Borderlands 4 - Graphics Settings Review and Comparison, Impact on Performance

Author Betailas, 20 September 2025. Published in Action/FPS/TPS

In this review, we'll focus specifically on the graphics: we'll examine what technologies have been implemented, how the visual effects have changed, how far the game has advanced compared to previous installments, and whether it meets modern standards.

All measurements were taken on the following configuration with a screen resolution of 1080p:

CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D

GPU: MSI GeForce RTX 4070 Ti GAMING X TRIO 12G

RAM: 32 GB DDR5 6200 MHz

SSD: Samsung SSD 970 EVO Plus 1 TB NVMe

The game offers a decent list of graphics settings, and most parameters have four levels: Very High, High, Medium, and Low. Some presets have higher or lower values. The settings not reviewed either had no visible impact or the changes were only noticeable dynamically, making them difficult to measure.

The first on the list of graphics settings are UpscalersThe list is quite traditional for games on Unreal Engine 5: DLSS, FSR, TSR, and XeSS. Let's look at how upscalers impact quality and performance.

Native

Image: Clean render without upscaling, with natural noise and slight blur on door textures and shadows. Details are maximal, but artifacts are possible (shimmering on edges).
Performance: 57 FPS - baseline without additional calculations, loading GPU high (~98%).

DLSS Native

Image: Slightly softer than pure native, with slight edge anti-aliasing, but retaining texture and lighting detail. Minimal artifacts thanks to underlying DLSS processing.
Performance: 59 FPS (~3.5% increase from native).

FSR Native

Image: Slight blurring on fine details (cables, letters), but overall clarity is close to native. Minor artifacts are possible in the shadows.
Performance: 59 FPS (~3.5% increase from native).

TSR Native

Image: Good clarity, close to native, with minimal blur thanks to temporal anti-aliasing. Less shimmering at the edges of objects.
Performance: 55 FPS (~-3.5% of native).

XESS Native

Image: High definition, slightly softer than native rendering, with minimal noise in dark areas (e.g. shadows on the floor).
Performance: 58 FPS (~1.8% increase from native).

Сonclusion

Native: Maximum detail, but low FPS (57), with noise and blur. Suitable for powerful PCs or Photo mode.
DLSS Native: Small FPS increase (59), soft anti-aliasing, minimal artifacts.
FSR Native: Similar increase (59 FPS), with slight blurriness and artifacts.
TSR Native: Slightly lower FPS (55), but good quality with minimal blur.
XESS Native: Slight increase (58 FPS), good detail with minimal noise.

Final World

In native modes, differences are minimal, as the upscalers operate in their base mode without significantly increasing resolution. Native without upscaling provides maximum detail but the least smoothness (57 FPS). DLSS and FSR Native slightly improve FPS (59 FPS) while maintaining quality. TSR Native suffers slightly (55 FPS) but maintains clarity. XESS Native (58 FPS) offers a balanced experience with minimal noise. For smoothness, it's best to choose DLSS or FSR Native, and for the cleanest rendering, native without upscaling.

Quality

DLSS Quality

Image: Perfect clarity, almost like native, with minimal artifacts thanks to AI processing. Maximum detail in textures and lighting.
Performance: 83 FPS (~45.6% increase from the native 57 FPS).

FSR Quality

Image: Slightly sharper than native, but possible "soapiness" on fine details (cables, letters) and slight artifacts in fog.
Performance: 84 FPS (~47.4% increase from the native 57 FPS).

TSR Quality

Image: Good clarity, close to native, with minimal blur thanks to temporal anti-aliasing. Less shimmering on the letters "A-0".
Performance: 82 FPS (~43.9% increase from the native 57 FPS).

XESS Quality

Image: A little more blur, but retains good detail, less noise.
Performance: 88 FPS (~54.4% increase from the native 57 FPS).

Сonclusion

DLSS Quality: Best quality (83 FPS), minimal losses, ideal for NVIDIA.
FSR Quality: Medium quality (84 FPS), with blurriness and artifacts, a universal option.
TSR Quality: Good quality (82 FPS), close to native, minimal artifacts.
XESS Quality: Good balance (88 FPS), less noise.

Final World

In Quality mode, XESS Quality leads in performance (88 FPS) with good detail and low noise. FSR Quality (84 FPS) offers a versatile balance, albeit with a slight blurriness. DLSS Quality (83 FPS) delivers the best clarity, ideal for NVIDIA systems. TSR Quality (82 FPS) is close to native with minimal artifacts.

Balanced

DLSS Balanced

Image: Good clarity, slightly softer than Quality mode, with minimal artifacts thanks to AI processing. Texture and lighting detail are slightly lower, but still high.
Performance: 89 FPS (~56.1% increase from the native 57 FPS).

FSR Balanced

Image: Lowest quality among Balanced modes, with noticeable blurring on fine details (cables, letters) and more pronounced artifacts in fog compared to other upscalers.
Performance: 91 FPS (~59.6% increase from the native 57 FPS).

TSR Balanced

Image: Moderate sharpness, with slight blurring thanks to temporal anti-aliasing. Shimmering at the edges of objects is minimally noticeable.
Performance: 88 FPS (~54.4% increase from the native 57 FPS).

XESS Balanced

Image: Good detail, slightly softer than DLSS, with some noise in dark areas but maintaining overall clarity.
Performance: 88 FPS (~54.4% increase from the native 57 FPS).

Сonclusion

DLSS Balanced: High quality (89 FPS), minimal losses, suitable for NVIDIA.
FSR Balanced: Low quality (91 FPS), with noticeable blur and artifacts despite the FPS increase.
TSR Balanced: Moderate quality (88 FPS), with minimal blur and artifacts.
XESS Balanced: Good balance (88 FPS), with acceptable detail and low noise.

Final World

In Balanced mode, DLSS Balanced leads in image quality (89 FPS) with minimal artifacts, ideal for NVIDIA systems. XESS Balanced (88 FPS) and TSR Balanced (88 FPS) offer a good balance of clarity and performance with slight noise and blur. FSR Balanced (91 FPS), while delivering the best FPS gains, has the worst image quality with noticeable blur and artifacts compared to other upscalers.

Performance

DLSS Performance

Image: Noticeable blurring on fine details (cables, letters), with moderate artifacts in fog, but maintains acceptable clarity thanks to AI processing.
Performance: 97 FPS (~70.2% increase from native).

FSR Performance

Image: The worst picture among the Performance modes, with noticeable blurring on fine details (cables, letters) and more pronounced artifacts in fog compared to other upscalers.
Performance: 99 FPS (~73.7% increase from native).

TSR Performance

Image: Good clarity, close to native, with minimal blur thanks to temporal anti-aliasing. Less shimmering on the letters "A-0".
Performance: 95 FPS (~66.7% increase from native).

XESS Performance

Picture: High definition, slightly softer than DLSS, with minimal noise in dark areas.
Performance: 96 FPS (~68.4% increase from native).

Сonclusion

DLSS Performance: Best quality (97 FPS), minimal losses, ideal for NVIDIA.
FSR Performance: The worst picture (99 FPS), with noticeable blur and artifacts, despite the increase in FPS.
TSR Performance: Good quality (95 FPS), close to native, minimal artifacts.
XESS Performance: Good balance (96 FPS), less noise.

Conclusion: FSR Performance (99 FPS), despite a decent FPS boost, produces the worst image quality with noticeable blur and artifacts compared to other upscalers. DLSS Performance (97 FPS) provides the best clarity, ideal for NVIDIA systems. TSR Performance (95 FPS) is close to native with minimal artifacts. XESS Performance (96 FPS) leads the pack in terms of quality and FPS balance.

Ultra Performance

DLSS Ultra Performance

Image: Perfect clarity, almost like native, with minimal artifacts thanks to AI processing. Maximum detail in textures and lighting.
Performance: 110 FPS (~93% increase from native).

FSR Ultra Performance

Image: Worst picture among Ultra Performance modes, with noticeable blurring on fine details (cables, letters) and more pronounced artifacts in fog compared to other upscalers.
Performance: 112 FPS (~96.5% increase from native).

TSR Ultra Performance

Image: Good clarity, close to native, with minimal blur thanks to temporal anti-aliasing. Less shimmering on the letters "A-0".
Performance: 107 FPS (~87.7% increase from native).

XESS Ultra Performance

Picture: High definition, slightly softer than DLSS, with minimal noise in dark areas.
Performance: 106 FPS (~86% increase from native).

Сonclusion

DLSS Ultra Performance : Best quality (110 FPS), minimal losses, ideal for NVIDIA.
FSR Ultra Performance : The worst picture (112 FPS), with noticeable blur and artifacts, despite the increase in FPS.
TSR Ultra Performance : Good quality (107 FPS), close to native, minimal artifacts.
XESS Ultra Performance : Good balance (106 FPS), less noise.

Conclusion: B Ultra FSR Performance Mode Ultra Performance (112 FPS), despite a decent FPS increase, produces a worse picture with noticeable blurring and artifacts compared to other DLSS upscalers. Ultra Performance (110 FPS) provides the best clarity, ideal for NVIDIA systems. TSR Ultra Performance (107 FPS) is close to native with minimal artifacts. XESS Ultra Performance (106 FPS) leads in terms of balance between quality and FPS.

Render distance (Far, Near and Close).

Far Draw (Far)

Detail:

Full rendering of distant objects
Clear textures at a distance
Preservation of fine landscape details

Features:

Maximum object density
Lack of pop-in effects
Smooth LOD transitions

Near

Detail:

Moderate mid-ground rendering
Easy simplification of deleted textures
Preserving the basic shapes of objects

Features:

Minor decrease in object density
Minimal pop-in effects
Optimized LOD transitions

Close drawing

Detail:

Limited background detail
Noticeable simplification of distant objects
Loss of fine detail at a distance

Features:

Significant reduction in the density of objects
Noticeable pop-in effects
Fast LOD transitions

Go to Geometry (High, Medium, Low).

High Geometry

Detail:

Maximum polygon complexity
Highly detailed models of objects
Smooth curves and complex shapes

Features:

Complete lack of model simplification
Preservation of all original parts
More accurate collisions and physics

Medium Geometry

Detail:

Moderate polygon complexity
Simplified forms of some objects
Preserving the basic contours of the models

Features:

Minor reduction in detail
Optimized LOD models
Balance between quality and performance

Low Geometry

Detail:

Low polygon complexity
Highly simplified forms of objects
Angular contours and minimal detailing

Features:

Noticeable reduction in polygons
Loss of small details in models
Maximum performance optimization

Visibility of effect:

Most noticeable on:

Organic objects (characters, creatures)
Complex architectural elements
Rounded surfaces and curves

Texture quality (Very High, High, Medium and Low presets).

Very tall

Image: Textures on grass, wooden walls, and weapons (TORQUE STICKY) are detailed at high resolution, with visible grass fibers, cracks in wood, and metallic highlights. There is no noticeable blurring, artifacts, or loss of detail in distant objects (trees, rocks).
Performance: 55 FPS (minimal impact on FPS, loading GPU ~68%).
Video memory: 10.9 GB (10888 MB).

High

Image: Textures are very close to "Very High," with the same detail on grass and walls; cracks and highlights are preserved without any visible loss. Differences are minimal, if not nonexistent, even when examining fine details (leaves, pipes) up close.
Performance: 57 FPS (~3.6% increase from "Very High").
Video memory: 10.6 GB (10637 MB).

Average

Image: Textures are slightly simplified compared to higher levels, but the difference is subtle: grass appears slightly less voluminous, wood has fewer fine cracks, but overall clarity is maintained. There is no noticeable blurring or degradation.
Performance: 56 FPS (~1.8% increase from "Very High").
Video memory: 9.5 GB (9517 MB).

Low

Image: Textures are simplified, with a slight reduction in resolution on distant objects (grass appears flat, trees have less relief), but in the near-field (weapons, ground), detail is close to the highest levels. Overall differences are minimal and do not affect visual perception.
Performance: 55 FPS (same as "Very High").
Video memory: 8.6 GB (8613 MB).

Сonclusion

Very tall: Maximum texture detail (55 FPS, 10.9 GB), lossless.

High: Almost identical (57 FPS, 10.6 GB), with minimal differences, excellent balance.

Average: Slight simplification (56 FPS, 9.5 GB), but without noticeable degradation.

Low: Background simplification (55 FPS, 8.6 GB), but the overall picture is preserved.

Final World

The differences in texture quality between the modes are minimal and practically unnoticeable, especially during fast-paced gameplay. "Very High" (55 FPS, 10.9 GB) and "High" (57 FPS, 10.6 GB) offer the best detail without a significant difference, but require more video memory. "Medium" (56 FPS, 9.5 GB) and "Low" (55 FPS, 8.6 GB) reduce memory usage by slightly simplifying the background, making them suitable for optimization on systems with 8-10 GB of VRAM. Overall, the impact on textures is negligible, and video memory consumption ranges from 8.6 GB on "Low" to 10.9 GB on "Very High."

Vegetation density (Very High, High, Medium and Low).

Very tall

Image: Maximum vegetation density—dense grass with individual stems, numerous trees with branches and leaves, bushes and vines on rocks; the scene appears three-dimensional and realistic, without voids.

High

Image: Density is close to Very High, with slightly less fine grass and tree leaves; the differences are minimal, the scene is still full, with no noticeable gaps in the vegetation.

Average

Image: Moderate density - grass is sparse, trees have simplified crowns, fewer bushes; differences are noticeable in distant areas, but the overall scene maintains balance without bare spots.

Low

Image: Reduced density - grass, trees with basic shapes, minimal bushes; in the foreground the differences are small, but the background appears simpler, with visible simplifications.

Very low

Image: Minimal density—grass is almost absent, trees are simplified to silhouettes, elements are sparse; the scene loses volume, but the basic structure is preserved.

Turned off

Image: Vegetation is completely disabled—bare ground, rocks without vines, no trees or grass—the scene appears empty and simplified.

Сonclusion

Very tall: Maximum density, full immersion scene.
High: Close to maximum, minimal losses.
Average: Moderate density, balance without degradation.
Low: Reduced density, simplification in the background.
Very low: Minimum, for weak PCs.
Turned off: No vegetation, maximum optimization.

Go to Quality of shadows:

Very tall

Image: Shadows are detailed with soft edges, crisp boundaries, and realistic light distribution; foliage and small objects cast complex shadows without blurring or artifacts.

High

Image: Shadows are slightly simplified, with slightly less soft edges, but retain clarity and realism; fine shadow details are preserved, the difference is minimal.

Average

Image: Shadows have harder edges, fine details are simplified but retain the overall structure; the difference is noticeable on complex objects (trees, foliage).

Low

Image: Shadows are simplified to basic shapes, with noticeable hard edges and a loss of fine detail; the overall atmosphere is preserved, but appears less three-dimensional.

Сonclusion

Very tall: Maximum shadow detail for powerful systems.
High: Slightly simplified, minimal loss of quality.
Average: Moderate simplification, noticeable on complex objects.
Low: Basic shadows, less voluminous painting.

Final World

Shadow quality ranges from detailed and soft on "Very High" to basic shapes on "Low." "High" and "Medium" strike a balance between realism and simplification, while "Low" reduces detail while maintaining the overall atmosphere.

Lighting quality:

Very tall

Image: Lighting is realistic and detailed—bright highlights on the metal surfaces of weapons and containers, soft light transitions on wooden structures, natural reflections from the sun on the ground and rocks; the overall atmosphere is warm and voluminous, without artifacts.

High

Image: Lighting is close to "Very High," with slightly less intense highlights and transitions, but still maintains realism; highlights on weapons and container shadows are noticeable, with minimal difference in the background.

Average

Image: Lighting has been simplified—highlights are less bright, light transitions are harder, and reflections on the ground and rocks are weaker; atmosphere is retained, but the scene appears a bit flat compared to higher levels.

Low

Image: Basic lighting—minimal glare on objects, uniform light without depth, almost no reflections; the scene loses volume, appears simplified and less atmospheric.

Сonclusion

Very tall: Maximum lighting realism for an immersive experience.
High: Close to maximum, minimal losses.
Average: Moderate simplification, noticeable in highlights.
Low: Basic lighting, loss of depth.

Final World

Lighting quality ranges from detailed and realistic on "Very High" to basic on "Low." "High" and "Medium" provide a balance, maintaining atmosphere, while "Low" simplifies the visuals, reducing the scene's volume.

Shader quality (The parameter name in the Russian version is incorrectly translated as "shading quality", but it is responsible for the quality of materials, as follows from the description).

High

Image: Materials are detailed—the wood on the walls has a clear grain and crack texture, the grass is thick and textured; the scene appears three-dimensional and realistic.

Average

Image: Materials are simplified—wood with less pronounced grain, grass a little flat; detail is lower, but the scene remains recognizable.

Low

Image: The materials are basic—the wood is smooth and untextured, the grass is blurred; the scene loses depth and appears simplified.

Сonclusion

High: Maximum detail of materials for immersion.
Average: Moderate simplification, acceptable balance.
Low: Minimal detail, loss of realism.

Final World

Shader (material) quality ranges from detailed and voluminous on "High" to simplified and flat on "Low." "Medium" provides a compromise between quality and simplification.

Reflection quality:

Very tall

Image: Reflections are crisp and detailed—water surfaces reflect the sky, trees, and surrounding objects with high accuracy, while metallic objects (such as cars) display vibrant, realistic highlights and environmental reflections; the scene appears three-dimensional and immersive.

High

Image: Reflections are slightly simplified—water reflects key elements (sky, trees) with less detail, metal objects retain highlights, but reflections are less accurate; the difference is minimal, but noticeable upon close inspection.

Average

Image: Reflections are simplified further—water shows basic reflections (sky, large objects) with blurred edges, highlights on metal are less pronounced; the scene loses some realism, looking slightly flat.

Low

Image: Reflections are minimal—water reflects only primary colors without detail, metal objects barely reflect their surroundings; scene depth is significantly reduced, and visuals are simplified. Performance is at 58 fps, while higher presets vary by 1-2 fps.

Сonclusion

Very tall: Maximum detail of reflections for complete immersion.

High: Slight simplification, almost no loss of quality.

Average: Moderate simplification, noticeable in details.

Low: Minimal reflections, depth loss, performance improvement up to 58 fps.

Final World

Reflection quality ranges from highly detailed and realistic on "Very High" to minimal and simplified on "Low." "High" and "Medium" provide a balance, preserving atmosphere, while "Low" significantly reduces visual depth but significantly improves performance. The difference in FPS between "Very High," "High," and "Medium" is minimal (1-2 fps), making preset selection primarily a matter of quality rather than performance.

Conclusion

Borderlands 4 was extremely controversial from a graphical standpoint. The series retained its signature cell-shading style, but there were almost no visual improvements compared to Borderlands 3. Yes, the developers used technology. Unreal Engine 5 — Lumen, Nanite, support for modern upscalers (DLSS, XeSS, FSR) — but all these technologies, with the possible exception of the upscalers, seem redundant here. Comic-style stylization doesn't require photorealistic materials and complex global illumination, but all of these significantly reduce performance.

A comparison with Borderlands 3 shows that the differences are minimal. The graphics are almost identical, but the system requirements have increased. While the series previously ran stably even on medium-end configurations, now the FPS drop is noticeable even on cards as small as the RTX 4070 Ti. As a result, the game looks like Borderlands 3 with cosmetic tweaks and worse optimization, but requires Full HD framerate support by default for cards below the 4080/5080 or 7900XTX/9070XT.

Compared to other UE5 projects, the contrast is particularly striking. For example, Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 demonstrates how Lumen and Nanite create vibrant, cinematic images. Borderlands 4, however, demonstrates that even the latest engine can't save a game if the art style doesn't require such technologies.

The $75 price tag only reinforces the negative impression. Players are offered virtually the same graphics as five years ago, while being forced to pay more and endure technical issues.

The situation is further fueled by controversial statements from Randy Pitchford, who claimed in interviews and on social media that Borderlands 4 would be a "visual breakthrough" and "the best game in the series." In reality, the results raise questions even among the most devoted fans: there's no breakthrough, no tangible step forward, and the promises seem overblown and out of touch with reality.

To the top of the page

Back
Forward