FPS issues in DLCs? (I.e. T-Bone Junction, Hyperion Dump)

[5persondude]

has anyoe else been running into serious FPS issues in some of the DLCs? in the normal game, im running Maxed settings (with the extra features from the Advanced Tool) at 1080p and was getting 60 FPS literally all the time. ALL the time

however, now that ive been playing the DLC episodes, such as Secret Armory of General Knoxx and Robot Revolution, my frame rate has been taking a serious beating. and by that i mean like dipping from a solid 62 FPS all the way down to 20! whats even more strange is that none of these performance issues were present on either console version (PS3 or Xbox 360) as far as im concerned, and it just seems so strange why a high-end PC cant handle some draw distance

has anyone else been having issues with frame rate in the DLCs? like REALLY bad frame rates?

[Mister Torgue Flexington]

haven't seen major dips like that on my end. however, I have noticed a slight slowdown around the fortified area in the Hyperion Dump (where you fight those Hyperion soldiers), and my PC is rather high-end after building it from scratch last year.

[randygilmore2001]

Try shutting down the PhysX, as it is not really optimized for Borderlands.

[BigKahuna]

Knoxx has areas of FPS lag indeed.

[Migz - DH]

Originally posted by randygilmore2001:

Try shutting down the PhysX, as it is not really optimized for Borderlands.

There isn't much PhysX work in Borderlands 1, but sure, if one can get disabling PhysX to work, go for it.

As an aside, Borderlands 1 isn't coded to use GPU accelerated PhysX. What is there is just done on the CPU.

[5persondude]

Originally posted by Migz - DH:

Originally posted by randygilmore2001:

Try shutting down the PhysX, as it is not really optimized for Borderlands.

There isn't much PhysX work in Borderlands 1, but sure, if one can get disabling PhysX to work, go for it.

As an aside, Borderlands 1 isn't coded to use GPU accelerated PhysX. What is there is just done on the CPU.

ah, i see. i had a feeling that BL1's PhysX implementation wasnt properly optimized or designed for it by Gearbox themselves, but i kept it enabled because the gmae still ran at 60 all the time, even thugh i noticed no differences between the cosnole versions and PC's physics whatsoever. however, in the normal story, i had pretty much every setting, including 16 samples of Anti-Aliasing and the PhysX (which i have not seen a single use for in the entire game), at 1080p max settings and i was getting 62 FPS literally al the time. hell, the Zombie Island DLC, at least as far as im concerned, didnt seem to have many, if any at all, FPS drops when i played through it

strange thing is is that i played Borderlands 1 to DEATH on the PS3 long before i got it on Steam, and the only FPS drops in the console versions came from hectic fire fights, NOT just looking in a certain direction that had a lot of geometry on-screen at once, which begs the question of why Gearbox, or the devs who were outsourced with Robot Revolution DLC, would bother to FULLY optimize the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions, yet keep ONLY the General Knoxx and Robot Revolution DLCs poorly optimized on PC, especially since the main game, as well as Zombie Island, ran great on PC, or at least my computer

one more thing; right now, in the Borderlands Advanced Config Tool, i have PhysX disabled, but a while back, i started getting these error messages that the game wouldnt start because of some consistency issue or something (i dont exactly remember). when i looked up a video guide on how to fix it, it involved going into that "WilliwGame" folder and typing something into the Config Files about the PhysX, and im not sure if its still technically enabled or not :/ ill look into it later

[Migz - DH]

Out of curiosity, what CPU and GPU hardware are you using in your PC?

Also, what performance does your system have when you don't use that Advanced tool? If it turns on some graphics options which aren't available from within the options menu, those could be causing the game to perform outside of the range which Gearbox expected.

[5persondude]

Originally posted by Migz - DH:

Out of curiosity, what CPU and GPU hardware are you using in your PC?

Also, what performance does your system have when you don't use that Advanced tool? If it turns on some graphics options which aren't available from within the options menu, those could be causing the game to perform outside of the range which Gearbox expected.

these are my general specs:

Nvidia GeForce GTX 860M (2 GB of video memory)
Intel Core i7 Quad @ 2.4 Ghz
16 GB of RAM

anyways, i put a fairly good amount of time before and after i used the Advanced Tool on Borderlands 1. performance didnt seem to change, even with the Advanced Tool's settings; 1080p, max settings, 62 FPS all the time

[Migz - DH]

I just checked T-Bone Junction again since it's been awhile since I played that DLC, and at 3840x2160 resolution running SLI GTX 570s, my framerate goes between 39 and 57 while looking at normal objects, terrain, and the horizon (it caps at 62 if I look up) according to FRAPS.

That seems pretty reasonable for my hardware at that resolution considering how large that environment is, and they didn't have the roads pop-in/out depending on your distance from them (which is great imo).

[Migz - DH]

Originally posted by 5persondude:

Originally posted by Migz - DH:

Out of curiosity, what CPU and GPU hardware are you using in your PC?

these are my general specs:

Nvidia GeForce GTX 860M (2 GB of video memory)
Intel Core i7 Quad @ 2.4 Ghz
16 GB of RAM

Thanks.

After looking at the specs and performance numbers, it looks like the GTX 860M 2GB version is essentially the same as a GTX 750ti (same chip, same configuration, and same clock speed).

The GTX 750ti's performance (and in turn GTX 860M 2GB) is roughly equivalent to the original GTX 460s which came out in July 2010.

Here is a table which shows technical performance comparisons betwen the three GPUs I mentioned above, and I also included my humble GTX 570s since I mentioned them in the previous post as well as last summer's GTX 980, the most powerful, reasonably priced GPU on the market (the GTX Titan cards are more powerful but at $1000, I don't consider them reasonable):

Model	Pixel Fillrate (GP/s)	Texture Fillrate (GT/s)	Memory Bandwidth (GB/s)
GTX 860M 2GB	16.5	41.2	80
GTX 750ti	16.3	40.8	88
GTX 460 v1	16.2	37.8	86.4
GTX 570	29.28	43.92	152
GTX 980	72.1	144	224

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units

While the stronger cards like the GTX 570 and GTX 980 should be able to run those larger areas at 1920x1080 @ 60 FPS with ease (the GTX 980 should be able to run at 3840x2160 @ 60 FPS easily too), it looks like the lower pixel rendering ability of the GTX 860M 2GB is holding you back from maintaining 60 FPS. Thankfully, that doesn't seem to be an issue for you in most of the zones.

If you're curious how the GTX 860M 2GB performs in benchmarks for other games and 3D benchmarks, I find this site to be pretty good: notebookcheck[www.notebookcheck.net]. If you already know about it, I hope I don't offend. :-)

Anyway, I hope you enjoy the rest of the game and won't let the framerate fluctuations bring you down.

(Edit: typo)

[5persondude]

Originally posted by Migz - DH:

Originally posted by 5persondude:

these are my general specs:

Nvidia GeForce GTX 860M (2 GB of video memory)
Intel Core i7 Quad @ 2.4 Ghz
16 GB of RAM

Thanks.

After looking at the specs and performance numbers, it looks like the GTX 860M 2GB version is essentially the same as a GTX 750ti (same chip, same configuration, and same clock speed).

The GTX 750ti's performance (and in turn GTX 860M 2GB) is roughly equivalent to the original GTX 460s which came out in July 2010.

Here is a table which shows technical performance comparisons betwen the three GPUs I mentioned above, and I also included my humble GTX 570s since I mentioned them in the previous post as well as last summer's GTX 980, the most powerful, reasonably priced GPU on the market (the GTX Titan cards are more powerful but at $1000, I don't consider them reasonable):

Model	Pixel Fillrate (GP/s)	Texture Fillrate (GT/s)	Memory Bandwidth (GB/s)
GTX 860M 2GB	16.5	41.2	80
GTX 750ti	16.3	40.8	88
GTX 460 v1	16.2	37.8	86.4
GTX 570	29.28	43.92	152
GTX 980	72.1	144	224

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units

While the stronger cards like the GTX 570 and GTX 980 should be able to run those larger areas at 1920x1080 @ 60 FPS with ease (the GTX 980 should be able to run at 3840x2160 @ 60 FPS easily too), it looks like the lower pixel rendering ability of the GTX 860M 2GB is holding you back from maintaining 60 FPS. Thankfully, that doesn't seem to be an issue for you in most of the zones.

If you're curious how the GTX 860M 2GB performs in benchmarks for other games and 3D benchmarks, I find this site to be pretty good: notebookcheck[www.notebookcheck.net]. If you already know about it, I hope I don't offend. :-)

Anyway, I hope you enjoy the rest of the game and won't let the framerate fluctuations bring you down.

(Edit: typo)

thanks for the info! anyways ive tried multiple other games, and im perfectly fine with my 860M, since its powerful enough to run most modern games at higher settings

for example, Crysis 3 runs on High (Textures at Very High) at 720p and my frame rate is almost always smooth (maybe 40-50 most of the time). saying that off of instinct, since i cant use Steam's FPS Counter on an Origin game 3:

Killing Floor 2 runs on Ultra at 1080p and im getting 30-40 FPS (later on in 6-player amtches the FPS dips to 24, but the game looks amazing so i dont mind too much)

and dont worry, im glad you told me about the benchmark website! ill check it out sometime :)

besides, its been a LONG time since ive played Borderlands 1 (used to play it on the PS3 to DEATH way back in 2011) and im not gonna let FPS issues get in the way of replaying an old favorite

[Migz - DH]

Sounds good. :-)


Hey, interestingly, I just spent ten minutes walking around Jacob's Cove, and my framerate was between 42 and 50 FPS there in that first zone (3840x2160). That's a touch lower than in T-Bone junction.

Edit: Although, I was using Steam's FPS counter this second time while earlier I'd been using FRAPS. I'll have to recheck using FRAPS to be consistent.

After running around the area using FRAPS, the range is 42-58 FPS. The higher framerate only occurred in a few areas while mid-to-high 40s FPS was fairly normal.

[Nevander]

Originally posted by randygilmore2001:

Try shutting down the PhysX, as it is not really optimized for Borderlands.

How?

[Migz - DH]

Originally posted by Nevander:

Originally posted by randygilmore2001:

Try shutting down the PhysX, as it is not really optimized for Borderlands.

How?

Originally posted by Migz - DH:

Originally posted by randygilmore2001:

Try shutting down the PhysX, as it is not really optimized for Borderlands.

There isn't much PhysX work in Borderlands 1, but sure, if one can get disabling PhysX to work, go for it.

As an aside, Borderlands 1 isn't coded to use GPU accelerated PhysX. What is there is just done on the CPU.

[Nevander]

Originally posted by Migz - DH:

There isn't much PhysX work in Borderlands 1, but sure, if one can get disabling PhysX to work, go for it.

As an aside, Borderlands 1 isn't coded to use GPU accelerated PhysX. What is there is just done on the CPU.

Are you saying it can't be done?

[Migz - DH]

I'm saying there isn't much point in trying.