Other than Bioshock not being a DX10 from the ground up, yes your specs will blitz the game with ease. In other words the effects that DX10 is meant to give (realistic lighting etc) won't seem to stand out in Bioshock...this is mainly due to Bioshock being a DX9 game with last minute coding enabling some DX10 effects.

My Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 has no problems with Bioshock and neither does the 2GB RAM. Not to mention I run it on nearly maxed with an ATI X1600XT

Well, I picked up Bioshock earlier today. I can't say much about the game because I only played it for 15 minutes, got the electricity in my hands. I can run it at the highest resolution that my monitor supports (1680x1050) at medium detail settings without a hitch. I don't know of a way to monitor my actual framerate in Bioshock, but I would guess it to be in the 70s with medium settings. The game is playable at the highest settings, but I would estimate the framerate to be 40 or so, which is a little too low for my tastes.

Would replacing my 8800gts (320mb version) with a 768mb 8800 GTX make a huge difference? I've been wanting to do this for a while, but I'm afraid my e6600 processor might bottleneck it, and I'd end up with a $500 card that doesn't outperform my $250 GTS.

40fps isnt fast enough for you? seeing as a prefectly normal smooth framerate is 25fps i dont see why you dont ram the up to high, i know i would.

but if you want a way to monitor your framerate try fraps. great program that can also take screenshots and record videoclips *thumbs up*

25FPS is extremely low and almost unplayable, 60FPS is where it starts to get smooth. I prefer to play all games with a minimum of 70 though, especially shooting games.

Ok, I tried fraps, and at the highest settings my framerate varies anywhere from 40 to 80, depending on the area, and stays over 100 at medium settings. High settings are very jerky and hard to play with.

This message was edited by Mule on Nov 02 2007.

well 25fps is the industry standard for all media, movies, tv, games, animation, the lot.

This link explains it better than I can. http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

Basically it explains that television media (movies, tv shows, etc) is motion blurred to make it viewable at 25fps, whereas computer games aren't.

This message was edited by Mule on Nov 03 2007.

ah right. i just know that when i was on an animation course at uni i was just told that 25fps was the universal framerate. i guess uni tutors are just a bit stupid.

Tbh no, you wouldn't see much difference, if any by bumping up your current card. Mainly reviews I have read have stated that the extra power you gain from the GTX isn't worth it for the price tag it carries and that a 8800GTS or even a 8600GTS is sufficent enough for the games of today.

However Bioshock isn't all that friendly to DX10 cards, sure it supports them but it isn't Crysis which has been made as a DX10 game from the ground up. Bioshock is basically a DX9 game with DX10 coding ontop.

Also you may have to sacrifice your high resolution, maybe bump it down to 1440x900. My ATI X1600XT on 1440 x 900 gets around 60-75FPS but drops to 25-40FPS if too many enemies or explosions are going off at the same time, however that was when I had global lighting on. Now I turn that off and bump everything to max so I can handle 3 big daddies and 7-8 splicers with a lot of proxi mines going off in the background.

Also the Intel E6600 has enough power to hold the 8 series. In fact as long as it is Core 2 Duo or AMD X2 you shouldn't have any problems. Again I have a E6400, can handle my card and one of my tech friends says it should handle the 8 series perfectly. Though my new PC will have a E6750 by the time I can afford it all

That makes sense, but I've seen people with the exact same rig as me playing Oblivion with the highest settings, even with FRAPS running, the only difference is they have the 768mb 8800 GTX and I have the 320mb 8800 GTS. I have it completely disable grass and HDR and AA/AF to be able to play Oblivion at 1024x768.

What about 2 8800 GTS in SLI? Would that be better?

quote djjimmy2k2

ah right. i just know that when i was on an animation course at uni i was just told that 25fps was the universal framerate. i guess uni tutors are just a bit stupid.

What he told you is true, it just doesn't apply to video games. Movies, tv shows, and basically anything else (besides video games) on a television runs perfectly smooth at 25fps.

quote Mule

What he told you is true, it just doesn't apply to video games. Movies, tv shows, and basically anything else (besides video games) on a television runs perfectly smooth at 25fps.

yes but he did say it was for everything. bear in mind that the course was famous for helping people to go into videogame careers aswell as other things.

If that's the case, then he is entirely wrong and should have his teaching license revoked.

I have the 8800GTX 768 and I am running an E6700 - not much higher than your E6600. I am able to play Bioshock, Oblivion and Crysis on their highest settings. Of all those, the only game that gives it a hard time is Oblivion.

My advice is not to get too hung up on FPS. I see that many people worry to death about how many FPS they are getting. If you are able to play the game, then the FPS are fine. So you might get a flicker here or there, or even a bit of stutter. Unless you are trying to film it for a movie or something, does it really matter?

I have never personally been too concerned about how many FPS I am getting primarily because all I care about is smooth gameplay. I define smooth gameplay as no stuttering or screen lag during heavy combat. If I can get that with 25 FPS, then so be it. I'm not losing sleep over it.

I only get 20-25 FPS on Crysis with Very High settings and it is buttery smooth for me. Therefore, I don't care if I don't hit 50 or 60 FPS, because it plays just fine.

Just my two cents.

Aero

I get FPS in the 30s on highest settings in Oblivion, and it seems very jerky and is almost impossible to play. 30fps, to me, seems almost like a slideshow. I guess FPS isn't the only factor in smooth gameplay.

Maybe 25fps with an e6700 and an 8800 GTX is different than my fps.

This message was edited by Mule on Nov 05 2007.

quote Mule

I get FPS in the 30s on highest settings in Oblivion, and it seems very jerky and is almost impossible to play. 30fps, to me, seems almost like a slideshow. I guess FPS isn't the only factor in smooth gameplay.

Maybe 25fps with an e6700 and an 8800 GTX is different than my fps.

This message was edited by Mule on Nov 05 2007.

Different games run differently at the same FPS. For instance, Crysis utilizes motion blur so 25 FPS is very smooth. On another game, it might be like a slide show. My point was that FPS alone does not determine if a game is playable or not. I have known people that believe if they do not hit a certain FPS in a game then it isn't playable, even though the screen is smooth and has no stuttering. I kind of got that impression from you from what you were saying.

If you truly aren't getting smooth gameplay until you hit 70 FPS, then perhaps there are other issues with your computer. Maybe you need to turn off background processes or tweak your virtual memory. Things of that nature can choke your computer's performance and make it stutter even with high FPS.

If I upset you, that wasn't my intention and I apologize. Just wanted to make my point that the key is whether the game is smooth and doesn't hinge upon a benchmark number, that's all.

Aero

My screen isn't smooth and has stuttering, and the FPS is reported to be anywhere from 30 to 100+ depending on the area and what I'm looking at. In oblivion, even at the lowest resolutions and HDR disabled, even the slightest amount of grass, even as low as 1/10th of the slider, kills my performance and makes the game VERY jerky. If I disable the grass completely, I can play Oblivion with all other settings maxed, 1680x1050 resolution, and AA+AF. I'm no expert but this makes me think my hardware just doesn't cut it.

The real question I need answered here is if I need to upgrade that card or not.. It seems to me that going from a 320MB card to a 768MB card would have to give me some performance increase. Also, there's always the chance that my 8800 GTS is damaged, but I don't know how to test that. I've never really tried tweaking my machine either because I was udner the impression it couldn't really increase your performance noticeably. Is this not true?

Also, you didn't upset me at all and I can't imagine why you think you did.

This message was edited by Mule on Nov 05 2007.