Bioshock DX9 vs DX10 benchmarks

SS-89 · 24 Aug 2007 at 20:19

ergonomics said:
also, how can you say dx9 mode isnt working? you can CLEARLY see it in the picture comparison of the particles on the chair

One sure fire sign that dx9 hasnt been enable properly is the water ripples. Dynamic Water Ripples as shown in the screenshots are only and I mean only a feature of Dx10 with Bioshock. Dx9 Water Ripples are the splash effect, look further up the page for the video I posted.

Cyber-Mav · 24 Aug 2007 at 20:27

ergonomics said:
if the 2900 was scoring higher than the 8800 gts i bet you wouldnt be saying the test was done wrong

martin9887 · 24 Aug 2007 at 20:36

I think it was expected to run better on Nvidia cards, it has been optimized for them a lot more, I don't think the article is incorrect to be honest.

If it runs on your 2900 fine and your happy why bother getting upset if the 8800 is slightly faster?

Cyber-Mav · 24 Aug 2007 at 20:54

funny how someone says that the UE3 engine games run better on the 2900, but when the benchmarks come out its the opposite

LOL

Azrael1 · 24 Aug 2007 at 21:59

Cyber-Mav said:
funny how someone says that the UE3 engine games run better on the 2900, but when the benchmarks come out its the opposite LOL

people are so defensive....

20 fps isnt that much of a diff imo.

I have a 8800 gtx and happy with it, even if the 2900 was sightly faster.

Cyber-Mav · 24 Aug 2007 at 22:03

20fps is a massive difference. :eek:

well if some cards get 15fps an extra 20fps would bring that up to 35fps and it would make a whole lot of difference.

but if your getting 150fps, i can see another 20fps not really being of much importance.

willhub · 24 Aug 2007 at 22:07

Cyber-Mav said:
20fps is a massive difference. well if some cards get 15fps an extra 20fps would bring that up to 35fps and it would make a whole lot of difference.

but if your getting 150fps, i can see another 20fps not really being of much importance.

But the 2900's dont run this game at 15fps, they are on par/ faster than a GTS in this, some people seem to be getting higher results with the 2900XT than some people are getting with a GTX.

ergonomics · 24 Aug 2007 at 22:09

Azrael1 said:
people are so defensive....

20 fps isnt that much of a diff imo.

I have a 8800 gtx and happy with it, even if the 2900 was sightly faster.

especially if the human eye cant notice anything higher than 60 anyway

Tom|Nbk · 24 Aug 2007 at 22:10

martin9887 said:
I think it was expected to run better on Nvidia cards, it has been optimized for them a lot more, I don't think the article is incorrect to be honest.

If it runs on your 2900 fine and your happy why bother getting upset if the 8800 is slightly faster?

Because from my testing I know the 8800 aint faster. I hate seeing incorrect information that is all.

Cyber-Mav · 24 Aug 2007 at 22:26

Tom|Nbk said:
Because from my testing I know the 8800 aint faster. I hate seeing incorrect information that is all.

take it up with firingsquad.

Cyber-Mav · 24 Aug 2007 at 22:46

Tom|Nbk said:
It was Sir. Oh I contacted Firingsquad and asked if they could do an XP DX9 test he said he didn't want to risk the activation thing. So that's a shame

another negative for the activation then i see.

ergonomics · 24 Aug 2007 at 22:55

Tom|Nbk said:
Because from my testing I know the 8800 aint faster. I hate seeing incorrect information that is all.

so from YOUR OWN testing you found out a card was faster, even though everyone on these forums knows things can vary massively from set up to set up, ie different hdd speeds, diff cpu's, ram speeds, motherboard bios settings, goes on and on.

simply because your own testing has told you something doesnt instantly mean that an online review by a trusted source is wrong

rant over

SS-89 · 24 Aug 2007 at 23:06

I personally couldnt care less what the 8800 vs 2900 figures were, my gripe simply is that they havent tested dx9 properly, Its quite clear it hasnt been enabled.

Shocky-FM · 24 Aug 2007 at 23:06

Oh noes, 8800GTS 320MB faster then 2900XT 1GB in DX10, thats shocking. :eek:

HangTime · 24 Aug 2007 at 23:21

truebluecfc said:
I'm surprised how close the GTS 320MB is to the GTS 640MB even at higher resolutions.

There is no difference between the two cards except for the amount of memory, which will only matter in cases where it gets full up (e.g. lots of large textures).

Bear in mind that BS is console game too so they likely can't go overboard on the textures (doesn't the XB360 only have 512meg shared memory?). Hence except under extreme conditions one would expect the two cards to perform very close to each other.

Tom|Nbk · 25 Aug 2007 at 00:07

ergonomics said:
so from YOUR OWN testing you found out a card was faster, even though everyone on these forums knows things can vary massively from set up to set up, ie different hdd speeds, diff cpu's, ram speeds, motherboard bios settings, goes on and on.

simply because your own testing has told you something doesnt instantly mean that an online review by a trusted source is wrong

rant over

Very well but I still disagree with the DX9 numbers (DX10 numbers are spot on). It's clear as day you can see that DX9 hasn't been fully enabled properly if you can't see that quickly get down to Specsavers. Once again im not the only person to think this multiple people are thinking the same. They should have used XP for true DX9 tests.

HighlandeR · 25 Aug 2007 at 00:09

Imagine in November the new 9800GTX scores Vs HD2900 numbers :eek:

Regardless I think Bioshock will be one of those games which is played and once completed will lay idle, no MP/Modding support = no future.

Tom|Nbk · 25 Aug 2007 at 00:12

HighlandeR said:
Imagine in November the new 9800GTX scores Vs HD2900 numbers

Regardless I think Bioshock will be one of those games which is played and once completed will lay idle, no MP/Modding support = no future.

Bah rubbish, just from playing the first few parts I could already tell their was plenty of replayability and was already working out how I would take this splicer/big daddy/security bot next time. Great game

. All depends on your personal opinion and whether you feel you would play it a second time. Also remember there is multiple endings..

Azrael1 · 25 Aug 2007 at 08:00

Tom|Nbk said:
Bah rubbish, just from playing the first few parts I could already tell their was plenty of replayability and was already working out how I would take this splicer/big daddy/security bot next time. Great game . All depends on your personal opinion and whether you feel you would play it a second time. Also remember there is multiple endings..

I agree. I;ve only started it but love it, i prefer quality time to spend three times the amount of time on another game where it starts to feel a chore to play.

Don't have as much time to play on games compared to when i was younger..

Marky · 25 Aug 2007 at 09:13

Interesting how little difference there is - great to see great performance between the two. In some there is even better performance in DX 10 :eek: