Zombie Army 4: Dead War PC Performance Review and Optimisation Guide

Preset Graphics Comparison: Low, Medium, High and Ultra

Zombie Army 4: Dead Wars PC Performance Review and Optimisation Guide

Preset Graphics Comparison: Low, Medium, High and Ultra

Unlike many games, Zombie Army 4: Dead Wars doesn't look hideous when its graphical settings are cut down to low. Yes, all other presets look better, but it doesn't look bad enough to be a non-viable playing option. If your graphics card can run this preset with higher texture settings, this wouldn't be a bad option for playing this on older PCs or integrated graphics solutions.   

Notable downgrades with this game's low graphics preset are the game's loss of texture detail, ambient occlusion and anti-aliasing. Even at 4K, jaggies are very noticeable when playing Zombie Army 4 at low settings. Most modern PC hardware configurations will be able to handle this game at Ultra settings, but users of older PCs and integrated graphics will find these settings useful. 


(Low VS Medium)
Zombie Army 4: Dead Wars PC Performance Review and Optimisation Guide  Zombie Army 4: Dead Wars PC Performance Review and Optimisation Guide

 
At Medium and high settings, Zombie Army 4: Dead War sees changes in texture detail, in-game lighting and in distant details, which high seeing a notable increase in detail without much of a performance cost. 

One of the major cutbacks of Zombie Army 4's Medium preset is tesselation, a feature which can come at a significant performance cost on older graphics cards. Modern graphics architectures like RDNA and Turing have a lot of built-in tesselation performance, but older graphics cards, especially older GCN graphics cards, can take a major performance hit due to tesselation. 


(Medium VS High)
Zombie Army 4: Dead Wars PC Performance Review and Optimisation Guide  Zombie Army 4: Dead Wars PC Performance Review and Optimisation Guide

Cranking Zombie Army 4 up to Ultra sees further enhancements to scene lighting and texture details, though some of the most notable changes come with increased draw distances. 

Overall, Ultra settings offer gamers a modest boost in detail over High settings, though this is balanced out due to the low performance cost of enabling Ultra settings. If you have the spare GPU headroom, why not enable Ultra settings? 


(High VS Ultra)
Zombie Army 4: Dead Wars PC Performance Review and Optimisation Guide  Zombie Army 4: Dead Wars PC Performance Review and Optimisation Guide
  

«Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next»

Most Recent Comments

10-02-2020, 15:28:39

NeverBackDown
Happy to see the nonbiased performance in this game. Just 2 modern APIs being used to the best degree possible and showing the barely different performance levels of competing cards.

It's also worth noting how Vulkan appears to be superior. The recent R6 Siege switch to Vulkan with Ubisoft stating better CPU performance, and having this game perform generally better with Vulkan, may actually be the fact that Vulkan is just simply faster right now overall. Plus it's also multi-platform. Seems like a no brainer currently(that is unless you want Ray Tracing).Quote

10-02-2020, 15:37:09

WYP
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverBackDown View Post
Happy to see the nonbiased performance in this game. Just 2 modern APIs being used to the best degree possible and showing the barely different performance levels of competing cards.

It's also worth noting how Vulkan appears to be superior. The recent R6 Siege switch to Vulkan with Ubisoft stating better CPU performance, and having this game perform generally better with Vulkan, may actually be the fact that Vulkan is just simply faster right now overall. Plus it's also multi-platform. Seems like a no brainer currently(that is unless you want Ray Tracing).
The Khronos groups have done a great job improving Vulkan's feature set. That said, they need to figure out how to deliver a DXR equivalent. Right now raytracing is only available using Nvidia's extensions with Vulkan. However, I hear that talks are in progress for Microsoft and Khronos to help create a more universal standard, likely by having Khronos use a similar approach to Microsoft.

Khronos has made Vulkan a lot easier to develop for with recent iterations, so it will be interesting to see how things evolve. Right now, DX12 will have an advantage in the near-term if raytracing starts to see wider adoption.Quote

10-02-2020, 19:37:32

NeverBackDown
While you aren't wrong, i'd argue RayTracing is less important than raw performance. Ray Tracing is a looooong way from being a standard feature. So i'd take the performance benefit, rather than massive performance penalties for an unequal graphical uplift.

And technically with the wrapper, Vulkan created to help port DX12 code over to Vulkan natively, you could in theory use the RT libraries already. Though I can guarantee it'd be more complicated without the official support to build more off of the ported code.

I don't doubt they are collaborating on a RT library. It's a complicated feature and reducing the effort for developers is key for them using it anyway. Leads to better implementations, shorter development time, and less money spent. Win-Win-Win for everyone. Though again I am definitely glad you are hearing of a collaboration. I would be thrilled for that!Quote

11-02-2020, 05:50:06

WYP
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverBackDown View Post
While you aren't wrong, i'd argue RayTracing is less important than raw performance. Ray Tracing is a looooong way from being a standard feature. So i'd take the performance benefit, rather than massive performance penalties for an unequal graphical uplift.

And technically with the wrapper, Vulkan created to help port DX12 code over to Vulkan natively, you could in theory use the RT libraries already. Though I can guarantee it'd be more complicated without the official support to build more off of the ported code.

I don't doubt they are collaborating on a RT library. It's a complicated feature and reducing the effort for developers is key for them using it anyway. Leads to better implementations, shorter development time, and less money spent. Win-Win-Win for everyone. Though again I am definitely glad you are hearing of a collaboration. I would be thrilled for that!
Aye, but I'm talking a 3-4 year timeframe. IIRC, Vulkan 1.2 supports HLSL at up to shader model 6.3, which falls short of DXR. Shader Model 6.3 adds support for DXR.

Vulkan's lack of official raytracing support is why only one Vulkan game supports RTX, and it was delivered very late. Wolfenstein: Youngblood. This could also be a reason why id software decided to drop raytracing for DOOM Eternal, or a contributing factor at the very least.

I think the conversation is gonna change very quickly with regards to raytracing. By the end of this year, two consoles and both AMD and Nvidia will support it.

Another factor that's worth noting is that today's RTX series will always be Nvidia's worst-performing raytracing accelerated graphics cards. Future architectures will enhance raytracing capabilities (which will decrease their performance overhead) and increase their normal shading performance.

I believe that Khronos will discuss Vulkan raytracing at GDC, but it will be a while before it becomes a full part of Vulkan (likely with Vulkan 1.3).Quote
Reply
x

Register for the OC3D Newsletter

Subscribing to the OC3D newsletter will keep you up-to-date on the latest technology reviews, competitions and goings-on at Overclock3D. We won't share your email address with ANYONE, and we will only email you with updates on site news, reviews, and competitions and you can unsubscribe easily at any time.

Simply enter your name and email address into the box below and be sure to click on the links in the confirmation emails that will arrive in your e-mail shortly after to complete the registration.

If you run into any problems, just drop us a message on the forums.