Jugginator
Tester
So, I have a general idea on what the differences are between DirectX and OpenGL, kinda. Not so much with Vulkan. I am curious: which one should yield better results on a lower-end system for 7 Days? I looked it up, but got nothing but conflicting arguments and that it pertains to how the game was designed.
I noticed that Steam offers caching for OpenGL and Vulkan games, but upon running 7 days in OpenGL for a bit, it cached nothing. I noticed, using OpenGL, I had a very slight increase in FPS; I noticed sunlight had more of a god-ray style, which was nice, but whenever I turned my camera to new/unloaded textures I had fluctuations in FPS.
DirectX had more of a stable FPS, at a very very slight decrease.
Vulkan I know isn't fully supported yet, so I haven't tried.
Also, as long as detailed shadows or lighting arent heavily displayed, my integrated GPU generally performs rather well (long as I keep my laptop on my cooling tray I made for it). I know 17e has some optimization planned to be done, but I've noticed a few things.
Reducing texture size generally has a performance hit attached to it; although in 17e, it seems shaders/shadows/lighting (shiny stuff) increases the higher the texture size goes. Half size is less FPS than Full, but only if I'm not encountering heavy lighting/shadows and etc, lower than half has the same effect, lower FPS general but better in shadowed/lighted areas. Half seems the be the happy medium. Also, I noticed the LOD option doesn't have much effect on my FPS, which was strange to me. Could it be that it's harder for the game to load smaller textures/keep reducing/increasing textures based on distance? It seems zombies have no effect on my performance, I've encountered 20-30 hordes with no drop at all on FPS. Just those pesky shaders
Anyway, I rambled on; my main question is which of the three would give a general performance increase on lower-end systems lol.
Thanks -- happy slaying!
I noticed that Steam offers caching for OpenGL and Vulkan games, but upon running 7 days in OpenGL for a bit, it cached nothing. I noticed, using OpenGL, I had a very slight increase in FPS; I noticed sunlight had more of a god-ray style, which was nice, but whenever I turned my camera to new/unloaded textures I had fluctuations in FPS.
DirectX had more of a stable FPS, at a very very slight decrease.
Vulkan I know isn't fully supported yet, so I haven't tried.
Also, as long as detailed shadows or lighting arent heavily displayed, my integrated GPU generally performs rather well (long as I keep my laptop on my cooling tray I made for it). I know 17e has some optimization planned to be done, but I've noticed a few things.
Reducing texture size generally has a performance hit attached to it; although in 17e, it seems shaders/shadows/lighting (shiny stuff) increases the higher the texture size goes. Half size is less FPS than Full, but only if I'm not encountering heavy lighting/shadows and etc, lower than half has the same effect, lower FPS general but better in shadowed/lighted areas. Half seems the be the happy medium. Also, I noticed the LOD option doesn't have much effect on my FPS, which was strange to me. Could it be that it's harder for the game to load smaller textures/keep reducing/increasing textures based on distance? It seems zombies have no effect on my performance, I've encountered 20-30 hordes with no drop at all on FPS. Just those pesky shaders

Anyway, I rambled on; my main question is which of the three would give a general performance increase on lower-end systems lol.
Thanks -- happy slaying!