Bioshock DX9 vs DX10 benchmarks

ergonomics · 30 Aug 2007 at 14:56

willhub said:
AA is NOT supported properly, it only works in DX9, it's buggy and causes too much of a slowdown due to it been so buggy, so you're wrong when you say people play with at least 4xAA...

im talking with most games in general, shudve made that clearer

Tom|Nbk · 30 Aug 2007 at 15:01

ergonomics said:
im talking with most games in general, shudve made that clearer

Hmmmmm. AA isn't really needed in BioShock the Jaggies are very very subtle and don't ruin the experience one bit (I've completed It).

Shocky-FM · 30 Aug 2007 at 15:07

Tom|Nbk said:
By 1 frame?!

Here we go, the results are on par with every other BioShock review out there nvidia DX10 performance is around the same as DX9 performance with BioShock. This was shown in the Gamespot Review, this review and the firingsquad review what more proof do you need.

Im gonna wait for the other Ultra/GTX owners to come in here crying

Tom, i've tested this and directx9 is faster on my 8800GTX in vista, it should not be slower or equal to DX10, of course I don't really care because I play in DX10 anyway but the reviews are wrong.

SS-89 · 30 Aug 2007 at 15:10

I noticed the 2900's dx9 performance in bioshock and MOH airborne I get over 110fps average in both at 1280x1024 max settings with 16xAF which I found quite staggering, in dx10 its another matter but im not entirely bothered because at my res I still average over 60fps.

martin9887 · 30 Aug 2007 at 15:10

I can't notice the jaggies that much either (some place more than others) but I did try it in DX9 with 4AA applied and there wasn't much of performance hit but it did a lot better without them. Considering it runs at 60-70 pretty much constant, it's nothing. I play in DX10 though, prefer all the nicer effects/IQ and stuff.

I've heard the developers are getting AA sorted for people who would like it though, which is nice of them

.

Tom|Nbk · 30 Aug 2007 at 15:29

Shocky-FM said:
Tom, i've tested this and directx9 is faster on my 8800GTX in vista, it should not be slower or equal to DX10, of course I don't really care because I play in DX10 anyway but the reviews are wrong.

Yea, Ok

.

gareth170 · 30 Aug 2007 at 15:39

does it really matter? do any of u guys play the game or do u just test and benchmark?

just play the game and enjoy it..

Tom|Nbk · 30 Aug 2007 at 15:53

gareth170 said:
does it really matter? do any of u guys play the game or do u just test and benchmark?

just play the game and enjoy it..

Already said I played and completed it

, plus this is the Graphics forum Gareth of course we like our benchmarks

.

Shocky-FM · 30 Aug 2007 at 15:57

Tom|Nbk said:
Yea, Ok .

Yes actually, there are some large increases in DX9, testing the exact same location gives me almost a 15fps increase but whatever, what do I know?, I only own a 8800GTX.

Tom|Nbk · 30 Aug 2007 at 16:00

Shocky-FM said:
Yes actually, there are some large increases in DX9, testing the exact same location gives me almost a 15fps increase in some locations but whatever, what do I know?, I only own a 8800GTX.

Exactly.

, multiple reviews have proved you wrong but you can always rely on a fanboy to argue otherwise

. Good times. I know it would hurt too if a circa £200 card is beating a £300+ card

gareth170 · 30 Aug 2007 at 16:02

Tom|Nbk said:
Already said I played and completed it , plus this is the Graphics forum Gareth of course we like our benchmarks .

but doing a benchmark once then doing the same benchmark again would give the same result because nothing as changed.. once a new driver is released that'll be the point to benchmark again...

Tom|Nbk · 30 Aug 2007 at 16:04

gareth170 said:
but doing a benchmark once then doing the same benchmark again would give the same result because nothing as changed.. once a new driver is released that'll be the point to benchmark again...

Totally lost me :confused:

Shocky-FM · 30 Aug 2007 at 16:06

Tom|Nbk said:
Exactly. , multiple reviews have proved you wrong but you can always rely on a fanboy to argue otherwise . Good times. I know it would hurt too if a circa £200 card is beating a £300+ card

No, it's not just me.. Look

http://futuremark.yougamers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=59762

gareth170 · 30 Aug 2007 at 16:07

Tom|Nbk said:
Totally lost me

some people benchmark more then once e.g. 4 - 5 times. and some people like watching the fps go up and down.. why? im i missing something somewhere?

ergonomics · 30 Aug 2007 at 16:08

Tom|Nbk said:
Exactly. , multiple reviews have proved you wrong but you can always rely on a fanboy to argue otherwise . Good times. I know it would hurt too if a circa £200 card is beating a £300+ card

there have been many reviews you have said are 'complete rubbish' or 'crap' just because they didnt swing in your favour :rolleyes:

martin9887 · 30 Aug 2007 at 16:10

ergonomics said:
there have been many reviews you have said are 'complete rubbish' or 'crap' just because they didnt swing in your favour

That's exactly what I was thinking, no offence though.

Tom|Nbk · 30 Aug 2007 at 16:11

Shocky-FM said:
No, it's not just me.. Look

http://futuremark.yougamers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=59762

Then you'd have to take it up with Bit Tech, FiringSquad and Gamespot as all there reviews have shown similar performance between DX9 and DX10 with nvidia cards. Plus the developers even said that on the G80 that DX10 frames were consistant with DX9 frames.

Uriel · 30 Aug 2007 at 16:15

killer_uk said:
What the hell are you on about?

I thought I was just stating the obvious! The FX5800 was pretty quick for DX8 games but once games started to make full use of DX9 it couldn't keep up with ATI's mid range. I remember feeling especially pleased with my 9500Pro when I started seeing it resoundingly beating nVIDIA's top end cards in several benchmarks.

If AMD sort out the Vista drivers for the 2900XT (as I suspect they will) then all will be well but if not we've got a repeat of the dustbuster fiasco.

Shocky-FM · 30 Aug 2007 at 16:15

Tom|Nbk said:
Then you'd have to take it up with Bit Tech, FiringSquad and Gamespot as all there reviews have shown similar performance between DX9 and DX10 with nvidia cards. Plus the developers even said that on the G80 that DX10 frames were consistant with DX9 frames.

Hang on, right at the start of the thread you were calling the reviews a load of crap and now you try and use them to back yourself up? ROFL

Tom|Nbk · 30 Aug 2007 at 16:18

Shocky-FM said:
Hang on, right at the start of the thread you were calling the reviews a load of crap and now you try and use them to back yourself up? ROFL

I said the Firingsquad looked fishy (and plenty of other people also pointed this out) that the DX10 mode was not fully being disabled hence why the ATi card was staying around 45fps avg plus you just linked me to a thread about a bug with the game where DX9 mode not fully enabling in Vista did you not.., the Gamespot and Bit Tech reviews look like they were done properly much more consistant similar results. Your the only one that has the problems with the GS and BT reviews..