Bioshock DX9 vs DX10 benchmarks

willhub · 25 Aug 2007 at 22:34

Has he got Vsync on in game?

Garyj881 · 25 Aug 2007 at 22:36

willhub said:
Has he got Vsync on in game?

Yes but he turned it off and it made no difference.

Thats V-sync from the game option, is there one in the nvidia settings?

truebluecfc · 25 Aug 2007 at 22:43

I have a similar setup and sometimes get as low as 35 FPS, i normally get between 45-90 FPS at 1680x1050 with everything maxed.

Garyj881 · 25 Aug 2007 at 22:50

Well with it peaking at 60 i though the fps rate was capped but obviously not.

He has installed Vista x64 but i keep hearing about the hotfixes(not part of windows updates yet) could these affect it?

So with you getting a good 15 - 30 extra it is quite a jump but then you have the 640mb version, btw hes only on 1440 x 900 on his 19WS.

Is he best to run a benchmark to see what he gets and go from there?

Uriel · 28 Aug 2007 at 13:24

http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6177688/p-6.html#

Some more testing here. Lower end cards included in this one too.

willhub · 28 Aug 2007 at 13:29

Uriel said:
http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6177688/p-6.html#

Some more testing here. Lower end cards included in this one too.

I dont think I would trust those reviews, most people are getting totally different results to those, and the 8800GTX outperforms the 2900xt by miles in Bioshock, some people getting over 100fps average in DX10, DX9 the 2900XT's get around 90-100+ fps average, and the GTX's beat that too, I notice the 2900XT's in DX10 are abit on the low side tho on those benchys, most people report better.

RavenUK · 28 Aug 2007 at 13:33

Yeah it looks like there is some kind of driver bug in vista for the 2900, notice how DX9 performance is on par with DX10 whilst in vista, yet in XP the 2900 leads the way.

willhub · 28 Aug 2007 at 13:37

RavenUK said:
Yeah it looks like there is some kind of driver bug in vista for the 2900, notice how DX9 performance is on par with DX10 whilst in vista, yet in XP the 2900 leads the way.

So do most people have like 20+fps extra in XP and DX9? If so then cant wait for Vista drivers to improve even more, DX10 is allready smooth.

There seems to be a bug with the fan aswell, since that Bioshock patch in MOH:A demo and UT3 my fan spinds up to like 60% or higher for 10 seconds or so, never did that before.

Uriel · 28 Aug 2007 at 13:40

Given that the 2900XT is running on a hotfix (not even a beta driver as such) I think they'll get a large improvement later.

Gamespot have answered some of the queries I had by running on both DX9 (Vista) and DX9 (XP). I'm surprised how much of a hit the game seems to take while running on an X2900 in vista.

RavenUK · 28 Aug 2007 at 13:46

Maybe the guys at gamespot didn't correctly disable DX10 when doing the DX9 test in vista and were running DX10 features in a test they thought was for DX9, i think i read it as being a glitch some where.

willhub said:
There seems to be a bug with the fan aswell, since that Bioshock patch in MOH:A demo and UT3 my fan spinds up to like 60% or higher for 10 seconds or so, never did that before.

Maybe your temps have gone a bit higher? i think it hits around 60% at around 80c at stock fan speeds.

Uriel · 28 Aug 2007 at 13:48

It's actually fairly consistent with the Firingsquad results. They only tested in vista and the 2900XT appeared to be crippled across the board.

Cyber-Mav · 28 Aug 2007 at 13:51

wonder if this performance bug in vista for bioshock also effects x19 series cards. would be interesting to find out about this.

SS-89 · 28 Aug 2007 at 14:42

Uriel said:
It's actually fairly consistent with the Firingsquad results. They only tested in vista and the 2900XT appeared to be crippled across the board.

Or they've done exactly the same mistake as firingsquad by not properly enabling dx9, at 1280x1024 in vista I average 90fps and in Xp 110fps, by the looks of it they simply turned off the dx10 detail surfaces and not the proper way of adding the -dx9 command line to the shortcut.

Cyber-Mav · 28 Aug 2007 at 15:00

SS-89 said:
Or they've done exactly the same mistake as firingsquad by not properly enabling dx9, at 1280x1024 in vista I average 90fps and in Xp 110fps, by the looks of it they simply turned off the dx10 detail surfaces and not the proper way of adding the -dx9 command line to the shortcut.

either way its still a fair test since the same settings would have applied to the G80 cards, since they wernt run using the -dx9 switch either.
if they ran 1 card with just dx10 settings off ingame and they ran the other card with the -dx9 switch then yes i can see its totally wrong.

Tom|Nbk · 28 Aug 2007 at 15:49

willhub said:
I dont think I would trust those reviews, most people are getting totally different results to those, and the 8800GTX outperforms the 2900xt by miles in Bioshock, some people getting over 100fps average in DX10, DX9 the 2900XT's get around 90-100+ fps average, and the GTX's beat that too, I notice the 2900XT's in DX10 are abit on the low side tho on those benchys, most people report better.

GTX getting 100fps average in DX10 rubbish surely?

Cyber-Mav · 28 Aug 2007 at 15:50

Tom|Nbk said:
GTX getting 100fps average in DX10 rubbish surely?

yea, once nvidia sort the drivers out it should be more around 130fps

Tom|Nbk · 28 Aug 2007 at 15:52

Cyber-Mav said:
yea, once nvidia sort the drivers out it should be more around 130fps

Dream on.

stickroad · 28 Aug 2007 at 15:53

Bioshock isnt a directX 10 games though surely? How come it works in DirectX 9?

stickroad · 28 Aug 2007 at 15:53

Bioshock isnt a directX 10 game though surely? How come it works under XP and in Directx 9?

killer_uk · 28 Aug 2007 at 15:54

stickroad said:
Bioshock isnt a directX 10 games though surely? How come it works in DirectX 9?

To be a DX10 game doesn't mean that it can't support previous versions. Look at CoD2, that was DX9, but you could go all the way back to DX7 if you wanted to.

EDIT: Just noticed you edited your post, when bioshock is played under XP it runs in DX9 mode.