It may be upgrade time again

[Starbuck1975]

So I recently purchased BioShock, and absolutely love it...but the gameplay is far more enjoyable with all of the eye candy enabled...unfortunately, I have to run below native resolution, and can only enable a few of the graphics effects to get playable framerates.

My system was able to handle Oblivion, Company of Heroes, and Supreme Commander, so it is still a viable gaming rig.

Usually, once I hit a recent game that taxes my system, I start considering an upgrade...however, I am not sure if a simple graphics card upgrade will do, or if I should consider a complete overhaul.

So given my system specs, curious as to what others would recommend...is there a way for me to squeeze a bit more performance out of my current rig by fine tuning it a bit, should I simply get an 8 series nVidia card, or am I facing a new processor and MOBO at this point?

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

I'm in pretty much the same boat. Oblivion was the first game to really test my rig, but it's playable at 15-20 FPS since it's a slower-paced game. Your processor is fine for gaming ( I need to upgrade to dual core myself). Your RAM is fine as well. If you really wanted the best performance, you could get a new mobo and a C2D, but that's really unnecessary. I would wait until the 65nm Quads become cheaper anyway.

I'm going to wait until at least November to upgrade, when the new cards should be coming out. ATi will hopefully give Nvidia some competition. I'm looking to pick up an 8800 GTS when they drop under $220 or so. If you're ok with running at 1280x1024 or less in the new games, the 8600's or an X1950/7950 should work fine too. I'm running at 1680x1050 though, and since I only upgrade my video card every 2 years or so, I like to get one that's future-proofed.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I built my current rig a little over a year ago, so it is still too soon for a complete overhaul...I try to squeeze at least 2 years out of a system, but technology is moving so quick, that systems are getting outdated far quicker.

Just curious as to whether or not an incremental GPU upgrade would result in a reasonable performance boost that will get me through another year.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
I built my current rig a little over a year ago, so it is still too soon for a complete overhaul...I try to squeeze at least 2 years out of a system, but technology is moving so quick, that systems are getting outdated far quicker.

Just curious as to whether or not an incremental GPU upgrade would result in a reasonable performance boost that will get me through another year.

Are you running that X2 at default speed? If not, overclocking it to 2.5Ghz range would be really helpful. If you're already OC, then yeah : step 1 = faster video, step 2 = C2D/mobo

 

[onlyCOpunk]

If you basically want to play Bioshcok. Spend the $250 for an Xbox360. Cheaper then some upgrades and you can play Bioshock in all it's graphical glory. This Unreal Engine is appearing to be a huge beast that looks to redefine and set a standard for future upgrades the same way Doom 3 did.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: onlyCOpunk
If you basically want to play Bioshcok. Spend the $250 for an Xbox360. Cheaper then some upgrades and you can play Bioshock in all it's graphical glory. This Unreal Engine is appearing to be a huge beast that looks to redefine and set a standard for future upgrades the same way Doom 3 did.

i wonder how bioshock would run on computers at 1152x720? the xbox is barely pushing more pixels than a computer at 1024x768.

 

[neothe0ne]

I would get Bioshock for a 360 just to avoid the broken Sony software/rootkit hybrid known as SecuROM.

 

[cputeq]

Spend the $250 for an Xbox360

-- Then another $100 for a hard drive. Plus, mouse/keyboard play is so much better than console, and you can force AA using the DX9 path if you want.

*Disclaimer -- I had Bioshock on 360, beat it, love it and was fun, but controls not accurate enough for me to replay on hard. So sold it and got PC version.
-----------------

Here's the deal -- you'll probably be best served with a video card upgrade. I don't think Bioshock really pushes the CPU as much as one would think, though your 3800 may be getting a bit long in the tooth.

I'm willing to bet with a bit of hunting you could *maybe* track down a 4600+ and be set, if you don't feel like upgrading your mobo/RAM.

I'm sorta in your situation now -- I have a 7800GT card and a x2 4600+ CPU. Bioshock runs pretty choppy at 1200x800 with the effects turned on...I basically get around 32FPS while just standing still looking at the scenery...any sorta action slows it down to where it's not very comfortable playing (especially on hard).

My 8800GTS-640 should be in the mail tomorrow. I have a feeling it'll help out my Bioshock performance much more than any CPU upgrade would.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I have no desire to purchase the 360 so I can play one game...BioShock may be the first PC game to test my system, but there are more on the horizon...Hellgate: London, Crysis, Far Cry 2, to name a few...although the line continues to blur between consoles and PCs, I still enjoy the PC gaming experience over any console...also, because I play a lot of RPGs and RTS games, consoles don't really work for me.

I use the Abit uGuru utility to overclock my CPU...feel safer doing it that way than trying to fiddle with it myself...uGuru has a preset overclock setting labeled Turbo...not sure how much of a performance boost I am actually getting, but I did notice a framerate improvement in BioShock once I set my system to Turbo.

I think my MOBO may be a constraint for how much higher I can go with my CPU...I don't believe that the Abit AN8 32x supports higher than a 4200+ CPU, which I am not sure is worth the upgrade.

Similarly, since I know a total system overhaul is on the horizon for next summer, I don't want to dump a lot into a total system upgrade...$300 is the magic number for an incremental upgrade, and that barely gets me a GEFORCE 8 that is worth the performance boost.

 

[covert24]

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
I'm in pretty much the same boat. Oblivion was the first game to really test my rig, but it's playable at 15-20 FPS since it's a slower-paced game. Your processor is fine for gaming ( I need to upgrade to dual core myself). Your RAM is fine as well. If you really wanted the best performance, you could get a new mobo and a C2D, but that's really unnecessary. I would wait until the 65nm Quads become cheaper anyway.

I'm going to wait until at least November to upgrade, when the new cards should be coming out. ATi will hopefully give Nvidia some competition. I'm looking to pick up an 8800 GTS when they drop under $220 or so. If you're ok with running at 1280x1024 or less in the new games, the 8600's or an X1950/7950 should work fine too. I'm running at 1680x1050 though, and since I only upgrade my video card every 2 years or so, I like to get one that's future-proofed.

yea i got oblivion a couple days ago and it lags a bit on high settings. on medium its all good.

 

[Laminator]

The solution is to get a 15" LCD monitor so you are forced to play at 1024x768.

 

[Dacalo]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: onlyCOpunk
If you basically want to play Bioshcok. Spend the $250 for an Xbox360. Cheaper then some upgrades and you can play Bioshock in all it's graphical glory. This Unreal Engine is appearing to be a huge beast that looks to redefine and set a standard for future upgrades the same way Doom 3 did.

i wonder how bioshock would run on computers at 1152x720? the xbox is barely pushing more pixels than a computer at 1024x768.

That's the resolution I played at on my 1900x1280 LCD . With 7800GTX, x2 4400+, and 1.5GB, the frame rate was acceptable at around 30FPS~.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I currently play with the following settings...Bioshock has three widescreen resolutions, and I run the lowest of those three...and then use nvidia control panel to scale the image to fill my 22" LCD. I am able to get playable framerates with the following settings:

Shadow Maps Enabled
High Detail Post Processing Enabled
High Detail Shaders Enabled
Real Time Reflection Enabled
Distortion Disabled
Force Global Lighting Enabled
Textures and Actor Detail: Medium

 

[Starbuck1975]

Would this be a suitable price/performance upgrade to squeeze another year or two out of my system:

EVGA 640-P2-N821-AR GeForce 8800GTS 640MB 320-bit GDDR3 PCI Express x16

 

[ctk1981]

I have a 3800 overclocked to 2.5Ghz. This is the old socket 939, memory is at 500mhz DDR1. I bought all the parts to do a good overhual but decided to throw in my BFG Tech 8800GTS 640 OC2 to see what kind of boost I would get on video card alone. It can now play oblivion, stalker, vietcong 2 all on full resolution with all eyecandy turned on. Unfortunatley haven't played bioshock yet so I couldn't comment on that. I have a 24" widescreen if it matters. Before I had two 7800GT CO in SLI....they worked okay, but the 8800 simply outperforms them in every game I've played so far.

If I were you I would just get the video card for now and see what it does....if it doesn't work out, then I guess start the overhaul. Either way the video card is going to be part of the upgrade anyways, so why not start there first to see what happens.

 

[Rottie]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Would this be a suitable price/performance upgrade to squeeze another year or two out of my system:

EVGA 640-P2-N821-AR GeForce 8800GTS 640MB 320-bit GDDR3 PCI Express x16

if you got some money then go and order it now.

 

[BroadbandGamer]

How do I check my FPS?

 

[imported_Imp]

I'm late to the game, but something is wrong with the Op's system if it is "tested" by Bioshock. I ran it on high at 1680x1050 with almost no slow down with only a stock A64 3200+, 7600gt and 1Gb Ram. There were some slowdowns in certain instances such as a bunch of bodies clumped together, "weird" spots, but no chugging. Overall, it felt pretty optimized.

 

[cputeq]

Originally posted by: Imp
I'm late to the game, but something is wrong with the Op's system if it is "tested" by Bioshock. I ran it on high at 1680x1050 with almost no slow down with only a stock A64 3200+, 7600gt and 1Gb Ram. There were some slowdowns in certain instances such as a bunch of bodies clumped together, "weird" spots, but no chugging. Overall, it felt pretty optimized.

Well, different people have an idea of what smooth gameplay is. Also, do you have all options enabled? Because there's no way, at least to me, your rig would run Bioshock smoothly.

Yesterday I actually ran a crapload of benchmarks (using FRAPS) in Bioshock and posted results in Arstechnica forum. I even happened to do most of them in the resolution you noted.

http://episteme.arstechnica.co...9309975/m/708003537831

There are the number breakdowns. In the fastest mode (forced DX9) I consider smooth gameplay...and I'm using the system noted below.

 

[NamelessMC]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: onlyCOpunk
If you basically want to play Bioshcok. Spend the $250 for an Xbox360. Cheaper then some upgrades and you can play Bioshock in all it's graphical glory. This Unreal Engine is appearing to be a huge beast that looks to redefine and set a standard for future upgrades the same way Doom 3 did.

i wonder how bioshock would run on computers at 1152x720? the xbox is barely pushing more pixels than a computer at 1024x768.

This isn't necessarily true. While it may be pushing less actual pixels, it runs them at a progressive scan. It's like 1280x720 x2 or something.

And optimizations are always a key element in how a game runs on its native console version compared to the PC port. Sure, since it's made on the Unreal engine, it's better "suited" to run on PC than other ports, but it will never run better on PC than it does on its console.

He's actually not lying. It'd be much cheaper to buy a 360 to play Bioshock.

But... That's just one game. For Crysis and other PC games, it actually isn't cheaper to buy a 360 in the long run but, I could be wrong there too because aside from Crysis almost every major "Games for Windows" game is a counter part with a 360 release.

 

[cputeq]

This isn't necessarily true. While it may be pushing less actual pixels, it runs them at a progressive scan. It's like 1280x720 x2 or something.

This doesn't matter. All PC images are automatically progressive output unless specifically told *not* to be in the case of outputting an interlaced signal to a TV or something.

Xbox 360's 720P (1280 x 720) is just like a computer's 1280x720 resolution. There's no difference, as both signals are inherently progressive.

 

[imported_Imp]

Originally posted by: cputeq

Originally posted by: Imp
I'm late to the game, but something is wrong with the Op's system if it is "tested" by Bioshock. I ran it on high at 1680x1050 with almost no slow down with only a stock A64 3200+, 7600gt and 1Gb Ram. There were some slowdowns in certain instances such as a bunch of bodies clumped together, "weird" spots, but no chugging. Overall, it felt pretty optimized.

Well, different people have an idea of what smooth gameplay is. Also, do you have all options enabled? Because there's no way, at least to me, your rig would run Bioshock smoothly.

Yesterday I actually ran a crapload of benchmarks (using FRAPS) in Bioshock and posted results in Arstechnica forum. I even happened to do most of them in the resolution you noted.

http://episteme.arstechnica.co...9309975/m/708003537831

There are the number breakdowns. In the fastest mode (forced DX9) I consider smooth gameplay...and I'm using the system noted below.

Indeed. "Smooth" is pretty subjective. If you must have absolutely no slowdown at any time, 100% responsiveness 100% of the time, then no, you would not call what I have completely smooth. Like I said, there were certain areas where it did slow down (sluggish). Still, I just set it to high (game "high" default), turned off v-sync (amazingly, I got little tearing) and got going. It still ran smooth most of the time with only a few of the aformentioned slow downs. Also, if you are using hard numbers/frames per second as a measure of smoothness, then you will definately have to upgrade very often. I'm not loaded and just will NOT spend that much upgrading every few months, so you could say that I've been "conditioned" to lower performance. Whether you believe it or not, I did run it at 1680x1050 at "high" pretty smoothly.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I'm late to the game, but something is wrong with the Op's system if it is "tested" by Bioshock. I ran it on high at 1680x1050 with almost no slow down with only a stock A64 3200+, 7600gt and 1Gb Ram. There were some slowdowns in certain instances such as a bunch of bodies clumped together, "weird" spots, but no chugging. Overall, it felt pretty optimized.

I find this a little hard to believe...if I run widescreen at 1680x1050, default textures quality set to high, with all of the eye candy options enabled, I barely get playable frame rates.

Sure I can wander the levels without a hiccup, but once a Splicer makes an appearance, or the action heats up, I get serious stuttering.

I can run medium textures at 1440x900 with all of the eye candy enabled except v-synch, and can get playable framerates with minimal stuttering.

In terms of overclocking, I bump my CPU from Default, which is 210mhz, to Turbo, which overclocks it to 216mhz, through Abit uGuru...I am not comfortable enough with overclocking to do it myself.

I haven't figured out how to overclock my GPU through nTune yet.

 

[njdevilsfan87]

I run Bioshock on my 7900GT at 1680x1050 just fine, though I do have mine volt modded and clocked to GTX+ speeds.

 

[nismotigerwvu]

Picked it up for my 360 b/c my x850xt pe would limit me pretty hard (you can get it running in sm2 but its just flat out easier to just toss it in the 360 and go)