Support NeoGAF

[Corporal.Hicks]

The recommended settings for 2160p (include DLSSP + FGx2), 140-150fps

https://i.ibb.co/jPhpKQQz/4-K-recommended-FGx2.jpg

Recommended settings without FGx2, 90-100fps

https://i.ibb.co/sf6V2Xw/4-K-recommended-no-fg.jpg

These recommended settings provide an extremely smooth and responsive experience (especially with correct mouse / gamepad settings shared on this forum), and image quality still look 4K like.

For comparison here's maxed out (badass) settings with DLSSP + FGx2. It seems recommended settings are 35-40fps faster compared to maxed out settings. I tried playing with badass settings for few minutes and it was still fairly good experience on my VRR monitor, even though framerate fluctuated between 57-63fps.

https://i.ibb.co/SDKw2nSV/4-K-badass.jpg

Badass with FGx2 was even better 102-110fps. I think I could play it like that without complaining about anything. However, very high or even high settings would look pretty much the same and run even better.

https://i.ibb.co/S4FH6HH4/4k-badass-fg.jpg

There's nothing wrong with his reasoning. There's no way the PS4 would run this game in it's current scope and quality (real time lighting, big open levels with insane amount of grass all the way up to the horizon). Randy is also right about DLSS. If I can't tell the difference between true 4K and 140 fps, I don't care if the game uses AI to impress me. The real problem with Randy's tweet is that he's being honest. Nothing enrages people more than the truth. From developers perspective there's nothing you could do to please all people. If developers would use old technology (dating back to PS4 era) in their games people who build a modern high end PC will complain that developers dont use their hardware and still prebake lighting. However, if developers want to make full use of the high-end PC, gamers will complain even more (Crysis 1 or games using the UE5 engine).

 

[Fake]

I saw this and had to share lol. 1 fps on PS5 from this explosion

Randy Pitchford: 'Buy a PS5pro'.

 

[Celcius]

The recommended settings for 2160p (include DLSSP + FGx2), 140-150fps

https://i.ibb.co/jPhpKQQz/4-K-recommended-FGx2.jpg

Recommended settings without FGx2, 90-100fps

https://i.ibb.co/sf6V2Xw/4-K-recommended-no-fg.jpg

These recommended settings provide an extremely smooth and responsive experience (especially with correct mouse / gamepad settings shared on this forum), and image quality still look 4K like.

For comparison here's maxed out (badass) settings with DLSSP + FGx2. It seems recommended settings are 35-40fps faster compared to maxed out settings. I tried playing with badass settings for few minutes and it was still fairly good experience on my VRR monitor, even though framerate fluctuated between 57-63fps.

https://i.ibb.co/SDKw2nSV/4-K-badass.jpg

Badass with FGx2 was even better 102-110fps. I think I could play it like that without complaining about anything. However, very high or even high settings would look pretty much the same and run even better.

https://i.ibb.co/S4FH6HH4/4k-badass-fg.jpg

There's nothing wrong with his reasoning. There's no way the PS4 would run this game in it's current scope and quality (real time lighting, big open levels with insane amount of grass all the way up to the horizon). Randy is also right about DLSS. If I can't tell the difference between true 4K and 140 fps, I don't care if the game uses AI to impress me. The real problem with Randy's tweet is that he's being honest. Nothing enrages people more than the truth. As a developer there's nothing you could do to please all people. If you use old technology people who build a high end PC will complain that developers dont use their hardware. However, if developers want to make full use of the high-end PC, gamers will complain even more (Crysis 1 or games using the UE5 engine).

I'm almost 40 hours into the game now and I'm running the game at 4K with performance DLSS. It looks good, but if you can't tell the difference between that and native 4K then I recommend new glasses lol. The most glaring difference to me is when you press Z to have the robot show the golden arrowed line to guide you to the next objective... it's very easy to tell it's not native 4K.

I agree that it's great to see games targeting high end hardware but Randy comes across as a manager with no technical knowledge who just shouts that everything they do is great and there are no faults.

 

[Dalbajobas]

I saw this and had to share lol. 1 fps on PS5 from this explosion

But if we listen to gaffers it runs immaculately perfect on ps5.

 

[intbal]

This game looks like a low definition version of Call of Juarez: Gunslinger.

 

[RAIDEN1]

Some say Borderlands 2 is the pinnacle of the franchise, others just don't matter..

 

[Dalbajobas]

From benchmarks the game seems to be designed around the medium preset with upscaling, most mainstream cards seem to hit and even well exceed 60fps. UE5s typical shader/stutter/hitching issues not withstanding. The textures are already ass and handicapped by 8GB cards, evidenced by the games file size. The biggest problem is the artstyle isn't conducive or noticably advanced by the extreme compute costs of lumen, nanite, and rt shadows/reflections.

Apparently game doesn't even have hardware lumen [according to df], only software with evident screen space reflections present. Nothing explains this abysmal performance other than totally incompetent devs.

 

[Haint]

Apparently game doesn't even have hardware lumen [according to df], only software with evident screen space reflections present. Nothing explains this abysmal performance other than totally incompetent devs.

Software lumen is still really expensive, especially for consoles and 60-class GPU's. The lowest lumen setting offered in the game Vs. the highest is like a 40% performance delta. A true "off" setting would probably add another 30%+.

 

[Corporal.Hicks]

I'm almost 40 hours into the game now and I'm running the game at 4K with performance DLSS. It looks good, but if you can't tell the difference between that and native 4K then I recommend new glasses lol. The most glaring difference to me is when you press Z to have the robot show the golden arrowed line to guide you to the next objective... it's very easy to tell it's not native 4K.

I agree that it's great to see games targeting high end hardware, but Randy comes across as a manager with no technical knowledge who just shouts that everything they do is great and there are no faults.

I dont mind using DLSS, because this technology reconstructs real detail (rather than simply up-scaling the existing detail with bilinear filtering), so I always get razor sharp image.

However, the quality of certain effects, such as RT, lumen, nanite and SSR, is tied to the internal resolution, meaning there can be more noticeable difference if game use these effects. That difference isn't always obvious to me during normal gameplay (especially from normal viewing distance on my 4K monitor with insanely high pixel density), but I can definitely see these differences when I take screenshots and examine the details closely.

I've done a screenshot comparison in Borderlands 4 between DLSS and DLAA (native), and I can definitely see the difference now. In fact, the differences in this particular game are much bigger than in any other game. For example there's quite a big difference in the way grass is rendered. I wonder if borderlands 4 uses Nanite for foliage; that would explain such big difference, because at higher resolution nanite would render more detail. The size of the edge outline filter must also be different for internal 1080p.

1'st comparison

4K DLAA

https://i.ibb.co/8nwQzNPG/DLAA.jpg

4K DLSSQ

https://i.ibb.co/Y4VpTWS9/DLSSQ.jpg

4K DLSSP

https://i.ibb.co/dwGSvDzL/DLSSP.jpg

2'nd comparison, it shows that golden arrowed line

4K DLAA

https://i.ibb.co/mCLTnkGk/DLAA-FGx2.jpg

4K DLSSP

https://i.ibb.co/20znkc3Y/DLSSP-FGx2.jpg

Maybe I will play the game with DLSSQ and medium settings (I still get over 120fps thanks to FG) instead maxed out.

 

[Dampf]

????



Randy trying to gaslight people isn't too surprising either. Everyone should refund it so they learn their lesson.

There will always be cases like that in any game.



The game is holding 60 FPS most of the time atleast in this area, which is also where all of the PC benchmarks of 4060's having similar performance but on medium at DLSS 1080p happen.

Also you can see how much worse low looks than the consoles.



A 3070 which is clearly more powerful than a PS5 can't reach the same performance even at 1080p with DLSS Quality at high settings and medium textures. PS5 looks and runs much better.

 

[Bojji]

Randy Pitchford: 'Buy a PS5pro'.

To get 2FPS...

 

[Corporal.Hicks]

A 3070 which is clearly more powerful than a PS5 can't reach the same performance even at 1080p with DLSS Quality at high settings and medium textures. PS5 looks and runs much better.

I doubt the PS5 uses a high settings preset. It's most likely set to low or medium.

 

[Dampf]

I doubt the PS5 uses a high settings preset. It's most likely set to low or medium.

Debatable between high and medium. However it's 100% not using low. Low gets rid of grass entirely and the lighting is very different.

Even the Series S looks much better.

As you can see, the lighting and the grass is fully intact, unlike low settings.

Series S is probably running custom medium settings while PS5 and XSX are running custom high settings.

These are pretty much low settings with a few tweaks Nvidia has prepared for PS5 class GPUs (3070, 4060, 2080). High is much closer to the consoles.

The PC performance of this title is completely broken.

 

[Corporal.Hicks]

Debatable between high and medium. However it's 100% not using low. Low gets rid of grass entirely and the lighting is very different.

Even the Series S looks much better.

As you can see, the lighting and the grass is fully intact, unlike low settings.

Series S is probably running custom medium settings while PS5 and XSX are running custom high settings.

These are pretty much low settings with a few tweaks Nvidia has prepared for PS5 class GPUs (3070, 4060, 2080). High is much closer to the consoles.

The PC performance of this title is completely broken.

The visual difference between medium and high settings is subtle in borderlands 4, yet performance difference is quite big, therefore I dont think gearbox would spend resources for marginal visual difference and especially when the game has performance problems on consoles.

Digital Foundry (12m40s) said in this video that borderlands 4 one the PS5 dips like crazy.

 

[Dalbajobas]

Debatable between high and medium. However it's 100% not using low. Low gets rid of grass entirely and the lighting is very different.

Even the Series S looks much better.

As you can see, the lighting and the grass is fully intact, unlike low settings.

Series S is probably running custom medium settings while PS5 and XSX are running custom high settings.

These are pretty much low settings with a few tweaks Nvidia has prepared for PS5 class GPUs (3070, 4060, 2080). High is much closer to the consoles.

The PC performance of this title is completely broken.

Yeah you need around rtx 3060 to get a ps5 experience in this game.

ps5


3060

 

[cash_longfellow]

But if we listen to gaffers it runs immaculately perfect on ps5.

Buttttt, it does? One guy had an issue with the game and all of a sudden the shit runs bad on ps5? Is that what we are doing here? Just want to double check to make sure that's the bed you are making?

 

[Dalbajobas]

Buttttt, it does? One guy had an issue with the game and all of a sudden the shit runs bad on ps5? Is that what we are doing here? Just want to double check to make sure that's the bed you are making?

You have all sorts of videos reporting fps in the 40s when in comabat, DF claiming theres a ton of stutters and low fps on ps5 including on ps5 pro and you make this silly post?

 

[cash_longfellow]

Debatable between high and medium. However it's 100% not using low. Low gets rid of grass entirely and the lighting is very different.

Even the Series S looks much better.

As you can see, the lighting and the grass is fully intact, unlike low settings.

Series S is probably running custom medium settings while PS5 and XSX are running custom high settings.

These are pretty much low settings with a few tweaks Nvidia has prepared for PS5 class GPUs (3070, 4060, 2080). High is much closer to the consoles.

The PC performance of this title is completely broken.

It's clearly a large PC issue…and trolls and "-PC is the master race no matter what and everyone else is a peon!" types are trying to externalize the issues they are having onto other methods of play.

 

[cash_longfellow]

You have all sorts of videos reporting fps in the 40s when in comabat, DF claiming theres a ton of stutters and low fps on ps5 including on ps5 pro and you make this silly post?

Silly post? I've been playing the game for 30+ hours. Gtfoh with trying to make some minor subset of players as the whole. Shit is tiring here with people that do that, and it's getting old asf. A super vocal minority of people don't make up the large majority of ps5 players that are having no issues and actually enjoying the game. The PC version has some performance issues, we all get it, but don't try to bash the console versions because of it. And let me guess…you didn't watch the "all sorts of videos" with no issues did you? And you haven't played it yourself either, did you? Calling a post silly for expressing what I've experienced playing the game personally, is the whole problem with discussing video games anymore.