Bioshock AA with 5870/50?

[SRoode]

It may be just my older eyes, but when I set CCC to full quality and put AI Catalyst to Advanced (in XP) I could swear the jaggies disappeared. Running fraps, it seems the frame-rate dropped substantially (95% over 60 fps with vsync on, dips down to about 40 the remaining 5%).

Has anyone else tried this?

(I have a Q6600 @ 3.2 GHz, and a 5850 at max CCC)

Edit: Monitor Rez at 1920 x 1200

 

[Sylvanas]

AA was sorted with UE3 games many months ago from both vendors, you should indeed be able to use AA in Bioshock, UT3, Gears of War etc.

 

[SRoode]

Thx Sylvanas,

I just bought the game on Steam the other day, and it was very Jaggie with the default settings (all maxed in the game, but "balanced" on CCC). When I set CCC to full quality and put AI Catalyst to Advanced, the graphics seemed to change.

Anyway, it's a great game and it looks sweet in AA.

 

[BFG10K]

As Sylvanas says, AA has worked in that game for months with both vendors. In fact I was just benchmarking a 5770 yesterday in Bioshock at 2560x1600 with 4xAA.

 

[james1701]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
As Sylvanas says, AA has worked in that game for months with both vendors. In fact I was just benchmarking a 5770 yesterday in Bioshock at 2560x1600 with 4xAA.

How did that turn out for you? Did you try crossfire?

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: james1701

How did that turn out for you?

Here are the results for the four video cards I tested:

Bioshock, 2560x1600, 16xAF, 4xMSAA:

• 285: 58.88 FPS.
• 260+: 45.26 FPS.
• 5770: 38.80 FPS.
• 4850: 31.59 FPS.

That?s all you?re getting until I?m done with the article.

Did you try crossfire?

No sorry, I don?t do multi-GPU.

 

[sandorski]

I really enjoyed Bioshock, especially after upgrading from a 7900GS(playable, but barely) to a 4850(ran excellently).

 

[error8]

Why are you running a directX 11 card on a directx 9 operating system?

 

[Tempered81]

Error8 makes a good point. I'm a fan of xp Pro. I use it myself. However, watching the forums for 5800 experiences, I've realized the new cards run better on Win7, with quad core / i7 @ 4ghz+ with >4gb ram. Theres a slide from the press deck showing ~2-15% improvements (depending on game) going from winxp to win7. You also get dx10.1, dx10, dx11, etc. It could be because there are actual gains from the new driver model & OS, or it could be that they just concentrate driver improvements primarily on windows 7 environments.

If i was running a 5850 or 5870 I would want it on a 4ghz i7 with 6gb or more ram, SSD, and Windows 7. Seems to be the most optimal system specs for most gaming scenarios.

 

[SRoode]

Originally posted by: error8
Why are you running a directX 11 card on a directx 9 operating system?

Skipped Vista and waiting for Win7 this Thursday.

 

[SRoode]

Yep. The AA is very nice, but (being new to ATI cards) I was not used to having to un-check "App Control of AA" in CCC, and just forcing it on. The picture quality is drastically better, and as I've stated above, I can still get 60fps (vsync on) at 1920x1200 even with a Q6600 @ 3.2GHz.

I posted this because there still may be a couple of older dinosaurs wandering around who didn't know

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: Tempered81

However, watching the forums for 5800 experiences, I've realized the new cards run better on Win7, with quad core / i7 @ 4ghz+ with >4gb ram. Theres a slide from the press deck showing ~2-15% improvements (depending on game) going from winxp to win7. You also get dx10.1, dx10, dx11, etc. It could be because there are actual gains from the new driver model & OS, or it could be that they just concentrate driver improvements primarily on windows 7 environments.

I?m not sure what you?re referring to. There?s no significant performance difference between XP and Windows 7 except in multi-GPU configurations, and it?s faster than Vista there too, which nullifies the claims presented thus-far to use Vista over XP.

As for DX10/DX11, the title count is minuscule and the number of titles where it?s actually beneficial and playable can be counted on one hand. In other games DX10 titles like Crysis, ?DX10? can be hacked to work on XP.

If i was running a 5850 or 5870 I would want it on a 4ghz i7 with 6gb or more ram, SSD, and Windows 7.

Why? If I dropped a 5870 into my XP system right now I could guarantee absolutely massive performance speedups with my E6850 @ 3 GHz. In fact, even a 5770 outruns my GTX285 on occasion.

CPU requirements are vastly overblown in forums because at any reasonable detail levels (i.e. the kind someone would be using on a 4GHz i7), you?re primarily GPU limited by far. Someone with a 4 GHz i7 will not be gaming at 1280x1024 with no AA.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: Tempered81

However, watching the forums for 5800 experiences, I've realized the new cards run better on Win7, with quad core / i7 @ 4ghz+ with >4gb ram. Theres a slide from the press deck showing ~2-15% improvements (depending on game) going from winxp to win7. You also get dx10.1, dx10, dx11, etc. It could be because there are actual gains from the new driver model & OS, or it could be that they just concentrate driver improvements primarily on windows 7 environments.

I?m not sure what you?re referring to. There?s no significant performance difference between XP and Windows 7 except in multi-GPU configurations, and it?s faster than Vista there too, which nullifies the claims presented thus-far to use Vista over XP.

As for DX10/DX11, the title count is minuscule and the number of titles where it?s actually beneficial and playable can be counted on one hand. In other games DX10 titles like Crysis, ?DX10? can be hacked to work on XP.

If i was running a 5850 or 5870 I would want it on a 4ghz i7 with 6gb or more ram, SSD, and Windows 7.

Why? If I dropped a 5870 into my XP system right now I could guarantee absolutely massive performance speedups with my E6850 @ 3 GHz. In fact, even a 5770 outruns my GTX285 on occasion.

CPU requirements are vastly overblown in forums because at any reasonable detail levels (i.e. the kind someone would be using on a 4GHz i7), you?re primarily GPU limited by far. Someone with a 4 GHz i7 will not be gaming at 1280x1024 with no AA.

Nice review over at FiringSquad,

So is Windows 7 the best OS for gaming? Based on the results we?ve just looked at, I?d have to say ?yes?. Windows 7 delivers the best combination of features and game performance of any OS tested today. From what I?ve seen so far, it?s also just as stable as Windows XP and Vista and seems more responsive. The addition of gestures and the new taskbar really push Windows 7 over the top.

Gamers reluctant to upgrade from Windows XP fear not. You finally have a reason to upgrade. If I was running Windows Vista with Service Pack 2 though, I wouldn?t be in a rush to pick up Windows 7. It?s definitely an improvement over Vista, but unless you plan on running SLI or CrossFire, it?s probably not worth Microsoft?s asking price. After all, it is fundamentally just a highly polished extension of Vista. Instead I?d spend that money on a better graphics card or CPU.

Windows 7 is the genuine article though. This time the final product does live up to the hype. By taking the features of Vista, improving the interface, and combining the best attributes of Windows XP, namely its performance and stability, Microsoft has put together a solid OS that should please the most discriminating hardware enthusiast or gamer. In some ways, this may just be Microsoft's best OS yet.

.


Personally no reason why not to upgrade to Vista or Win7 from XP,it has many advantages other then gaming,as a gamer myself I ditched my old XP awhile ago ,all my PCs are Vista,Win7 and Linux.


FiringSquad XP,Vista,Win7 gaming performance link .

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: Mem

Nice review over at FiringSquad,

Their results echo exactly what I said earlier: there?s no significant performance difference between XP and Windows 7 except in multi-GPU configurations, and it?s faster than Vista there too, which nullifies the claims presented thus-far to use Vista over XP.

Personally no reason why not to upgrade to Vista or Win7 from XP,it has many advantages other then gaming,as a gamer myself I ditched my old XP awhile ago ,all my PCs are Vista,Win7 and Linux.

I see plenty of reasons not to touch Vista. Has the unreliable file copying been fixed? How the network throttling when playing MP3s? Or the abysmal bloat which means it can?t run on net-books?

We know it hasn?t been fixed because that?s what Windows 7 addresses.

I might upgrade to Windows 7 if it?s worthwhile, but I?ll be skipping Vista entirely.

 

[Mem]

I might upgrade to Windows 7 if it?s worthwhile, but I?ll be skipping Vista entirely.

Win7 is 10 times better then XP and YES its worth the upgrade .

I see plenty of reasons not to touch Vista. Has the unreliable file copying been fixed? How the network throttling when playing MP3s? Or the abysmal bloat which means it can?t run on net-books?

Most gamers don't use netbooks for gaming,besides any modern system runs Vista fine from my experience especially a gaming rig,you have Win7 more or less out now so its a moot point anyway,security is one area XP is poor compared to the newer operating systems,memory handling etc...I could go on,I never had any network issues in gaming or general use with Vista for the last 2.9 years and you can say thats what counts,however I'm on Win7 x64 RTM Ultimate now as my main PC and its the same to me ie no issues,bloat wise I only find that on OEM systems ie Dell,HP etc... remove their crap and its fine,we could argue all day but the fact is I've had very positive feedback from Vista and Win7, there is no reason why people should not be using Win7 over XP IMHO for gaming unless its a matter of money.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: Mem

Most gamers don't use netbooks for gaming,

You?re completely missing the point. This isn?t about gamers, it?s about system resources. Vista can?t run on net-books because it?s too slow and bloated, but Windows 7 can, yet it offers even more features than Vista. Think about the ramifications of this for a moment.

Also check any of the extensive Microsoft developer blogs that demonstrate just how much effort they put into making Windows 7 run faster than Vista. Vista is bloated garbage, it?s as simple as that.

you have Win7 more or less out now so its a moot point anyway,

They why are you continuing to argue the point of Vista? I was right and Microsoft agreed with me. Even before Windows 7 I was being told just how ?superior? Vista is, which was simply untrue.

I could go on,I never had any network issues in gaming or general use with Vista for the last 2.9 years,

That doesn?t really mean much. Why don?t you read up on some of the issues of Vista from someone that actually works for Microsoft?

Here are two to get you started:

http://blogs.technet.com/markr...007/08/27/1833290.aspx

http://blogs.technet.com/markr...008/02/04/2826167.aspx

You?ll note that SP1?s ?improvement? to Vista?s file copying was to return it how XP did file copying, yet even after this there were repeated reports of large file copies outright failing on disks and networks. I routinely backup over 300 GB of critical data on XP and I absolutely cannot afford garbage like Vista to fuck that up.

Other things that have been restored from XP to Windows 7 is GDI hardware acceleration, and heterogeneous display drivers. Vista didn?t have those so again, so much for Vista ?improving? things. :roll:

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: Mem

Most gamers don't use netbooks for gaming,

You?re completely missing the point. This isn?t about gamers, it?s about system resources. Vista can?t run on net-books because it?s too slow and bloated, but Windows 7 can, yet it offers even more features than Vista. Think about the ramifications of this for a moment.

Also check any of the extensive Microsoft developer blogs that demonstrate just how much effort they put into making Windows 7 run faster than Vista. Vista is bloated garbage, it?s as simple as that.

you have Win7 more or less out now so its a moot point anyway,

They why are you continuing to argue the point of Vista? I was right and Microsoft agreed with me. Even before Windows 7 I was being told just how ?superior? Vista is, which was simply untrue.

I could go on,I never had any network issues in gaming or general use with Vista for the last 2.9 years,

That doesn?t really mean much. Why don?t you read up on some of the issues of Vista from someone that actually works for Microsoft?

Here are two to get you started:

http://blogs.technet.com/markr...007/08/27/1833290.aspx

http://blogs.technet.com/markr...008/02/04/2826167.aspx

You?ll note that SP1?s ?improvement? to Vista?s file copying was to return it how XP did file copying, yet even after this there were repeated reports of large file copies outright failing on disks and networks. I routinely backup over 300 GB of critical data on XP and I absolutely cannot afford garbage like Vista to fuck that up.

Other things that have been restored from XP to Windows 7 is GDI hardware acceleration, and heterogeneous display drivers. Vista didn?t have those so again, so much for Vista ?improving? things. :roll:

Vista was designed for modern hardware,lot of users were still using older hardware with Vista ,so Win7 is a fine tuned version of Vista that has real benefits with low spec hardware, end of the day operating systems use more resources,ram, hardware etc... in general, look at Dos 6.22 then look at Win95 ,98,XP see the pattern?..unfortunately lot of users are not ready or want to use latest hardware with latest OS,Win7 addreses those issues,however that does not mean Vista is a poor OS or bloated,as to your links I have seen them many times but the fact remains its my real experience usage that counts,I'm not saying Vista or Win7 is perfect because we all know no OS is perfect but they are damn fine operating systems IMHO and I speak from real usage.

I have nothing against XP apart from age (maybe security and those terrible BSOD in the early days,thankfully Vista/Win7 BSOD are a thing of the pass more or less) ,XP was released back in 2001,both hardware and software have moved forward,sooner XP is phased out and we move with times the better.
Reason why I say Win7 over Vista for gaming is its newer with some nice new features plus has DX11,we still don't know if Vista will get DX11 or not for gaming which will be a factor down the road.


BFG10K lets beg to differ on this one and leave it at that.

 

[evolucion8]

I found out that in older hardware like my Pentium 4 2.8C, 1GB of RAM and an X800XT PE, Windows 7 runs as fast as Windows XP, but Windows Vista is considerably slower. In my current setup, I couldn't find a difference between Windows 7 and Windows Vista regarding performance like in boot times or program start up, but the file copying is slighly faster and more consistent, it boots slighly faster and the multi threaded applications runs even better.

So like Mem said, Windows Vista is designed for fast hardware, and Windows 7 is Vista optimized for older hardware and laptops and netbooks (Windows Vista runs horrible in laptops).

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: Mem

Vista was designed for modern hardware,lot of users were still using older hardware with Vista ,so Win7 is a fine tuned version of Vista that has real benefits with low spec hardware, end of the day operating systems use more resources,ram, hardware etc... in general, look at Dos 6.22 then look at Win95 ,98,XP see the pattern?..unfortunately lot of users are not ready or want to use latest hardware with latest OS,Win7 addreses those issues,however that does not mean Vista is a poor OS or bloated,as to your links I have seen them many times but the fact remains its my real experience usage that counts,I'm not saying Vista or Win7 is perfect because we all know no OS is perfect but they are damn fine operating systems IMHO and I speak from real usage.

You?re still not getting it. I?m not arguing against progress or that OSes shouldn?t use more resources. I?m arguing against flawed implementations that add needless bloat, which is exactly what Vista was. It was late and it showed with a bludgeoned, cobbled together product that sucked up far more resources than it should. Hell, even Bill Gates indirectly admitted in a video interview that Vista is the most unpolished Windows Microsoft has ever introduced.

Windows 7 exceeds Vista?s features, yet it?s faster and better. That?s my point. Windows 7 looks to be Vista done right.

DWM uses half the memory on Windows 7 as it does on Vista, yet offers superior features. Windows 7 boots faster. Windows 7 uses less memory and generates less hard-disk accesses than Vista. Windows 7 accelerates GDI in hardware while Vista doesn?t.

In your defense of Vista you seem to be confusing progress with bloat. Just because you subjectively like using Vista, it does not change the objective metrics I?m providing you as evidence of my claims.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: Mem

Vista was designed for modern hardware,lot of users were still using older hardware with Vista ,so Win7 is a fine tuned version of Vista that has real benefits with low spec hardware, end of the day operating systems use more resources,ram, hardware etc... in general, look at Dos 6.22 then look at Win95 ,98,XP see the pattern?..unfortunately lot of users are not ready or want to use latest hardware with latest OS,Win7 addreses those issues,however that does not mean Vista is a poor OS or bloated,as to your links I have seen them many times but the fact remains its my real experience usage that counts,I'm not saying Vista or Win7 is perfect because we all know no OS is perfect but they are damn fine operating systems IMHO and I speak from real usage.

You?re still not getting it. I?m not arguing against progress or that OSes shouldn?t use more resources. I?m arguing against flawed implementations that add needless bloat, which is exactly what Vista was. It was late and it showed with a bludgeoned, cobbled together product that sucked up far more resources than it should. Hell, even Bill Gates indirectly admitted in a video interview that Vista is the most unpolished Windows Microsoft has ever introduced.

Windows 7 exceeds Vista?s features, yet it?s faster and better. That?s my point. Windows 7 looks to be Vista done right.

DWM uses half the memory on Windows 7 as it does on Vista, yet offers superior features. Windows 7 boots faster. Windows 7 uses less memory and generates less hard-disk accesses than Vista. Windows 7 accelerates GDI in hardware while Vista doesn?t.

In your defense of Vista you seem to be confusing progress with bloat. Just because you subjectively like using Vista, it does not change the objective metrics I?m providing you as evidence of my claims.

I don't want to get into a pointless argument with you...I like Win7 as much as Vista I even like Linux as much as Vista ,they have all been good to me so your point?....remember Microsoft had a template to work with ie Vista for Win7 over the 2 year period,I'm not surprised they could make a very nice OS(improved Vista) out of it.
As to unpolished hmm well nothing is as bad as ME... I have already stated why Win7 is better on older hardware,think I made my point.

Getting back to my MAIN POINT,there is no reason why YOU should not be using Win7 over XP.



Boot times here (yes they are even 32 bit wise) (OCT 2009).

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Hell, even Bill Gates indirectly admitted in a video interview that Vista is the most unpolished Windows Microsoft has ever introduced.

Even worse than Windows Me??? :Q

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Even worse than Windows Me??? :Q

http://gizmodo.com/342920/holy...just-say-windows-sucks

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Even worse than Windows Me??? :Q

http://gizmodo.com/342920/holy...just-say-windows-sucks

Thats Vista before SP1 let alone SP2,I think any normal person now (that has used Vista over the years) even Bill Gates will say Vista has improved over the years since its initial release,just like XP had a shaky start and SP1,SP2 fixed the main issues.
But hey we all know if Bill Gates says "jump" you say how high .
I do agree Vista could of done with a delay,however I would argue so could quite a few of their operating systems from the past,Win7 is the exception being very polished .

Bottomline any gamer using XP still, there's no reason why you should not be using Win7 especially if you got a DX11 card(the games are on the way).

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: Mem

I don't want to get into a pointless argument with you...I like Win7 as much as Vista I even like Linux as much as Vista ,they have all been good to me so your point?....

I used Windows ME on my work box for two years and it worked great. Does that mean I can go running around claiming it?s as good as XP? Of course not, because there are objective measurements that prove it isn?t, and my personal experience doesn?t change those. But that?s what you?re doing with Vista.

As to unpolished hmm well nothing is as bad as ME... I have already stated why Win7 is better on older hardware,think I made my point.

But again, I used ME on my work box for two years and it worked great, without a service pack or updates. So tell me, is the ?works great for me? argument valid or not? If it is you need to retract your claims about ME. If not then you need to retract them about Vista.

Thats Vista before SP1 let alone SP2,I think any normal person now (that has used Vista over the years) even Bill Gates will say Vista has improved over the years since its initial release,just like XP had a shaky start and SP1,SP2 fixed the main issues.

It?s improved but it still has serious shortcomings compared to Windows 7. I?ve already listed several of them, yet you seem to continually ignore them.

As for XP, I ran that at launch and it worked flawlessly. With Vista I remember hot-fix after hot-fix coming out because it couldn?t even render games to look like they did on XP.

But hey we all know if Bill Gates says "jump" you say how high

Are you for real? We have of the most influential people in computing basically stating Vista sucks, his own product, but you dismiss it as some kind of triviality?

 

[SRoode]

"It may be just my older eyes, but when I set CCC to full quality and put AI Catalyst to Advanced (in XP) I could swear the jaggies disappeared. Running fraps, it seems the frame-rate dropped substantially (95% over 60 fps with vsync on, dips down to about 40 the remaining 5%).

Has anyone else tried this?

(I have a Q6600 @ 3.2 GHz, and a 5850 at max CCC)

Monitor Rez at 1920 x 1200"

Just wanted to re-post my original post... Not that thread crapping and changing this thread to XP vs. Vista vs. Windows 7 isn't so interesting...