Go Back   Steam Users' Forums > Steam Game Discussions > # - C > BioShock 1 & 2

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-21-2007, 08:27 PM   #1
g859
 
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Reputation: 1046
Posts: 2,970
Bioshock Performance Thread

Will BioShock Run on my System?

Please use this thread if you aren't sure whether your system can handle this game or if you are unclear as to what settings you can run the game at with decent framerates.

Please Include Your:
  • CPU
  • GPU
  • RAM
MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIRMENTS
  • Operating System: Windows XP (with Service Pack 2) or Windows Vista
  • CPU: Intel single-core Pentium 4 processor at 2.4GHz
  • System RAM: 1 GB
  • Video Card: Direct X 9.0c*** compliant video card with 128MB RAM (NVIDIA 6600 or better/ATI X1300* or better, excluding ATI X1550**)
  • Sound Card: 100% direct X 9.0c compatible sound card
  • 8GB of free hard drive space
RECOMMENDED SYSTEM REQUIRMENTS
  • CPU: Dual Core Processor (AMD X2, FX or Intel Core 2 Processor)
  • System RAM: 2GB
  • Video Card: DX 9 - Direct X 9.0c SHADER MODEL 3.0 compliant video card with 512 MB RAM (NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GT or better), DX 10**** - NVIDIA GeForce 8600 or better
  • Sound Card: SoundBlaster(r) X-Fi(tm) series (optimized foruse with Creative Labs EAX ADVANCED HD 4.0 or EAX ADVANCED HD 5.0 compatible sound cards)
*NOTE* Important Note: Game requires Internet connection for activation

You can get Bioshock by either:
  • Downloading it off of Steam
  • Buying it from a local game store
__________NOTES__________
  • *For those of you running ANY ATi Radeon card Below the X1K series, it DOES NOT support Shader Model 3.0*

    **Also note that the ATi Radeon X1550 IS NOT supported.**

    ***Regardless of what video card you have, it must be SHADER MODEL 3.0 compatible.***

    ****Windows Vista is REQUIRED for DX10 Compatibility.****

Last edited by Jigoku: 09-12-2007 at 03:03 AM.
g859 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2007, 08:34 PM   #2
gameguydave
 
Guest
Posts: n/a
AMD 64 3500+
Radeon x700 Pro
2 gigs Kingston RAM

Is a x700 better than a x1300? Compared side by side my 700 seems to kick the 1300's ???. But when I load up Bioshock after the plane crashes everything is black and air bubbles are squares! Any help?

Edit:
Answered my own question. No it wont work. Shaders on the 700 are 2.0, Bio needs 3.0. LAME! how can a POS card thats cheaper than what i have, have better shaders?! Thats Bull.

Last edited by gameguydave: 08-21-2007 at 08:38 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2007, 08:41 PM   #3
g859
 
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Reputation: 1046
Posts: 2,970
Sounds like a driver issue. Try downloading the latest catalyst drivers from ATi.

The latest version is the 7.8 series.
g859 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2007, 08:44 PM   #4
trek554
 
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2005
Reputation: 636
Posts: 8,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by gameguydave View Post
AMD 64 3500+
Radeon x700 Pro
2 gigs Kingston RAM

Is a x700 better than a x1300? Compared side by side my 700 seems to kick the 1300's ???. But when I load up Bioshock after the plane crashes everything is black and air bubbles are squares! Any help?

Edit:
Answered my own question. No it wont work. Shaders on the 700 are 2.0, Bio needs 3.0. LAME! how can a POS card thats cheaper than what i have, have better shaders?! Thats Bull.
ATI chose not to use that feature until they made the X1000 series so blame them. It was funny for years because people would buy the ATI cards instead of equivalent Nvidia cards because no games required SM 3. Now ATI card owners want to complain because a game finally requires it.
trek554 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2007, 08:46 PM   #5
trek554
 
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2005
Reputation: 636
Posts: 8,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by g859 View Post
Sounds like a driver issue. Try downloading the latest catalyst drivers from ATi.

The latest version is the 7.8 series.
way to read. he doesnt have a SM 3.0 and even pointed out himself that he doesnt meet the minimum requirements .
trek554 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2007, 10:05 PM   #6
SaladNinja
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Reputation: 30
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by trek554 View Post
way to read. he doesnt have a SM 3.0 and even pointed out himself that he doesnt meet the minimum requirements .
The irony in this post is hilarious.
SaladNinja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2007, 10:07 PM   #7
trek554
 
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2005
Reputation: 636
Posts: 8,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaladNinja View Post
The irony in this post is hilarious.
explain maybe?
trek554 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2007, 10:29 PM   #8
ViperZ
 
Guest
Posts: n/a
I just think its funny that all the games now days seem to have maximum requirements that people are PAST and they still get crappy performance, that means that the game required higher maximum settings but in order for it to sell they decided to lower them...
Thats been happening alot lately..my comp is equal to a 6.0GHZ and waay passes these maximum requirements and I bet It wont play well..( once they fix this stupid resolution crap so I can play..)
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2007, 10:55 PM   #9
T Rush
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Reputation: 3019
Posts: 20,001
here is a thread in the Hardware section where you can maybe also post
"Can this run Bioshock?"
http://forums.steampowered.com/forum...d.php?t=589085
...but please don't make a bunch of other 'will my computer run BioShock' threads in Hardware...thats what this thread that g859 made(thanks), in this whole forum just for BioShock is for

anyway, the bottom line is this game will run on almost any CPU(and all dual cores) as long as you have at least a DirectX 9c SM3.0 video card(like 6/7/8 series nVidia, and X1/X2 series ATI)




I thought this was a pretty easy way to check:

"Game-o-Meter" system analyzer for the BioShock gaming performance of your PC
http://www.yougamers.com/gameometer/10181/





Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioshock#Engine

Engine
BioShock was originally going to run on an enhanced version of the Vengeance engine, the highly modified version of Unreal Engine 2.5 technology used by previous Irrational titles, Tribes: Vengeance, SWAT 4, and SWAT 4: The Stetchkov Syndicate. In an interview at E3 in May 2006, Levine revealed that "we've moved to Unreal Engine 3.0, we've done a lot of modifications on top of it," particularly to the way the engine handles water effects, which he claims will be very impressive, "We've hired a water programmer and water artist, just for this game, and they're kicking ??? and you've never seen water like this."[16]

BioShock will utilize the DirectX 10 feature set when available, but it will also run on older DirectX 9 hardware.[17]
Quote:
http://www.yougamers.com/news/8061_n...details_shots/
How much will a single-core processor hold you back in playing this game?

A single core processor will reduce your frame rate compared to an equivalently clocked dual core processor. However the game is still perfectly playable on single-core processors using lower detail settings.


How does the DX10 version compare to the 360 graphics? And DX9?

The 360 and DX9 graphics are roughly equivalent. The DX10 graphics add a few additional features and image quality enhancements on top of this.


What does the internet activation entail? Why do you have it?

It's an anti-piracy measure that we unfortunately have to implement to curb illegal game distribution as best we can. It's a one time check and then you're done.

Is there another way to activate the game if you don’t have internet at home?

No, you must have an internet connection to install and activate the game. It is part of the system requirements because of this.



Quote:
Originally Posted by g859 View Post
MINIMUM SYSTEM REQUIRMENTS
  • CPU: Intel single-core Pentium 4 processor at 2.4GHz
RECOMMENDED SYSTEM REQUIRMENTS
  • CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo processor
and you may want to point out somehow that it isn't a requirement that your CPU is made by Intel
...and that this game does run quite fine on AMD64/X2 single and dual cores

with my AMD"X2" at a mild overclock to 2.5Ghz in most places i get well over 100fps (testing for CPU limitations with the resolution turned all the way down)....and the lowest CPU limited frame rates I was able to get were about 42fps in places that there was a lot of water flowing
Quote:
Originally Posted by T Rush View Post
I'm really not seeing too much beyond what the Unreal Engine 3 looked like from almost 2 years ago when it was first demoed
RoboHorde Demo: http://www.gamershell.com/download_11856.shtml December 13, 2005 ....most likely even with my considered 'meek'(by some people's Core2 standards today) AMD dual core at only 2.5GHz(I've had it running fine up to 3.0GHz) I could turn off v-sync and lower all graphic settings and resolution and average well over 100fps in BioShock....so this game does not need a massively overclocked/high performance CPU to run well

< so I tried that >

I was just messing around in the demo with resolutions at their lowest to hunt down any CPU intensive spots in the game
...seems like a few places with a bunch of water flowing and splashing are the worst...with my AMD"X2" @ 2.5GHz the lowest I was able to get the frame rate was about 42fps in that crashed water tunnel...
looking at the water: http://i13.tinypic.com/6akjiwo.jpg
turning away: http://i12.tinypic.com/4zc70og.jpg
.... most all other places the frame rate(with the graphics not being a limitation) were over 100fps, even with being attacked: http://i18.tinypic.com/6commnl.jpg
...I noticed the long waterfall also slowed down the frame rate a bunch(like riding up in the elevator) and in that final room of the demo where the last fights take place, the water flowing there seemed to be what was limiting the frame rates, no matter how many mobs were jumping around or what action was taking place, seemed that the water was by far the only thing that made a difference to the frame rates...its kinda sad that the water is such a predominate feature in this game, however most of the time really doesn't look all that great, and has such a bad impact on performance(not that its all that bad as most CPUs should still give a good 30fps in watery spots without too much trouble)

...after that its all going to depend on the video card you have and most importantly with what resolutions and settings you use for the graphic performance being ultimately limiting once the CPU can provide it with good frame per second quantities to draw

I'll have to run this on my Kid's computers..
3200+ at 2.4GHz/1GB DDR-400/6800GT at Ultra
630 P4 at ~4.0GHz/1GB DDR2-533/X800XL
...as their specs are just basically what I consider a min. for HL2/Source/HDR Lighting
I'm guessing the Unreal Engine 3 used for this will still be able to run pretty good on their CPUs, but the graphics will have to be softened down to slightly below XBox360 looking/performing....and the heavily flowing watery spots will get slight lag unless a dual core is used


(oh, and i guess you can make some pretty lame splashes and ripples in the smoother waters with jumping/moving, but they are so bad they should have just left that out, as the rolling waves in the water pools and outside ocean do look pretty good without that, except for they don't actually seem to reflect anything but lighting, unlike 'reflect world' in HL2...i guess the gun shots in the water are 'fair'...and the gun shots on solid stuff are better, even tho the damage modeling is nothing new at all)

kinda still just shocked at the poor performance(and esp. for not as great as expected look) of the water but still its not a super bad CPU or video card killer
...I'm almost thinking they would have been better off with just leaving the Unreal Engine 3 alone
and not of even bothered with whatever they did to the water, or the minimal Dx 10 additions
what I did like was to see how well the Unreal Engine 3 runs on even a fairly mild PC, I'm guessing many of the games should and will run this good on average 'user' systems...for this it actually seems the requirements aren't much worse than for the currant HL2/Source engine, with only adding support for dual core...like:

CPU

3800+(single core) to 4600+(dual core) in the 2.4GHz range
higher speed Pentium dual cores
and any 2.0GHz+ Core 2

(but apparently high speed Pentium 4 with HT, and mild AMD64 single core systems don't do too badly at all)



RAM

most likely 2Gb is best
but 1GB might run fine if you don't need fullest settings at top frame rates




video card

7800GT, 7900GS, and 1950pro cards to run mild resolutions up to 19" monitors
(normal aspect CRTs, 5:4 and widescreen 17"/19" LCDs)

7900GT, 7950GT, 7900GTX, and 1900XT/1950XT/XTX cards for 20"~22" widescreen LCDs

8600GT/GTS for Dx10 mode at lower resolutions and 8800/HD2900 cards for Dx10 at higher resolutions

Last edited by T Rush: 08-24-2007 at 08:14 PM.
T Rush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 12:13 AM   #10
Strimkind
 
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by gameguydave View Post
AMD 64 3500+
Radeon x700 Pro
2 gigs Kingston RAM

Is a x700 better than a x1300? Compared side by side my 700 seems to kick the 1300's ???. But when I load up Bioshock after the plane crashes everything is black and air bubbles are squares! Any help?

Edit:
Answered my own question. No it wont work. Shaders on the 700 are 2.0, Bio needs 3.0. LAME! how can a POS card thats cheaper than what i have, have better shaders?! Thats Bull.
Well at least I know. Too bad AMD/ATI has not caught up on this little detail. There is a hotfix out there for ATI cards to fix some graphical error with ATI cards. It includes the X700 (which I also own). All that work and it still does not work...the least steam could have done is tell me it won't work on my PC instead of wasting my time trying to get it to work.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 12:38 AM   #11
Iowa777
 
Guest
Posts: n/a
I know I am in the mid-range when it comes to system requirements, but can someone more knowledgeable please estimate the frame-rate I'll get at max or medium settings?

Intel Pentium D (dual-core) 2.8GHZ
NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT 256mb (ddr2)
2GB DDR2 667mhz RAM
200GB HDD w/8mb buffer
Windows XP Professional (Service Pack 2)

I'm just hoping I'll be able to get a decent framerate on at least medium graphical settings.

Last edited by Iowa777: 08-22-2007 at 12:41 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 12:51 AM   #12
trek554
 
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2005
Reputation: 636
Posts: 8,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa777 View Post
I know I am in the mid-range when it comes to system requirements, but can someone more knowledgeable please estimate the frame-rate I'll get at max or medium settings?

Intel Pentium D (dual-core) 2.8GHZ
NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT 256mb (ddr2)
2GB DDR2 667mhz RAM
200GB HDD w/8mb buffer
Windows XP Professional (Service Pack 2)

I'm just hoping I'll be able to get a decent framerate on at least medium graphical settings.
8600gt ddr2? That seems like a strange video card. I have a little faster cpu and a "normal" 8600gt. In DX10 or DX9 with the card overclocked to 650/1700 I get 30-35fps with all high settings at 1024x768. The lowest dip was to 18fps and that was only once. The game wasnt any smoother with lower details even though the fps went up 3-5. If you are playing at 1280x1024 or above it will be sluggish on high or medium settings.

Last edited by trek554: 08-22-2007 at 12:54 AM.
trek554 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 05:18 AM   #13
spadez
 
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is my spec:

2.1GHZ CPU
1GB RAM
6600 GO GPU

Downloaded the demo to see if i could get it to run, i get through the plane crash and go under water in the evelvator etc, but when i get to the first level loading up, it crashes every time .

Im getting a new rig soon, so i hope that will help.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 06:43 AM   #14
Ko-Tao
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Reputation: 19
Posts: 1,158
Specs:

Athlon 3k+
1GB Ram
6600LE 256MB

Absolute minimum requirements. The demo does run, though:

All settings high: 5-10 fps in most areas, slideshow if theres heavy action or water. Not playable.

All settings low: 20-30 fps in most areas, 10-15 fps with heavy action / water / effects. Playable, but barely- not smooth at all, and intense scenes become a blur.

Bottom line: The listed minimum specs will run the game, but actually enjoying it is questionable.
Ko-Tao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2007, 07:13 PM   #15
T Rush
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Reputation: 3019
Posts: 20,001
post your systems, and how well they perform here
http://forums.steampowered.com/forum...d.php?t=589219


select thread rating for this thread maybe?

drop down up at the top with " ThreadTools SearchthisThread RateThread DisplayModes"

lets get some more star rated threads going on this forum section
(in lew of any stickys for now)


oh come on Mods...this forum needs stickies badly
(the ones up there are very weak at best)
T Rush is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Steam Users' Forums > Steam Game Discussions > # - C > BioShock 1 & 2


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site Content Copyright Valve Corporation 1998-2012, All Rights Reserved.