FPS and maximum requirements

I have PC which is better than maximum requirements, playing on near minimum settings and lagging, that prevents me to show good game and have fun… beocuse fps drop is realy large sometimes.
Even if I close my eyes to the balance and matchmaking.

some action will be taken there?

i’m pay for game, and cant recive fun from it… it’s realy sad.

2 Likes

Could you share your PC specs? Operating system, Graphics card, Processor etcetera.
I’d assume all other games work fine?
Are the FPS problems constant, or only on specific maps/locations?

Windows 10 x64
Nvidia Gigabity 660 GTX 2048 mb
16 Gb DDR3 Kingston HyperX
WD HDD 7200 - new, bought 1 week ago
i5 - 4460
Windows 10 reinstalled 1 week ago
no viruses
all drivers up to date

have The Division run pirfect (middle + settings), Doom3 run pirfect. Elite: Dangerous (hight settings) run pirfect, TC: Siege run pirfect (middle + settings)

Battleborn lagging on minimum settings (all turned off) near 20 fps in fights

It has nothing to do with his GPU being crap, the game is broken.
The developers have performance issues with the game on most hardware.

The sad fact is, Gearbox won’t acknowledge it.
All the fan boys, blame poor hardware, and over look the facts. (Amd vs nvidia is a prime example of laying blame)

Fanboyism is really hurting video games, as its allowing developers to release games in a bad state, case in point batteborn, and the fan boys will defend the game even or at least they don’t look at the situation objectively.

3 Likes

660 Isn’t that bad, and actually meets the recommended specs precisely - "AMD HD 7850/ NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 or better, PhysX support "

I’d doubt 20FPS is what Gearbox considers acceptable.

I also think Gearbox won’t be the first company this year who doesn’t have to put out performance patches. Hopefully the next big patch will address some of these FPS problems. (Especially on The Saboteur and Echelon, which seem to tank even my computer below 20FPS)

2 Likes

Okay fellas, this is how it is. The GTX 660 is a four year old GPU and even though it’s in the recommended requirement, a game not running well on it doesn’t mean the game sucks. Things move forward and if we continue to expect games to run on four year old hardware without issues, then we’re going to be complaining about ■■■■■■ graphics soon.

I have a laptop with an 880m which is slightly better than a GTX 660. That 880m is able to run the game on low settings, 1080p with about 60-70 average fps and roughly 25 min fps. Those drops are horrible, but like I said, it’s dated hardware so I didn’t expect anything more.

Not to mention that the PS4 and XBone have about the same graphics performance (maybe even a little less) than a GTX 660 and they can’t run the game either. A game running like crap on a console sucks just like on PC, but it’s all a part of the same issue. Four year old hardware isn’t good, it’s barely okay.

You are using this as an excuse, the game is running on last generation engine. Unreal Engine 3 is last generation, the consoles are running the game like crap, AMD and NVIDIA GPUS up to and including GeForce GTX 980 Ti with a release date of June 2, 2015. Unreal Engine 3 is one of the easiest engines to optimize for, I don’t recall another game having performance this bad on UE3. Borderlands uses the same engine, there are other reasons, which I won’t go into for the bad performance.

The game is poorly made and has misleading minimum and recommended requirements, if this game requires higher than a GTX 980 Ti to run on the lowest settings smoothly then it should be reflected in the advertising, otherwise its false advertising.

2 Likes

The engine isn’t what determines how well it runs, a better engine might run better, but it doesn’t change their code or how many draw calls they have. Also, the 980 ti should run it really well because my 970 runs it just fine. If you think it runs like crap on new hardware, link us some benchmarks or I’m simply not going to believe you seeing as I’m not having any issues with my 970 or my 880m.

But like I said in my previous post, I ran it just fine on my 880m which isn’t even nearly half as good as even a 970.

You say that 4 year old hardware is incapable of running what you term “New games”.

" Things move forward and if we continue to expect games to run on four year old hardware without issues, then we’re going to be complaining about ■■■■■■ graphics soon."

The game started development is 2014, its using an engine that was originally released in 2004 and last updated in 2015, now I don’t know what exact version they are using or if its custom modified, but it is hardly cutting edge in terms of graphics or engine tech.

I don’t recall a game ever running this bad on UE3.

“The engine isn’t what determines how well it runs, a better engine might run better, but it doesn’t change their code or how many draw calls they have.”

There are many systems at work in a game engine that determine the over all performance of the game. Code and asset optimization are a big part of that system and I think you hit the nail on the head there.

Without seeing the underlying code or viewing the assets directly I can only speculate, but I think the assets are poorly optimized and/or the underlying code is causing issues, it could also be some of the shaders and post processing effects.

Can we stop blaming the hardware now? and if it really is a hardware issue then Gearbox should update the min/max spec.

2 Likes

That doesn’t matter much because projects become heavier over time, when they started development they problably only had tech demoes and mechanics tests which don’t require much.

Again, engine doesn’t determine performance of a game and newer games running older engines will still be newer and heavier games.

I’m sure there is a lot of unoptimized assets in the game, but I also believe that can be said about pretty much any AAA game. I also believe that it’s mainly their code causing any issues that might occur since normal graphical assets are fairly easy to run on their own. I still don’t think this game has bad performance on PC considering it can run on dated hardware at low, 1080p without major issues for ME at least. I think people need to correct their expectations to four+ year old hardware in newer games. My 9600 GT only lasted two years, GTX 460 only lasted two years and I only used my GTX 660 ti for about three years.

I do however completely agree that the minimum requirement is way off because my 880m (very close to recommended specs) could only just run the game at low, 1080p with some minor spikes. They should move the recommended requirement to minimum and come up with a new recommended in my opinion.

My guy, I get below 20FPS with a GTX980 and i5-4570, the game definitely doesn’t run as well as it should. Random dips in places that shouldn’t have them, and a constant below 30 on Echelon. This seemed to happen even when I lowered all my settings! By comparison, I can get a perfectly stable 60+FPS with all my settings maxed out in Witcher 3. Yes, even Hairworks.

I’m going to be very bold and say it’s a problem with the game. It’s a lot more stable for me than Fallout 4, but not good enough.

2 Likes

I use a 970 + an i5-4670k, I’m honestly not having any issues atm while having PhysX at low and some other settings medium and textures at ultra. There are some dips on occasion, but it’s really rare after I turned some stuff down to medium.

bremyktypsilonBremykt9m
I use a 970 + an i5-4670k, I’m honestly not having any issues atm while having PhysX at low and some other settings medium and textures at ultra. There are some dips on occasion, but it’s really rare after I turned some stuff down to medium.

In my opinion it hard for some to be objective when it comes to video game performance on their rig.

Here’s a challenge for you:

Record a video with Riva tuner displaying cpu usages fps temps and frame time and gpu usage.

Post results, you can use https://obsproject.com/
Riva tuner http://www.guru3d.com/content-page/rivatuner.html

Set to Mp4 and upload directly to youtube unedited.

Minus the game time this took me 5-10 minutes.

1 Like

I’ll see what I can do.

lol if u didnt know about geforce 660 just stay away , this gpu mb old but
not much worse geforce 960, and much better than geforce 950

http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-960-vs-GeForce-GTX-660

2 Likes

repeat TC:The Divison have MUCH MORE Better graphics and run well in DARK ZONE in pvp fights… About u?! My GPU is not bad and can run new games with new engine and cool graphics very well.

and yes my gpu in recommended, why i’m lagging on low settings

1 Like

I made a video on Echelon of my performance, hope I didn’t screw anything up. Also, I didn’t bother setting up my mic so people may seem to be talking to themselves.

Man, i can play too but sometimes fps drop to 20, and it,s no good. U didnt understand something, like this game have bad optimization, becouse i can play in many game with graphics better much more then in BB and have no fps ussue, this game didn’t have great graphics, and developers pointed

Minimum:
ОС: Windows® 7 x64-bit or Later
Proc: Intel i5-750 / AMD Phenom IIx4 945
RAm: 6 GB
GPU: AMD HD 6870/ NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 or better, PhysX support
DirectX: 11

Recommended:
OS: Windows® 7 x64-bit or Later
CPU: Intel i5-750 / AMD Phenom IIx4 945
RAM: 6 GB
GPU: AMD HD 7850/ NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660

my pc better than Recommended, so why im lagging on minimum settings?
I’m play without of laggs in Battlefield 4 50x50. it turns out that I was deceived

1 Like

Thanks for that but wow, you did a PVP match. I know I didn’t specify, but I thought it was obvious.

It needs to be PVE, the PVP maps are empty and smaller than the PVE ones, there is no action and no AI, there are a lot of things missing, its like running the bare bones of the game, of course you will get better performance.

Please make a PVE version, nothing fancy, just play a pve map for 5- 10 minutes. You also need to show your Video settings. Another reason for that is we can then compare it to my video on PVE.

Having said that, you still got drops from 70- 40 fps when there was a lot of action, and that is very jarring. Also the game just wasn’t smooth at all, I got a headache just watching it, and started feeling sick. You GPU was also at 99% the whole time,

1 Like

Well, I’ve heard that people have fps issues on Echelon in PvP so I assumed. I was debating doing PvE, but I can make another video for PvE.

Also, I showed the settings in the video during character selection and it said it in the description. Having the GPU at 99% is good because that means the game is using it, the worst is when games don’t use it. The only way to get it lower than 99% is to limit the fps by V-Sync or other means.

I also don’t think dropping to 40 fps is that bad, I honestly don’t notice it.