Borderlands 2 + MSI 670 oc + Physx High

Discussion in 'Videocards - NVIDIA GeForce Drivers Section' started by mentalpeace, Sep 26, 2012.

  1. The engine is UE3, so that's not to blame.
     
  2. NeoandGeo

    NeoandGeo Guest

    Messages:
    745
    Likes Received:
    9
    GPU:
    Geforce GTX 970 @1420
    Hahahahahahahahahahahah.

    Hopefully that was a troll post, UE3 is a hideously outdated engine that was developed for the XBox 360 hardware. A lot of the blame is on Nvidia and PhysX being a bloated POS, but UE3 is one of the worst possible choices to pair it with with its pitiful performance with large amounts of draw calls and poor multithreaded performance structure.
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2016
  3. You've obviously never done work on UE3. It used to be one of the best and most flexible modern game engines available. It is old and has been superseded but it can more than can handle the "draw calls" of Borderlands 2 (nice spewing random buzzwords you learned around, reducing draw calls is the developers' job). It was not "developed for the Xbox 360 hardware" as it has tons of features the 360 could not even benefit from. If there's performance issues due to tacked on PhysX features, that's entirely Gearbox's fault. You're either misled or just lying, either way you ought to keep the ignorance/autism to a minimum. Shoo, gamer.
     
  4. NeoandGeo

    NeoandGeo Guest

    Messages:
    745
    Likes Received:
    9
    GPU:
    Geforce GTX 970 @1420
    Well, starting out with your first sentence I thought I was about to be in for a good read, then you ruined any credibility you may have had with the phrase "used to be". Well, color me disappointed by your useless but still quite amusing babbling after that. You say the engine can handle the draw calls that Borderlands 2 is pushing through the engine, yet it is proven that the engine can't handle it, and breaks down on even $10,000 hardware at lowered settings.

    If you can't help the discussion along, then just admit that you're trolling or hopefully just a paid shill from incompetent developers trying to do too much with tech that is over a decade old. I will give you one thing though, my 360 comment was wrong, the engine was developed for XBox 360 era hardware, not specifically for the console. But that proves my point that it's well past time to move on as simply adding band-aids to try and give the illusion the engine is modern just makes games play like absolute dogs***. :D
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2016

  5. -Tj-

    -Tj- Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    18,097
    Likes Received:
    2,603
    GPU:
    3080TI iChill Black
    no physx 2.8 is bad 99% of the time, poorly threaded with over excessive gpu calls for each object crippling cuda pipeline and making async idle time holes, gpu usage drops 30-50% + fps drops.

    They changed this object call a bit in physx3 but it can still do it - KillingFloor2 fluid.
     
  6. NeoandGeo

    NeoandGeo Guest

    Messages:
    745
    Likes Received:
    9
    GPU:
    Geforce GTX 970 @1420
    Yeah, PhysX does significantly worsen the problem, but even with PhysX on Low (Off for all intents and purposes) the engine has issues near the latter end of the game when you are fighting in the majority robot battles, there are simply too many objects being moved around for the engine to keep a steady framerate and GPU/CPU usage is very low. This is why the ports even on PS4/XBone run very poorly. This game should have avoided UE3 after the 2nd game.

    But that quick cash-in of a barely competent $10 BL2 DLC released at full retail price, BL:TPS was too sweet for Gearbox to pass up. :p
     
  7. Just how thick are you? Does context mean anything at all to you? We're discussing Borderlands 2 in this thread, which was released in 2012. UE3 was NOT outdated back then. Holy guacamole.
     
  8. NeoandGeo

    NeoandGeo Guest

    Messages:
    745
    Likes Received:
    9
    GPU:
    Geforce GTX 970 @1420
    At the time of release it was nearly an 8-year old engine, that's pretty old especially with the shift to multi-core architecture, which UE3 fails miserably at. It literally held back a generation of games when developers refused to move away from it and just dealt with it mostly with brute force, with varying degrees of success.

    These facts combined with incompetent developers like Gearbox trying to do too much with the engine to "modernize it" on top of throwing an overly bloated add-on (PhysX) into the mix was a recipe for disaster. Look at something like Dungeon Defenders, the game plays well up to a point, but once you have too many objects on the screen the engine lilterally falls apart and performance takes a huge nosedive. No amount of power can compensate when developers attempt to modernize an outdated engine.

    Hence this thread, with the multitude of replies. Not sure why you continue to try and defend whatever non-point you were attempting to make. Thick is you I do believe.
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2016
  9. HeavyHemi

    HeavyHemi Guest

    Messages:
    6,952
    Likes Received:
    960
    GPU:
    GTX1080Ti
    I know...and they literally did nothing to UE3 despite the latest engine update being in 2015...right? Well I guess adding muliti threading around 2010...er oops. PhysX context switching, is the main issue with Borderlands 2. There are a lot of games from Borderlands 2 era that run on UE3 really well.
     
  10. NeoandGeo

    NeoandGeo Guest

    Messages:
    745
    Likes Received:
    9
    GPU:
    Geforce GTX 970 @1420
    Yep, a lot of games do run well, that would be called competent developers not forcing the engine to go further than it can or should go. Also the games that run well are by and large fairly simplistic HD-UHD PS3/360 games. The engine has clear limits, and when they are pushed, especially by a terrible development studio, performance can suffer immensely.

    You can't argue that the engine is very dated, and if used, the developer needs to take a bit of care and keep object/particle counts in check.
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2016

  11. HeavyHemi

    HeavyHemi Guest

    Messages:
    6,952
    Likes Received:
    960
    GPU:
    GTX1080Ti
    Okay, so you meant to wail at the developers and not the game engine. Interestingly, I can run the game quite well at 4K with every setting maxed. I do get the occasional 'chugging' but only during heavy PhysX scenes. This despite using a GTX Titan for PhysX. We agree somewhat, but for different reasons. The issue here is basically the PhysX implementation. I wasn't aware the Batman series (for example) were 'fairly simplistic PS3/360 games' :banana:
     
  12. NeoandGeo

    NeoandGeo Guest

    Messages:
    745
    Likes Received:
    9
    GPU:
    Geforce GTX 970 @1420
    I meant to point towards both. The engine doesn't really have a place anymore and hasn't for nearly half a decade, and at developers who need to leave it behind, or if they have to cheap out on their customers, there needs to be great care taken to not try and develop anything above an HD/UHD 360 game with a game world to match.

    Also if you think the Arkham games are anything above last gen games prettied up in an attempt to pass off as "next gen", then you have extremely low standards. ;)
     
  13. BuildeR2

    BuildeR2 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,208
    Likes Received:
    437
    GPU:
    ASUS 4090 TUF OG OC
    I also run the game maxed out at 4k DSR with a nearly solid 60FPS, except for PhysX heavy scenes. I feel like you two should read this article if you haven't already and join me in shaking our heads at how badly optimized PhsyX is.

    http://www.realworldtech.com/physx87/
     
  14. HeavyHemi

    HeavyHemi Guest

    Messages:
    6,952
    Likes Received:
    960
    GPU:
    GTX1080Ti
    Indeed, as they came out quite a few years ago. I mean, who denies the passage of time? Who is arguing using it NOW? All of this is revolving around issues from years ago. I was merely pointing out AT THE TIME, those games did quite a lot with the engine.
     
  15. Cave Waverider

    Cave Waverider Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,879
    Likes Received:
    663
    GPU:
    ASUS RTX 4090 TUF
    Borderlands 2 works fine for me at maximum details and UHD resolution, as long as I have my GTX 1060 dedicated to PhysX.
     

  16. HeavyHemi

    HeavyHemi Guest

    Messages:
    6,952
    Likes Received:
    960
    GPU:
    GTX1080Ti
    I've already read that. It's a matter of perspective. As the author points out, Nvidia is under no obligation to make their proprietary tech easier for the competition to use. And lets not forget his claims of being able to increase CPU efficiency by completely rewriting the API are just his opinion, a maybe. Their bottom line obligation is profit and tying PhysX to their GPU is for profit.
     
  17. HeavyHemi

    HeavyHemi Guest

    Messages:
    6,952
    Likes Received:
    960
    GPU:
    GTX1080Ti
    It 'works fine' for me too...except there are still a few chugs under really heavy particle scenes. You might have enough raw power to stay above 60FPS as a min.
     
  18. NeoandGeo

    NeoandGeo Guest

    Messages:
    745
    Likes Received:
    9
    GPU:
    Geforce GTX 970 @1420
    Works fine, is subjective. There are quite a few people that think FPS drops to the 30's and 40's in firefights perfectly fine, you are obviously one of those people.

    You can even turn PhysX off and enjoy a mostly 60fps experience until the latter end of the game when the developers decided to take an artistic approach and have the engine fall apart and chug along simply with the amount of enemies and objects they pushed into the frame. Even low settings will have questionable performance in some of the final battles. Partly due to incompetent developers, and partly to do with the engine not being able to handle a large amount of draw calls.
     
  19. Cave Waverider

    Cave Waverider Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,879
    Likes Received:
    663
    GPU:
    ASUS RTX 4090 TUF
    Yeah, that's probably it. It stays at 60 FPS all the time when I have the framerate limited to 60.

    I've just disabled the limit and I can see big framerate swings from the 200s down to 70s, a huge drop that does indeed cause some rather noticeable stutter. I can imagine that it's even worse on systems where the framerate falls below 60. So there are definitely some optimization issues with the game.

    Update: I've tried setting my Titan X (Pascal) for PhysX and the game does indeed drop below 60 FPS in heavy scenes now. As long as I use the GTX 1060 for PhysX (dedicated) and let the Titan X do the rest it stays above it, however. So I guess the dedicated PhysX card does help a little as well.
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2016
  20. TheDeeGee

    TheDeeGee Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,636
    Likes Received:
    3,413
    GPU:
    NVIDIA RTX 4070 Ti
    Today i even got drops below 60 during some Robot Invasions, and that's with PhysX Low.

    Still enjoying the game a lot though.

    Also the GPU Usage never goes above 55%.
     

Share This Page