• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Borderlands 4's latest patch comes with massive performance improvements on PC

Gaiff

SBI’s Resident Gaslighter


Performance improvements up to 45%. There doesn't seem to be any visual downgrades. If anything, the newer version has fewer visual glitches such as with the shadows.

KNuYkN1.jpeg

Big improvements when VRAM-limited too. Better handling of textures and VRAM usage.

xnUJf09.jpeg

ECidTuU.jpeg

So, maybe the game wasn't optimized after all? I don't have the data for consoles yet.
 
How is the actual game though? Better than 3? I might eventually fancy getting into a new Borderlands game whenever Epic sees fit to gift it to me.
 
Randy will no doubt spew more shite about the game already being super optimised at launch, but we made it betterer, fo sho bros. Knobend he is.
 
But Randy and all of his deciples told us the performance at launch was worth it because the game was doing so much visually.


Thierry Henry Smile GIF by hamlet
 
Last edited:


It seems they improved performance on slower and VRAM limited GPUs. Before the patch the RTX4060 had 52-65fps, now 62-70fps with more stable frametime graph. On the RTX5080 though performance is just 1-2fps better.

How is the actual game though? Better than 3? I might eventually fancy getting into a new Borderlands game whenever Epic sees fit to gift it to me.
If you liked Borderlands 3 and your PC can run Borderlands 4 at a decent frame rate with DLSS, you will definitely like the new instalment. In my personall opinion Borderlands 4 is even better than Borderlands 3 thanks to more dynamic combat. Enemies close the distance to the player faster, but the new movement mechanics allow you to dodge their attacks and even stay in the air. I also like the sound of the hit response. There's a strange pleasure in just shooting at enemies. Exploring the open world is also more enjoyable. The maps are bigger now, and you can climb to places that were previously unreachable. Borderlands 3 had dynamic TOD, but there were only 3 or 4 different TOD prebakes, so the lighting felt static. In borderlands 4 however TOD changes chappens in real time. Sometimes, I would stop playing the game just to see how the position of the sun was changing the volumetric lighting, especially during sunrise.
 
Last edited:
"The minimum and recommended specs are published. The most common hardware is a four year old cell phone. Borderlands 4 is a premium game made for premium gamers. Just as Borderlands 4 cannot run on a PlayStation 4, it cannot be expected to run on too-old PC hardware. Unlike on PlayStation and Xbox, we cannot prevent a PC player with sub optimal hardware for the game try to play it. So some try and get mad. And some have actual issues we need to fix. And some need to learn how their PC's work at the high end for this specific game in 2025 and use the tools available to them to find the right balance between frame rate, resolution, and graphics features. This is not a game made to run on 10 year old PC's - this game uses the full capabilities of modern bus, CPU, and GPU. If you're trying to drive a monster truck with a leaf blower's motor, you're going to be disappointed. If you discover your system can't run the game well by accident or wishful thinking and/or don't want to try to mess with settings to make things good enough for you, please use the refund feature on Steam rather than have a subpar experience."

IMG-5877.gif
 
The actual launch has arrived.

Thanks to early adopters for participating in the previous blind-beta test. Your full-price for unfinished product efforts shall, as always, go unrewarded.
 
Last edited:
No console optimization? Game is pretty one and done. The endgame is not as exciting as they hyped it up to be. I'd come back to try out the other characters if the performance was better on consoles though.
 
Remember when PC players where labeled as entitled cry babies for wanting a game that looks like this to run smoothly at 60 FPS.

Yeah fuck you, you know who you are. This is becoming more and more common, its to the benefit of all gamers that we get this shit called out and fixed, because it has a huge impact on your experience. No matter the platform.
 
Last edited:
I dont know why any gamer expects games to be optimized at launch anymore
Because maybe don't hurt the sales of your new game, but mostly will do in the next one

No console optimization? Game is pretty one and done. The endgame is not as exciting as they hyped it up to be. I'd come back to try out the other characters if the performance was better on consoles though.
The optimization is on consoles too. But don't expect the same jump of performance, so console version already was better optimized
 
Last edited:


Performance improvements up to 45%. There doesn't seem to be any visual downgrades. If anything, the newer version has fewer visual glitches such as with the shadows.

KNuYkN1.jpeg

Big improvements when VRAM-limited too. Better handling of textures and VRAM usage.

xnUJf09.jpeg

ECidTuU.jpeg

So, maybe the game wasn't optimized after all? I don't have the data for consoles yet.


The volumetric fog doesn't look good enough for the massive trade off in performance in this game. The artstyle works with or without it.
 
The actual launch has arrived.

Thanks to early adopters for participating in the previous blind-beta test. Your full-price for unfinished product efforts shall, as always, go unrewarded.
What exactly would improve my experience if I waited a few months? This game didn't have any game-breaking bugs, and I could enjoy it fully even at launch. Admittedly, the game was very demanding at native 4K resolution with the 'badass' settings (maxed out settings), but I don't mind using DLSS or tweaking some settings. I was still able to achieve 120 fps with only a 10% perceived loss in quality.



But I get it; on Neogaf, all games that don't run at 4K native 120fps with maxed-out settings are considered unplayable. Also, the occasional stutter is absolutely game-breaking, according to Alex Battaglia (Sometimes I think Alex enjoys looking at frametime graphs more than playing games).
 
Last edited:
So the performance is better now? Months later? Was there a premium version released early than launch date cause that would be hilarious.
 
Last edited:
What exactly would improve my experience if I waited a few months? This game didn't have any game-breaking bugs, and I could enjoy it fully even at launch. Admittedly, the game was very demanding at native 4K resolution with the 'badass' settings (maxed out settings), but I don't mind using DLSS or tweaking some settings. I was still able to achieve 120 fps with only a 10% perceived loss in quality.



But I get it; on Neogaf, all games that don't run at 4K native 120fps with maxed-out settings are considered unplayable. Also, the occasional stutter is absolutely game-breaking, according to Alex Battaglia (Sometimes I think Alex enjoys looking at frametime graphs more than playing games).

I don't have BL4, but it does seem that the gaming community loses sight of this sometimes. Benchmarks settings are meant to be the toughest possible to discern differences, and it's widely known that the highest settings on many games that are even years old can make a surprising difference to results (e.g. shadows). As you say, the small hit to quality for such big FPS gains is surely the ideal people should really be focused on. How many GAF members call games "slop" (the current word of the moment that ironically makes posters themselves look like AI set to "generic hyperbolic miserable shit-poster") because of max settings benchmarks? I wish there were more "realistic balance" channels doing the rounds rather than the standard "Here's where you can pick out failings".

Having said that, I still think BL4 made some poor decisions and I don't know why a game that is primarily art style driven decided to go for visual settings/engine choices that had such hits instead of going for image quality and a more consistent experience. If such big gains can be made from a patch then it does suggest that they did not do enough before release. Between this and MH:Wilds in such a short period of time it doesn't exactly make me enthusiastic about buying games at launch purely because it makes me think corners were cut and the price I pay for an early purchase is poorer performance. Might be stuttering, might be frametimes, might be glitches, might be something else.

I do wonder if in the long term companies will make more of an effort to optimise because of the reach and impact YT channels and user scores can have and the current state of things where performance hungry audiences are vocal and seemingly having a notable effect on long-term term sales.
 
Last edited:
Had great fun blowing through the game with my best friend, but the Endgame soured quickly.

I'm hoping to pick it back up when the other Vault Hunter arrives if enough endgame content shows up by then.
 
I don't have BL4, but it does seem that the gaming community loses sight of this sometimes. Benchmarks settings are meant to be the toughest possible to discern differences, and it's widely known that the highest settings on many games that are even years old can make a surprising difference to results (e.g. shadows). As you say, the small hit to quality for such big FPS gains is surely the ideal people should really be focused on. How many GAF members call games "slop" (the current word of the moment that ironically makes posters themselves look like AI set to "generic hyperbolic miserable shit-poster") because of max settings benchmarks? I wish there were more "realistic balance" channels doing the rounds rather than the standard "Here's where you can pick out failings".

Having said that, I still think BL4 made some poor decisions and I don't know why a game that is primarily art style driven decided to go for visual settings/engine choices that had such hits instead of going for image quality and a more consistent experience. If such big gains can be made from a patch then it does suggest that they did not do enough before release. Between this and MH:Wilds in such a short period of time it doesn't exactly make me enthusiastic about buying games at launch purely because it makes me think corners were cut and the price I pay for an early purchase is poorer performance. Might be stuttering, might be frametimes, might be glitches, might be something else.
Exactly. Settings exist for a reason, but so many gamers think that if a game doesn't run well at the maximum settings, it's not worth playing. These UE5 games can be twice as demanding at maximum settings (which are usually labelled 'EPIC'), compared to high settings, but often, I can't even tell the difference in graphics fidelity, so I usually run UE5 with high or very high settings.

I've even noticed that some UE5 developers hide the true Epic settings on purpose, so as not to anger gamers with higher requirements. For example, Silent Hill F: many gamers said that this game runs well for a UE5 title, but try editing the .ini files and turning on the true Epic settings, and performance melts exactly to Borderlands 4 levels.

Another good example: Dying Light The Beast. The developers didn't want to anger gamers, so they didn't include RT at launch. Gamers were happy with the overall performance, but look at benchmarks now. The requirements went from normal to shockingly bad.

ETt2vZy7Cd8bCUoX.jpg



But I think gamers are willing to forgive developers high requirements if they can get decent performance/quality on their PC and that's the case with Dying Light The Beast. Even without RT, the game still looks fairly good and the performance remains good.

The problem with Borderlands 4 is that most gamers on PC (Steam's survey suggests that most gamers have a 3070, 3060 or 4060) just cant get good picture quality / graphics fidelity / performance, so the game looks and runs like a crap. Borderlands 4 feels like a game built for the next generation of GPUs when it comes to it's requirements. Even the current high-end GPUs like the RTX5090 need to use DLSS at higher resolutions, and you still need to lower some settings to achieve a high refresh rate. But what if you don't own a high-end GPU? Well, there's absolutely nothing you can do....

Or maybe you can do something about it 😀. If I had a GPU that was too weak to play this game and I want to play it badly, I could consider playing Borderlands 4 on my CRT monitor in glorious 768p, 600p, or maybe even 480p because even such low resolution look very good on a CRT monitor. Even the 3060 should be able to run 480p in Borderlands, especially with DLSS on top of that😂 (I dont even know if DLSS works on such low resolution, so I might try). I'm laughing, but I tried playing a few modern games on my CRT monitor and RTX4080S, and I had a very good experience, so it's not a bad idea IMO.

But yes, it seems like Gearbox made some bad decisions and prioritised their artistic vision over the interests of gamers. Gearbox wanted to significantly improve the graphics fidelity compared to previous games, so they opted for real-time lighting. After all, Borderlands has always featured dynamic time of day (TOD) and static (pre-baked) lighting just cant look good in such a game. Even if they had tried to pre-bake the lighting for different times of day, it would have required hundreds of gigabytes of storage, so IDF if that's even possible (Borderlands 3 levels werent as big, yet the game size was huge, over 100GB if I rememeber correctly).

I think gearbox should aim to achieve at least 1440p at 60fps on PS5 hardware, and from that scale even higher settings / effects on PC. This would probably mean that Gearbox would need to scrap real-time lighting, but most gamers would understand that and still be happy with results. Take Arc Riders, for example. This game doesn't use RT, but people still seem to enjoy it.

But looking at Borderlands 4 from my own perspective as someone who can play the game on a decent PC, I can say that Gearbox's decisions make sense. Despite the same cartoon graphic novel, real-time lighting makes a noticeable difference compared to the previous game and if I use DLSS and tweak some settings I end up with similar framerate as borderlands 3 at maxed out settings without DLSS, and it's not like there's a huge difference between native 4K and reconstructed 4K. Borderlands 4 is a true masterpiece from my perspective. In a few years, when more people are able to run this game decently, I'm certain that the number of Borderlands 4 fans will grow a lot.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't even matter that much if it's fixed.

They still chose to release it unfinished across multiple platforms, to the point damage numbers were showing artifacting because they put in the same upscaling pipeline as the world geometry...instead of separating out UI elements to render at native res like so many other Unreal games have accomplished.

They just did what other AAA studios did, pissed away their budget without organizing enough time to make it run well.
 
Exactly. Settings exist for a reason, but so many gamers think that if a game doesn't run well at the maximum settings, it's not worth playing. These UE5 games can be twice as demanding at maximum settings (which are usually labelled 'EPIC'), compared to high settings, but often, I can't even tell the difference in graphics fidelity, so I usually run UE5 with high or very high settings.

I've even noticed that some UE5 developers hide the true Epic settings on purpose, so as not to anger gamers with higher requirements. For example, Silent Hill F: many gamers said that this game runs well for a UE5 title, but try editing the .ini files and turning on the true Epic settings, and performance melts exactly to Borderlands 4 levels.

Another good example: Dying Light The Beast. The developers didn't want to anger gamers, so they didn't include RT at launch. Gamers were happy with the overall performance, but look at benchmarks now. The requirements went from normal to shockingly bad.

ETt2vZy7Cd8bCUoX.jpg



But I think gamers are willing to forgive developers high requirements if they can get decent performance/quality on their PC and that's the case with Dying Light The Beast. Even without RT, the game still looks fairly good and the performance remains good.

The problem with Borderlands 4 is that most gamers on PC (Steam's survey suggests that most gamers have a 3070, 3060 or 4060) just cant get good picture quality / graphics fidelity / performance, so the game looks and runs like a crap. Borderlands 4 feels like a game built for the next generation of GPUs when it comes to it's requirements. Even the current high-end GPUs like the RTX5090 need to use DLSS at higher resolutions, and you still need to lower some settings to achieve a high refresh rate. But what if you don't own a high-end GPU? Well, there's absolutely nothing you can do....

Or maybe you can do something about it 😀. If I had a GPU that was too weak to play this game and I want to play it badly, I could consider playing Borderlands 4 on my CRT monitor in glorious 768p, 600p, or maybe even 480p because even such low resolution look very good on a CRT monitor. Even the 3060 should be able to run 480p in Borderlands, especially with DLSS on top of that😂 (I dont know of DLSS works on such low resolution, so I might try). I'm laughing, but I tried playing a few modern games on my CRT monitor and RTX4080S, and I had a very good experience, so it's not a bad idea IMO.

But yes, it seems like Gearbox made some bad decisions and prioritised their artistic vision over the interests of gamers. Gearbox wanted to significantly improve the graphics fidelity compared to previous games, so they opted for real-time lighting. After all, Borderlands has always featured dynamic time of day (TOD) and static (pre-baked) lighting just cant look good in such a game. Even if they had tried to pre-bake the lighting for different times of day, it would have required hundreds of gigabytes of storage, so IDF of that's even possible (Borderlands 3 levels werent as big, yet the game size was huge, over 100GB if I rememeber correctly).

I think gearbox should aim to achieve at least 1440p (upscaled to 4K) at 60fps on PS5 hardware, and from that scale even higher settings / effects on PC. This would probably mean that Gearbox would need to scrap real-time lighting, but most gamers would understand that and still be happy with results. Take Arc Riders, for example. This game doesn't use RT, but people still seem to enjoy it.


But looking at Borderlands 4 from my own perspective as someone who can play the game on a decent PC, I can say that Gearbox's decisions make sense. Despite the same cartoon graphic novel, real-time lighting makes a noticeable difference compared to the previous game and if I use DLSS and tweak some settings I end up with similar framerate as borderlands 3 at maxed out settings without DLSS, and it's not like there's a huge difference between native 4K and reconstructed 4K. Borderlands 4 is a true masterpiece from my perspective. In a few years, when more people are able to run this game decently, I'm certain that the number of Borderlands 4 fans will grow a lot.

I was kinda angry at how difficult it was to get Indiana Jones to run at 60fps on a friggin 5080 and 9800x3D. Ultimately frame gen came to the rescue.
 
Top Bottom