt really impact FPS for me. Haven't tried dropping resolution because that's just silly (not running an LCD @ native resolution is not smart) and i don't need the FPS.

 

However, within buildings i get big drops to 30-35 fps with nothing really happening. There's definitely a problem there.

[ZakAng89]

have a crappy pc with old GT720. cant even get abv 10frams at a17. worse when bleeding.

 

wierd part is. this pc can still play conan exiles/farcry5 without much hassle and was able to maintain 30frams in a16.

[Genesis92x]

Performance is on par with a16 for me which is about 70FPS outdoors. Maybe a tiny little less.

 

Running an Intel Haswell Quad Core @ 4.2Ghz + AMD RX480 8gb + 16GB RAM. Running at 1080p.

 

Gfx card really doesnt matter much in this game (unless it's VERY old), it's all about the Single core CPU speed (having many cores are pretty much irrelevant for this game) and memory IO subsystem.

Adjusting gfx settings doesnt really impact FPS for me. Haven't tried dropping resolution because that's just silly (not running an LCD @ native resolution is not smart) and i don't need the FPS.

 

However, within buildings i get big drops to 30-35 fps with nothing really happening. There's definitely a problem there.

 

Definitely agree, in buildings I get the same drop in FPS with a drastic increase of GPU and CPU usage