So, I'm thinking about getting Bioshock off of Steam for $30, but I have a few questions.
1) What kind of experience/performance can I expect to get w/ the game on my M1530? I'm thinking medium to high settings across the board, but I could be wrong.
2) I've heard that there are some technical issues w/ the PC version of the game. Could anyone detail their experiences w/ it? Thanks.
(BTW, the Search function hasn't been on for a while, still too much use?)
-
I don't have a 8600M, but I know that the desktop 8600 GT can run the game @ 1280*1024 'maxed' (no AA). So I think shooting for mediums across the board is reasonable.
-
You could run it maxed at 1024 x 768 easily enough, my 8400m GT gets around 20 fps, give or take 5, at stock clocks on those settings.
Medium - High at 1280 x 800 will probably look the best. -
1024 x 768 maxed settings with vsync and no AA. 28-30 fps average.
-
Check out THIS thread. It has Bioshock performance tests on there and a lot more games.
-
with my DDR2 version of the 8600 I ran it at 1440x900 and stuff high/med-high. I can't remember if I had the DX10 stuff turned on or not...but I think not.
-
-
Could anyone also talk about any issues they've had w/ secuROM? Is it inherently bad for my system? I heard BioShock automatically installs it on your machine. Thanks!
i.e. Do I have to worry about secuROM placing a rootkit in my system? -
I ran Bioshock on XP Pro and it ran awesome at 1280x800 res with everything on high..no AA. Plus I never changed the settings, I played the game just how the game set it up. I was running about 25-30fps average and 18fps was my lowest during explosions scenes or with a lot of action. I have yet to try it on Vista 64, hmmm I'm gonna download it again from Steam!! Great game though, def one of my favs.
-
hey,
i have an m1530 as well and bioshock ran quite nicely at 1280x720 with high settings (directx 10 turned off, didnt even notice the difference). Average about 30-45 fps. Lowest was probably around 20 when ther was a bunch of enemies and explosions and stuff. -
DX10 only brings a 3fps performance hit on my 8400m GT. I think you guys can leave it on
-
DX10 sux, whats the point of takin a 3fps hit when there isn't a difference with the graphics?
-
-
-
Bioshock runs great on my 8600, 1280x720 with DX10 and high details.
-
There are no technical issues with bioshock that I'm aware of. At release some people were complaining that the game didn't scale correcly for widescreen monitors, but I have never had this issue, and I believe they fixed this in a patch that was released shortly after launch.
Securom is a hassle to deal with, but since your purchasing the steam version you shouldn't run into any issues since you won't need a disk. -
I got a 8600gt, 2.2ghz dual core and 2gb ram and BioShock runs on high, with no problems.
-
AmazingGracePlayer Notebook Deity
I can play Bioshock w/ almost everything on high with my system (specs in sig) but I wouldn't recommend the game though... I hated it.
-
-
Yes, I preordered the game, and picked it up in stores day 1, but no I don't have a steam version, mine's boxed. Having securom on my system hasn't caused any issues at all, nor performance problems, it just checks to see if the disk in the drive is legit. The only thing I didn't like about it was that you could only install bioshock 5 times, then you would have to contact customer support to install any more times. You can install it as many times now since the game a year old. But that was really the only thing I didn't like about the game's DRM. again, I never noticed any problems , or performance drop in either of my systems after installing and playing bioshock.
-
All right, thanks unknown and everyone else who shared their input. I think I'll pull the trigger =)
BTW, I'll be at the tf2 event tonight! -
The only technical issue I had was because I had GOMPlayer installed on my system. It and Bioshock don't get along, I couldn't even install it with GOM on my system.
-
Hey DX10 makes a huge difference in assassins creed and crysis! It's not as big of a difference in bioshock... which i thought sucked aswell! Don't get it
-
-
There is! And i don't think the developers would say that
For instance look at the detail on the main character in both DX9 and DX10 with everything on low so there is no other detail to confuse you.
The difference in detail is pretty big imo. -
There is a difference in AC with DX10 and DX9. There are more details in the textures on buildings, the landscape, and on people. Same for Crysis but I had to play Crysis on DX9 cuz its such a resource pig.
-
I think it's a love it/hate it type game.
The safe bet would be Cod4....
Another option would be the orange box...
But you should still try it.(buy it) -
Ya skip Bioshock, I played for about 30mins max and then put down, thank god I borrowed it from a friend and did not pay money for it.
-
Sorry to do this since its not about the Topic, but to Cut the argue..
PCGH: Do you use advanced features of Direct X 10/Shader Model 4 like Geometry Shader, Virtual Texture Management etc.? Can you please give examples how they are utilized? In what way do these features improve or simplify the rendering process?
Charles Beauchemin: No. Most of the porting to DX10 involves optimizations of the existing calls, without any new content.
PCGH: Will the DX 10 visualization differ substantially from the graphics that are rendered with DX 9 hardware? What are the visuals that can only be rendered with shader model 4 hardware? Can you supply us with a visual proof via screenshot too?
Charles Beauchemin: No new content has been added to the DX10 version.
Source:
www.pcgameshardware.de -
That kind of explains why you don't need to restart the game to enable DX10 but not much else.
-
f the haters...bioshock>*
Bioshock.
Discussion in 'Gaming (Software and Graphics Cards)' started by Dynamo44, Aug 15, 2008.