![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
I wish I could tell you, but it just goes black for me after launching the game and stop responding
I like your optimism m8, it gives me a shine of hope it can catch up to competition
I can't wait. In a dark and ghoulish way.
Dx10.
Much better than all the other dx10 games/patches that have been released. I just can't get over how well the demo ran on my pc, r6:vegas slaughtered my card (7900gtx for now), bioshock loves it. =) 7.8 CatalystNot too shaby.
.After I saw how bad it runs on my Sapphire HD 2900 XT 1GB DDR4, not only did I swap out the card with my MSI 8800 GTX, but I've also returned it. Basically ATI is doing the same crap that Nvidia did the FX series, they are optimizing the driver so that it doesn't render everything. Frame rates with the 2900 XT are also chaotic because they fluctuate allot, I've measured it with FRAPS. Looks like the game is capped at 60 FPS do. I run it at 1680x1050 with everything maxed. Here is what happens with the 2900 XT: the game feels choppy and it almost frags, textures aren't rendered completely, basically for instance after you get your first "plasmide" with the thunderbolt, your hand is rendered almost black, no details, you can't see much detail on the mutants either, the "little sister girl" has no detail on her, for me the 2900 XT ruined the game, because there is a lack of rendering detail in it. I hope [H] decides to do an article on this, because I believe it's ridiculous that ATI is doing this. This way they also pull 3DMark scores, buy leaving things out during rendering. You guys should watch 3DMark 06 when benching a 2900 XT closely, and then swap it with a 8800 GTS/GTX or Ultra and see what I mean. The frames just don't flow. I know I've said a few good things about the 2900 XT before, but I'll eat my words and take those back because after I saw Bioshock yesterday on the 2900 XT I was convinced that it's a flop. I had my suspicions when while playing Day Of Defeat at 1680x1050 sometimes when I was like crawling on a rock and looking at it, it was like it was having a hard time to fill the screen with pixel and it was fragmenting (Vertical Sync didn't fix it).
Also tested to see how bad the AA hit is on the 2900 XT compared to the 8800 GTX:
3DMark 06 all default settings except for AA, I've set AA at 8X and run benchmark on both cards:
2900 XT: 7128 points
8800 GTX: 8501 points
Vista Home Premiun 64 was used, Q6600@3.0 Ghz, 4GB (2x2) G.Skill (5-5-5-15-T1).
The way I feel about that 2900XT, considering that I've overlooked the Jet Engine - Like cooler, is that I would take the freaking card and put a few engineers from ATI agains a wall and see which one of them can catch it with their head because the thing weights like a ton.
I hate the 2900 XT period, it's not worth crap. On the other hand my gaming experience with the 8800 GTX was awesome, crisp & detailed graphics (1680x1050, max. settings), everything flows
Sorry for the long rant, but the 2900 XT sucks. And no, driver updates ain't gonna fix it. They didn't fix the FX series either back then...
Doesn't really matter anymore because I've got rid of the card. I've dropped $500 on the 2900 XT 1GB, and with the same money I can get a GTX which provides a smoother gaming experience... But what really bothered me is the damn fan when I start a game or switch Media Center to full screen to watch TV (yes, I use a ATI 650 PRO and I think it's the best TV Tuner $80 can get). No grudge with ATI, but they just put out a messed up product because AMD ordered them to. Why do you think that Orton quit his job? I also have a 1950 Pro in a machine and it's a damn good card for its age. So no, I am not a fanboy of nvidia, in fact, I think its about time we get some competition to drive this crazy prices down on gfx cards...