Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

Performance on 9400mFollow

#1 Aug 28 2009 at 6:12 AM Rating: Good
Looking for people's opinion on whether or not XIV would be able to run well on a computer equipped with a 9400m.

Thanks in advance.
#2 Aug 28 2009 at 6:14 AM Rating: Default
**
423 posts
as with all laptops... not great. We don't know tech specs so asking now is pointless.

You may be able to run on low graphics perfectly fine. then again you might get 15fps on low and thats the highest.

No one knows tech specs yet. in fact we wish we did so we could choose our computer accordingly.
#3 Aug 28 2009 at 6:26 AM Rating: Good
***
1,446 posts
Probably not well with a 9400m because it is integrated into the motherboard. A dedicated card will run it fine though.

Quote:
as with all laptops... not great.


Please don't spread false rumors. Many laptops have dedicated cards and will run the game fine. The problem isn't that it's a laptop it's that it is an integrated card and shared memory.
____________________________
Kyansaroo - Kujata
Windurst Rank 10
Tarutaru
BLM 75 / WHM 75 / BST 75 / RDM 75 / BRD 75
Next to 75: COR 47 / SCH 58
RotZ: Complete
CoP: Complete
ToAU: In-Progress
WoTG: In-Progress
#4boriss, Posted: Aug 28 2009 at 6:28 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Are you mod of these boards? Please don't tell me what i can and cannot say. Thanks,
#5 Aug 28 2009 at 8:11 AM Rating: Decent
*
67 posts
I've got a 9600m, myself, and I was wondering roughly the same question. But seeing as how little information we still don't know about the game, asking right now seems pretty fruitless.
____________________________
Eagles can soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
#6 Aug 28 2009 at 8:36 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
2,495 posts
boriss wrote:
Are you mod of these boards? Please don't tell me what i can and cannot say. Thanks,


Actually, these boards are user moderated. If you feel the need to post inaccurate information or be a prick, expect to be rated below the filter.

boriss wrote:
Secondly, most laptops do not run games very well, hence why they are laptops(and "just fine" in my post doesn't mean garbage, or not at all). The only laptops that do cost so much and are so big/heavy that you might as well just buy a desktop(and the people that do buy them have more money then brains). It was already stated that the requirements would be high so most laptops will run this game poorly. Heck most desktops will too.


I'm sure my laptop with a GTX 260M, Core 2 Duo P8700 and 6 gig of ram will run the game very well. Where exactly is your source for these "high" requirements?

Also, having the disposable income to pay for a higher end gaming laptop would probably indicate a rather intelligent person, contrary to your beliefs.
#7 Aug 28 2009 at 2:19 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
375 posts
Quote:

Also, having the disposable income to pay for a higher end gaming laptop would probably indicate a rather intelligent person, contrary to your beliefs.



Sick burn dude..... sick burn.
____________________________
FFXIV- Laell Orias Conjurer
Server- Besaid

"But Phillip... he's a girl crab.
#8 Aug 28 2009 at 3:39 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
*
158 posts
Raolan wrote:


I'm sure my laptop with a GTX 260M, Core 2 Duo P8700 and 6 gig of ram will run the game very well. Where exactly is your source for these "high" requirements?


6 gigs of ram eh? .... y?

don't get me wrong i'm sure your comp will play it... but unless you are running a server... which you aren't... because you said its a laptop... which is very unlikely you are using it as a server... windows vista (or xp, or any os for a home computer pre xp) can not support more than 4 gigs... and 4gigs is only supported on a 64bit system... which... you could have, i like to run 64bit myself, but it is still only 4 gigs, if you are running 32bit, you are only utilizing about 3.2 gigs... either or... not 6gigs...

anyway... for most people who want to play ffxiv who do not already have a computer capable of playing it, or are not planning on getting one anyway, the PS3 will be a smarter move, for 299.99 to get the slim or same price for the lower end large model, you can still use keyboard and mouse (i think suggesting it is written into the game) will be much cheaper. If you are worried about a TV no sweat, just buy a HD lcd computer monitor with dvi or hdmi inputs and use an dvi/hdmi or hdmi cable correspondingly for about 110-140 dollars on newegg or something. and you are looking at 400-450 dollars instead of 900+ for a computer u make yourself or 1300 for new laptop or bestbuy comp.

Edited, Aug 28th 2009 7:52pm by Bocomi
____________________________
Asurean Taru

75 WHM
75 BRD
51 SMN
43 DRK
38 SAM
37 BLM
29 WAR
#9 Aug 28 2009 at 3:51 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
495 posts
Raolan wrote:
boriss wrote:
Are you mod of these boards? Please don't tell me what i can and cannot say. Thanks,


Actually, these boards are user moderated. If you feel the need to post inaccurate information or be a prick, expect to be rated below the filter.

boriss wrote:
Secondly, most laptops do not run games very well, hence why they are laptops(and "just fine" in my post doesn't mean garbage, or not at all). The only laptops that do cost so much and are so big/heavy that you might as well just buy a desktop(and the people that do buy them have more money then brains). It was already stated that the requirements would be high so most laptops will run this game poorly. Heck most desktops will too.


I'm sure my laptop with a GTX 260M, Core 2 Duo P8700 and 6 gig of ram will run the game very well. Where exactly is your source for these "high" requirements?

Also, having the disposable income to pay for a higher end gaming laptop would probably indicate a rather intelligent person, contrary to your beliefs.


Would you, by chance, be the proud owner of a Sager 8662? XD
____________________________
FFXI ~ Ifrit: Rollon (Retired)
90MNK|76BRD|76BST|75WAR|75DRG|63BLM|63PUP|44RNG|41NIN||36WHM|34SAM|23RDM|19PLD
Rank: 10

FFXIV ~ Cactaur: Rollon Rylan
http://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodestone/character/2311793/
#10 Aug 28 2009 at 3:55 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
158 posts
Zicash wrote:

Would you, by chance, be the proud owner of a Sager 8662? XD


if he is... the sager only expands up to 4gb of ram... maybe the 6 was just a typo... i hope it is >.>


personally i think i'm fairly safe with my Radeon HD4850x2 crossfired. Quad core processor and 4 gigs of ram (once i reinstall my 64bit os)

sorry my epeen wanted out

Edited, Aug 28th 2009 8:07pm by Bocomi
____________________________
Asurean Taru

75 WHM
75 BRD
51 SMN
43 DRK
38 SAM
37 BLM
29 WAR
#11 Aug 28 2009 at 4:02 PM Rating: Good
***
2,084 posts
Quote:
Also, having the disposable income to pay for a higher end gaming laptop would probably indicate a rather intelligent person, contrary to your beliefs.


Rich = Intelligent is a bit of a generalization, considering the amount of independently wealthy idiots I'm familiar with.

I'm assuming what the guy was trying to say that gaming desktops on an average always tend to be superior to gaming laptops, as well as much cheaper, due to cheaper parts, much more room for better airflow or watercooling, etc etc.

Laptops can reach the same level if you throw enough money at it, but even then, airflow and heat issues continue to be a problem with even the best laptops. The extra mobility is a nice plus though.


Now, forum epeen-waggling contest aside:

probably not very well, OP.


Quote:
Where exactly is your source for these "high" requirements?


The devs have mentioned a few times in interviews that requirements will be 'quite high.' Your GTX 260M should be able to play the game fine, although probably not on maximum, considering that I think it's about on par with a Radeon 4850 if I'm not mistaken.

Considering PC devs that create pretty games often like to push specs to their limits (because in a less than a year, those high specs will become cheap and readily available), I wouldn't be surprised if SE has even considered 4870x2.
The estimate is also influenced by the fact that XI's requirement specs were high for the time.



Edited, Aug 28th 2009 5:07pm by Kirbster
____________________________
What would happen if I hired two private investigators to follow each other?
#12 Aug 28 2009 at 4:14 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
350 posts
Quote:
6 gigs of ram eh? .... y?

don't get me wrong i'm sure your comp will play it... but unless you are running a server... which you aren't... because you said its a laptop... which is very unlikely you are using it as a server... windows vista (or xp, or any os for a home computer pre xp) can not support more than 4 gigs... and 4gigs is only supported on a 64bit system... which... you could have, i like to run 64bit myself, but it is still only 4 gigs, if you are running 32bit, you are only utilizing about 3.2 gigs... either or... not 6gigs..


A 64bit OS/Computer can theoretically support much more RAM (16 billion GB), but the bottleneck would probably come from the motherboard. There are versions of Vista and Windows 7 that support 128GB of RAM. A lot of motherboards only support up 4GB, but there are ones that support 8 or 16GB.
#13 Aug 28 2009 at 4:34 PM Rating: Good
***
2,084 posts
Yeah, most non-generic motherboards from the last year or so typically support up to at least 8.

When W7 comes out I'll be switching from 32-bit XP to 64-bit W7, and stuffing it with 8 gigs of ram.

Good times.
____________________________
What would happen if I hired two private investigators to follow each other?
#14 Aug 28 2009 at 5:18 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
***
2,000 posts
Kirbster wrote:
When W7 comes out I'll be switching from 32-bit XP to 64-bit W7, and stuffing it with 8 gigs of ram.


If you are running tri-channel memory, there is virtually no difference between 3, 6, or even 12 gigs of RAM for single task computing (ie playing FFXIV). Even at 1066 MHz you will have 25.6 Gigibytes per second of bandwidth.

Here is a chart comparing frames per second performance of three identical systems running COD World at War at 2560x1600 with all features, extra textures, and 4x AA/Max AF.

3 gigs of RAM = 44.4 FPS
12 gigs of RAM = 45.2 FPS


Just get 6 gigs (or even 3) and invest the difference in a better processor or gpu.

(More info here.)

Edited, Aug 28th 2009 6:19pm by akirussan
____________________________
#15 Aug 28 2009 at 6:23 PM Rating: Good
***
2,084 posts
It's not for XIV, it's for Maya/Zbrush/Aftereffects work.
____________________________
What would happen if I hired two private investigators to follow each other?
#16 Aug 28 2009 at 9:27 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
158 posts
Cyiode wrote:


A 64bit OS/Computer can theoretically support much more RAM (16 billion GB), but the bottleneck would probably come from the motherboard. There are versions of Vista and Windows 7 that support 128GB of RAM. A lot of motherboards only support up 4GB, but there are ones that support 8 or 16GB.


IC

____________________________
Asurean Taru

75 WHM
75 BRD
51 SMN
43 DRK
38 SAM
37 BLM
29 WAR
#17 Aug 29 2009 at 1:56 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,495 posts
The laptop I have is running Vista 64 so it recognizes all 6 gig.

Kirbster wrote:
Rich = Intelligent is a bit of a generalization, considering the amount of independently wealthy idiots I'm familiar with.

I'm assuming what the guy was trying to say that gaming desktops on an average always tend to be superior to gaming laptops, as well as much cheaper, due to cheaper parts, much more room for better airflow or watercooling, etc etc.


Less of a generalization than you think.

How exactly did they become independently wealthy? Was it a good job, savvy business practices or proper money management and spending? Each shows some level of above average intelligence.

The sudden windfall is the exception, not the rule. And a parents level of wealth does not indicate the individuals level of wealth, making that group irrelevant in this discussion.

Regardless of what he was trying to say, the derogatory comment towards those with the disposable income to spend on a gaming laptop was not only incorrect, but unwarranted. So I called him on it.

Kirbster wrote:
The devs have mentioned a few times in interviews that requirements will be 'quite high.' Your GTX 260M should be able to play the game fine, although probably not on maximum, considering that I think it's about on par with a Radeon 4850 if I'm not mistaken.

Considering PC devs that create pretty games often like to push specs to their limits (because in a less than a year, those high specs will become cheap and readily available), I wouldn't be surprised if SE has even considered 4870x2.
The estimate is also influenced by the fact that XI's requirement specs were high for the time.


"High" is a relative term, so without some sort of reference, "high" means very little. "high" compared to FFXI? Compared to current MMOs? Compared to current graphics technology?

While I agree developers like to make it look as good as possible, the higher they push their requirements, the more customers they alienate.


For those who were asking, I have an ASUS G71GX-RX05. The $1150 it was released at was a great price. The current $1300 is pushing it a little.
#18 Aug 29 2009 at 2:13 PM Rating: Good
***
2,084 posts
Quote:
"High" is a relative term, so without some sort of reference, "high" means very little. "high" compared to FFXI? Compared to current MMOs? Compared to current graphics technology?


If no reference is given, typically one would always assume the 'current graphics technology.'

Alienation wouldn't be too much of an issue if it scales somewhat well. People will play the game even on low settings, if they can.
____________________________
What would happen if I hired two private investigators to follow each other?
#19 Aug 29 2009 at 3:32 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
2,495 posts
Kirbster wrote:
If no reference is given, typically one would always assume the 'current graphics technology.'

Alienation wouldn't be too much of an issue if it scales somewhat well. People will play the game even on low settings, if they can.


Boriss stated that the developers stated the requirements would be high. If the requirements are high, their won't be any backwards scaling since the "requirements" are based on low settings, or what's required to play the game. Having high requirements based on current technology would alienate a lot of the player base. Now if "high" was meant towards recommended specs or max settings, than the "requirements" would be much lower.

When Crysis was released, it was noted as having high required specs. Most people didn't have PCs that would even touch the game at the time and systems that could run it on max settings were almost non existent. When Oblivion was released it was also noted as having high required specs, but the number of systems that fell into Oblivions high requirements were much greater than the number of systems that fell into the high requirements for Crysis. So as I said, "high" is a relative term and without a point of reference, is fairly meaningless.

And giving advise or recommendations based on assumptions is generally a bad idea.
#20 Aug 29 2009 at 3:50 PM Rating: Good
***
2,084 posts
I've actually mentioned in other upgrade advice threads, after my input, that one should wait until the beta and benchmarks come out before selecting components to upgrade.

But simply deducing that the Dev's definition of 'high requirements' would correspond to a current 'high performance' machine isn't much of a stretch.

Not that I personally have much to worry about.

Edited, Aug 29th 2009 4:55pm by Kirbster
____________________________
What would happen if I hired two private investigators to follow each other?
#21 Aug 29 2009 at 4:41 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,495 posts
Kirbster wrote:
But simply deducing that the Dev's definition of 'high requirements' would correspond to a current 'high performance' machine isn't much of a stretch.


The comparison questions about FFXI, MMOs and current technology were meant to demonstrate the importance of a reference point when dealing with relative terms. The other examples of Crysis and Oblivion were meant to demonstrate the range that the term "high" could represent. I think you may have taken them a bit out of context.

I agree that it's most likely in relation to current technology, but whether it's directed towards the required or recommended specs is more so the reasoning for my request of a source. If this information was given through a human translator, it could have very easily been misinterpreted. If it was a report that was later translated, or given in english to begin with, it's less likely to have been misconstrued.
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 21 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (21)