Bioshock videocard performance

Around this time last year we got our first little taste of what could be expected from Bioshock, when 2K released an impressive 14 minute gameplay trailer. Bioshock is considered by its developers to be the "spiritual successor" of the well acclaimed System Shock 2. There is much more to this game than meets the eye, which can be discovered when playing the 1.8GB demo which was released just weeks ago.

The full version of Bioshock has also been released for both the PC and the Xbox 360, allowing us to purchase a copy and do a full analysis of how the current crop of videocards do in this next-gen FPS. The game uses a modified version of the Unreal Engine 3, also used by Epic's Gears of War and upcoming Unreal Tournament 3 game. Given that Bioshock is a single-player only game, we were a little amazed by the hype that surrounded it, yet the fact it offers breathtaking visuals and while the gameplay itself is quite good, the jaw-dropping visuals keep you entertained right till the very end.

View: Bioshock videocard performance @ TechSpot

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Apple overhauls entire iPod line

Next Story

EasyBCD 1.7

28 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

the newer nvidia drivers released since this review have made this review moot in my opinion. i play at 1280x800 with everything maxed on an 8600 GTS which is perfect. this review says that it should be 'unplayable'

You just said it yourself, the newer nVidia drivers make this review moot. If the newer drivers are tweaked for bioshock and give you more performence, than that's good. That's what driver updates should do.

An updated review with new nVidia and ATi drivers should be done by someone if it hasen't yet.

I can play Bioshock at 1400x900 (native) resolution with everything set to high on my MacBook Pro and the game runs usually around 30 fps, going down to 24 when there's a lot of stuff going on. My MBP has an underclocked 8600GTM w/256mb...

Note that when you place the slider for graphics detail to low, the texture quality is still set to Medium; therefore the graphics in the "real" low mode will be different than the low in this review.

SIG said,
Note that when you place the slider for graphics detail to low, the texture quality is still set to Medium; therefore the graphics in the "real" low mode will be different than the low in this review.

I didn't see them mention which 'mode' they tested the game in. If it's in PC Control mode, you can customize all the settings for sound and video. If it's in Xbox 360 Control mode, you can only change the detail between High, Medium, and Low or change the resolution.

I was running the demo at high on everything on my 1520 with a core 2 duo,1 gig ram,and the 8600gt at 1280 x 800 resolution and it would only come to a crawl on certain scenes. This is on vista with direct x10 om

This comparison was garbage. Why no mention of Vista performance and DX10 performance. Gamespot has a much better comparison.

Um.. yes it does?! It runs on DX9 but is actually does add on extra effects and what not under DX10! Just one quick search on Google would have told you that!

Chicane-UK said,
Um.. yes it does?! It runs on DX9 but is actually does add on extra effects and what not under DX10! Just one quick search on Google would have told you that!

...or looking in the options menu where it says "DirectX 10" and has an on/off toggle works too.

...or looking in the options menu where it says "DirectX 10" and has an on/off toggle works too.

Heh.. well I don't own the game (yet) so I didn't know that

I was very skeptical how this game would run on my laptop. To my surprise, it runs beautifully with the lowest wide screen res the game supports (1088 x 600 or something) with everything set to high. I am running on a 2.2Ghz Macbook Pro that has a GeForce 8600M GT 128MB (Windows sees it as a 512MB card). Besides the 250GB WD HDD, everything is stock on my MBP.

Quote - Julio Franco
Given that Bioshock is a single-player only game, we were a little amazed by the hype that surrounded it.

For me, multi-player games really bore me. A good single-player game, with a good story to match, is far more exciting...

Cheers to that! I wish they'd focus more on single player... which is ironic, because some games that are multiplayer only kind of get shafted in reviews (i.e Shadowrun...)

Don't get me wrong though... playing halo2 at my house with 15 other friends is probably the most fun I've EVER had in front of a game console but I think halo wouldn't be nearly as cool without it's story & campaign.

I tried the demo and my Sapphire ATI x1650 Pro (AGP 8) with 256 Megs of DDR3 RAM under a P4 3.4GHz CPU and 1 Meg of RAM did pretty well on it. I had everything set high as well.

Foub said,
I tried the demo and my Sapphire ATI x1650 Pro (AGP 8) with 256 Megs of DDR3 RAM under a P4 3.4GHz CPU and 1 Meg of RAM did pretty well on it. I had everything set high as well.

You just set a world record with 1 Meg of RAM, Congratulations.

aniv said,
You just set a world record with 1 Meg of RAM, Congratulations.

Maybe because I'm using a nLited copy of XP with all of the crap taken out?

Foub said,

Maybe because I'm using a nLited copy of XP with all of the crap taken out? :)

Wouldn't help... Even the boot files take up more than a meg of memory...

only problem = in 15hours you get to the end of the game

beside graphics isnt everything , and unfortunately devs are forgetting it

I believe I got way more than 15 hours out of it on my first runthrough (on xbox)...

This is one of the best games I've ever played... I'm playing it again on Hard... it has a great storyline, awesome gameplay, and superb artwork and sound effects... I wish all games had this much polish and creativity. Also, it hasn't even once crashed or glitched out on me! Seems like a lot of games these days have at least one or two nasty bugs that need to be patched.

Personally I don't understand why many people focus so much on multiplayer... I prefer a good story and campaign and I wish developers would also offer more campaign levels instead of just more multiplayer maps.

To me, multiplayer (in shooters specifically) is the same gameplay types over and over again with slightly different weapons/models/maps. However, a good story/campaign truly makes games like BioShock stand out and man is it fun!

Akaruz said,
only problem = in 15hours you get to the end of the game

beside graphics isnt everything , and unfortunately devs are forgetting it

15 hours for a first person shooter is pretty good, at least from the ones I've played over the years.

acrophile said,
Personally I don't understand why many people focus so much on multiplayer... I prefer a good story and campaign and I wish developers would also offer more campaign levels instead of just more multiplayer maps.

To me, multiplayer (in shooters specifically) is the same gameplay types over and over again with slightly different weapons/models/maps. However, a good story/campaign truly makes games like BioShock stand out and man is it fun!

Me too. I like the way that Bioshock's achievements work on the X360 too - things you do during the game, rather than "get 10K kills online" or whatever... single player campaigns are so much better than same old same old anonymous multiplayer. Multiplayer stuff only gets good when it's a big group of pals fragging each other for a laugh.