Review: Borderlands 3: PC graphics performance benchmark analysis

It's performance like this that makes the RTX2080ti look good. Everything else looks borderline in comparison and even then, for 2k 144hz; an RTX2080ti still isn't good enough...

 

We need next Gen hardware for new decade's graphics. That optimization comes straight from Valhalla.

 

BL2 ran plenty fine at near-max detail on my R9 290 (1080p though). If I'm not mistaken, it's an Nvidia title, so the fact it ran so smoothly for me says a lot.

 

Hello Peeps...

Can someone please tell me what is the overlay used in the images on the first page to show the performance of the GPU?

Is it FRAPS or something else?

Thanks.

 

MSI Afterburner.

 

Honestly I'm shocked to see how poor this game perform. It's a joke to see these fps numbers. I have noticed that more and more games that uses the UE4 engine stuffers from fps and physics issues. That's why I started to move away from games that's build on that engine. This must be the worst performing title of 2019 by a long shot. This game tanks your performance more than the new Metro??? Look at how amazing Greedfall look and how well that game run compared to this crap. I mean what on earth is that all about for a game that has cartoon graphics???? On consoles the people say the game is basically unplayable on some scenarios where the fps will tank all the way down to 25 fps. Lol! Now it's clear why 2K didn't want this game on the Steam store. They know they will get very bad reviews, that's why they opted for Epic store that doesn't have the option for game reviews. It's a joke in what state this game has been launched. Totally unacceptable for a aaa developer company. There is no way this crap will ever get my money. This is my personal opinion and everyone for themselves when it comes to games. If you bought it and like it and you are happy then good for you, I'm just giving my personal opinion.

 

Not the case here. Because of the low GPU usage I am concluding to cpu bottleneck. If I would chose another place/scene, the FPS on dx11 would be as high as with dx12 and GPU usage maxed out. If you want I’ll add the ingame benchmark results.

 

When I look at those benchmarks one word comes to mind - TRASH !

 

I understand. I meant that someone saying that it was sending 2MB/s while it was in KB/s

 

Surprised at the comments relating to low FPS and needing to turn down settings to achieve decent frame rates with current hardware. How hard did Crysis hit the current hardware of the time. We want a game to be released to push hardware to its limits. It has been way too long to have games that push hardware so. Metro Exodus is another example. How fast was it settled on to run it on ultra to get better frame rates. This is no different. Just because the graphics look cartoonish the assumption is that it should run at phenomenally high fps...get real. Proper PC support means graphic settings will have a huge impact on frame rates. It is to be expected. Console ports have tarnished expectations for far too long and it shows with these kinds of comments. People have forgotten what gaming on a pc reveals. This reasoning of it needing to run above a predetermined fps on current gear is just lame at best. Borderlands is not a game for everyone. Just like Metro is not. Call it out for the code not being optimized enough, way to many bugs for it to be considered a finished product, or whatever reason but do not call it out for low fps. Maxed out settings with my current rig @ 2560 x 1440 with my 1080, best fps seen with Crysis (no mods / installed from original disc) was 120~125; Typically in the low 100s with dips below 90. Amazingly taxing for a 12 year-old game. Intro screens were showing fps over 3000. So complaining that one is not getting the fps they would like...welcome to pc gaming and the realization that current hardware is revealed to be absolutely abysmal when graphical settings are set past a certain point.

 

Set Quality mode to Low -> restart game. max out all advanced gfx setting -> restart game

The thing is that Quality mode changes some setting that aren't visible in the advanced gfx setting window. currently I'm hovering around 80 to 110fps still the game has some stuttering issues.

 

Volumetric fog is supposedly the no.1 FPS killer. Disabling that should make a big difference. Not only that, the game (from screenshots) looks terrible with volumetric fog on, ie, washed out, lifeless, colorless.

 

The image comparison screen shots - so all I can really see between low and ultra is slightly more grass and slightly sharper textures? Medium sorts out the textures and by high they are basically identical. What's the point in turning it up if it doesn't really make any difference to the visuals?

 

Its Epic and bloated with Denovo,as usual.
If someone play BL3 with i9 maybe will be ok.
Dont buy or play games with bloatware.

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/borderlands-3.254129/page-2#post-4116967

 

Thank you for that .

 

I finished the main story last night and performance is a real mixed bag in DX11, wide open spaces with long draw distances really create a huge CPU bottleneck that no amount of tweaking the settings seems to solve while other areas will max out the GPU no problem.

I could stay above 60fps in the GPU limited areas @3440x1440 with everything on Ultra except Volumetric Fog which was set to high with Motion blur disabled, CPU limited areas with big fights would tank down into the 40fps range at those settings, setting the render distance to low helped a bit but would still drop under 60fps with low GPU usage.

I can’t currently test DX12 as it just gives a me a “video driver has crashed” error on launch, although there’s nothing in event viewer proving this.

It’s going to take a miracle to fix this game.

Edit: It’s also worth noting that for me, the benchmark performance didn’t translate over to how the game actually ran during gameplay.

 

Not sure if it's my eyes finally getting older as the rest of me is, but I can not see a difference between ultra and low.....

Is there something in particular I should e paying extra attention to in the pictures!!??

 

Poor performance by powerful cards on a average looking game.What should i call this A Disaster?Looks like purposely either low down the performance of a game or cards.So people buy upper level 20 series cards but still upper level cards died here on a average looking Dx11 game