Bioshock DX9 vs DX10 benchmarks

truebluecfc · 30 Aug 2007 at 16:19

If theirs a review favoring the 2900xt then its right and its the fastest card or w/e, then when theirs a review where the 8800 GTX/GTS shows it being faster its either wrong or something about drivers.

Tom|Nbk · 30 Aug 2007 at 16:23

truebluecfc said:
If theirs a review favoring the 2900xt then its right and its the fastest card or w/e, then when theirs a review where the 8800 GTX/GTS shows it being faster its either wrong or something about drivers.

There are multiple BioShock reviews favouring the 2900 plus all the 2900 users on here test's. If it was just a handful of users and one review I wouldn't be so sure. It's not rocket science, the 2900 was faster than a GTX in R6V (shock horror it's also faster in BioShock) both UE3 game's, the very fact the 2900 is faster in BioShock is no news to me I always knew it would be. The fact of the matter is that ATi cards scale better on the UE3 engine. A hard pill for nvidia users across the world to swallow no doubt

ergonomics · 30 Aug 2007 at 16:25

Tom|Nbk said:
There are multiple reviews favouring the 2900xt plus all the 2900 users on here tests. If it was just a handful of users and one review I wouldnt be so sure. It's not rocket science, the 2900 was faster than a GTX in R6V (shock horror that's a UE3 game), the very fact the 2900 is faster in BioShock is no news to me I always knew it would be. The fact of the matter is that ATi cards scale better on the UE3 engine, with no AA at the moment.

fixed

Shocky-FM · 30 Aug 2007 at 16:26

Tom|Nbk said:
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..

And this one also looks fishy for the same reason, the DX9 and DX10 is nearly identical which suggests the same problem :confused:

truebluecfc · 30 Aug 2007 at 16:26

I'm not really botherd, I havent looked at any reviews tbh. Bioshock runs perfect for me on Max settings at 1680x1050, its just as soon as a 8800 card is faster its the drivers or something or the review is dodgey.

Tom|Nbk · 30 Aug 2007 at 16:28

ergonomics said:
fixed

Heh, judging by the results in these reviews. The 2900 has plenty of headroom to do AA when/if the time comes on the UE3 engine. For instance in DX9 mode we're looking at a 20+fps difference from the GTS, plenty of headroom to do a bit of AA im sure

.

Shocky-FM · 30 Aug 2007 at 16:31

Tom|Nbk said:
Heh, judging by the results in these reviews. The 2900 has plenty of headroom to do AA when/if the time comes on the UE3 engine. For instance in DX9 mode we're looking at a 20+fps difference from the GTS, plenty of headroom to do a bit of AA im sure .

I doubt it as bioshock supports hardware AA as it works in both XP and vista in DX9 so 2900XT will be at a disadvantage as usual, just depends how they implement it in DX10 or if they ever do.

Tom|Nbk · 30 Aug 2007 at 16:32

truebluecfc said:
I'm not really botherd, I havent looked at any reviews tbh. Bioshock runs perfect for me on Max settings at 1680x1050, its just as soon as a 8800 card is faster its the drivers or something or the review is dodgey.

Use your brain, the 2900 drivers were still maturing possibly still are. I hardly ever argued to death that the reviews were dodgy I knew very well how crap the 2900 drivers were until recently, I just pointed out to many smug 8800 users on here that the drivers were still maturing hence why the card seemed like a lemon at first. It wasn't rocket science, but I think you'll find now they have matured it's competing quite nicely against the 8800. Yet the nvidia boys aint liking that

Shocky-FM said:
I doubt it as bioshock supports hardware AA as it works in both XP and vista in DX9 so 2900XT will be at a disadvantage as usual.

Wow some nvidia users are really blinkered on here

. BioShock supports no form of AA at all at the moment, otherwise you would see a nice option in the graphics menu. The only reason you can force it atm as nvidia have done some hand tweaks with the driver. Nothing officially supported, also when the time comes with AA + UE3 engine I'd like to see the two compared, as I said the 2900 has plenty of headroom here to compete well with AA. Are you saying that with AA properly supported the 2900 would take a 20fps hit and be slower than the GTS. Give me a break.

Uriel · 30 Aug 2007 at 16:34

Still, AMD need a card to sit in the same space as the 320GTS. There's a gaping hole in the product line there and the GTS is giving great value for money.

Roll on the 2900Pro!

Tom|Nbk · 30 Aug 2007 at 16:40

Uriel said:
Roll on the 2900Pro!

Here!, Here!.

Shocky-FM · 30 Aug 2007 at 16:46

Tom|Nbk said:
Wow some nvidia users are really blinkered on here . BioShock supports no form of AA at all at the moment, otherwise you would see a nice option in the graphics menu. The only reason you can force it atm as nvidia have done some hand tweaks with the driver. Nothing officially supported, also when the time comes with AA + UE3 engine I'd like to see the two compared, as I said the 2900 has plenty of headroom here to compete well with AA. Are you saying that with AA properly supported the 2900 would take a 20fps hit and be slower than the GTS. Give me a break.

Bioshock as in the engine supports it otherwise I don't really see how AA would be working in XP on nvidia cards, and nowhere did I say 2900XT would be at a 20fps disadvantage but as we all know 2900XT takes a much bigger hit when AA is enabled then a 8800GTS with hardware AA. Even in the case of COJ with the latest results the 8800GTS is still ahead with shader based AA so even if they do use shader based AA it doesn’t necessarily mean it will be faster, only that the gap will definitely close.

Tom|Nbk · 30 Aug 2007 at 17:08

Shocky-FM said:
Bioshock as in the engine supports it otherwise I don't really see how AA would be working in XP on nvidia cards

It's simple it can be hand forced in the drivers with a few tweaks, this is easier for nvidia as they have more access to parts of the card via drivers that developers don't. Same goes for ATi

Shocky-FM said:
nowhere did I say 2900XT would be at a 20fps disadvantage but as we all know 2900XT takes a much bigger hit when AA is enabled then a 8800GTS with hardware AA.

Wrong, You said the 2900 would be at an disadvantage. If your not saying the 2900 would take a 20fps hit then how would the 2900 be at a disadvantage at all?, since it would still be faster with AA than a GTS.

Shocky-FM · 30 Aug 2007 at 17:13

Tom|Nbk said:
It's simple it can be hand forced in the drivers with a few tweaks, this is easier for nvidia as they have more access to parts of the card via drivers that developers don't. Same goes for ATi

I know this but it's using hardware based AA so it does work with bioshock unless they found a way to force shader based AA in DX9 in XP which is obviously very doubtful.

Tom|Nbk said:
Wrong, You said the 2900 would be at an disadvantage. If your not saying the 2900 would take a 20fps hit then how would the 2900 be at a disadvantage at all?, since it would still be faster with AA than a GTS.

Because it only supports software AA silly, 2900XT is always at a disadvantage to 8800GTS where hardware AA works but this doesnt mean it's slower or faster, that depends on the game.

You can keep trying to put words in my mouth if the like but it won’t work.

Margaret · 30 Aug 2007 at 17:20

Has anyone here done a Fraps benchmark for the Medical level? I did one for 30 mins and had 112fps average in Dx10.

Not the best to compare with, ran at 1440x900.

GTX@Stock.

Margaret · 30 Aug 2007 at 17:21

Double post.

Tom|Nbk · 30 Aug 2007 at 17:59

Shocky-FM said:
I know this but it's using hardware based AA so it does work with bioshock unless they found a way to force shader based AA in DX9 in XP which is obviously very doubtful.

Because it only supports software AA silly, 2900XT is always at a disadvantage to 8800GTS where hardware AA works but this doesnt mean it's slower or faster, that depends on the game.

You can keep trying to put words in my mouth if the like but it won’t work.

You clearly don't have a clue what your on about go and read about the 2900XT arc and how it works..

Shocky-FM · 30 Aug 2007 at 18:31

Tom|Nbk said:
You clearly don't have a clue what your on about go and read about the 2900XT arc and how it works..

Then explain to it me, please.

Tom|Nbk · 30 Aug 2007 at 18:33

Shocky-FM said:
Then explain to it me, please.

No. The information is widely available, I've wasted enough time with you in this thread

.

Shocky-FM · 30 Aug 2007 at 18:36

Tom|Nbk said:
No. The information is widely available, I've wasted enough time with you in this thread .

Didn't you know R600 only does shader based AA and lacks hardware resolve? Did you not wonder why it takes such a huge hit when you enable AA? lol

Whatever, if you know better then explain it unless of course you can't which would explain your reply.

Tom|Nbk · 30 Aug 2007 at 18:41

Shocky-FM said:
Didn't you know R600 only does shader based AA and lacks hardware resolve? Did you not wonder why it takes such a huge hit when you enable AA? lol

Since your forcing me to explain I will..

No, seems your completely blinkered. The 2900 does resolve some AA in the Shader units of the card but also Uses a ROP Unit for some of the resolve also. So your comment that the card lacks hardware resolve is totally rubbish.

"Of course, there's more to this part of the architecture than simply applying anti-aliasing - In R600, the ROPs handle the data passed to them by the architecture's Stream Processors, converting the final shaded, textured fragments (to use the proper parlance, as the Stream Processors handle fragments rather than pixels technically speaking) into pixels, as well as worrying about depth (or Z) values to ensure that the final frame is displayed correctly. This is the final point of the rendering journey before data is sent to the frame buffer to be output on-screen."

http://www.elitebastards.com/cms/in...sk=view&id=388&Itemid=31&limit=1&limitstart=5