Posted Sep 9, 2007 11:56 am GMT

Great comparison... gonna try this with the new PC im hoping to buy ....

• Login to rate this comment
• 1 of 2 users agree

Posted Sep 9, 2007 9:46 am GMT

"Will it run on 8600????"

yes my 7600GT runs it on max at 1152X864

• Login to rate this comment
• 4 of 5 users agree

Posted Sep 9, 2007 7:05 am GMT

I bought GF6800GT with P4 in November 2004 for about US$ 900. At that time no console game can even come close to PC graphical quality. Let's not talk about the cutting edge like F.E.A.R, Doom 3, Halve Live, or FarCry, these games are design for PC. Even the multiplatform game like Prince of Persia or NFS series looks far better on PC. I used to play NFS Most Wanted, F.E.A.R, ES4 Oblivion and Splinter Cell Double Agent in 1280x1024 with that PC and graphically that was almost as good as in the XBOX 360 or PS3 (1280x720+AA). The last game I Play on that PC was DIRT CMR. PC and consoles each has advantages and disadvantages. The price for a new console is a bit difficult to swallow at first (US$ 399), and any multiplatform game that came out at the time a new console is out can be played with last year mid end PC (my friend completed Oblivion an F.E.A.R with 6600GT on 1024x768.). At that time PC gamer don't need to spend a dime to play F.E.A.R, while console gamer need to buy a new console. As time goes by PC gamer have a choice between upgrading and enjoy the cutting edge or enjoy what they already had while the console gamer can still enjoy their hefty initial investment. In time the PC will have to be upgraded to follow the DirectX while the console gamer can only watch in awe at how far ahead the PC graphic is, and wait enthusiastically for the next generation of console. It has been like this since the first time I game (back in the PS1 day), and it will still be like this for a long time to come (next generation of NVIDIA GPU will be released in December).

• Login to rate this comment
• 6 of 12 users agree

Posted Sep 8, 2007 11:33 pm GMT

just because it has an ati license on it doesnt mean all ati cards are the same buddy

• Login to rate this comment
• 2 of 3 users agree

Posted Sep 8, 2007 6:18 pm GMT

"i dont get it. wasn't bioshock developed for both the x360 and pc. The 360 has a ati gpu, so why does it run so slowly on a ati video card?"

Because there were two teams. Those doing the 360 version and those doing the PC version.

• Login to rate this comment
• 5 of 6 users agree

Posted Sep 8, 2007 12:51 pm GMT

stewiegriffin, you can run bioshock maxed out on an 8800gts 320MB, which costs $100-$120 less than the xbox360. What a good deal.

• Login to rate this comment
• 2 of 9 users agree

Posted Sep 8, 2007 4:07 am GMT

@ iebubu the game does run better on ATI cards. Just have a look at the Video Cards results. Gamespot have used lower end ATI graphic cards on their "System Level Performance Tests" while using the top end nvidia ones even thought the ATI perform better. Can't guess why. Anyway I'm using an X1900XTX and Pentium Dual Core 930 with 2GB RAM and can run everything maxed (except DX10) at 1440x900 (I have a widescreen) without no problems at all. From what I've heard from my clan mates you can run the game maxed out on much lower specs if your willing to sacrifice a little resolution.

• Login to rate this comment
• 1 of 2 users agree

Posted Sep 7, 2007 3:48 am GMT

Well I have an AMD Athlon 64 @ 3000 with 1GB DDR @ 400 and an ATi Radeon X1950 Pro 512MB AGP (Catalysts 7.4) running on Windows XP ENG PRO. Bioshock is displayed on a Samsung 22'' Wide SM226BW @ 1680 x 1050 with details at full (except DX10) and it runs like a beauty. Very good coding from the developers.

• Login to rate this comment
• 2 of 3 users agree

Posted Sep 6, 2007 9:54 pm GMT

Well it runs great on my ATi X1900XTX. High settings, 1680 x 1050. Also, there's nothing wrong with the widescreen. 2K developed the game for widescreen then added extra to the top and bottom for fullscreen.

• Login to rate this comment
• 1 of 3 users agree

Posted Sep 6, 2007 3:46 pm GMT

Inspiron 9300 dell Laptop, 2.13ghz pin modded Single CPU, 1 GB ram, Nvidia 6800 GO 256mb video card, all settings turned on except global env, and resolution set to lowest, game runs excellent. Other than not sharp edges, it's awesome on this nifty little laptop of mine..

• Login to rate this comment
• 2 of 4 users agree

Posted Sep 6, 2007 3:27 pm GMT

i dont get it. wasn't bioshock developed for both the x360 and pc. The 360 has a ati gpu, so why does it run so slowly on a ati video card?

• Login to rate this comment
• 3 of 4 users agree

Posted Sep 6, 2007 1:22 pm GMT

thanks

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 5 users agree

Posted Sep 6, 2007 11:47 am GMT

people were the fck you get all this money@!!?

• Login to rate this comment
• 13 of 15 users agree

Posted Sep 5, 2007 5:34 pm GMT

this games still looks awesome even with the lowest graphics on

• Login to rate this comment
• 8 of 9 users agree

Posted Sep 5, 2007 5:29 pm GMT

will my ati x700 series pro work on this game

• Login to rate this comment
• 1 of 2 users agree

Posted Sep 5, 2007 3:06 pm GMT

oh sorry...i forgot one thing...(ATI NO MORE)...my last was a X1600XT who was murdered by LOST PLANET Extreme Conditions and Dirt.
Bioshock and NVIDIA = amazing
Bioshock and ATI = comic book

Who knows on the next generation.............

• Login to rate this comment
• 2 of 4 users agree

Posted Sep 5, 2007 8:06 am GMT

3500+ 2gig ddr 8600 GT all high exept dx10 (cose its on xp) and i rarely go under 30 fps!!!
so how with:
AMD Athlon 64 4000+, Radeon X1650 XT 256MB, 1GB RAM, Windows XP
they got 18 I just can't get it. unless RAM is such a big issue I can't explain!

only thing I have encountered however is slow texture loading after a loading a saved game or entering a new arem but i didn't get any freeze the textures simply appeared after a few minutes.

• Login to rate this comment
• 2 of 2 users agree

Posted Sep 5, 2007 1:47 am GMT

4gbs RAM , GeForce 8800 GTS, ect, should run sweet on mine

• Login to rate this comment
• 2 of 2 users agree

Posted Sep 5, 2007 1:26 am GMT

No rainmaster the 5 series graphics cards cant run Bioshock. You need a 6600GT. Thats the lowest of the low that will play it. Find a nice cheap 256mb 7900 or a 512mb 6800.

• Login to rate this comment
• 1 of 1 users agree

Posted Sep 5, 2007 12:55 am GMT

Runs like a 12fps hunk of poo on my 7800GT at 1600x900, 1.8GHz Core2, 3GB RAM with higher graphics settings. To play how the game is meant to be played, you really need a 8800GTS or higher.

Oh, and the game starts kinda slow, but I'm about 1/2 to 2/3 the way through the game and it's been a ton of fun. Highly recommended at $30-50 depending on how long you want to wait for it.

• Login to rate this comment
• 1 of 2 users agree

Posted Sep 5, 2007 12:23 am GMT

im really not into graphics, im into the quality of a gameplay, can i run bioshock without a lag on a medium quality settings coz i have a P4 2.4 and an old video card of FX 5500 256mb?

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 3 users agree

Posted Sep 4, 2007 11:57 pm GMT

beckoflight HAHHAHAHA ) ATI 2900 XT ... will show its quality from now on because of its drivers .... the aritecture was allready superrior evan to the ULTRA ... practacaly the only thing that the 2900 has lower than both 8800 GTX & ULTRA is the ddr .... but starting from the clock to the transitor count its far more superrior ... i wonder why they didn't test two 2900 XT in corssfire .... i think the answer is clear Nvidia is a much better sponsor !

PAY ATTENTION when reading the performance guide, it says that 2 hd2900 in crossfire couldn't load properly the game due to driver problems, when that problem is solved, i'm pretty sure that will surpass 2gtx in sli

• Login to rate this comment
• 2 of 5 users agree

Posted Sep 4, 2007 9:10 pm GMT

the game is suberb on my 7600GT fatality

• Login to rate this comment
• 2 of 2 users agree

Posted Sep 4, 2007 5:54 pm GMT

Great game. It has such low system requirements too. i got a 7900gtx, amd 64 x2 5600 and 2gb of 800mhz ocz ram and i play it on full @1600x900 res and it runs awsome! it bugs me on the fact that half life 2 got .8 points more than this game. this game makes half life 2 looks like a 2 or a 3

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 7 users agree

Posted Sep 4, 2007 5:12 pm GMT

I`ts being amazing on my E6300+2gb ram+8600GT(forceware163 driver) running at FULL -1024x768.
I can`t believe in that graphics...It´s a dream...
Thnks a lot 2K games
...I hope that G.Spot don`t give a low score to this revolutionary game.

• Login to rate this comment
• 1 of 3 users agree

Posted Sep 4, 2007 1:17 pm GMT

Don't know why they are only showing 8 series Nvidia cards, game runs fine on my 7900GT.

• Login to rate this comment
• 3 of 3 users agree

Posted Sep 4, 2007 12:35 pm GMT

@SMFES you cannot play the game because the X800 series uses shader 2.0, and this game requires a 3.0 compatible card. i encountered this problem with my X850XT-PE, which uses 2.0b, and in terms of every other spec should run the game without a problem. There is an underground movement to create user-made patches to allow the game to run, but who knows.

• Login to rate this comment
• 1 of 1 users agree

Posted Sep 4, 2007 8:17 am GMT

@GT3_and_JP they've released a SM2 patch n u need to use that one to play this game

• Login to rate this comment
• 2 of 2 users agree

Posted Sep 4, 2007 7:49 am GMT

well if that isn't a ATI fanboy, ok so ATI is loosing generally speaking ever since the end of the 9000 series, don't go making up lies even if the ATI cards are comparable in speed they need aproximately the same juice and run tons hotter than the Geforce counterparts. and though crossfire came latter it is actually alot weeker so time spent on that config was wasted. SLI is the best though little specific. geforce cards are much solider and more reliable if you can manage some nice water cooling or a good AC bill in the middle of summer by all means get a ATI it is to behind the bar, i've had several and all my friends just replaced there last gen x800 cards and such with the 8000 Geforce cards because of so many issues, issues i shared in. ATI is pulling preformance out of their @$% that is why the temps are so high same for AMD. everyone loves to say game spot likes this brand better, maybe it's just more concistently preformend for them rather than being all over the place like ATI. maybe they did poorely review two ps3 exclusives that fanboys had been touting for the last year and a half, but then agian maybe the games weren't that good, or just plain broken.

• Login to rate this comment
• 1 of 9 users agree

Posted Sep 4, 2007 6:28 am GMT

HAHHAHAHA ) ATI 2900 XT ... will show its quality from now on because of its drivers .... the aritecture was allready superrior evan to the ULTRA ... practacaly the only thing that the 2900 has lower than both 8800 GTX & ULTRA is the ddr .... but starting from the clock to the transitor count its far more superrior ... i wonder why they didn't test two 2900 XT in corssfire .... i think the answer is clear Nvidia is a much better sponsor !

• Login to rate this comment
• 1 of 4 users agree

Posted Sep 4, 2007 4:06 am GMT

Game runs like water on 8800 GTX Ultra XXX at 1920x1200 res with evrything maxed in DX!0, my first experience with DX10 and do i love it,, O YEAH

• Login to rate this comment
• 2 of 6 users agree

Posted Sep 4, 2007 3:19 am GMT

the global lighting option in this game is a puzzler...

• Login to rate this comment
• 3 of 3 users agree

Posted Sep 4, 2007 2:30 am GMT

Well i see that AMERICA sticks to AMERA & they did not mention the 2900 XT in there ... but i will recomend you thse board the game runs with 60 + to on it !

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 1 users agree

Posted Sep 4, 2007 12:24 am GMT

I have 1.6GHz,GeForce FX 5900,1GB RAM Windows XP and i downloaded the demo but i can`t launch it

• Login to rate this comment
• 1 of 2 users agree

Posted Sep 3, 2007 11:40 pm GMT

"the game still looks fantastic at even the lowest-quality settings" what? i played the demo on my rather sub-par computer and it looked REALLY!!! bad nothing fantastic if you dont have a good computer (im a console person)

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 0 users agree

Posted Sep 3, 2007 9:41 pm GMT

@Sonicgod Because lower ressolution = less strugling for pc to calculate data.
If u dont like jaggies u can allways turn Antialiasing on.
My advice is bether play on low res with everything on and AA than on max res with low/moderate settings,because first one looks waaaayyy bether

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 0 users agree

Posted Sep 3, 2007 4:17 pm GMT

My Sistem is 3500+AMD Nvida7600GST Innovision 1,5gb Ram and i run the bioshok demo at 1280*1024 at maximum whit average 35 FPS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

• Login to rate this comment
• 1 of 1 users agree

Posted Sep 3, 2007 3:02 pm GMT

i have an e6600, x1950 pro, 2 gigz ram, windows vista, can i run bioshock smoothly?

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 0 users agree

Posted Sep 3, 2007 2:29 pm GMT

MY Nvida 8800gtx and my old ati x1900xtx system both have the same amount of blood, no glitch with either last video driver out as of this day.

• Login to rate this comment
• 1 of 3 users agree

Posted Sep 3, 2007 2:21 pm GMT

800 x 600 is worse than Xbox 360 ports low 720 p Res that is a wide screen 1024x768. (1280x720p60 ) and PC's had a sqaure 4:3 1024 by 768 as standard years ago in the 90'. having the xbox 350 upscale to 1080p does not count it looks worse than real 1080p;

The xbox 360 is blurry has low res textures and makes me feel like i need glasses because it is only displaying at 720p 1280x720p60 and the controler is bad so playing at low res on a pc is worth it to get a mouse and keyboard.

I have not seen a game run at 800x600 since starcraft in 1998. I have not seen a Pc game run at 1024x768 since 2000 either. and if you are using a LCD flat pannel the monitor will upscale and make those 2 res look even worse.

Why even have a scale meter for 800x600?

• Login to rate this comment
• 1 of 9 users agree

Posted Sep 3, 2007 1:03 pm GMT

question: in your tests with the ati cards did you notice missing blood and blood decals....as this is a problem across many ati cards just search the 2k forums for missing blood decals....just wondering if you noticed the lack of blood?...it seems alot of people have this glitch...they just dont realize it....

• Login to rate this comment
• 0 of 1 users agree

Posted Sep 2, 2007 3:52 pm GMT

IT RUNS WELL ON MY COMPUTER 800*600 HIGH QUALITY
AMD ATHLON 3200+ 939
ATI X1300PRO
1GB RAM
WINDOWS VISTA

• Login to rate this comment
• 2 of 3 users agree