The Outer Worlds 2 - Overview and comparison of graphics settings, impact on performance

Author Betailas, October 24 2025. Published in RPG/Role playing

The review focuses on graphics quality, performance stability, and FPS behavior at different settings. The Outer Worlds 2 uses an updated version of the Unreal Engine, which allows you to evaluate how effectively modern technologies are implemented - from upscalers and anti-aliasing to reflections and shadows.

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 selection of graphics settings, with most parameters available in four levels: Very High, High, Medium, and Low. Some presets also offer higher or lower values. Settings not included in this review either had no visible impact or the changes were only noticeable dynamically, making them difficult to measure. Some parameters were tested only at their extreme values.

Anti-aliasing and upscalers

Native modes

AA Off - Basic level without anti-aliasing

Image: Object edges (fence, pillars, building edges, cables) have noticeable "staircase" and stepped contours. Textures on the ground, walls, and details (boxes, robot) retain high clarity, but aliasing artifacts are pronounced on fine lines (wires, fence). Color transitions are sharp, without softening, and noise is minimal on static elements.
Performance: 51 FPS (base for comparison).

TAA

Image: Object edges are smoothed, jaggies are minimal compared to AA Off, but slight blurring appears on contours (fence, posts). Textures on the ground and details remain sharp, and color transitions are smooth. Artifacts are rare, but a slight blurriness is noticeable on small elements (cables, grass).
Performance: 63 FPS. +12 FPS (~24% increase) to AA Off.

TSR Native

Image: Anti-aliasing is close to TAA; object edges are smooth with minimal jaggies (fence, buildings). Textures retain sharpness, but on distant details (horizon, cliffs), slight anti-aliasing results in loss of fine details. Color transitions are natural, and artifacts are absent on static surfaces.
Performance: 50 FPS. -1 FPS (~-2%) to AA Off.

FSR Native

Image: Detail is close to AA Off, but with slight overall blurring and a loss of clarity in fine details (ground textures, cables). Object contours are slightly blurry, and jaggies are partially smoothed. Artifacts are minimal, but softening is noticeable on high-contrast edges (fence, robot).
Performance: 50 FPS. -1 FPS (~-2%) to AA Off.

XeSS Native

Image: Sharpness is slightly lower than AA Off, with a slight "plasticity" and smoothing of fine details (lines on robots, grass). Noise is suppressed more strongly than in FSR, and contours are soft without pronounced "jaggies." Artifacts are rare, but detail is reduced on complex textures (ground, walls).
Performance: 50 FPS. -1 FPS (~-2%) to AA Off.

DLSS Native

Image: A clean rendering with maximum texture detail and natural noise (ground, building details). Artifacts are minimal, edges of objects are smoothed without jaggies or blurring, the image serves as a benchmark for clarity.
Performance: 51 FPS. 0 FPS (0%) with AA Off.

Summary of Native modes:

DLSS Native is the benchmark for image quality and performance (51 FPS), with better detail preservation.
TAA - shows the highest FPS (63 FPS), but with noticeable blur compared to DLSS.
TSR Native, FSR Native, and XeSS Native all produce equally low FPS (50 FPS) and offer slightly poorer image clarity, with varying degrees of anti-aliasing.

Quality modes

TSR Quality

Image: Sharpness is high, but there is slight blurring on fine details (ground textures, cables). Object outlines (fence, posts) are smooth, and color transitions are seamless. Artifacts are minimal, but some detail is lost on distant objects (horizon, cliffs).
Performance: 58 FPS. -5 FPS (~-8% decrease) to TAA (63 FPS).

FSR Quality

Image: Sharpness is good, but slight blurring and loss of fine detail at a distance (grass, building details) are noticeable. Object contours are slightly softer, and jaggies are partially smoothed out. Artifacts are rare, but a slight blurriness appears on high-contrast edges (robot, fence).
Performance: 62 FPS. -1 FPS (~-2% decrease) to TAA (63 FPS).

xess Ultra Quality Plus

Image: The highest clarity among XeSS modes, preserving fine details (cables, grass, ground textures). Object outlines (fence, posts) are smooth without noticeable blur, and color transitions are seamless. Artifacts are minimal, with detail comparable to native rendering.
Performance: 57 FPS. -6 FPS (~-10% decrease) to TAA (63 FPS).

xess Ultra Quality

Image: Sharpness is slightly lower than XeSS Ultra Quality Plus, with slight blurring of fine details (grass, wires). Object contours are smooth, color transitions are soft, but detail in distant objects (horizon, rocks) is slightly simplified. Artifacts are rare.
Performance: 61 FPS. -2 FPS (~-3% decrease) to TAA (63 FPS).

XeSS Quality

Image: Very high definition, slightly inferior in the stability of fine details (ground textures, robot). Contours are smooth, with a slight "plasticity" appearing on complex textures. Artifacts are minimal.
Performance: 63 FPS. 0 FPS (0% difference) to TAA (63 FPS).

DLSS Quality

Image: Perfect clarity, almost indistinguishable from the native image. Fine details (cables, grass) are preserved, and artifacts are absent. Color transitions are smooth, creating a picture that's truly exemplary.

Performance: 61 FPS. -2 FPS (~-3% decrease) to TAA (63 FPS).

Summary of Quality Modes:

xess Ultra Quality Plus is the leader in detail among XeSS, but has the lowest FPS (57 FPS).
XeSS Quality - equal to TAA in FPS (63 FPS), providing a good balance of clarity and performance.
DLSS Quality is the benchmark for image quality, with a minimal FPS drop (-2 FPS).
FSR Quality - close to TAA (62 FPS), but with noticeable blur.

Balanced modes

TSR Balanced

Image: Clarity remains high, but with increased blurring compared to Quality (ground textures, cables). Object outlines (fence, posts) are smooth, and color transitions are soft. Artifacts are minimal, but fine details in the distance (grass, horizon) are simplified.
Performance: 62 FPS. -1 FPS (~-2% decrease) to TAA (63 FPS).

FSR Balanced

Image: Noticeable increase in blur compared to FSR Quality, loss of fine details (cables, building textures). Object outlines are blurry, stair-steps are smoothed, but artifacts appear on high-contrast edges (robot, fence).
Performance: 65 FPS. +2 FPS (~+3% increase) to TAA (63 FPS).

XeSS Balanced

Image: Good quality, with a slight "plasticity" and smoothing of fine details (grass, wires). Sharpness is lower than DLSS, but acceptable, and artifacts are rare. Detail on distant objects (rocks) is slightly reduced.
Performance: 69 FPS. +6 FPS (~+10% increase) to TAA (63 FPS).

DLSS Balanced

Image: Clarity is very high, close to Quality mode. Fine details (cables, textures) are preserved, artifacts are minimal. Color transitions are smooth, without loss of stability.
Performance: 65 FPS. +2 FPS (~+3% increase) to TAA (63 FPS).

Summary of Balanced modes:

DLSS Balanced is a clear leader in image quality, with virtually no loss in clarity.
XeSS Balanced — the highest FPS (69 FPS) among the modes, with a decent balance.
FSR Balanced - high FPS (65 FPS), but with noticeable blur and artifacts.
TSR Balanced is a stable option, but with simplified detailing at a distance.

Performance modes

TSR Performance

Image: Sharpness is noticeably reduced, with noticeable blurring of fine details (cables, grass). Object outlines (fence, posts) are greatly smoothed, color transitions are soft, but distant objects (horizon, rocks) lose detail. Artifacts are minimal.
Performance: 68 FPS. +5 FPS (~+8% increase) to TAA (63 FPS).

FSR Performance

Image: Severe blurring throughout the image, loss of fine detail (building textures, wires). Object contours are blurry, and the "staircase" textures are smoothed out, but artifacts appear on high-contrast edges (robot, fence).
Performance: 72 FPS. +9 FPS (~+14% increase) to TAA (63 FPS).

XeSS Performance

Image: Lower quality, with noticeable "plasticity" and smoothing of fine details (grass, ground textures). Sharpness is reduced, but artifacts are rare. The background (cliffs) is greatly simplified.
Performance: 75 FPS. +12 FPS (~+19% increase) to TAA (63 FPS).

DLSS Performance

Image: Sharpness is preserved better than others, with acceptable detail (cables, grass). Color transitions are smooth, artifacts are minimal, but distant objects are slightly oversimplified.
Performance: 70 FPS. +7 FPS (~+11% increase) to TAA (63 FPS).

Performance Mode Summary:

DLSS Performance is the best balance of quality and performance (70 FPS) with minimal loss in clarity.
XeSS Performance is the leader in FPS (75 FPS), but with a noticeable decrease in detail.
FSR Performance - high FPS (72 FPS), but with severe blur and artifacts.
TSR Performance is a stable option (68 FPS) with moderate quality.

Ultra Performance modes

FSR Ultra Performance

Image: Extreme blur, significant loss of detail (building textures, wires). Object outlines are almost indistinguishable, jaggies are smoothed out, but artifacts are visible on high-contrast edges (robot, fence).
Performance: 78 FPS. +15 FPS (~+24% increase) to TAA (63 FPS).

xess Ultra Performance

Image: Severe blurring throughout the image, loss of fine detail (grass, ground textures). Object outlines are smoothed, and distant objects (horizon, rocks) are simplified. Artifacts are minimal.
Performance: 75 FPS. +12 FPS (~+19% increase) to TAA (63 FPS).

DLSS Ultra Performance

Image: Blur is present, but details (cables, grass) are preserved better than others. Object outlines are smooth, color transitions are soft, artifacts are rare, and the background is slightly simplified.
Performance: 75 FPS. +12 FPS (~+19% increase) to TAA (63 FPS).

Summary of Ultra Performance modes:

FSR Ultra Performance is the leader in FPS (78 FPS), but has the most severe blur.
xess Ultra Performance and DLSS Ultra Performance - both give 75 FPS, with DLSS slightly better
preserving details.

Hardware ray tracing

1st pair

Lighting:

On: Sunbeams create soft shadows with smooth transitions on buildings, vegetation, and the ground. Light transitions are natural, with no artifacts.
Off: Shadows are sharper, light transitions are jagged, especially on vegetation and buildings. Artifacts appear on complex surfaces.

Reflections:

On: Sun reflections in puddles are crystal clear, with high detail of the environment (plants, buildings).
Off: Reflections in puddles are blurred, and environment detail is reduced (trees and buildings are less clear).

Shadows:

On: Shadows from wires, plants and mountains are smooth and accurately match the light source.
Off: Shadows from wires and plants are hard and lose their smoothness.

Performance: On: 44 FPS, Off: 57 FPS.

Conclusion: Enabling ray tracing improves the quality of lighting, reflections and shadows, but reduces FPS by 13 frames.

2st pair

Lighting:

On: Artificial light sources (lamps) render soft shadows and clear reflections on metal surfaces. Light transitions are smooth, and artifacts are absent.
Off: The lighting loses its softness, lamp shadows are simplified, and light transitions are rough. Artifacts are visible on the walls and floor.

Reflections:

On: Light reflections on columns and floors are detailed, including small decorative elements.
Off: Reflections on metal surfaces are minimal, and fine decorative details are absent.

Shadows:

On: The shadows from the columns and furniture are deep, precise and smooth.
Off: Shadows from columns and furniture are simplified, with noticeable edge artifacts.

Performance: On: 41 FPS, Off: 48 FPS.

Conclusion: Ray tracing improves the visual elaboration of lighting and shadows, but reduces FPS by 7 frames.

Render distance

Very high

Visual Quality: Maximum draw distance. The fog edge is pushed further away, creating the deepest and most atmospheric look. Detail in objects (mountains, plants, buildings) at medium and long distances is preserved to the fullest extent, including small elements like wires and spheres. Fog is minimal, and the landscape appears seamless without interruptions.

High

Visual Quality: The fog edge is slightly closer compared to Very High. Detail at medium distances is virtually identical to the maximum settings, but at extreme distances (horizon), fine details (individual plants, mountain details) begin to become slightly simplified. Fog is barely noticeable, but the overall appearance remains deep.

Medium

Visual quality: The foggy haze noticeably approaches. At medium distances, fine details such as individual spheres and vegetation elements begin to disappear, and the horizon appears more blurred. The fog's edge is closer, reducing the perceived depth of the scene, but the basic shapes of objects are preserved.

low

Visual Quality: Minimal draw distance. The fog "wall" is located close to the player, creating a sense of confined space. Detail is limited to the basic shapes of objects (buildings and mountains are simplified), small elements (plants, spheres) disappear at close range, and the horizon is completely obscured by fog.

Main anomaly: Performance remains stable (43-44 FPS) without a significant increase at low settings, despite the reduced video memory consumption. This indicates that the draw distance impact is minimal compared to other settings, and the FPS changes may be related to other rendering factors.

Practical conclusion: For maximum visual depth, Very High is recommended, as the FPS difference compared to Low is minimal (just 1 frame). Lower presets are only worthwhile if you have limited video memory, but don't provide a noticeable performance boost.

Shadow quality

The shadows look very realistic with soft edges and smooth transitions Very high, where the detail is high - shadows from objects (trees, buildings, characters) clearly correspond to light sources, maintaining softness even on complex surfaces. High The shadows remain soft, but the transitions are a little less smooth, fine details are slightly simplified, artifacts are rare. Medium shadows become harder, transitions are less smooth, detail is reduced on distant objects, slight artifacts are possible. low Shadows are sharper, transitions are jagged, detail is lost, and artifacts are noticeable, especially on close objects. The performance difference is only 8 frames between very high и low.

Texture quality

Visual difference between presets Very high, High, Medium и low The provided screenshots don't show any difference—the textures appear identical in detail and clarity. The only difference is in video memory consumption:

Very high — 8341 MB
High — 8081 MB
Medium — 7768 MB
low — 7546 MB

Performance is stable at all levels - 45 FPS.

Practical conclusion: Since there is no visual improvement in the transition from low к Very high No, the choice of preset depends on the available video memory. low saves up to 795 MB compared to Very high, which is useful when resources are limited, but does not affect FPS. Recommended low to optimize memory if it is limited, or Very high, if there is enough memory.

grass quality

On presets Very high, High, Medium и low The visual difference in the detail of the grass is noticeable: Very high shows the thickest and most detailed grass with smooth transitions, High slightly simplifies the density and small elements, Medium reduces the number of blades of grass and their clarity, low Leaves only the main patches of grass with minimal detail. The difference in FPS is minimal: Very high — 44 FPS, High — 44 FPS, Medium — 44 FPS, low — 45 FPS.

Practical conclusion: Very high offers maximum visual beauty of grass, but the difference in FPS with low just 1 frame, which makes the choice of preset a matter of preference. low Saves up to 0.6 GB of memory, which can be useful when resources are limited, but does not provide a noticeable performance boost. Recommended Very high for aesthetics, low — to save memory.

Global Illumination

On presets Very high, High, Medium и low Global illumination affects the realism of shadows and reflections: Very high provides the softest shadows and detailed reflections, High simplifies the transitions a little, Medium reduces shadow detail, and low Produces sharp shadows with minimal processing. This setting is considered one of the most system-heavy.

Practical conclusion: Very high provides the best lighting quality, but reduces FPS by 27 frames compared to low. low Provides maximum performance (76 FPS) and saves 0.8 GB of memory. Recommended Very high for visual comfort, low — to prioritize performance, but even switching to High already gives an increase of as much as 15 frames.

Reflection quality

On presets Very high, High, Medium и low The quality of reflections affects clarity and detail: Very high gives the clearest and most detailed reflections (water, surfaces), High slightly blurs fine details, Medium simplifies reflections to basic contours, and low leaves minimal, blurry reflections.

Practical conclusion: Very high provides the best detail of reflections, but the FPS increase when reduced to low minimal (all 4 frames). low Saves 0.8 GB of memory. Recommended Very high for visual quality, low - if saving memory is important with a small increase in performance.

General conclusion

The Outer Worlds 2Built on an updated version of the Unreal Engine, it offers a visual style that doesn't aim for photorealism, with improved detail and global illumination. However, the game's optimization at 1080p on test hardware (Ryzen 7 9800X3DThe RTX 4070 Ti (or RTX 4070 Ti) exhibits significant performance issues. Global illumination, one of the most demanding settings, reduces frame rates from 76 (Low) to 49 (Very High)—a 27-frame difference that isn't justified by the noticeable visual improvement. Ray tracing improves shadow, reflection, and lighting quality, but with a 7-13 FPS drop, which seems excessive for the current graphics style. This indicates uneven engine load, with key effects overloading the system disproportionately to their contribution.

Upscalers (TAA, TSR, FSR, XeSS, DLSS) do not live up to expectations at all: FSR Ultra Performance (78 FPS, +24%) and XeSS Performance (75 FPS, +19%) provide a boost at the expense of strong blur, while DLSS Quality (61 FPS) and Balanced (65 FPS) provide minimal gains (0–2 FPS) over TAA (63 FPS, +12%). The lack of a frame generator from AMD (AFMF) makes matters worse by limiting the potential for FPS gains, especially on AMD platforms where performance could otherwise be stabilized.

Draw distance and textures don't affect FPS (43–45), allowing for up to 0.9 GB of memory savings on Low, while shadows, grass, and reflections show minimal differences (1–8 frames), making the choice of preset dependent on available video memory. However, for non-photorealistic graphics, stable performance of 60–70 FPS was expected even at maximum settings with ray tracing. A drop to 43–49 FPS on Very High, combined with ineffective upscalers and the lack of AFMF, indicates failed optimizationThe problem is likely due to insufficient engine polish or an emphasis on visual effects that doesn't suit the game's style. The developers urgently need to rework the load balance and integrate solutions like AFMF to salvage performance, otherwise the game risks breaking the optimization record of the year, along with Cronos with ray tracing enabled, and Borderlands 4 Against this background it doesn't look so poorly optimized.

To the top of the page

Back
Forward