Borderlands 2 GPU/CPU benchmarks [TechSpot/HardOCP/Others]

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,219
54
91
I find this extremely humorous. One year ago RS was constantly attacked by the ATI fans (I'll be completely honest, I had some arguments with him) and now all the nvidia fans are have animosity against him and outright attack him. Pretty funny how things did a complete 180. /popcorn

Me? I'm just glad I realized that everyone (ATI, nvidia) can happily co-exist in the market and you don't need to have a completely polarized view. Video card wars are a big waste of energy expenditure o_O

You're not having arguments with him now?
 

notty22

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2010
3,375
0
0
I find this extremely humorous. One year ago RS was constantly attacked by the ATI fans (I'll be completely honest, I had some arguments with him) and now all the nvidia fans are have animosity against him and outright attack him. /popcorn

Me? I'm just glad I realized that everyone (ATI, nvidia) can happily co-exist in the market and you don't need to have a completely polarized view. Video card wars are a big waste of energy expenditure o_O


I find humorous the connections you are trying to make. I don't care if he was attacked by ATI fans or you. Whatever time frame ago. Maybe his arguments are all based on his own ego and decision making ? But who cares. He's another opinion on these forum's, nothing more. There are other posters who like to inform us of having the newest hardware from either vendor making them the end all expert on all things. Those are the most humorous.
 

Termie

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
7,949
48
91
www.techbuyersguru.com
By the way, can anyone confirm that there is FOV adjustment on the PC version? Does it improve gameplay over the standard narrow FOV?

I'm having a blast playing on PS3, and I don't think I'm missing the PhysX that much, but the one thing that makes playability suffer is the FOV. In close combat, I lose sight of the enemies constantly even if they're right next to me. I think one of the reasons FOV is so narrow on the consoles is to keep the framerate high, and it's probably the main reason I'd want to buy it on PC (and maybe the option to turn off the silly black outlines on everything that someone mentioned).

As an aside, the graphics are actually improved from BL1, which I played through entirely on both PS3 and PC. The gun models are much sharper, and since the FOV is so narrow, you see a lot of gun on your screen!
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
14,003
3,362
136
By the way, can anyone confirm that there is FOV adjustment on the PC version? Does it improve gameplay over the standard narrow FOV?

I'm having a blast playing on PS3, and I don't think I'm missing the PhysX that much, but the one thing that makes playability suffer is the FOV. In close combat, I lose sight of the enemies constantly even if they're right next to me. I think one of the reasons FOV is so narrow on the consoles is to keep the framerate high, and it's probably the main reason I'd want to buy it on PC (and maybe the option to turn off the silly black outlines on everything that someone mentioned).

As an aside, the graphics are actually improved from BL1, which I played through entirely on both PS3 and PC. The gun models are much sharper, and since the FOV is so narrow, you see a lot of gun on your screen!

FoV can be adjusted in the PC but i have found it im getting dizzy when it is above 74-76, it goes all the way up to 110.
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
Thanks, I wonder what the console FOV is. Maybe I can dig that up somewhere.
90 is default on pc using 16:9 aspect like 1920x1080 so 90 might be console default. odd that he had to lower FOV as most people get a little ill feeling with lower FOV not higher. I think anything beyond 100 looks goofy as even at default the UE 3 distorts stuff at off angles.
 

blackened23

Diamond Member
Jul 26, 2011
8,548
2
0
90 is default on pc using 16:9 aspect like 1920x1080 so 90 might be console default. odd that he had to lower FOV as most people get a little ill feeling with lower FOV not higher. I think anything beyond 100 looks goofy as even at default the UE 3 distorts stuff at off angles.

The console default is usually 70 or 75....which is really annoying in PC games
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
Anything else I can answer for you?

Not sure why you are taking everything so personally. All I asked you in this thread is to post some screenshots Low vs. Medium vs. High. You didn't and I actually went and found this myself and linked this to show that PhysX High indeed looks better. I am not being biased here since I actually went and found them and posted them here. So I am well aware of the difference in visuals but you continue to take this personally.

See, it's not NV vs. AMD as you guys continue to make it. All I am saying is PhysX appears to be manageable on the CPU and thus has been overhyped for this game and from where I am standing I arrive at 3 conclusions:

1) You can still enjoy this game with PhysX Medium off the CPU with a Radeon card with very fast performance;

2) You can enable PhysX High but in some cases the performance will drop to < 30 fps (as you said). This is great for gamers to know; but if you want the "full experience", you need a slave NV card;

3) You don't necessarily need an NV card to enjoy the BL2 experience with PhysX since the quality in visuals between Medium and High is not that tangible. This is great for gamers who can now go and utilize the .ini hack and not have to waste $100 on a GTX560/460 slave card, since not everyone has one laying around like you do.

Instead of taking it so personally, all I was asking you is to help us and other gamers to quantify and see if it's actually worthwhile to go out and buy a slave NV card or if the improvement isn't really worth dropping $100 extra for that little visual enhancement? Instead you started getting all defensive and telling me you already replied in another thread. I don't read every thread 24/7, so it would have been convenient if you had been polite enough to just respond in this thread instead of being so rude.

Maybe his arguments are all based on his own ego and decision making ?

And again, when I tell other people to save their $ and buy a cheaper card and overclock it (if this option is available) or recommend a better price/performance card, I get labelled as a GPU salesmen or as an NV or AMD biased fanboy. It's ridiculous and you know it. I recommended GTX460 for almost its entirety and the minute I started recommending HD7950 and overclocking it over the GTX660Ti, you went into defence mode, focusing on power consumption, and other trivial areas that all applied to GTX460 OCing during the Fermi era. I continue to be consistent, discussing many ways how gamers can save $ and still get a good experience: overclocking, price/performance and hacks such as this which can save us from wasting $100 on a slave NV card and run off PhysX off the CPU. Instead, many people continue to throw this as NV vs. AMD, while all I am doing is trying to maximize performance and visuals per $ spent for gamers who are looking to upgrade to the current generation of cards.

The minute your goal becomes to get as best as possible gaming experience for as little $ spent, price/performance, overclocking and ability to enable PhysX without having to spend additional $ on an NV GPU are always a part of that discussion and have nothing to do with AMD vs. NV bias as many people keep claiming it.

Again, all I asked here is if it was worth it to buy a slave NV card for the PhysX High in this game and people went into defence mode immediately.

You're not having arguments with him now?

No, when blackened23 disagrees with something I say, he respectfully offers his point of view with supporting detail and we call that a discussion. Neither of us takes it personally and we move on. :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
Ok, back to topic. GameGPU has re-tested the game with new findings.

For Phenom II X4/X6 owners, there appears to be a problem with some older chipset boards. 990FX chipset runs the game well while 785G has some BIOS/firmware issue for this game. Hopefully the next patch will fix the problem. This does not occur for those with Phenom II CPUs, which explains why performance on older chipsets can increase if you diable 2-4 cores on an X4/X6.

b2%20proz%20785%20vs%20990%20v2.png


1) NV GPU handling PhysX High

b2%201920%20ph.png


2) CPU handling PhysX High

b2%20proz%20ph%20h.png


If a gamer wants 60 fps minimums, it looks like you'll need an NV GPU to enable PhysX High. If you can live with sub-60 fps minimums, it appears a modern CPU with a good overclock can handle PhysX High as well, but there is a frame-rate drop since a CPU isn't as good at handling PhysX High as a dedicated NV GPU.
 
Last edited:
Feb 19, 2009
10,457
10
76
I like where NV is going with this, making Physx run well on CPU but runs better on their GPU.. widespread usage/acceptance = better mindshare for their GPU products.
 

Elfear

Diamond Member
May 30, 2004
7,165
824
126
2) CPU handling PhysX High

b2%20proz%20ph%20h.png


If a gamers wants 60 fps minimums, it looks like you'll need an NV GPU to enable PhysX High. If you can live with sub-60 fps minimums, it appears a modern CPU with a good overclock can handle PhysX High as well, but there is a frame-rate drop since a CPU isn't as good at handling PhysX High as a dedicated NV GPU.

Thanks for the charts RS. I wish they would have tested an overclocked 2500k/2600k to see how close to the magical 60 fps min they could get.
 

Yuriman

Diamond Member
Jun 25, 2004
5,530
141
106
Thanks for the charts RS. I wish they would have tested an overclocked 2500k/2600k to see how close to the magical 60 fps min they could get.

If it scales linearly with clock, 3.4 -> 4.8ghz = 41% improvement. 46 x 1.41 = ~65fps.

Assuming a linear improvement with clockspeed, you would need around 4.4-4.5ghz on Sandy Bridge to get your minimums up to 60.
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
I like where NV is going with this, making Physx run well on CPU but runs better on their GPU.. widespread usage/acceptance = better mindshare for their GPU products.

That's the point I made. If a gamer really wants PhysX in full at 60 fps+ minimums, he can see his CPU is struggling without an NV GPU, then goes out and buys an NV GPU. NV wins.

If a Radeon user sees that PhysX Medium looks much worse than PhysX High but his CPU can't handle PhysX High well enough, then he goes out and buys a dedicated slave NV card for PhysX. NV wins.

And also, this way NV and Radeon users who want PhysX would be buying NV cards. With a larger installed base of users who use PhysX, NV could spend more $ on PhysX development and get those people with slave NV PhysX cards to keep upgrading them over time to newer NV cards since older NV cards wouldn't be capable of handling next generation PhysX effects. Because right now PhysX is locked as a proprietary feature, game studios won't allow PhysX to change how it actually impacts the game, but limit it to graphical effects because at least 40% of desktop gamers would be locked out. If NV made PhysX available to everyone via CPU, native GPU support or via a slave card, each developer could incorporate PhysX without any fear of alienating a certain market userbase since every user would be able to just go out and purchase an NV card dedicated to PhysX. :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
holy cow I found some spots that just tank the frame rate. you have to take care of four assassins and in that area there seems to be lots of cheesy physx going that drop me into the 30s and even 20s. by cheesy I mean its the same old silly looking chunks used in every physx game except there are tons of them flying from places that should not even be getting that type damage. being persistent on the floor means super low frame rates just walking around in spots. I literally went from 80 fps to 30 fps in fights there. physx is now going to be put on medium because that was just annoying.
 

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
5,066
418
126
Ok, back to topic. GameGPU has re-tested the game with new findings.

For Phenom II X4/X6 owners, there appears to be a problem with some older chipset boards. 990FX chipset runs the game well while 785G has some BIOS/firmware issue for this game. Hopefully the next patch will fix the problem. This does not occur for those with Phenom II CPUs, which explains why performance on older chipsets can increase if you diable 2-4 cores on an X4/X6.



1) NV GPU handling PhysX High



2) CPU handling PhysX High


If a gamer wants 60 fps minimums, it looks like you'll need an NV GPU to enable PhysX High. If you can live with sub-60 fps minimums, it appears a modern CPU with a good overclock can handle PhysX High as well, but there is a frame-rate drop since a CPU isn't as good at handling PhysX High as a dedicated NV GPU.

the chipset thing doesn't make any sense...
did they test in a good number of different MBs based on both chipsets?

also, CPU Phsx test looks to optimistic, my i3 2100 goes easily to 10fps with physx high and the right action going on...
 

railven

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2010
6,604
561
126
holy cow I found some spots that just tank the frame rate. you have to take care of four assassins and in that area there seems to be lots of cheesy physx going that drop me into the 30s and even 20s. by cheesy I mean its the same old silly looking chunks used in every physx game except there are tons of them flying from places that should not even be getting that type damage. being persistent on the floor means super low frame rates just walking around in spots. I literally went from 80 fps to 30 fps in fights there. physx is now going to be put on medium because that was just annoying.

Imagine that on CPU. Imagine, reviewers make such claims probably only playing a small portion of a level that isn't very taxing. My rig with GTX 460 with load up to 70% drops under 50 FPS often. I can only imagine how these scenes would be with a CPU.

It's starting to make me wonder if Kepler is just far superior to Fermi for PhysX, or if nVidia put some magic sauce in the driver. My GF's GTX 680 tanks to at lowest 50 FPS in scenes where I'm getting crushed to 35 FPS.

Or perhaps, Hybrid Physx isn't on par with Real Physx. Oh wells. game is still tons of fun :D

Quick one of me fighting the first major boss, look at that FPS
4DDJz.jpg

Settings: All Max/FXAA Off/PhysX Medium/Radeon 7970 (1125/1575)/i5 2500k @ 4.4ghz/No Offloading.
 

railven

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2010
6,604
561
126
Not sure why you are taking everything so personally.

What makes you think I'm taking anything personal? Because I'm responding? Outside of just nipping bad info in the butt, I have no personal stock in this subject.

All I asked you in this thread is to post some screenshots Low vs. Medium vs. High. You didn't and I actually went and found this myself and linked this to show that PhysX High indeed looks better.

You didn't actually ask me to post pictures until the fourth or fifth post, and I actually did after you asked. And I've posted pics of Low vs High before. Your images didn't even show liquid, so I don't know how you can conclude your findings were better than the pictures I posted.

I am not being biased here since I actually went and found them and posted them here. So I am well aware of the difference in visuals but you continue to take this personally.

Again, where have I been personal? If you are trying to turn this into a me versus you issue, try again. I got no issues with you, I've openly said why you were wrong (and even apologized for you since Tech Spot misled a lot of people.) I've answered your questions, I've posted my findings, and I've been consistent with my stance. Also, feel free where I even implied you were bias?

Please try not to confuse me, and my stance, on the back and forth that inhabits these forums daily. Thanks.

See, it's not NV vs. AMD as you guys continue to make it.

That's priceless. The first person to turn this into Red vs Green was you. Ironically, as a Red-Ant I find myself defending green since they did a great job with the eye candy. I hate the hoops I have to jump through, but hey - it's cosmetic and well worth the effort.

Instead of taking it so personally, all I was asking you is to help us and other gamers to quantify and see if it's actually worthwhile to go out and buy a slave NV card or if the improvement isn't really worth dropping $100 extra for that little visual enhancement? Instead you started getting all defensive and telling me you already replied in another thread. I don't read every thread 24/7, so it would have been convenient if you had been polite enough to just respond in this thread instead of being so rude.

Are you kidding me? Instead of trying to prove me wrong, as you've tried to, and change your stance why not read my posts. I've already demonstrated how this game would benefit Radeon users from offloading PhysX if they wish to use it. You stepped in this thread, didn't even bother responding to me in the other thread where I corrected your mistake, and flip-flopped on your original statement. I politely pointed it out.

Again, where have I taken anything personal? Your constant accusations against me, even belittling my efforts to get it to work on my system, clearly point out you're taking this personal. Considering from the start you were wrong, which I [again] said wasn't your fault, all you had to do was say "oh, guess TecH Spot is wrong." That didn't happen and here we are.

My sarcastic joke was right on the money, guess all I did have to do was wait 5 minutes haha. ;)

I'm done talking on this issue, glad you finally realized what I told you from the start. Guess you only believe reviewers, even though it was a review that misled you from the start. Cheerio!
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
This game looks really bad without FXAA or injected aliasing. Jaggies are everywhere and are especially bad since it's a cell-shaded game. Again, you seem to confuse 2 things here:

1) TechSpot author said he had limited time to test review so his preformance was not 100% indicative of all sections of the game; however, the game is playable via unloading PhysX to the CPU;
2) At least 2 other review sites tested PhysX High on the CPU (GameGPU and another one during an intensive boos fight) and both showed frames dipping to 40s on the CPU. Unless you consider dips to 40 fps unplayable in this particular game, then offloading PhysX to the CPU is still doable.

So again, the biggest problem you seem to have here is that the game dips to 30-45 fps in certain sections. So it's not that TechSpot's author or me or GameGPU were wrong. You can easily play this game on a CPU with PhysX High but it just means you won't be gaming at 60 fps minimums. If for you personally maintaining 60 fps at all times is a requirement, then yes, you need an NV GPU, but then if you want 60 fps minimums everywhere with PhysX High, even GTX680 will probably dip below that in places.

Your blanket statement that you "cannot play this game with PhysX High" being offloaded to the CPU is not accurate. Yes, you can play this game with PhysX High on the CPU but it just won't be 60 fps minimums. TechSpot author, nor myself, nor GameGPU, nor the 3rd review site never said you can get 50-60 fps minimums but it doesn't mean the game is unplayable as you continue to imply.

This game is actually pretty forgiving with respect to dipping framerates, far below 60 fps on a 7970 + PhysX High, but even with these dips it still feels smooth, contrary to what you keep implying.

Borderlands 2 PhysX test without Nvidia GPU.
AMD HD 7970 stock
i5-2500k @ 4.5GHz
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYhyfKVdN0g

^ Notice how even at 27-30 fps this game still feels remarkable smooth, despite those frame-rate killing fluids all over the screen? You just said in this thread over and over that PhysX High off the CPU + Radeon 7970 is unplayable supposedly or "cannot be done" with fluids/blood and so on. Yet in the video the game is running fairly well in terms of motion. Looks like the authors of TechSpot/GameGPU were right in that you can play this game without much trouble by offloading the PhysX High to an overclocked Core i CPU. If you want 60 fps minimums for a mental peace of mind, sure, but this particular game doesn't need it like Quake 3 Arena or Tekken Tag Tournament 2 or Unreal Tournament 99 where superb aiming and combo precision requires 60 fps+.

My sarcastic joke was right on the money, guess all I did have to do was wait 5 minutes haha.

I am not even sure what that even refers to. Wait 5 minutes for what?

I'm done talking on this issue, glad you finally realized what I told you from the start. Guess you only believe reviewers, even though it was a review that misled you from the start. Cheerio!

Actually no one once argued that the CPU can handle PhysX effects as well as NV GPU in terms of frame rates in the entire game. However, you keep coming off by implying that the game is basically unplayable if you force PhysX High to the CPU. This is not true and what other people are trying to tell you. You can play this game smoothly, unless your idea of smoothly is some arbitrary 60 fps minimums.
 
Last edited:

ocre

Golden Member
Dec 26, 2008
1,594
7
81
Not sure why you are taking everything so personally. All I asked you in this thread is to post some screenshots Low vs. Medium vs. High. You didn't and I actually went and found this myself and linked this to show that PhysX High indeed looks better. I am not being biased here since I actually went and found them and posted them here. So I am well aware of the difference in visuals but you continue to take this personally.

See, it's not NV vs. AMD as you guys continue to make it. All I am saying is PhysX appears to be manageable on the CPU and thus has been overhyped for this game and from where I am standing I arrive at 3 conclusions:

1) You can still enjoy this game with PhysX Medium off the CPU with a Radeon card with very fast performance;

2) You can enable PhysX High but in some cases the performance will drop to < 30 fps (as you said). This is great for gamers to know; but if you want the "full experience", you need a slave NV card;

3) You don't necessarily need an NV card to enjoy the BL2 experience with PhysX since the quality in visuals between Medium and High is not that tangible. This is great for gamers who can now go and utilize the .ini hack and not have to waste $100 on a GTX560/460 slave card, since not everyone has one laying around like you do.

Instead of taking it so personally, all I was asking you is to help us and other gamers to quantify and see if it's actually worthwhile to go out and buy a slave NV card or if the improvement isn't really worth dropping $100 extra for that little visual enhancement? Instead you started getting all defensive and telling me you already replied in another thread. I don't read every thread 24/7, so it would have been convenient if you had been polite enough to just respond in this thread instead of being so rude.



And again, when I tell other people to save their $ and buy a cheaper card and overclock it (if this option is available) or recommend a better price/performance card, I get labelled as a GPU salesmen or as an NV or AMD biased fanboy. It's ridiculous and you know it. I recommended GTX460 for almost its entirety and the minute I started recommending HD7950 and overclocking it over the GTX660Ti, you went into defence mode, focusing on power consumption, and other trivial areas that all applied to GTX460 OCing during the Fermi era. I continue to be consistent, discussing many ways how gamers can save $ and still get a good experience: overclocking, price/performance and hacks such as this which can save us from wasting $100 on a slave NV card and run off PhysX off the CPU. Instead, many people continue to throw this as NV vs. AMD, while all I am doing is trying to maximize performance and visuals per $ spent for gamers who are looking to upgrade to the current generation of cards.

The minute your goal becomes to get as best as possible gaming experience for as little $ spent, price/performance, overclocking and ability to enable PhysX without having to spend additional $ on an NV GPU are always a part of that discussion and have nothing to do with AMD vs. NV bias as many people keep claiming it.

Again, all I asked here is if it was worth it to buy a slave NV card for the PhysX High in this game and people went into defence mode immediately.



No, when blackened23 disagrees with something I say, he respectfully offers his point of view with supporting detail and we call that a discussion. Neither of us takes it personally and we move on. :thumbsup:

Its not like you are innocently giving advice, i mean who here is asking for it? People just get sick of being force fed your agenda over and over. I dont know what you get out of it but you go on and on and on and on to no end and people are quite aware of your pattern and tactics. No one minds advice, especially when asking for it. But just about everyone hates when others force their views on them, endlessly. It gets old quick.

Now i am not trying to offend you, it just seems you might be oblivious and i am offering this in hopes it registers. I can agree with a lot of your recommendations when they are proper. But more often than not your just going hard at it and its totally 100% not advice. Instead of advice, you tell people what to do. You speak as if your a higher authority, higher than anyone established or not. In an aggressive and forceful nature you push your agenda........for the day.

You cannot expect everyone to think like you. What is best for you isnt AND shouldnt be best for everyone.

You get labeled as a sales man because non stop your pushing what you think the world should do. Pushing what people should or shouldnt buy. I hope you at least think about it, i am not trying to put you down or anything. Please dont think of it like that.
 

Ferzerp

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,438
107
106
When you start claiming 30-45 fps is as good as 60fps, you need to stop trying to claim any sort of objectivity.

Wow. That's just a new low for this forum.

No amount of walls of text or mostly unrelated pictures will support that, sorry.