Dying Light 2 PC system requirements require an RTX 3080 for ray tracing at 1080p

Written by Chad Norton on Fri, Dec 17, 2021 3:21 PM
System Requirements Optimum 1080p PC Build Low vs Ultra Screenshots GPU Performance Chart CPU List That Meet System Requirements GPU List That Meet System Requirements

After a few delays the highly anticipated sequel to Dying Light is officially releasing early next year, and in case you were worried of another delay on the horizon, the developers have revealed the official PC system requirements, which usually means the game is still on track and close to finished.

The only problem is, Dying Light 2 seems to be a relatively demanding game, and even more so if you want to use any ray tracing. Thankfully, the developers have also revealed what kind of performance we might get for each tier of specs, but unfortunately only goes as far as 1080p.

Now DL2 has already been confirmed to include support for Nvidia DLSS, so although an RTX 3080 is needed for 1080p ray tracing, with DLSS enabled you'll more than likely be able to reach a decent performance at 1440p or 4K with some graphics compromises.

Also, sorry AMD users, as there's a lack of any AMD hardware mentioned for ray tracing. We'll have to see what it is like at launch, but from the looks of it here maybe AMD's RX 6000 series GPUs simply aren't going to cut it, especially without any form of FSR supported at release.

But with all that said, lert's jump in and take a look at the official Dying Light 2 PC system requirements...

Ray Tracing Off

Dying Light 2 Minimum system requirements - 1080p/30fps

Dying Light 2 Recommended system requirements - 1080p/60fps

Ray Tracing On

Dying Light 2 Minimum system requirements - 1080p/30fps

Dying Light 2 Recommended system requirements - 1080p/60fps

Dying Light 2 requires an RTX 2060 or RX Vega 56 graphics card along with a Core i5-8600K or Ryzen 5 3600X processor in order to meet the recommended system requirements, which will deliver around 60fps performance at 1080p resolution. You will also need 16GB of RAM to match the recommended specs.

Dying Light 2 needs a GPU that is at least as powerful as a GTX 1050 Ti or RX 560, coupled with either a Core i3-9100 or Ryzen 3 2300X CPU to meet the minimum system requirements. This should then deliver around 30fps performance at 1080p resolution. Minimum system memory requirements is 8GB.

Overall, we suggest a 4 year old PC in order to play Dying Light 2 smoothly.

As ever, remember you can always check out how well your PC can run the Dying Light 2 System Requirements here, where you can check benchmarks and performance from other users. Compare your graphics card to the Dying Light 2 GPU benchmark chart and we also have a Dying Light 2 Frames Per Second system performance chart for you to check.

Login or Register to join the debate

Rep
1
Offline
07:10 Feb-01-2022

Ray tracing for some had become ray chasing .


For others ray fps messing and for Nvidia ray cashing .


Developers do ray messing and critics ray bashing .


But regular player just want ray without GPU smashing.


Is it Dying Light or light dying cause of ray tracing ? -W. Shakespeare from Ray and Juliet

0
Rep
1
Offline
07:15 Feb-01-2022

second line instead "messing" should be "trashing" so it can be perfect comment 😂


sorry for mistake 🙃

0
Rep
0
Offline
14:54 Jan-25-2022

I remember when Tessellation came out on AMD/NVIDIA, Crysis 2 was using it heavily. It was a FPS killer, today I set it on max and move on, This is how it will be for RT. If the rumors are true the 4080/4090 should be able to tear it up. My 3090 is great up to 1440P with Full RT. Metro Exodus was running min 80FPS with RT/GI/RTAO....And I'm sure it will run Dying light 2 with Full RT @ 1440p. Feb 4 I will know for sure.

0
Rep
1
Offline
01:05 Jan-22-2022

cool but doesnt justify using rt for now, the dlss n fsr are more interesting since it gives life to weaker gpus. My 2070S is starting to show its age without dlss 😭

0
Rep
44
Offline
14:11 Jan-05-2022

Translation: We are too lazy to optimize the game so instead we want you to spend money on a disproportionately more powerful GPU to offset our efforts, thank you, don't ask questions, consume product.

0
Rep
8
Offline
12:55 Jan-03-2022

Why would ray tracing require a stronger CPU then without?

0
Rep
-1
Offline
21:03 Dec-21-2021

RTX without DLSS or the other upscaling options will not be a viable option for this and next generation of RTX cards. Two generations away maybe the hardware and the technology will mature and it will be the norm.

3
Rep
79
Offline
admin approved badge
06:14 Dec-21-2021

F.ck RTX

2
Rep
2
Offline
23:33 Jan-06-2022

RT*

0
Rep
-25
Offline
17:18 Dec-18-2021

No raytracing for me then.

4
Rep
28
Offline
15:29 Dec-18-2021

Shout out to the site devs - the reply system is pretty busted some comments you can reply to others the option just isnt there...

1
Rep
14
Offline
10:45 Dec-18-2021

AMD Ryzen 2400G


GTX 1650 Super


16 GB Ram


M.2 SSD


What settings?


I am hoping to run on medium settings 60 fps in 1080P.

0
Rep
28
Offline
17:55 Dec-17-2021

Mark my words for this console generation ps5/xboners (5 years+) raytracing will be a cool add-on rather than a requirement. And even then games have gotten so good at faking lighting that why would you cripple performance for it.

5
Rep
80
Offline
admin approved badge
19:24 Dec-17-2021

isnt it easier for developers, like they have less to do them self?

1
Rep
-3
Offline
19:50 Dec-17-2021

No, the engine the game is build on should be capable of making calculations for raytraced lights and shadows. So technically its easier to bake reflections on to texture maps and use screen space reflections than to develop an engine capable of raytracing

2
Rep
272
Offline
admin approved badge
01:23 Dec-18-2021

Except that modern off-the-shelf engines like UE5 and Unity already support raytracing... And Metro devs also already have an engine working with RT, among other devs. It's not that hard.

4
Rep
-12
Offline
19:57 Dec-17-2021

massively, even from my tiny projects in UE4/5 just the fact that every time i move a light like a lamp on a table i have to then rebuild all the lighting so the shadows, reflections, refractions just to match where the light source has been moved to. this rebuild of lighting can take almost 5 mins on my system and that with only having 6 lamps and only moving 1 of them in a small room. imagine how long it would take to rebuild all the lighting, shadows, reflections, refractions etc in GTA 5 just because you moved a street lamp 3 feet? with ray tracing it is literally click a button to turn it on and never rebuild lighting again as its all live. now as a dev you have that much more free time to spend on literally anything else within the game.

6
Rep
28
Offline
22:41 Dec-17-2021

The majority are gaming on consoles BECAUSE its a known spec for many years. Dont think a 2x more expensive gpu than a single console is going to change the overall landscape. And you seem to forgetting that consoles launch weaker than top end pc to hit the 400-500€ "MSRP". If you had a new console generation next year you would see so minor improvements that it wouldnt make sense to abandon the current consoles. That matrix demo ran at 24-30fps while dropping frames, you shouldnt get swept up by cross-marketing gimmicks.

0
Rep
-12
Offline
23:28 Dec-17-2021

dude im not getting swept up at all. you seem to forget UE5 its self is still beta and the matrix thing was a tech demo. running on like you said midrange £500 area. so next gen in about 5 years. like i said in my first comment it was only 6 years ago brigade engine 3.0 took 4 GTX titans to get a still image to render at about 1fps when raytraced

0
Rep
28
Offline
21:56 Dec-17-2021

At the moment you physically cant ship a game that does lighting (any other path traced effect) with only raytracing. The consoles couldnt keep up and a majority of video cards dont support it. And the console generation being as long as the are that wouldnt change any time soon.

0
Rep
-12
Offline
22:11 Dec-17-2021

i was replying as to why developers are pushing for it. this is just one of a few i have come across myself in the few months of playing around in EU4/5. and unfortunately as humans are like magpies and want the shiny shiny storytelling is going to continue its downward trend in favour for fidelity. which raytracing would almost certainly free up more development time in the cycle for just by the nature of how it works. no more build times every time you add/remove/move a light source. no more programming light movements for moveable objects.

0
Rep
1
Offline
17:00 Dec-17-2021

Ray tracing is and will be a negative until GPUs no longer take a performance hit from using it.

3
Rep
1
Offline
17:03 Dec-17-2021

And franly, I'd prefer more raw performance than more ray tracing performance.

1
Rep
-12
Offline
17:15 Dec-17-2021

ray tracing will always have a performance hit just like anything in a game. HBAO over SAAO? massive performance hit. its just that the hit is negligible with modern hardware. the thing with ray tracing is that it affects everything from the lighting to translucency to shadows and particle detailing like smoke effects. look back to thing like the Brigade engine 3.0 from around 6 years ago and it required 4 gtx titans to barley render a moving image let alone a game running at 60fps. the fact its only take around 6 years to go from 4 gtx titans to a single £800-1000 gpu is quite remarkable and it wont be long before RT is just the norm.

3
Rep
28
Offline
22:03 Dec-17-2021

And how do you "upgrade" ps5/xboners that only raytrace lighting (while looking better than baked lighting) with underpowerd hardware and aiming for 1080p+ 60fps (as most games this generation are aiming). Or alienate majority of pc gpus that lack raytracing hardware(i doubt that is going to change too much 4+years from now).

1
Rep
-12
Offline
22:22 Dec-17-2021

i never said anything about upgrading consoles. what's a generation these days? 5 years? next years AMD 7900xt is supposedly going to be around 2.7x the performance of the 6900xt which i can almost get 60 in any raytraced game at 1440p ultra today. so 3 times that would be more than fine for 1080p 60fps IF a next gen console came NEXT YEAR. imagine what there will be in 5 years time? next gen of consoles is going to be fully ray traced and possibly near photo realism. check out the matrix EU5 demo running on a ps5. YeongYea done a review of it . incredible

0
Rep
272
Offline
admin approved badge
16:38 Dec-18-2021

Thanks for mentioning the UE5 demo. It blew my mind!


That being said, the thing that still bugs the crap out of me are that screen-space reflections are still terrible... I had to watch someone play the demo city (because the demo isn't on PC - thanks for that, marketing!) and as soon as the character walks past any window panels - the reflections just fall apart for me. Other than that it's pretty...unreal :)

2
Rep
272
Offline
admin approved badge
01:25 Dec-18-2021

"Ray tracing is and will be a negative until GPUs no longer take a performance hit from using it."


Considering that raytracing is ~100-1000x slower than raster (depending on the task) - your comment seems extremely uninformed. There will ALWAYS be a performance hit to using raytracing, there's no way around it. It's like comparing a stick figure to a full-on drawing and saying that unless the drawing takes as little time as the stick figure - there's no point in drawing 🤣. That's basically the equivalent, because raster was invented to approximate raytracing, but favoring speed instead of accuracy and quality.


There's also no way around the fact that RT is gonna replace raster when the hardware gets fast-enough. From there we'll got with pathtracing. It happened in the "offline" world (non-realtime rendering) and it's making its way to the online (realtime) world. It's inevitable and the benefits are obvious to those who care (which is also why every GPU now includes ray acceleration, for both gaming and professional applications - the 3D world loves this stuff!).


At some point games will simply BE raytraced, with no way to turn it off - just like you can't turn off the raster. You'll be able to tweak the sampling rate, light bounces, reflection/refraction traces, etc to tune performance, but it won't be like it is now where RT is just an add-on. The only reason why it's an add-on NOW is because RT is very slow, so we are using a raster base with an RT pass for isolated effects (such as shadows, GI or reflections). It's a transitional phase until the hardware catches up.


Sincerely,


- a 3D artist by trade

8
Rep
28
Offline
12:11 Dec-18-2021

You might be right but will that be possible next console generation ps6/ x-whatever in the 500€ price range where game designers dont need to rely on baked lighting, im doubtful.

0
Rep
272
Offline
admin approved badge
15:02 Dec-18-2021

Next gen? Probably not, at least not full-on raytracing in most titles. Small titles like Quake II RTX already ran very well on last gen GPUs, but they obviously don't match up in quality to the likes of GTA V, bar lighting/reflection quality (it was too fun to play with fully dynamic lighting in Q2 for me). You're right, the consoles and their price point will keep being a setback for such tech advancements - no doubt about it. Thinking how even the latest XBONE SX can't do proper 4K at ultra in FH5 when a PC with a 3090 can do it no problem and even go for 5K - the price obviously matters here.


That being said - at some point it will happen. Maybe not the next gen - perhaps the one after, or the one after that, but it IS where the industry is going and has gone already for us in the offline world. When I do my CG - I don't have to worry about baking normal maps, optimizing geometry, saving memory, baking lighting or anything like that - I use the highest quality assets I can muster, I apply physically-based shaders, lighting, etc, I set up my camera as I would for my photography and hit render, letting the GPUs bruteforce through trillions of rays to brings me the final image. I'm already impressed by the quality and speed of offline rendering - what used to take hours now takes mere minutes! Similarly - where raytracing used to be only possible by letting the PC churn out the math for hours - we can now do it real-time on the GPU (as a side note - Nanite in UE5 also tries to break away from having to bake normal maps and optimize geometry by letting people use full quality assets. Not RT related, but also a step in the right direction). If anything - this transitional stage happened faster than I thought it would - I genuinely thought it needed another 5-10 years, but then Nvidia came out with RTX and blew my mind. What comes next is exciting! Well, for me, anyway... I see a lot of people complain about it, I get why, but it also sucks to see a lot of uneducated comments like "gimmick" when it comes to RT. If anything - raster is the fake one :D

1
Rep
33
Offline
20:50 Dec-29-2021

You literally just described the whole point of the person you're replying to. When GPUs no longer take a hit from turning it on, then it'll be standard.


Different types of AA and AO are multiple times more intensive than other methods, but switching between them on a 2070 Super gives me no negatives in terms of FPS. Which is what OP was getting at, and you described. It'll be viable when GPUs take little to no performance hit, because they're so strong.


Next time rather than wanting to flex on somebody, actually think about what they're saying and whether you want to spend 3 paragraphs explaining their own point to them, just in more words than necessary.


Sincerely,


A Lead Software Engineer, by trade.

0
Rep
272
Offline
admin approved badge
00:38 Dec-30-2021

Dear, Mr Lead Software Engineer,


GPUs cannot possibly start taking "little to no performance hit" in raytracing vs raster the same way as Maxwell's equations can't be computationally less intense than 2+2. Shooting out trillions and billions of rays into a virtual simulation of a physical world is always going to be more resource-intensive than any form of fancy triangle shading. Your silly little AA and AO comparisons are not even close to the same level of performance difference. You should know that - you're a lead software engineer!


What you describe here is not that - you describe the *practicality* of raytracing, where a raytraced game runs "acceptably well" for the public to not be warranted a nuisance anymore. Fair point - that is what matters in the real world, even if you think I went on a tangent. But then where is that line of acceptance? Since RT is just so much more computationally intensive, where a pure raster game can run at 3000fps - a pure RT game may run at, say 60. Is that worth the downgrade? What about potential resolutions, 16K vs 1-2K? These comparisons may sound ridiculous, but if we think where we started (240p or less on digital, 10fps video, etc) and where we are now (8-16K content and displays, high framerates for movies, games and displays, HDR, etc) - where will we draw the line where raster's speed is no longer desired by most people, so we can now move on to RT as a standard? Every tech upgrade we get is to gives us MORE, not less or same - faster GPU for moar fps, more Ks on the display, maybe an OLED for better contrast, etc. Where will people be ok with the massive tradeoff and/or stagnation? They're certainly not happy about trading 4K rasters for 1080p with limited RT or an FPS impact on the latest games, so why would they be happy trading the same later? Just by mere exposure if we wait long-enough?


The changeover to RT and full-res assets will have to happen, I already said it and it's undeniable. But that will happen to make game development easier, to make the visuals marginally better - all that good stuff. That performance impact will still be there, though, and it will impact the industry's decisions - either the 1440p-4K era will last way longer than it would have on raster, maybe the game visuals will stagnate for a while while more layers of RT replace raster, maybe we'll have to accept lower framerates. We are already seeing this in action with RT games spawning things like extra ray accelerator hardware, DLSS and FSR to combat these common downgrade annoyances and bring RT performance more in line with raster. Problem is - as these current RT implementations are very limited. As hardware evolves - we'll be able to add more and more layers of RT, at better qualities, etc - but raster will be miles faster than that more complex RT on the now-faster hardware! Whatever the tradeoffs remain - the performance hit is there and it will be felt somewhere down the line, perhaps even invisible to the end consumer unless prompted (though costs most people can definitely feel - the extra hardware doesn't come free).


All the above was a reply to YOU, Mr Lead Software Engineer. The reason for that - the OP clearly started he prefers more raw (raster) performance over RT performance - and his sentiments are far from uncommon. My reply to him explains that there cannot possibly be no hit, but RT will have to become standard some day anyway due to its other benefits. If this is how badly you follow a simple topic online - perhaps this explains why software always comes out buggy. Or perhaps it is on me for not explaining the effects of those innate performance negatives better like I did above (resolution/framerate stagnation while having to buy better hardware, lower fps, upscaling, costs, etc). Either way - next time rather than wanting to flex on somebody, actually think about what they're saying and whether or not to spend 3 paragraphs moaning about the wrong point to them and with bad examples.


Sincerely,


Please at least be more attentive than this in your software engineering endeavors

1
Rep
8
Offline
admin approved badge
16:15 Dec-17-2021

glad i dont give a !^%# about rtx lol

5
Rep
272
Offline
admin approved badge
01:27 Dec-18-2021

A slow clap for you..?

3
Rep
8
Offline
admin approved badge
02:53 Jan-12-2022

nah just a gimmick

0
Rep
272
Offline
admin approved badge
10:01 Jan-12-2022

You want a slow gimmick for you instead of a clap?

0
Rep
2
Offline
23:40 Jan-06-2022

RT. Not RTX.

0
Rep
10
Offline
16:08 Dec-17-2021

🖕

1

Can They Run... |

| 60FPS, High, 1440p
Ryzen 5 3600XT 6-Core 3.8GHz Radeon RX 5700 XT Asus ROG Strix OC 8GB 32GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1080p
Core i7-4820K 4-Core 3.70GHz Radeon RX 570 4GB 16GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 30FPS, Low, 720p
Ryzen R5 1400 Radeon RX 480 4GB 16GB
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i5-9400F 6-Core 2.9GHz GeForce GTX 1060 Palit Super Jetstream 6GB 16GB
| 60FPS, High, 720p
Core i5-10400F 6-Core 2.90GHz GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Gigabyte D5 4GB 16GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 60FPS, Medium, 1080p
Ryzen R5 1600 Radeon R9 280 Club3D royalKing 3GB Edition 8GB
0% No [1 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i7-11800H 8-Core 1.90GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile 16GB
66.6667% Yes [3 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i7-11800H 8-Core 1.90GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile 16GB
100% Yes [2 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i7-11800H 8-Core 1.90GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile 16GB
100% Yes [2 votes]
| 60FPS, High, 4k
Core i5-11600 6-Core 2.8GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Ultra 16GB
| 30FPS, Low, 1080p
Core 2 Duo E8400 3.0GHz GeForce GTS 450 Asus DirectCU TOP 1GB Edition 4GB
0% No [1 votes]
| 60FPS, Medium, 1080p
Core i5-8250U 4-Core 1.6GHz GeForce GTX 1050 MSI 2GB 16GB
| 60FPS, Low, 1440p
Core i5-9400 6-Core 2.9GHz GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Gainward Ghost 6GB 4GB
0% No [1 votes]
| 60FPS, Ultra, 1440p
Ryzen 7 5800H 8-Core 3.2GHz GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile 16GB
100% Yes [1 votes]