The new drivers do not help enough.

[Tahnit]

Framerate still dips down in the 20's on my rig.

core 2 duo e6600
8800 gts 640
2 gig ddr2.
vista

i am well above the recommended and yet it still runs badly at 1680x1050. If the full game is going to be like this im going to cancel my preorder until its fixed. There is no reason it shoudl be running like this.

[BCC]

Whoa.....

I see your problem!!!

Vista...

I get 70-75 frames on average and 45 minimum...

Q6600 Core 2 Quad 2.4 GHZ
2 GB RAM 667 MHZ
8800 GTS 640 MB
XP SP2.
Maxxed settings at 1280X1024.

[Gotcha]

Whoa.....

I see your problem!!!

Vista...

I get 70-75 frames on average and 45 minimum...

Q6600 Core 2 Quad 2.4 GHZ
2 GB RAM 667 MHZ
8800 GTS 640 MB
XP SP2.
Maxxed settings at 1280X1024.

I have everything he has but my GTS is 320 and I'm running vista. I was at about 60-65 on average.

[Gotcha]

oh btw i was running at 1440x900

[BCC]

Ok...

Vista contributes a little bit then...

Your GTS...since it's only 320 MB AND you are pushing it to the 1440X900...it will slow down as you get higher...I recommend you to get the 640 MB to eliminate this problem... because at this rate...I'd probably get 50-60 frames at 1680x1050.

[Core0]

Nearly the same setup, with a 8800GTX under Vista, and it works pretty...not well. It crashes at load unless it's minimized-running it in windowed makes it load, but FPS stays at below 20 all the time.
The weirdest thing in all of it is that on the process manager thingy, the amount of memory Bioshock eats up is listed as only 150-300 MBs! I have 2GBs of system ram. Maybe some bug that doesn't let Bioshock to grab more memory is what causes it?

[Eggskin]

The new drivers are out?



Sorry, I left the board for a bit.

[Unstoppable]

I had no problems with the demo. I got q6600, 3gb ram, and 8800 gts 640mb

[SliderFury]

Yeah, that's probably what I'll run it at, you'd be surprised how much one drop in resolution can help the framerate. Then you can turn up a few other settings and it will look almost as good as it did at 1680 x 1050, but will run much better. I had the problem with Company of heroes. No matter how low I put the settings, I couldn't get it about 25FPS at max res. Dropped it to 1440 X 900, and most setting are either on medium or high (AA is at x2) and it runs great, 27-34 FPS.

[Tahnit]

Im going to try one last thing. Im going to install xp over vista and dual boot between them. If xp solves the problem then great. If not this game needs a patch. My system is a beast and it should not have any problems with this game or any other!

[BCC]

Nearly the same setup, with a 8800GTX under Vista, and it works pretty...not well. It crashes at load unless it's minimized-running it in windowed makes it load, but FPS stays at below 20 all the time.
The weirdest thing in all of it is that on the process manager thingy, the amount of memory Bioshock eats up is listed as only 150-300 MBs! I have 2GBs of system ram. Maybe some bug that doesn't let Bioshock to grab more memory is what causes it?

Stupidity and carelessness of the microsoft devs :P

Stick with XP mate...You'll get GREAT frames... I got 75 MAX and 45 min...but mostly stays in the 70-75 range.

[scarcus]

Aside from the obvious factor of DX10 Vista...I would recommend that you turn off Vertical Sync. That makes a huge difference. Also, play with the shadows option.

[eliteeggnog]

I don't know what the problem on all your systems is. I've played through the demo twice at max settings and 1280*1024 res, with
C2D e6600 (OC'd at 2.75GHz)
3 GB ddr2-800 RAM
eVGA 8800 GTS 640MB (clocked @ 667/900)
Vista Ultimate

Runs smooth as butter (read: 70-100+ FPS all the way). Not sure if it's a bunch of other crap running on your system, Norton or McCrappy antivirus, or some other memory hog, but there's definitely something.

[Tahnit]

Yeah, that's probably what I'll run it at, you'd be surprised how much one drop in resolution can help the framerate. Then you can turn up a few other settings and it will look almost as good as it did at 1680 x 1050, but will run much better. I had the problem with Company of heroes. No matter how low I put the settings, I couldn't get it about 25FPS at max res. Dropped it to 1440 X 900, and most setting are either on medium or high (AA is at x2) and it runs great, 27-34 FPS.

im running a flat panel. Which means i have to run at the native or im screwed.

[Nishido]

The new drivers aren't even out yet. AFAIK they will be released at 7pm EST.

[scarcus]

The new drivers aren't even out yet. AFAIK they will be released at 7pm EST.

Well, supposedly the beta drivers that are available are the same...but who knows. People have posted good results with them.

[Tahnit]

they are out.

[Nishido]

Oh really? Well, it's not long till the actual release now anyway, so I might as well wait.

[Vegitto-kun]

Ah wtf im getting constant errors when installing the ATI version

giving me blabla cant be copied like 5 times and asking me to overwrite a file that is apparently newer

[BounceDK]

LMAO, get rid of that horrid Vista! I don't get why people are still using that piece of crap.

[Takenover83]

Cause they want to? Its the futute, Games will require it (Halo 2, Shadowrun, etc). DirectX10, etc...

There are reasons to use Vista.

[empreality]

LMAO, get rid of that horrid Vista! I don't get why people are still using that piece of crap.

Well there is truely only one reasonable reason, DX10. Because thanks to Microsoft, getting Vista is the only way to take advantage of the DX10 compatabilities of the 8-series nvidia cards...

:(

[jonob2z]

Vista is rubbish fro games at the moment, FACT.

In xp with a gtx at 1680x1050 with everything maxed its normally in the 45-60fps range, goes to 30's occasionally in that big firefight at the end but more than playable. without fraps you cant notice any framerate drop.

I havent tried the new drivers yet either.

[Vegitto-kun]

Well there is truely only one reasonable reason, DX10. Because thanks to Microsoft, getting Vista is the only way to take advantage of the DX10 compatabilities of the 8-series nvidia cards...

:(

Do you honestly NEED DX10 at this moment?

I mean barely no games really use it, other than to pretty up water abit

crysis is the first full DX 10 game

[BounceDK]

Cause they want to? Its the futute, Games will require it (Halo 2, Shadowrun, etc). DirectX10, etc...

There are reasons to use Vista.

Halo 2 doesn't require DX10, it just requires Vista. It actually only uses DX8.
Shadowun is... Well, crap. And DX10 has already been replaced by DX10.1
In 2009 Vienna is coming out, the Vista replacement. Yeah..

[vwx]

Halo 2 doesn't require DX10, it just requires Vista. It actually only uses DX8.
Shadowun is... Well, crap. And DX10 has already been replaced by DX10.1
In 2009 Vienna is coming out, the Vista replacement. Yeah..
DX 10 has hardly been "replaced" by DX10.1. Crysis will be DX10, and so will most games in two years from now. They might have some extra features for DX10.1, but those will probably be minor improvements anyway.

[BounceDK]

DX 10 has hardly been "replaced" by DX10.1. Crysis will be DX10, and so will most games in two years from now. They might have some extra features for DX10.1, but those will probably be minor improvements anyway.

Replaced none the less. So DX10 is already obsolete.

[vwx]

No it is not, neither is DX9.

[Amish]

You know I remember when XP first released some 5 years ago and I also remember how everyone and their mother HATED it because of all the bugs and how poorly games played on it. So many people swore off XP and continued to boast about how good Windows 98 SE and Windows 2000 Pro was the way to go.

Shortly after SP1 it seemed that XP was well on its way to becoming the best OS to date. All the haters had all ready switched over and before I knew it people were crying that XP is so good and so stable while VISTA is a pile of bugs and not worth using...

I sit here typing this and laughing.....

Give Vista a chance to mature a bit and every single person on this board will be jumping the XP ship for Vista.

IMO Vista is not quite ready yet and I'm holding on to XP for a bit longer but it's only a matter of time.

[KamikaZe]

Aside from the obvious factor of DX10 Vista...I would recommend that you turn off Vertical Sync. That makes a huge difference. Also, play with the shadows option.

yeah sure mate turning v-sync of makes me sick of all the tearing in bioshock. I have the same problem./ Especially at the end of the demo just before you get locked in the cinema you get an action scene where the light turns red and several splicers are comming at ya in a bunch of 2. In that part I get a mere 20fps with the latest beta drivers at 152*864 wit a geforce 8800 gts 320 mb :/ Yeah nice going 2k with bullcrap talk of optimising the game. :rolleyes:

[empreality]

You know I remember when XP first released some 5 years ago and I also remember how everyone and their mother HATED it because of all the bugs and how poorly games played on it. So many people swore off XP and continued to boast about how good Windows 98 SE and Windows 2000 Pro was the way to go.

Shortly after SP1 it seemed that XP was well on its way to becoming the best OS to date. All the haters had all ready switched over and before I knew it people were crying that XP is so good and so stable while VISTA is a pile of bugs and not worth using...

I sit here typing this and laughing.....

Give Vista a chance to mature a bit and every single person on this board will be jumping the XP ship for Vista.

IMO Vista is not quite ready yet and I'm holding on to XP for a bit longer but it's only a matter of time.

Mmm MS-DOS ftw! No bugs, no viruses! White text, Blue everything else!

No freakin myspace, pop ups, trojans...

MS-DOS was the best.

I actually still remmeber using it isntead of Windows 95, it just was fine and working well at that time, especially with games like Duke 3D

[IDoNotContainSpinach]

im running a flat panel. Which means i have to run at the native or im screwed.


How are you "screwed"? I have a Dell 24"... whatever the model number is. Native is 1900x1200, I run the desktop at 1680x1050, and I ran the demo at 1024x768, it's beautiful. I'll have to try higher later but right now I see no performance issues.

I mentioned in another post:

P4 3.2Ghz (single core of course)
1GB RAM
Audigy 2
7900GS

I consider this a very low end system (4 years old, only upgrade was the video card) and thought I'd have to upgrade finally, but not so. I'm very happy with the performance and with all the options except advanced post processing on, I have no frame rate issues. Plus I'm still running the July 162.18 drivers.

People don't know how to properly run a computer. For these people, there is the 360.

[BioCrack]

i got evreything on max at 1360 x 768 (widescreen)


specs

2 gig of ram

c2quad q6600

8800 gts 320mb


and have frameates hten a monkeys butt

[Veridiac]

You know I remember when XP first released some 5 years ago and I also remember how everyone and their mother HATED it because of all the bugs and how poorly games played on it. So many people swore off XP and continued to boast about how good Windows 98 SE and Windows 2000 Pro was the way to go.

Shortly after SP1 it seemed that XP was well on its way to becoming the best OS to date. All the haters had all ready switched over and before I knew it people were crying that XP is so good and so stable while VISTA is a pile of bugs and not worth using...

I sit here typing this and laughing.....

Give Vista a chance to mature a bit and every single person on this board will be jumping the XP ship for Vista.

IMO Vista is not quite ready yet and I'm holding on to XP for a bit longer but it's only a matter of time.

Mmmm I wouldn't compare XP-->Vista to 98->XP. When ms switched from 98 to XP it was a HUGE change at the kernel level, major improvements in stability, support for multi-core processors, etc. XP even at release was a fundamentally superior OS design. Vista however still uses the same core as XP, with a new video driver model, UI, and a few other features that are basically fluff.

Vista will still replace XP, but mostly because its what ms is pushing. The UI is pretty nice, and as hardware speed increases and the OS matures the performance difference will be less and less noticeable, so its not a bad thing. However most people could keep right on using XP for a very long time if MS didn't try to force Vista on everyone.

BTW the whole DX10 thing could've been done on xp - most of it anyway - it just would've taken a bit more work. For example, you can use Geometry Shaders in XP via OpenGL, which is one of the big DX10 features.

Personally I'm dual booting but running XP largely because audio support, especially for games, in vista is freaking horrible. No multi-channel audio in most games without a creative card and their workaround, and even for 2d audio my drivers are forcing me to switch between 2 channel and 6 channel input manually just to get music to play to all speakers & still have multi-channel audio in the 1 or 2 games that support it.... The REALLY botched audio in vista, and these problems have been around since launch with no clear idea of when or how they will be fixed....

[BioCrack]

and have framerates better then a mokeys butt *

[scottydtnip]

Core 2 duo 4300 @ 1.8 GhZ
2 GB Ram
Vista
Nvidia 8600 GTS

My max res. is 1280x1024 (cuz i cant afford a better monitor) but all settings in the demo were maxed out, dx10 textures on, the game looked/played like a dream.. 50-60 fps constantly

[Dark_Figment]

What are you guys using to measure frames per second? is there a command or you using a 3rd party program?

As for the issues with Vista (I'm running Home Premium 64 bit) all I can say is I must be REALLY lucky cause I'm not having any problems major problems at all with games so far (only had to disable desktop composition for one game - as simple as checking a tick box).

Dealing specifically with Bioshock I'm running at 1600 x 1200 with EVERYTHING maxed with my 8800 GTX's and not the slightest bit of slow down.

Tell me what your using to measure your framerate and I'll get you some numbers.

[KamikaZe]

Core 2 duo 4300 @ 1.8 GhZ
2 GB Ram
Vista
Nvidia 8600 GTS

My max res. is 1280x1024 (cuz i cant afford a better monitor) but all settings in the demo were maxed out, dx10 textures on, the game looked/played like a dream.. 50-60 fps constantly

lol quit the bullcrap. That ain't true especially not with a card like that. At the big fight you should have ran like 20 fps if not lower :rolleyes:

[KamikaZe]

Tell me what your using to measure your framerate and I'll get you some numbers.
use fraps like everyone does

[jonob2z]

Core 2 duo 4300 @ 1.8 GhZ
2 GB Ram
Vista
Nvidia 8600 GTS

My max res. is 1280x1024 (cuz i cant afford a better monitor) but all settings in the demo were maxed out, dx10 textures on, the game looked/played like a dream.. 50-60 fps constantly

lol, whatever you say...:rolleyes:

[Dutch]

mmm nice drivers 15 to 20 higher fps



niceeeee....

[Yerman]

All these people that are saying it is running smoothly, how does it run for you in the room just before the end of the demo? I am having major frame rate issues in that room (around 20fps) and yet it runs very well everywhere else (50-60fps).

Core 2 Duo E6600
2GB Ram
8800 GTS 640mb
Vista 32bit
DX10

I'm running the latest Nvidia beta drivers released today.

Some screenshots of the room that show the framerate in the top left corner:

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y266/yerman/bioshock.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y266/yerman/bioshock2.jpg

Screenshots from other parts of the level that run perfectly:

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y266/yerman/bioshock3.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y266/yerman/bioshock4.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y266/yerman/bioshock5.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y266/yerman/bioshock6.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y266/yerman/bioshock7.jpg

What is up with that room at the end, is this just a problem with the demo? I hope there aren't many parts in the proper game that run like that..

[Yerman]

Oh and I'm running at 1280x1024 resolution ingame.

[mikemil828]

All these people that are saying it is running smoothly, how does it run for you in the room just before the end of the demo? I am having major frame rate issues in that room (around 20fps) and yet it runs very well everywhere else (50-60fps).

Core 2 Duo E6600
2GB Ram
8800 GTS 640mb
Vista 32bit
DX10

I'm running the latest Nvidia beta drivers released today.

Some screenshots of the room that show the framerate in the top left corner:

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y266/yerman/bioshock.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y266/yerman/bioshock2.jpg

Screenshots from other parts of the level that run perfectly:

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y266/yerman/bioshock3.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y266/yerman/bioshock4.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y266/yerman/bioshock5.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y266/yerman/bioshock6.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y266/yerman/bioshock7.jpg

What is up with that room at the end, is this just a problem with the demo? I hope there aren't many parts in the proper game that run like that..

That room is my biggest fustration, it brings even my 8800gtx to it's knees

[tkemory]

The New ATI Drivers are not out yet, maybe there is a driver release for nVidia tonight?

I just checked and the latest ATI drivers are from August 13th for the 1950PRO.

[Yossarian]

runs at 40+ fps in dx10 on my 8800 GTX

core 2 duo E6400 overclocked to 3.0 GHZ
2 gigs of DDR2-800 4-4-4-12-2T
EVGA GeForce 8800 GTX

[Yossarian]

runs at 30+ fps in dx10 on my 8800 GTX

core 2 duo E6400 overclocked to 3.0 GHZ
2 gigs of DDR2-800 4-4-4-12-2T
EVGA GeForce 8800 GTX

forgot to mention, i was at 1600x1200 with everything maxed, but for some reason i couldn't get AA to work, even when i forced it through the control panel

And i don't even have the new drivers

[Metalewok]

I'm getting 60-70 on average with 1600x1200 max on vista with a 8800gtx so i don't think it has anything to do with vista make sure u have all your drivers up to date not just graphics

[jonob2z]

That room is my biggest fustration, it brings even my 8800gtx to it's knees

yeh me too ( well not to its knees, just to like 35fps) but the rest of the demo runs at like 50-80 :confused:

[Vegitto-kun]

I didn't have problems with that room

[Yossarian]

Wait, are the july beta drivers the drivers that will be released today?

[Pinky_Powers]

The game runs perfectly smooth, a good 60-80fps without any trouble, and I am using Vista.

I ran the Demo at 1680x1050 (my LCD's Native Res), with everything turned on - including Global Lighting - with the one exception being Virtual Sync. V-Sync pretty much broke the game, so I did without. But there was nearly never a moment of real image taring, so no loss there.

My system:
OCZ GameXStream 700w, DFI LanParty nForce4 Ultra-D, Athlon X2 4400+ Toledo @2.64ghz, ThermalRight XP-90, 80mm Tornado, 2x1GB Kingston DDR400, XFX GF8800GTS 640mb, Logitech Z-2300 2.1, 320GB Seagate SATA 3gb/s 16mb cash, 120GB SATA WD, NEC ND-3520A 16X DVD+R Dual Layer, Samsung 22" 226BW, Logitech MX3200 Laser Desktop . 4 case fans (3x28cfm & 1x72cfm). Vista Ultimate 64bit

The game looks and runs wonderfully! Win XP may give you a few un-needed extra frames per second, but if you have a half decent system with a DX10 card, Vista is far from a sour choice. Until the new drivers come out, your only real worry is keeping V-Sync turned off, and all is flowers and rainbows.

[SliderFury]

im running a flat panel. Which means i have to run at the native or im screwed.

So am I (Acer 22'' widescreen). I don't know what everyone's talking about when they say it's native or nothing, CoH runs just fine and looks great in non-native res. Of course that's just one example, I don't know what BioShock's gonna do

[Amish]

The game runs perfectly smooth, a good 60-80fps without any trouble, and I am using Vista.

I ran the Demo at 1680x1050 (my LCD's Native Res), with everything turned on - including Global Lighting - with the one exception being Virtual Sync. V-Sync pretty much broke the game, so I did without. But there was nearly never a moment of real image taring, so no loss there.

My system:
OCZ GameXStream 700w, DFI LanParty nForce4 Ultra-D, Athlon X2 4400+ Toledo @2.64ghz, ThermalRight XP-90, 80mm Tornado, 2x1GB Kingston DDR400, XFX GF8800GTS 640mb, Logitech Z-2300 2.1, 320GB Seagate SATA 3gb/s 16mb cash, 120GB SATA WD, NEC ND-3520A 16X DVD+R Dual Layer, Samsung 22" 226BW, Logitech MX3200 Laser Desktop . 4 case fans (3x28cfm & 1x72cfm). Vista Ultimate 64bit

The game looks and runs wonderfully! Win XP may give you a few un-needed extra frames per second, but if you have a half decent system with a DX10 card, Vista is far from a sour choice. Until the new drivers come out, your only real worry is keeping V-Sync turned off, and all is flowers and rainbows.

Go back to Tech-PC!:p

[jonob2z]

The game runs perfectly smooth, a good 60-80fps without any trouble, and I am using Vista.

I ran the Demo at 1680x1050 (my LCD's Native Res), with everything turned on - including Global Lighting - with the one exception being Virtual Sync. V-Sync pretty much broke the game, so I did without. But there was nearly never a moment of real image taring, so no loss there.

My system:
OCZ GameXStream 700w, DFI LanParty nForce4 Ultra-D, Athlon X2 4400+ Toledo @2.64ghz, ThermalRight XP-90, 80mm Tornado, 2x1GB Kingston DDR400, XFX GF8800GTS 640mb, Logitech Z-2300 2.1, 320GB Seagate SATA 3gb/s 16mb cash, 120GB SATA WD, NEC ND-3520A 16X DVD+R Dual Layer, Samsung 22" 226BW, Logitech MX3200 Laser Desktop . 4 case fans (3x28cfm & 1x72cfm). Vista Ultimate 64bit

The game looks and runs wonderfully! Win XP may give you a few un-needed extra frames per second, but if you have a half decent system with a DX10 card, Vista is far from a sour choice. Until the new drivers come out, your only real worry is keeping V-Sync turned off, and all is flowers and rainbows.

you do realise global lighting actually makes your game look worse. Its like static lighting..not dynamic :|

[Pinky_Powers]

you do realise global lighting actually makes your game look worse. Its like static lighting..not dynamic :|

Well, if Global Illumination is the same as Global Lighting, then according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_illumination), it should be a good thing. :confused:

And Amish, are you a member there? Tech-PC I mean.

[KamikaZe]

you do realise global lighting actually makes your game look worse. Its like static lighting..not dynamic :|

yeah lol that one got me puzzeld at first. I wish they explaned the options when you hoover over them with your mouse.

For example I really have no clue what the DX10 surfaces do instead of the DX9 ones. I see seriously not one difference at all and neither in speed. :S

[KamikaZe]

with the one exception being Virtual Sync. V-Sync pretty much broke the game, so I did without. But there was nearly never a moment of real image taring, so no loss there.


WTF no tearing??

If I turn it off and watch the opening sequence in the plane and he moves his cigarette is horrible. Its like the cigarette consists out of three smaller pieces :S I can't bear having v-sync off eventhough it drops the framerate like crazy

I need good and new drivers not beta crap like I have now from their site

[jonob2z]

Well, if Global Illumination is the same as Global Lighting, then according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_illumination), it should be a good thing. :confused:

And Amish, are you a member there? Tech-PC I mean.

nope global lighting is static lighting, instead of dynamic. Thats why when you select high global lighting defaults to off and when you select low it turns on

:confused: , oh well ignorrance is bliss i guess.

[mikemil828]

nope global lighting is static lighting, instead of dynamic. Thats why when you select high global lighting defaults to off and when you select low it turns on

:confused: , oh well ignorrance is bliss i guess.

Well that must explain his good framerates.

[Metal-Geo]

Confused framerate here.
2GB Ram
8800GTX 768mb
Intel Core Duo (E6700) 2.66GHz
Vista Ultimate
Max settings (AA off) on 1920x1200

It's not always the same "feature" that lowers my framerate. Sometimes it's the water, but sometimes it's not. I have not yet tried 1680x1050 though, cause the game crashed when I tried loading the game. :/

[jonob2z]

Well that must explain his good framerates.

i think thsi might explain alot people good frames runninng under 'max' settings :rolleyes:

[whatthefchuck]

i agree tearing is bad in this game in certain parts, so i just left vsync on. still avg 50+fps..with it off i peak otu at over a 100, but usually goes down to low 40s in firefights..cant stand that tearin, vsync isnt all that bad, its not like your playing bf2 or something.

make sure you enable triple buffering if your using vsync it helps some

[krazyman]

Are you guys using the beta drivers (163.11), or something else? If you are using something else can you please link to it?

[Lurf]

No there are 163.44 drivers out. Check out gamershell.com (or maybe Nvidia.com)

[empreality]

http://nzone.com/object/nzone_bioshock_downloads.html There here

[Vegitto-kun]

i think thsi might explain alot people good frames runninng under 'max' settings :rolleyes:

i get good frames here

but I think I need a better cooling I am getting **** now after the patch and ****

Strangely this didn't happen before the driver updates, so I guess it must be my graphic card overheating

http://users.telenet.be/Vegitto/bio.jpg

[KamikaZe]

i agree tearing is bad in this game in certain parts, so i just left vsync on. still avg 50+fps..with it off i peak otu at over a 100, but usually goes down to low 40s in firefights..cant stand that tearin, vsync isnt all that bad, its not like your playing bf2 or something.

make sure you enable triple buffering if your using vsync it helps some

yeah but I discoverd that wen I use vsync this game stutters for no good reason eventhough its then running at 30 fps constant. With v-sync off it runs buttersmooth but then its goddam bad tearing especially in scenes where the light flickers like in the cinema room at the end or in the submarine in the beginning when the splicer tries to get in.

Nicely optimised... NOT :rolleyes:

[Tahnit]

That one room before the end kills my system. i get in the 10's or so. This should be fixed before release or have a 0 day patch ready.

[ozchris]

Mmmm I wouldn't compare XP-->Vista to 98->XP. When ms switched from 98 to XP it was a HUGE change at the kernel level, major improvements in stability, support for multi-core processors, etc. XP even at release was a fundamentally superior OS design. Vista however still uses the same core as XP, with a new video driver model, UI, and a few other features that are basically fluff.

Vista will still replace XP, but mostly because its what ms is pushing. The UI is pretty nice, and as hardware speed increases and the OS matures the performance difference will be less and less noticeable, so its not a bad thing. However most people could keep right on using XP for a very long time if MS didn't try to force Vista on everyone.

BTW the whole DX10 thing could've been done on xp - most of it anyway - it just would've taken a bit more work. For example, you can use Geometry Shaders in XP via OpenGL, which is one of the big DX10 features.

Personally I'm dual booting but running XP largely because audio support, especially for games, in vista is freaking horrible. No multi-channel audio in most games without a creative card and their workaround, and even for 2d audio my drivers are forcing me to switch between 2 channel and 6 channel input manually just to get music to play to all speakers & still have multi-channel audio in the 1 or 2 games that support it.... The REALLY botched audio in vista, and these problems have been around since launch with no clear idea of when or how they will be fixed....

now that's an intelligent comment.

I get sick of the 'vista suck0rz' comments.

People said the same thing about XP when it first came out

[smoger]

not sure if you guys got different results in the retail game, but im just not seeing the problems you guys are getting..

my system:

Core2Duo 2.18ghz
2gb RAm
8800GTS 320 (latest beta drivers)
Vista Ultimate


I'm running the game at 1680x1050 and the lowest FPS i've seen is mid-high 30's. The average is 55-80, and highest ive seen(or maybe the highest that fraps displays) was 99. my video card is also rendering the desktop on an additional monitor @ 1280x1024 simultaneously while playing the game

everything set to high, *no* global lighting, but also no v-sync

certainly some of you guys posting lower framerates have beefier systems than me.. not sure what the deal is there.

[Pas De Charge]

not sure if you guys got different results in the retail game, but im just not seeing the problems you guys are getting..

my system:

Core2Duo 2.18ghz
2gb RAm
8800GTS 320 (latest beta drivers)
Vista Ultimate


I'm running the game at 1680x1050 and the lowest FPS i've seen is mid-high 30's. The average is 55-80, and highest ive seen(or maybe the highest that fraps displays) was 99. my video card is also rendering the desktop on an additional monitor @ 1280x1024 simultaneously while playing the game

everything set to high, *no* global lighting, but also no v-sync

certainly some of you guys posting lower framerates have beefier systems than me.. not sure what the deal is there.

Exact same story for me, performance with the non-beta drivers was good but with them it was excellent, no stuttering at all so i suspect some hardware compatibility is responsible for some dodgy performance, hopefully itll get patched and resolved.