CRT recommendation

I did not say what card I had but the reply was towards a post about GTX/Ultra, my card was @ 700/2400 and CPU was at 3.8GHZ.

What do you think I did to get the FPS, in Demo and right through full Game ?.

I dont need to prove anything to myself and I was to was suprised, but there is no real AA by default so its fast, MOH-Airbourne was 80FPS MIN, buggy Dirt was 35FPS AVG.

Also the latest Beta drivers were not named as BioShock Demo/Full game drivers unlike COH ones before, they are good in a lot of games.
 
Last edited:
I would still put money (monopoly money of course :)) on you getting a minimum FPS below 70 if you tested as I said. I'm not seeing 100% CPU usage here on a E6750 so to me it looks like the game doesn't need/use any more CPU power. FiringSquad got 45 fps minimum on an Ultra at 1600*1200 (0xAA, 8xAF). You're running a 44% higher res and get a 55% better minimum framerate? Even with your overclock, I'm sure you can understand why I question that. I'm not calling you a liar, I just suspect you didn't test a demanding part of the game (see below).
helmutcheese said:
What do you think I did to get the FPS, in Demo and right through full Game ?.
Click to expand...
I don't follow what you're saying here.
 
I dont care what anyone says or follows, I gave the FPS in this section and many others mainly GPU section, possibly the peeps in the other threads have more a clue ;).

I enjoyed my game right through and completed it with 70FPS MIN (if you want to count menus and in game animations it can be less like 30-60FPS as static screens or actual movies speed) still buggers up my Fraps report though).
 
Last edited:
helmutcheese said:
I dont care what anyone says or follows.
Click to expand...
I was just asking what you meant, as in I didn't understand, no need to be impolite.

My original point, or at least what I meant to say, was that a GTX will not maintain 60 fps in 1920*1200, which is true, and is supported by those Firing Squad benchmarks and every other set of Bioshock benchmarks I've seen.

I also reckon I could, without too much effort, find a save spot (and post the save on here) which even your system wouldn't be able to run at 70 fps.
 
I check flea day every day for the holy grail that is the fw900.It's not technology moving on it's more profit to be made from flat screens than crt.
 
fish99 said:
I was just asking what you meant, as in I didn't understand, no need to be impolite.

My original point, or at least what I meant to say, was that a GTX will not maintain 60 fps in 1920*1200, which is true, and is supported by those Firing Squad benchmarks and every other set of Bioshock benchmarks I've seen.

I also reckon I could, without too much effort, find a save spot (and post the save on here) which even your system wouldn't be able to run at 70 fps.
Click to expand...

Again not being nasty, take how you like but you dont have clue on topic as you do not have the Ultra.

I get what I said I got.

Feel free to post SAVE as I aim to unistall the game soon.
 
Last edited:
What I said was the GTS would struggle in 1680*1050, and the GTX would struggle in 1920*1200. 30% higher res, 30% quicker card, same end result. I know the GTS is a lot slower, I never said or implied the GTS was the same speed as a GTX or Ultra.

By struggle I'm talking about dropping below 60 fps. I don't mind admitting I'm wrong if that proves to be the case btw. I'll sort out a save.
 
I can only go by my own findings m8, I read reviews etc but you know aswell as me that some hardware reviews seem to come up with BS, thats is not the case elsewhere.

As I said the games menu's and in game Trailers messed up my Fraps report anyhow.

And although 60FPS is the magical number, a game will look fine bellow it and a Rig wont be classed as struggling at a nice 45FPS etc.
 
Last edited:
the difference could be vista and xp, running counter strike stress test in vista knocked over 100fps off my run when compared to xp, that wasnt the only game it killed the fps on either...every game ive tried runs so much better in xp.
 
Don't need to get data, just load the save and see what Fraps says. I trust you to be honest.

http://www.sbdev.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/9_5_2007_2_57_10.bsb

This should be, if I've uploaded the right save, in a doorway in front of the first set of stairs in medical, quite near the start of medical. I get 34 fps with this save in 1680*1050 (DX10). Didn't compress since it was only shrinking a tiny amount. I'll have a look what I get in XP.

When I was running Bioshock the other day with Fraps on, I did find 40 fps noticeably less smooth.
 
apart from a few splashes i couldnt even see any difference(only played demo), certainly wasnt worth the performance hit. not sure abt fps but it did seem a lot smoother in xp.

only got a 8800gts 640mb btw.
 
I get 45 fps with the same save under XP. That's depressing, not least because Bioshock is unstable for me under XP (I get the loadzone/load save crashes) so I'm forced to play it under Vista, and I get the hacking crash under Vista DX9, so I'm forced to use DX10 too (which is 100% stable oddly).
 
ive not had any stability issues with vista ever but i just dont game with it anymore as the difference in performance was too much for me.... well i do play mahjong sometimes as vista handles that pretty well. i wouldnt trust it with anything more demanding though.
 
Took about 6-8 screen shots but hard to do on your own while moving, so took one at door as you said, made 1 into smaller .JPG to let me upload onto site.



new01uy9.jpg


BTW, no clue why Fraps or Paint (after I resave as .jpg from .bmp) makes the pic 1920x1200 as it was took at 1920x1440.
 
Last edited:
You didn't have to post a screenshot :) That's not quite where the save was, it was about 10 ft to the left in the doorway, but that's not worth quibbling over, the difference was less than 10fps.

All I can say is - I was wrong and Jesus H that's a quick PC :eek:

What I would say though is that a GTX (admittedly I should never have mentioned the Ultra) at stock would be quite a bit slower than that, and I'm sure I could have found a more demanding location given more time. I picked medical because it's what Firing Squad used, but fighting a Big Daddy with a Little Sister in the room, with a couple of flying sentries on your side, and a splicer in the same room, in the middle of Arcadia or the market area, that would be quite a bit more demanding, but it'd take some time to setup a save like that.

Still a bit amazed that the Ultra (admittedly overclocked) is so much faster than the GTS in Bioshock. The Toms VGA charts don't show anything like that delta with other games. The GTS just can't handle Bioshock in 1680*1050, not under DX10 anyway.
 
Ya I took 6-8 shots as I said inc where you were, its hard to do while moving, I think I hit F9 and started to RECORD a Movie hense it went red LOL.

I actually wondered about your choice as nothing is happening, I used to test in games with say " lots of baddies infront of me and me running with a torch lit in big area "

I just choose that as it was a long run from the Revive Tube to main Counter at other end of room.

That took 3.8GHZ (aint done yet) and 700/2400, I ideally need 4GB Memory for Vista to high end game but got rid of while on XP32 & 64 as the kit was bad to OC so on a better 2GB kit.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom