Image Quality Comparison Continued

Our original DirectX9 and DirectX10 comparison shots didn’t show the differences due to a glitch in the game. After forcing BioShock to run in DirectX9 via a command line switch, we got to see just how different the game looks. Some effects, like sharper shadows, are subtle. Once we waded into the water the differences were stark. Even smoke rolling effects are obviously different in how they interact with objects in the game. Also pay particular attention to the cash register in the first set of shots, the DX10 version has much more detail than the DX9 version.

DirectX 9 vs. DirectX 10 Set 1

DirectX 9 vs. DirectX 10 Set 2

DirectX 9 vs. DirectX 10 Set 3

481 Comments

  • uchitha

    Posted Sep 9, 2007 11:56 am PT

    Great comparison... gonna try this with the new PC im hoping to buy ....

  • lobsterbushcrab

    Posted Sep 9, 2007 9:46 am PT

    "Will it run on 8600????"

    yes my 7600GT runs it on max at 1152X864

  • K_M82

    Posted Sep 9, 2007 7:05 am PT

    I bought GF6800GT with P4 in November 2004 for about US$ 900. At that time no console game can even come close to PC graphical quality. Let's not talk about the cutting edge like F.E.A.R, Doom 3, Halve Live, or FarCry, these games are design for PC. Even the multiplatform game like Prince of Persia or NFS series looks far better on PC. I used to play NFS Most Wanted, F.E.A.R, ES4 Oblivion and Splinter Cell Double Agent in 1280x1024 with that PC and graphically that was almost as good as in the XBOX 360 or PS3 (1280x720+AA). The last game I Play on that PC was DIRT CMR. PC and consoles each has advantages and disadvantages. The price for a new console is a bit difficult to swallow at first (US$ 399), and any multiplatform game that came out at the time a new console is out can be played with last year mid end PC (my friend completed Oblivion an F.E.A.R with 6600GT on 1024x768.). At that time PC gamer don't need to spend a dime to play F.E.A.R, while console gamer need to buy a new console. As time goes by PC gamer have a choice between upgrading and enjoy the cutting edge or enjoy what they already had while the console gamer can still enjoy their hefty initial investment. In time the PC will have to be upgraded to follow the DirectX while the console gamer can only watch in awe at how far ahead the PC graphic is, and wait enthusiastically for the next generation of console. It has been like this since the first time I game (back in the PS1 day), and it will still be like this for a long time to come (next generation of NVIDIA GPU will be released in December).

  • ZEtAHybrid

    Posted Sep 8, 2007 11:33 pm PT

    just because it has an ati license on it doesnt mean all ati cards are the same buddy

  • Kirbysuperstar

    Posted Sep 8, 2007 6:18 pm PT

    "i dont get it. wasn't bioshock developed for both the x360 and pc. The 360 has a ati gpu, so why does it run so slowly on a ati video card?"

    Because there were two teams. Those doing the 360 version and those doing the PC version.

  • Baselerd posted Sep 8, 2007 12:51 pm PT (does not meet display criteria. login to show)

    Baselerd

    Posted Sep 8, 2007 12:51 pm PT (hide)

    stewiegriffin, you can run bioshock maxed out on an 8800gts 320MB, which costs $100-$120 less than the xbox360. What a good deal.

  • vgplaya posted Sep 8, 2007 8:29 am PT (does not meet display criteria. login to show)

    vgplaya

    Posted Sep 8, 2007 8:29 am PT (hide)

    Will it run on 8600????

  • NF_Reaper

    Posted Sep 8, 2007 4:07 am PT

    @ iebubu the game does run better on ATI cards. Just have a look at the Video Cards results. Gamespot have used lower end ATI graphic cards on their "System Level Performance Tests" while using the top end nvidia ones even thought the ATI perform better. Can't guess why. Anyway I'm using an X1900XTX and Pentium Dual Core 930 with 2GB RAM and can run everything maxed (except DX10) at 1440x900 (I have a widescreen) without no problems at all. From what I've heard from my clan mates you can run the game maxed out on much lower specs if your willing to sacrifice a little resolution.

  • wytefang posted Sep 7, 2007 7:52 am PT (does not meet display criteria. login to show)

    wytefang

    Posted Sep 7, 2007 7:52 am PT (hide)

    Is there some lame reason that Gamespot forgot to use the 1900x1200 resolution setting for people with larger monitors. It's quickly becoming the de facto screen resolution for any kind of graphic tests like these. Guess they should stick to games and not hardware...

  • Viridianzealot

    Posted Sep 7, 2007 3:48 am PT

    Well I have an AMD Athlon 64 @ 3000 with 1GB DDR @ 400 and an ATi Radeon X1950 Pro 512MB AGP (Catalysts 7.4) running on Windows XP ENG PRO. Bioshock is displayed on a Samsung 22'' Wide SM226BW @ 1680 x 1050 with details at full (except DX10) and it runs like a beauty. Very good coding from the developers.

  • khurramawais posted Sep 7, 2007 1:56 am PT (does not meet display criteria. login to show)

    khurramawais

    Posted Sep 7, 2007 1:56 am PT (hide)

    i have p4..... 2.4Ghz....gforce 6200 (256 Mb)....1Ghz ram...CAN I RUN BIO SHOCK ON MY SYSTEM?????

  • CaribouLou5

    Posted Sep 6, 2007 9:54 pm PT

    Well it runs great on my ATi X1900XTX. High settings, 1680 x 1050. Also, there's nothing wrong with the widescreen. 2K developed the game for widescreen then added extra to the top and bottom for fullscreen.

  • antality

    Posted Sep 6, 2007 3:46 pm PT

    Inspiron 9300 dell Laptop, 2.13ghz pin modded Single CPU, 1 GB ram, Nvidia 6800 GO 256mb video card, all settings turned on except global env, and resolution set to lowest, game runs excellent. Other than not sharp edges, it's awesome on this nifty little laptop of mine..

  • iebubu

    Posted Sep 6, 2007 3:27 pm PT

    i dont get it. wasn't bioshock developed for both the x360 and pc. The 360 has a ati gpu, so why does it run so slowly on a ati video card?

  • zangoulak

    Posted Sep 6, 2007 1:22 pm PT

    thanks

  • narutoxx5

    Posted Sep 6, 2007 11:47 am PT

    people were the fck you get all this money@!!?

  • smokerz911k

    Posted Sep 5, 2007 7:30 pm PT

    ahh for all of u who have sli 8800gtx or ultra.....shut up alrdy u know tat we know tat ur over 1 grand rig can over kill the game at least 10 times. or maybe even more. but the point is. stop bragging about ur super high end rigs for the next 2 month til a new video card or new cpu comes out and all of sudden u see the stuff u bought just took a huge dive from the retail price

  • siawash posted Sep 5, 2007 7:15 pm PT (does not meet display criteria. login to show)

    siawash

    Posted Sep 5, 2007 7:15 pm PT (hide)

    Bioshock and NVIDIA = amazing
    Bioshock and ATI = comic book

    benches say a different story.........

  • XFireCrossX

    Posted Sep 5, 2007 5:34 pm PT

    this games still looks awesome even with the lowest graphics on

  • andrewass121

    Posted Sep 5, 2007 5:29 pm PT

    will my ati x700 series pro work on this game

  • WMDN

    Posted Sep 5, 2007 3:06 pm PT

    oh sorry...i forgot one thing...(ATI NO MORE)...my last was a X1600XT who was murdered by LOST PLANET Extreme Conditions and Dirt.
    Bioshock and NVIDIA = amazing
    Bioshock and ATI = comic book

    Who knows on the next generation.............

  • Flav333 posted Sep 5, 2007 2:09 pm PT (does not meet display criteria. login to show)

    Flav333

    Posted Sep 5, 2007 2:09 pm PT (hide)

    I got 4gb ram , 2x 8800 ultra SLI and a intel core 2 QE6800 that should work at the maximum quality

  • aranos420 posted Sep 5, 2007 10:40 am PT (does not meet display criteria. login to show)

    aranos420

    Posted Sep 5, 2007 10:40 am PT (hide)

    AMD athlon 64 Dual Core 3.0 Ghz + 4 gig DDR2 RAM + XFI Sound Card + 2 8800 GTXs SLI. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAH... err, excuse me. Lol this game is pretty on my machine And as for ATI... good luck. I've never had more graphical errors, glitches, and overheats than when I was using ATI cards. nVidia FTW.

  • gabi098

    Posted Sep 5, 2007 8:06 am PT

    3500+ 2gig ddr 8600 GT all high exept dx10 (cose its on xp) and i rarely go under 30 fps!!!
    so how with:
    AMD Athlon 64 4000+, Radeon X1650 XT 256MB, 1GB RAM, Windows XP
    they got 18 I just can't get it. unless RAM is such a big issue I can't explain!

    only thing I have encountered however is slow texture loading after a loading a saved game or entering a new arem but i didn't get any freeze the textures simply appeared after a few minutes.

  • oliver1415

    Posted Sep 5, 2007 1:47 am PT

    4gbs RAM , GeForce 8800 GTS, ect, should run sweet on mine

  • IrishSJ23

    Posted Sep 5, 2007 1:26 am PT

    No rainmaster the 5 series graphics cards cant run Bioshock. You need a 6600GT. Thats the lowest of the low that will play it. Find a nice cheap 256mb 7900 or a 512mb 6800.

  • majicebe

    Posted Sep 5, 2007 12:55 am PT

    Runs like a 12fps hunk of poo on my 7800GT at 1600x900, 1.8GHz Core2, 3GB RAM with higher graphics settings. To play how the game is meant to be played, you really need a 8800GTS or higher.

    Oh, and the game starts kinda slow, but I'm about 1/2 to 2/3 the way through the game and it's been a ton of fun. Highly recommended at $30-50 depending on how long you want to wait for it.

  • pco_rainmaster

    Posted Sep 5, 2007 12:23 am PT

    im really not into graphics, im into the quality of a gameplay, can i run bioshock without a lag on a medium quality settings coz i have a P4 2.4 and an old video card of FX 5500 256mb?

  • marianox1

    Posted Sep 4, 2007 11:57 pm PT

    beckoflight HAHHAHAHA ) ATI 2900 XT ... will show its quality from now on because of its drivers .... the aritecture was allready superrior evan to the ULTRA ... practacaly the only thing that the 2900 has lower than both 8800 GTX & ULTRA is the ddr .... but starting from the clock to the transitor count its far more superrior ... i wonder why they didn't test two 2900 XT in corssfire .... i think the answer is clear Nvidia is a much better sponsor !

    PAY ATTENTION when reading the performance guide, it says that 2 hd2900 in crossfire couldn't load properly the game due to driver problems, when that problem is solved, i'm pretty sure that will surpass 2gtx in sli

  • tiagor87

    Posted Sep 4, 2007 9:10 pm PT

    the game is suberb on my 7600GT fatality

  • hardtailer

    Posted Sep 4, 2007 5:54 pm PT

    Great game. It has such low system requirements too. i got a 7900gtx, amd 64 x2 5600 and 2gb of 800mhz ocz ram and i play it on full @1600x900 res and it runs awsome! it bugs me on the fact that half life 2 got .8 points more than this game. this game makes half life 2 looks like a 2 or a 3

  • WMDN

    Posted Sep 4, 2007 5:12 pm PT

    I`ts being amazing on my E6300+2gb ram+8600GT(forceware163 driver) running at FULL -1024x768.
    I can`t believe in that graphics...It´s a dream...
    Thnks a lot 2K games
    ...I hope that G.Spot don`t give a low score to this revolutionary game.

  • AnnoyedDragon

    Posted Sep 4, 2007 1:17 pm PT

    Don't know why they are only showing 8 series Nvidia cards, game runs fine on my 7900GT.

  • Slappywhite2001

    Posted Sep 4, 2007 12:35 pm PT

    @SMFES you cannot play the game because the X800 series uses shader 2.0, and this game requires a 3.0 compatible card. i encountered this problem with my X850XT-PE, which uses 2.0b, and in terms of every other spec should run the game without a problem. There is an underground movement to create user-made patches to allow the game to run, but who knows.

  • Errur

    Posted Sep 4, 2007 8:17 am PT

    @GT3_and_JP they've released a SM2 patch n u need to use that one to play this game

  • kaziechameleon

    Posted Sep 4, 2007 7:49 am PT

    well if that isn't a ATI fanboy, ok so ATI is loosing generally speaking ever since the end of the 9000 series, don't go making up lies even if the ATI cards are comparable in speed they need aproximately the same juice and run tons hotter than the Geforce counterparts. and though crossfire came latter it is actually alot weeker so time spent on that config was wasted. SLI is the best though little specific. geforce cards are much solider and more reliable if you can manage some nice water cooling or a good AC bill in the middle of summer by all means get a ATI it is to behind the bar, i've had several and all my friends just replaced there last gen x800 cards and such with the 8000 Geforce cards because of so many issues, issues i shared in. ATI is pulling preformance out of their @$% that is why the temps are so high same for AMD. everyone loves to say game spot likes this brand better, maybe it's just more concistently preformend for them rather than being all over the place like ATI. maybe they did poorely review two ps3 exclusives that fanboys had been touting for the last year and a half, but then agian maybe the games weren't that good, or just plain broken.

  • beckoflight

    Posted Sep 4, 2007 6:28 am PT

    HAHHAHAHA ) ATI 2900 XT ... will show its quality from now on because of its drivers .... the aritecture was allready superrior evan to the ULTRA ... practacaly the only thing that the 2900 has lower than both 8800 GTX & ULTRA is the ddr .... but starting from the clock to the transitor count its far more superrior ... i wonder why they didn't test two 2900 XT in corssfire .... i think the answer is clear Nvidia is a much better sponsor !

  • knut-am

    Posted Sep 4, 2007 4:06 am PT

    Game runs like water on 8800 GTX Ultra XXX at 1920x1200 res with evrything maxed in DX!0, my first experience with DX10 and do i love it,, O YEAH

  • daveg1

    Posted Sep 4, 2007 3:19 am PT

    the global lighting option in this game is a puzzler...

  • beckoflight

    Posted Sep 4, 2007 2:30 am PT

    Well i see that AMERICA sticks to AMERA & they did not mention the 2900 XT in there ... but i will recomend you thse board the game runs with 60 + to on it !

  • GT3_and_JP

    Posted Sep 4, 2007 12:24 am PT

    I have 1.6GHz,GeForce FX 5900,1GB RAM Windows XP and i downloaded the demo but i can`t launch it

  • Fists1

    Posted Sep 3, 2007 11:40 pm PT

    "the game still looks fantastic at even the lowest-quality settings" what? i played the demo on my rather sub-par computer and it looked REALLY!!! bad nothing fantastic if you dont have a good computer (im a console person)

  • Lidve

    Posted Sep 3, 2007 9:41 pm PT

    @Sonicgod Because lower ressolution = less strugling for pc to calculate data.
    If u dont like jaggies u can allways turn Antialiasing on.
    My advice is bether play on low res with everything on and AA than on max res with low/moderate settings,because first one looks waaaayyy bether

  • cccp1988

    Posted Sep 3, 2007 4:17 pm PT

    My Sistem is 3500+AMD Nvida7600GST Innovision 1,5gb Ram and i run the bioshok demo at 1280*1024 at maximum whit average 35 FPS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • 12sharmar

    Posted Sep 3, 2007 3:02 pm PT

    i have an e6600, x1950 pro, 2 gigz ram, windows vista, can i run bioshock smoothly?

  • Sonicgod

    Posted Sep 3, 2007 2:29 pm PT

    MY Nvida 8800gtx and my old ati x1900xtx system both have the same amount of blood, no glitch with either last video driver out as of this day.

  • Sonicgod

    Posted Sep 3, 2007 2:21 pm PT

    800 x 600 is worse than Xbox 360 ports low 720 p Res that is a wide screen 1024x768. (1280x720p60 ) and PC's had a sqaure 4:3 1024 by 768 as standard years ago in the 90'. having the xbox 350 upscale to 1080p does not count it looks worse than real 1080p;

    The xbox 360 is blurry has low res textures and makes me feel like i need glasses because it is only displaying at 720p 1280x720p60 and the controler is bad so playing at low res on a pc is worth it to get a mouse and keyboard.

    I have not seen a game run at 800x600 since starcraft in 1998. I have not seen a Pc game run at 1024x768 since 2000 either. and if you are using a LCD flat pannel the monitor will upscale and make those 2 res look even worse.

    Why even have a scale meter for 800x600?

  • runico

    Posted Sep 3, 2007 1:03 pm PT

    question: in your tests with the ati cards did you notice missing blood and blood decals....as this is a problem across many ati cards just search the 2k forums for missing blood decals....just wondering if you noticed the lack of blood?...it seems alot of people have this glitch...they just dont realize it....

  • diegones1

    Posted Sep 2, 2007 3:52 pm PT

    IT RUNS WELL ON MY COMPUTER 800*600 HIGH QUALITY
    AMD ATHLON 3200+ 939
    ATI X1300PRO
    1GB RAM
    WINDOWS VISTA

  • lonerayven

    Posted Sep 2, 2007 2:49 pm PT

    I've got an Opteron 148 2.2 ghz processor, geforce 8800 640mb, 3GB of ram, and a DFI Lanparty mobo. The game runs at MAX graphics for DX 9 and no lag at all! The only gripe I have are semi-long loading screens.

advertisement
BioShock Boxshot
BioShock

Game Stats

  • Rank:
    245 of 59,100
    (down by 7)
    PC Rank:
    84 of 11,449
    Tracking:
    14,325 Track It»
    Wishlists:
    5,909 Wish It»
  • Users Now Playing:
    3,193
  • Number of Players:

    1 Player

  • Top 5 User Tags:
    1. bioshock
    2. fps
    3. 2k games
    4. sci-fi
    5. pc
  • Mature Rating Description

    Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language. Learn more

Full Game Details »Close
Also on

Tags

Games you may like…

Users who looked at content for this game also looked at these games.

See More Similar Games