Let's do some simple math.
TL;DR: Looks slightly worse than its predecessor that came out 7 years ago when both are at max settings, and yet performs at 1/3 of the rate.

I could get a stable 144 FPS in World. I get 44-62 FPS in Wilds, generally around 50 FPS. Mostly high and medium settings, disabling any bells and whistles like Ray Tracing (unless they somehow improved FPS, which DLSS did). For reference, I had everything on max settings in World.

144, my World FPS, divided by 3 = 48 fps. Two frames shy of my approximate Wilds average of 50 FPS.

For all intents and purposes, Wilds LITERALLY runs 1/3 as well as its 7-year-old predecessor, AKA THREE TIMES WORSE, with a very slight graphical downgrade.
It should, in theory, run slightly *better*, or otherwise around the same if there's a few little graphical improvements I just never noticed even on max settings, which are offset by a lower overall texture resolution than World. The massive disconnect between an improvement from the baseline of World and the actual FRACTION of that baseline that Wilds performs at is technologically impressive in the *worst* way possible; it's impressive they failed that hard.

I discourage any from getting invested in this game until later performance patches or unless their PC is overpowered by current market standards. The performance significantly disables the fluidity of the combat experience that is ultimately a huge part of what makes the Monster Hunter combat system enjoyable in the first place.

Let's do some simple math. TL;DR: Looks slightly worse than its predecessor that came out 7 years ago when both are at max settings, and yet performs at 1/3 of the rate. I could get a stable 144 FPS in World. I get 44-62 FPS in Wilds, generally around 50 FPS. Mostly high and medium settings, disabling any bells and whistles like Ray Tracing (unless they somehow improved FPS, which DLSS did). For reference, I had everything on max settings in World. 144, my World FPS, divided by 3 = 48 fps. Two frames shy of my approximate Wilds average of 50 FPS. For all intents and purposes, Wilds LITERALLY runs 1/3 as well as its 7-year-old predecessor, AKA THREE TIMES WORSE, with a very slight graphical downgrade. It should, in theory, run slightly *better*, or otherwise around the same if there's a few little graphical improvements I just never noticed even on max settings, which are offset by a lower overall texture resolution than World. The massive disconnect between an improvement from the baseline of World and the actual FRACTION of that baseline that Wilds performs at is technologically impressive in the *worst* way possible; it's impressive they failed that hard. I discourage any from getting invested in this game until later performance patches or unless their PC is overpowered by current market standards. The performance significantly disables the fluidity of the combat experience that is ultimately a huge part of what makes the Monster Hunter combat system enjoyable in the first place.