BioShock Performance Analysis

Printable View

08-21-2007, 03:33 AM
Richie P

BioShock Performance Analysis

Thought this deserved a thread of it's own, if not, do what you will :D

Here's a comparison of 2900XT vs GTX performance in BioShock. Makes for interesting reading and might just surprise a few people.

http://www.digitalreport.net/content/view/52/1/

Quote:

With BioShock being widely considered the first 'real' DirectX 10 benchmark game, the performance from both camps is very encouraging. Both cards were able to play the demo in all of its visually stunning glory, even if only DX9 for the HD2900XT, with a framerate as smooth as a baby's behind. With a driver tweak or game patch to fix the HD2900XT bug, it would have been a perfect showing all around.

What might be of interest to more viewers however, is the indication that this gives for future DX10 titles such as Unreal Tournament 3 and Gears Of War. This game is built on the new Unreal engine, the same engine that will be used to bring these two blockbusting titles to DX10 on the PC. What we must now hope, is that other upcoming game engines such as CryEngine2 and co., will also sport the same level of performance.

Anyone else tried it on their rig yet?
08-21-2007, 04:30 AM
RPGWiZaRD

Yes and I'm interesting in how much CPU usage you get because I get only like 54 - 62% and the graphs I've seen so far clearly seems to have a higher %. Just run window and check CPU usage is like. In 1280x960 I get like 30 - 60 FPS in the demo with high quality settings. Even 35 FPS feels smooth in this game for some reason, unless I had used FRAPS I had thought it had ran in the 40 - 60 FPS range most of the time.
08-21-2007, 04:43 AM
mascaras

screenshots from a friend mine with HD2900XT @ Vista DX10 @ 1680x1050 (CPU & VGA DEFAULT)

Quote:

http://img467.imageshack.us/img467/6...1021259lc7.jpg
http://img390.imageshack.us/img390/2...1023298ax1.jpg
http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/5...1024310xx1.jpg
http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/4...1025008jd8.jpg
http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/5...1108219jx4.jpg
http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/7...1107587kf8.jpg
http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/5...1113277bb0.jpg
http://img363.imageshack.us/img363/5...1115105yo1.jpg
http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/9...1115544dy1.jpg
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/6...1119062fu0.jpg
http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/4...1118433cd8.jpg
http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/4...1119194kt9.jpg
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/2...1129032du1.jpg

http://www.techzonept.com/showpost.p...postcount=5756

:up:
08-21-2007, 04:49 AM
Richie P

Quote:

Originally Posted by mascaras

screenshots from a friend mine with HD2900XT @ Vista DX10 @ 1680x1050 (CPU & VGA DEFAULT)

:up:

No texture bug? Hmmm.....

What drivers? Any extra Vista updates or anything?
08-21-2007, 04:52 AM
Lane-k

I download the demo right now..

There's an hotfix on ATI for the games, it seems the perfromance are really good ( a beta 7.9?) and nvidia have too releases a driver
08-21-2007, 04:57 AM
3NZ0

x3210 + 8800gtx in vista at 12x10 with everything maxed out + control panel aa, smooth as silk.
One of the best games I have played since HL2 :D
08-21-2007, 05:09 AM
josty2

I played it aswell with a X2 " 2.3GHz and a mildly overclocked 8800GTS320 and it played in DX10 with all options on high as smooth as silk. Never had a problem anywhere with unacceptable framedrops! Works like a charm if you asked me!
But I couldn´t get AA to work thourhg the Control Panel. I´ll try again though
08-21-2007, 05:11 AM
RPGWiZaRD

Quote:

Originally Posted by josty2

I played it aswell with a X2 " 2.3GHz and a mildly overclocked 8800GTS320 and it played in DX10 with all options on high as smooth as silk. Never had a problem anywhere with unacceptable framedrops! Works like a charm if you asked me!
But I couldn´t get AA to work thourhg the Control Panel. I´ll try again though

Yea I couldn't get AA enabled as well I think.
08-21-2007, 05:24 AM
informal

Another comparison in DX10 mode

http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?o...tid=315&page=1
08-21-2007, 05:40 AM
RPGWiZaRD

Quote:

Originally Posted by informal

http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?o...tid=315&page=1

Those graphs clearly speaks that NVIDIA needs some cards between 8800GTS and GTX and between 8800GTS and 8600GTS. :D
08-21-2007, 06:05 AM
josty2

Quote:

Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD

Those graphs clearly speaks that NVIDIA needs some cards between 8800GTS and GTX and between 8800GTS and 8600GTS. :D

Well, the GTS/GTX gap isn't that huge, but the gap between the 8800 and 8600 is just huge... They should make a 8600GTS with a 256-bit bus and a bit more shaders. That would fill the gap :P

And I couldn't get the AA to work in any way or any setting. I sure hope it isn't broken. I don't really like those jagged edges :(
08-21-2007, 06:32 AM
Lane-k

Bad, i can play the games... graphics are perfect, but i need reassign the keyboard key for got the "W" and "A" for the movement, and it's impossible, the games say the keys are reserved... hope they will fix this. i use a QWERTZ (Swiss)
08-21-2007, 06:34 AM
XSAlliN

Seems very similar to Half Life. ;)
08-21-2007, 06:44 AM
RPGWiZaRD

Just wanna add that this game is highly GPU dependant despite having dual core support and all as it doesn't seem to make a big difference but lowering the resolution the FPS quickly goes skyhigh 100FPS+ even with high quality settings. It was a while ago since I tried a game that ran more than 2x as fast at 800x600 compared to 1280x960 with same detail settings. :hehe:

And did you notice how pathetic the readme was about resolutions in this game:

Quote:

2.1 Resolution
--------------

It is recommended that when running the game on a minimum specification machine screen resolutions of either 640*480 or 800*600 be used. On a recommended specification machine resolutions of 1152*864 should provide good performance. On a high end machine 1280*1024 on a standard 17 inch LCD monitor will give very good performance.

"On a high end machine 1280*1024 on a standard 17 inch LCD monitor will give very good performance." Yea I see many highend machines with 17" LCDs today. :hehe: and 1152*864? Umm yea that resolution isn't even commonly used among CRT users, even less among LCD.
08-21-2007, 06:48 AM
Lane-k

Edit to my post : fixed, just set the cf files def user manually.
08-21-2007, 07:04 AM
MichelinGuy

Wow, performance with the HD2900 looks great. I can play a game @ 30fps, no problem at all especially when it looks that good.

Can someone report the XP performance?
08-21-2007, 07:04 AM
CBONE

Hm. AMDZone is down. Maybe their whining about not getting free Radeons was so pathetic it broke the intarwebs. :rofl: :ROTF:

Still waiting for some Crossfire/SLI benches.
08-21-2007, 07:07 AM
higgins

hope there is a bigger difference between dx9 and dx10 than just the smoke. though it does look good i have to say :D
08-21-2007, 07:13 AM
VAdept

Im running at 1920x1080 all settings maxed very smoothly with a 8800GTX/e6300/4GB of ram, all at stock. Awaiting new motherboard and my G0 Q6600.
08-21-2007, 07:25 AM
[XC] leviathan18

here is when you see why an unreal engine is UNREAL..... none of the other dx10 games offered good performance this game clearly shows that you can use DX10 with current generation gpus...
08-21-2007, 07:31 AM
FghtinIrshNvrDi

What a great website. I think I will check out the Digital Report and register for the forums.

Ryan
08-21-2007, 08:10 AM
Richie P

Quote:

Originally Posted by [XC] leviathan18

here is when you see why an unreal engine is UNREAL..... none of the other dx10 games offered good performance this game clearly shows that you can use DX10 with current generation gpus...

Exactly...And as I explained in the article, that's good news for UT3 and Gears of War. Hopefully, we'll see similar performance in CryEngine2 - that's what I'm really after...
08-21-2007, 09:04 AM
Ubermann

Did DX10 add much effects then ?
08-21-2007, 09:48 AM
Radeon117X

I just ran the DX10 version on my rig (details in sig). It always hit over 35, and just like RPGWizard said, it really still feels smooth at that rate. I have screens too but too many to upload (460MB Worth :)). Extremely often, it hits 60 and higher.

The game looks really nice and i found absolutely no hitches whatsoever. But i find it odd with that framerate issue...35FPS in this game felt like 60FPS in Source...it was really really weird. It played that well i guess :D
08-21-2007, 09:51 AM
zerazax

Well its good to see that DX10 gaming IS viable on current cards

It all comes down to how good the coding is
08-21-2007, 10:03 AM
Richie P

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ubermann

Did DX10 add much effects then ?

In short, no. But in the grand scheme of things, what it did enable (better smoke/dust/specular effects) was worth the insignificant performance hit that was suffered.
08-21-2007, 10:32 AM
afireinside

Anyone try SLI? I just compared with the demo and got the same fps in the water scene at the start with and without SLI. I made a profile and forced split frame rendering and got like 6 fps higher :stick: Is SLI in Vista still broken? Is there a way to get it to show load balancing anymore?
08-21-2007, 11:36 AM
kcnyc

I am using Windows XP and when I enable Crossfire, the game loads and then crashes back to the desktop. With one single card, it runs fine. Very weird.....

Anybody experiencing this?
08-21-2007, 01:56 PM
jpcastro

alo there

i can post the experience so far playing the DEMO of this fantistic game!

8800GTS 320mb on VISTA with Q6600 and 4GB ram, i have take some screenshoots so in theory this should have some DX10 graphics:

settings:
http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/5...ingskw0.th.jpg

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/5452/ima1sg6.th.jpg http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/5797/ima2kv4.th.jpg http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/7070/ima3tw6.th.jpg http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/5729/ima4va8.th.jpg
http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/2909/ima5bi3.th.jpg http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/8973/ima6fp5.th.jpg http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/9530/ima7ox1.th.jpg http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/5941/ima8jp9.th.jpg
http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/9001/ima9kw8.th.jpg http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/1361/ima10ru1.th.jpg http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/179/ima11kv7.th.jpg http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/6889/ima12xb4.th.jpg
http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/3333/ima13zs5.th.jpg http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/7839/ima14yw7.th.jpg http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/4323/ima15qh7.th.jpg http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/2215/ima16yv1.th.jpg
http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/615/ima17xt0.th.jpg http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/9077/ima18fd9.th.jpg http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/6438/ima19yw3.th.jpg

of course that i love the game and have bought the original that will arrive tomorrow, the store just send it yesterday.

regards
08-21-2007, 04:42 PM
xPliziT

5 Attachment(s)

Hello everybody.

took some FRAPS numbers on my rig with the final game. This should be comparable to the poster on page 1 of this thread.
On windows XP Sp2, DX9.

DFI LanParty NF590
AMD X2 64 5600+ @ 3.3GHz
ATI HD2900XT 1 Gig DDR4 @ 828/1000
2 Gig Mushkin 8500
Catalyst 7.8 Hotfix driver used.

Game Settings:
Resolution 1650x1050
Graphic Details max
V-Sync Off

the pictures are compressed to save space...
08-21-2007, 05:03 PM
informal

Wow amazing man,you have almost 2x fps than the thread starter at the same settings in game!
You have faster CPU tho,and more video RAM,but nonetheless pretty big difference in game.How much of improvement did the hotfix driver made?
08-21-2007, 05:13 PM
xPliziT

Only tried the hotfix driver. Had an issue with the demo before and thought its a driver problem.
Bioshock tried to load the dx10 dlls from alky project and thats why it did not work. Had to delete them :)
08-21-2007, 05:35 PM
xPliziT

5 Attachment(s)

some more pictures..
08-21-2007, 05:38 PM
informal

Quote:

Originally Posted by xPliziT

Only tried the hotfix driver. Had an issue with the demo before and thought its a driver problem.
Bioshock tried to load the dx10 dlls from alky project and thats why it did not work. Had to delete them :)

Anyhow,have fun playing this game as God commands it :D (since you sure can on that machine :D)
08-21-2007, 10:53 PM
One_Hertz

get 40-70fps, dx9 at 1920*1200 4xaa/16xaf forced in cp ,all ingame options to max with 2900xts cf and a 3.4ghz e6700. Looks perty.
08-22-2007, 01:26 AM
kiwi

2900xt vs gtx/gts anyone?
08-22-2007, 04:37 AM
FghtinIrshNvrDi

who cares... I had everything but one option on with my x1950xt @ 1440x900, and it was smooth as can be.

Ryan
08-22-2007, 05:30 AM
cantankerous

It ran great on my system in sig too without any issues except for a crash to desktop. No clue what caused that.
08-22-2007, 07:10 AM
Richie P

Explizit -

Those numbers are quite good, but I recon the combination of XP, faster RAM, the 1GB 2900XT and having it overclocked by nearly 100Mhz will be the reason the numbers look higher. I'd be interested to see a Rivatuner graph of the run ;)

What I will post back when I've tested is comparable numbers with the hotfix installed, and i'll see if overclocking in Vista is working yet.
08-25-2007, 04:39 AM
Chicco85

This is my log in fraps on Bioshock Demo:

2007-08-23 10:23:59 - Bioshock
Frames: 1773 - Time: 31867ms - Avg: 55.637 - Min: 33 - Max: 82

2007-08-23 10:25:39 - Bioshock
Frames: 2219 - Time: 32737ms - Avg: 67.782 - Min: 45 - Max: 88

2007-08-23 10:30:40 - Bioshock
Frames: 2677 - Time: 53045ms - Avg: 50.466 - Min: 40 - Max: 75

2007-08-23 10:37:33 - Bioshock
Frames: 5070 - Time: 99546ms - Avg: 50.931 - Min: 30 - Max: 71

2007-08-23 10:45:07 - Bioshock
Frames: 4143 - Time: 73593ms - Avg: 56.296 - Min: 36 - Max: 99

2007-08-23 21:27:31 - Bioshock
Frames: 6278 - Time: 107802ms - Avg: 58.236 - Min: 34 - Max: 91

2007-08-23 21:33:17 - Bioshock
Frames: 7182 - Time: 127105ms - Avg: 56.504 - Min: 38 - Max: 89

Config in signature and Catalyst 7.8 hotfix. Resolution 1680x1050 max detail. ;)

Those runs are in Vista 32 bit in dx10 mode. ;)

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:21 AM.

XtremeSystems