Gamespot benchmark review BIOSHOCK

*sighS*

All it takes is one SEMI-favorable review (questionable at that) and allllllll the ATi fanboys flock to it like flies on manure.

Typical.

These guys are so desperate for good news, they'll believe anything and try to defend it no matter how stupid they sound. Its almost as pathetic as a really bad religious cult.
 
Dark Prodigy said:
*sighS*

All it takes is one SEMI-favorable review (questionable at that) and allllllll the ATi fanboys flock to it like flies on manure.

Typical.

These guys are so desperate for good news, they'll believe anything and try to defend it no matter how stupid they sound. Its almost as pathetic as a really bad religious cult.
Click to expand...

Aren't you that nvidia fanboy? I swear all the Nvidia fanboy jump on ATI users even when x2000 has better performance in this game.
:rolleyes:
 
looking at it some more, its pretty amazing that the 2900 xt which isnt even in the same price league as the 8800 gtx competes and beats it. this would be like a 8600 GT beating a 2900 XT, just looking at the prices. damn amazing. ATI 4eva.
 
I for one like ATI. I'm not a fanboy, but have liked their products for a while now. They have always ruled with AA enabled.Their cards didn't take a big hit with AA enabled. That's why I play computer games. The jaggies hurt my fucking eyes. All that being said, seems AMD has gone and fucked things up.Why have a 500$ card that cannot use AA? What use is any, and I do mean any, review without AA? doesn't make any sense to me. I am in the process of building a new computer, and I am going to wait till there is a card out that can run DX 10 titles at the settings that I use. If you are going to try to sell me a 400- 500 $ card it better be able to run at 1680x1050 with all the settings on high, and not be a slide show.
 
Dark Prodigy said:
*sighS*

All it takes is one SEMI-favorable review (questionable at that) and allllllll the ATi fanboys flock to it like flies on manure.

Typical.

These guys are so desperate for good news, they'll believe anything and try to defend it no matter how stupid they sound. Its almost as pathetic as a really bad religious cult.
Click to expand...

Works both ways m8. Fanbollocks is fanbollocks, doesn't matter who your allegiance is to. Speaking of which, what is it with company allegiance? Its something I will never understand.

And as a last point, shouldn't we all be happy that Bioshock runs kickass on the majority of our rigs? These fan war threads are becoming sickening:

"Blah blah blah you're dumb"
"No blah blah blah you're dumb!"
"You be Fan.boy!!!"
"No you be Fan.boy!!!"

Come on guys. To say this shit is stale is the understatement of the century.
 
ManicOne said:
Come on guys. To say this shit is stale is the understatement of the century.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it's fun :D
Furthermore, we haven't rehashed all the she said/he said non-sense that occurred before the 2900xt was launched.

Brief recap:
1: 8800's released in November of 2007 *very important

2: ATI fanboys declare that R600 will rape 8800.

2a: ATI fanboys declare that R600 Vista drivers will be a quality release, unlike said nVidia Vista drivers which are compared to butt-rot.

3: ATI finally releases 2900XT in May of 2007 using the Doom 3 excuse -- release when it's ready --- yeah, that's what she said.

3a: ATI fanboys cry that good drivers will take time.


A funny thing happened. The R600 didn't rape anything besides a few disgruntled stockholders. To add insult to injury, the 8800 was released months earlier than the R600. The 8800 was already half way through its "life". Even then, the R600 struggles to catch up to the GTX.

I remember other, ahem, websites not having a problem comparing 1900xt's with 7900GTX's in Oblivion despite the fact that the ATI card had the advantage of turning on AA with HDR. It's a tangible advantage that a gamer can pay for. So now we can't do the same in Bioshock just because the poor little 2900xt can't do AA in that game?
 
I for one am not an ATI fanboy. I have never owned an ATI card in my life.

But I think when DX10 starts to be used more and developer learn how to maximize DX10 features R600 will win.

Another reason

8800's do NOT have shader based AA while the R600 does
 
KennyB I understand all that. I'm all for learning the advantages/disadvantages of different hardware and making informed decisions. TBH though even your post rolls out the old fan.boy wagon. There is no difference between ATI and NV fan.boys, they are just that: fan.boys.

All the people wanking lyrical in this thread could be playing Bioshock right now. Instead they're playing e-peen tag on a public forum. We know the strengths and weaknesses of each architecture, we know that in six months something faster will be out. But we seem to be forgetting one thing. Bioshock rocks on all current decent hardware. Who gives a crap you're choice of equipment, its gonna rock anyway.
 
Yeah, my last post reeks of fanboy. It's just that every time the old "wait for new drivers for Vista/DX9" argument is presented by ATI fanboys they somehow forget that ATI delayed the launch of the 2900xt allegedly due to said drivers. At this point, they'd still be waiting.

I don't consider myself a fanboy. I think I'm more of a bandwagon hopper :D
 
Dethred said:
Sounds sketchy to me.
Click to expand...

Yeah...I agree. First of all, theres nearly no chance the 2900 could beat a GTS, every other benchmark we have seen has shown us how much the 2900 sucks.

DrewRosenHouse said:
these seem like bullshit to me, how does a 8800GTS 320mb beat out a 640mb of the exact same card by 7fps?
Click to expand...

I noticed that too.

Marvelous said:
Do you not see XXX edition? It's an overclocked GTS.
Click to expand...

And I seriously doubt that an overclocked 320MB could beat a 640.

I just lost a bunch of respect for Gamespot. Looks biased IMO.
 
the 2900 xt wipes the floor with the GTS in many games, WITH AA on. these games include gamse based on unreal 2/3 engine and doom 3 engine. you know, just some minor engines no one cares about.
 
besides the fact the x2900 beat the 8800gtx in the test, i still find them very odd, I dont undestand how a slightly overlocked 8800gts 320mb would crush a stock 8800GTS 640mb in the tests by 7+ fps. regardless of the overclock at that high of a resolution (with the 8800gts getting roughly 35fps) 7fps is a huge diffrence in performance. its the diffrence between a game being smooth or choppy in some instances.
 
DrewRosenHouse said:
I dont undestand how a slightly overlocked 8800gts 320mb would crush a stock 8800GTS 640mb in the tests by 7+ fps.
Click to expand...

Probably because the tests were performed without AA. If the framebuffer size is not a limitation (as might be the case here sans AA), then performance will come down to core and memory clocks, which would favour the oc'd GTS.
 
BTK17 said:
But I think when DX10 starts to be used more and developer learn how to maximize DX10 features R600 will win.

Another reason

8800's do NOT have shader based AA while the R600 does
Click to expand...

Did you get this from a source of yours? I think people are skipping around the important fact (using AA, the card limps on one leg). Did it take Bioshock to prove to people that the 2900xt scores higher in a game without AA? Why all the "rejoicing", it's been like that for the longest... This "DX10 usage" business is about as uninformed as it gets. We don't know enough about DX10 (actually D3D10) nor the respected architectures of the cards to really say. Only the driver teams and developers have the slightest clue of which card is or could be better at DX10 as a whole. If or when shader based AA becomes a requirement in reality (read: not on paper, in actual use by devs.), the 8800/2900 will be ancient.
 
BTK17 said:
8800's do NOT have shader based AA while the R600 does
Click to expand...

Wrong. Just because R600 "only" has shader AA people make the false assumption that 8800's do not. G80 can do shader AA but it's hardware implementation is simply faster.
 
Marvelous said:
Maybe AA didn't work? If you look at this thread this guy says AA doesn't work with bioshock. He owns 2900xt and 8800gts btw and he says 2900xt is faster.:rolleyes: http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1031380245&postcount=9
Click to expand...

Actual quote:
"I've tested my GTS @ 648/1000 against 2900XT. Even at stock the 2900XT is faster, at 860/980 its quite a bit faster. The XT is faster because it's not able to run with AA on for a comparison."

:rolleyes:
 
KENNYB said:
Yeah, but it's fun :D
Furthermore, we haven't rehashed all the she said/he said non-sense that occurred before the 2900xt was launched.

Brief recap:
1: 8800's released in November of 2007 *very important

2: ATI fanboys declare that R600 will rape 8800.

2a: ATI fanboys declare that R600 Vista drivers will be a quality release, unlike said nVidia Vista drivers which are compared to butt-rot.

3: ATI finally releases 2900XT in May of 2007 using the Doom 3 excuse -- release when it's ready --- yeah, that's what she said.

3a: ATI fanboys cry that good drivers will take time.


A funny thing happened. The R600 didn't rape anything besides a few disgruntled stockholders. To add insult to injury, the 8800 was released months earlier than the R600. The 8800 was already half way through its "life". Even then, the R600 struggles to catch up to the GTX.

I remember other, ahem, websites not having a problem comparing 1900xt's with 7900GTX's in Oblivion despite the fact that the ATI card had the advantage of turning on AA with HDR. It's a tangible advantage that a gamer can pay for. So now we can't do the same in Bioshock just because the poor little 2900xt can't do AA in that game?
Click to expand...

LOL :D:D:D
 
KENNYB said:
Actual quote:
"I've tested my GTS @ 648/1000 against 2900XT. Even at stock the 2900XT is faster, at 860/980 its quite a bit faster. The XT is faster because it's not able to run with AA on for a comparison."

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I wouldn't know I don't have 2900xt. Just because 1 guy said it doesn't mean it's the truth. I suggested it to an 8800gts owner who can't accept 2900xt is faster in XP without AA.
 
LawGiver said:
the 2900 xt wipes the floor with the GTS in many games, WITH AA on. these games include gamse based on unreal 2/3 engine and doom 3 engine. you know, just some minor engines no one cares about.
Click to expand...

Actually 8800gts has an edge on many other games with AA and pure speed.
 
i dont understand what planet people who think the GTS is faster than the 2900 xt are from. it cant be earth.:rolleyes:
 
LawGiver said:
..what planet people who think the GTS is faster than the 2900 xt are from[?] it cant be earth.
Click to expand...
As far as I'm aware, Earth is the only planet home to "people", so I'd have to assume it's Earth.

It's possible that, in alternate dimensions, there exist 2900 XTs that generally perform better than GTS 640s, though we're certainly not living in that dimension.
 
Yep good game. Anyways, both series are obsolete with the new dx10.1 lol.
/jk
 
phide said:
As far as I'm aware, Earth is the only planet home to "people", so I'd have to assume it's Earth.

It's possible that, in alternate dimensions, there exist 2900 XTs that generally perform better than GTS 640s, though we're certainly not living in that dimension.
Click to expand...

this is false on so many levels. i think ur an alien.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top