BioShock Remastered Benchmarked [GameGPU]

[Bacon1]

http://www.gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/bioshock-remastered-test-gpu

Original Game

Remastered

Original:

Remastered:

4K 60fps Maxed settings on almost all video cards

 

[PhonakV30]

to have at least 30fps at 4K , You need R7 370.
Scale on mGPU :

7990,7970 : 69/47 ~ %47 , 115/68 = %69
SLI 780TI : 104/63 = %65 , 168/93 ~ %81
CF 290 : 106/66 ~ %61 , 166/89 ~ %87
SLI 980 : 119/72 = %65 , 177/98 ~ %81
CF Fury X : 139/95 = %46 , 241/142 ~ %70
SLI 1080 : 191/116 ~ %65 , 285/158 = %80

Scale of CF Fury X is very similar to 7990, All Nv cards are same , Only CF 290 is different than other.

 

[Phynaz]

4K 60fps Maxed settings on almost all video cards

They removed most of the user adjustable graphics settings from the remaster. It's not a PC game anymore, it's a console port.

 

[Elixer]

They removed most of the user adjustable graphics settings from the remaster. It's not a PC game anymore, it's a console port.

Pretty much this, it is locked to what they set it, and you can only change things via the ini file.
Not sure doing a benchmark comparing the two even makes any sense.

 

[Bacon1]

They removed most of the user adjustable graphics settings from the remaster. It's not a PC game anymore, it's a console port.

So you want to disable settings when cards are already running high FPS @ 4k?

 

[SPBHM]

it would be interesting to compare performance with the 2007 release, because in many cases it looks better and more polished (like the menus)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NakbSQZ2pwg

edit, nvm gamegpu actually compared it, the new one is a lot slower

 

[Phynaz]

So you want to disable settings when cards are already running high FPS @ 4k?

No, I'd like to be able to enable them.

 

[zinfamous]

No, I'd like to be able to enable them.

What if all settings are set at Ultra/max by default? What is there to be enabled?

 

[Bacon1]

What if all settings are set at Ultra/max by default? What is there to be enabled?

Exactly. The game is higher quality than the old one and the performance is great already. I mean sure options are fine, but unless you are trying to use a GPU from 2007 when the game came out it should run without issue

 

[Phynaz]

What if all settings are set at Ultra/max by default? What is there to be enabled?

They aren't.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

The big plus to the remaster for PC is it is free for owners of the Bioshock games. After watching the DF review I would stick with the original

 

[nathanddrews]

The big plus to the remaster for PC is it is free for owners of the Bioshock games.

Well how cool is that! I just checked out my Steam library and there it is - purchased in 2011!

 

[zinfamous]

They aren't.

well, how does one know that they aren't if there is no way to adjust them? Maybe the max settings of this version are just underwhelming?

 

[Bacon1]

well, how does one know that they aren't if there is no way to adjust them? Maybe the max settings of this version are just underwhelming?

Yep. The base game looks much better than the original already, look at the screenshots I posted. People expect a lot considering they gave it for free for anyone who owned it.

 

[RussianSensation]

Beastly performance from the 7970/280X. Seriously the 7970 is a freaken legend. In the same year that 780 debuted at $649, 280X was only $299. I still remember how most people online recommended not only the 680 2GB but even the 670 2GB over the 7970 Ghz. I even remember a time in the US when Gigabyte Windforce 1Ghz 7970 sold for the same price as an AIB 670.

 

[zinfamous]

Beastly performance from the 7970/280X. Seriously the 7970 is a freaken legend. In the same year that 780 debuted at $649, 280X was only $299. I still remember how most people online recommended not only the 680 2GB but even the 670 2GB over the 7970 Ghz. I even remember a time in the US when Gigabyte Windforce 1Ghz 7970 sold for the same price as an AIB 670.

search is broken (we can't search within calendar dates, yet) but I was trying to dig up a thread from back ~2013 or 14 when I needed to replace my 5850. I wanted to know what was going on with nVidia and AMD at the time, and I got a lot of recommendations to go with a 960 2gb because it was "enough VRAM" and it's awesome because it's nVIdia. I went with the 280x because I knew that the basic "HD" texture pack in Skyrim were already demanding a bit more than the 1gb of my 5850 (I think they wanted at least 1.5gb to be happy), and so I thought, wtf am I going to be doing with 2gb in another year if this already 3 year-old game pushes 2 gb?

glad I picked up the 280x, and yeah, it would not shock me if the same people promising me that the 2gb 960 would be the bee's knees are those claiming the same about a 3gb midrange card in 2016 for $200.

As for this free upgrade in textures, I'm not sure what people were expecting with fancy sliders and if they would really be useful--this game is from 2007. What kind of 4 year-old or younger GPUs the members here would be using that can't run this game at max anything settings with upgraded textures and effects? It's a 9 year-old game. I can't imagine an updated fidelity at max settings should be comparable to anything released in the last 2 or even 5 years.