Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
This Forum is Read Only

How will your PC perform? (FFXIV benchmarking)Follow

#1 Apr 19 2010 at 11:54 PM Rating: Decent
I posted about this towards the bottom of another long thread that isn't getting many views right now so I'm reposting it in a new thread. There have been a significant number of people curious as to whether FFXIV will run on their machines and this is one option to get a rough idea that's a little more interesting and informative than simply having someone read through your list of components and offer an estimate.

Please note that the procedure and references for comparison I'm about to offer are not guaranteed or intended to offer you a concrete estimation of how well FFXIV will run on your machine. It will, however, give you a general frame of reference for where you stand. People who will likely benefit most from this little guide are the ones who are not familiar with benchmarking software and those who haven't really done much with their PC since they found out it could handle FFXI.

To start, follow this link. Read the information on the page if you like and then scroll down to the "Download" section and select a download mirror. This is a safe site and a safe download; Heaven 2.0 is a popular benchmarking tool used by a large number of people. Note: The page makes reference to requiring a DirectX 11 compatible video card. That requirement is only applicable if you want to use the tessellation features of the benchmark, which we won't be using.

Once you've downloaded the software (the Windows version is just under 250MB), install it and launch it. You should end up with a screen that looks similar to this:

Screenshot


The software will automatically detect and recommend the maximum resolution your hardware supports, and I recommend sticking with that. For everything else, unless you're familiar with the various different setup options, I'd recommend setting everything as they are shown in the image above to start, and then you can tweak and play around with it in subsequent tests.

Once you're satisfied with that basic setup, click "RUN". You'll find yourself at another full screen splash page with a graphical overview of some of the hotkeys.

Press 'F9' to begin the benchmark test. (It may take several seconds to load into the benchmark).

During the benchmark run, you'll see a number of menu options in the top left of the screen that you can access with your mouse. The top right of your screen is where you'll see your FPS (frames per second). Your FPS is the number you're going to want to keep an eye on. You will likely notice that your framerate will fluctuate by a fairly significant amount from one scene to the next. You're wanting to get a rough average, but it's worth noting how low your framerate drops. (ie. You may get a fairly consistent 40 fps for most of the test but at some points it may drop to 20. The important part is the average but the lower number is also significant).

Edit to add: Not sure how I omitted it (I blame it on the pretty pictures), but once you start running the actual engine, there's a "Benchmark" button in the top left that you can click. This will open a small new window in the lower right of your screen and track key details such as min/max fps as well as your progress through the test (ie. Scene x of 26). When it reaches the end of scene 26, it will pop up a window mid-screen that will give you a slightly more detailed breakdown. Note that once you click on 'Benchmark", it will display "Benchmarking..." on screen and you will not be able to alter any settings. To exit benchmarking mode, just press Esc.

Keep in mind that this benchmark does not account for things like character and monster models and combat effects. As a result, your framerates in any MMO will likely fluctuate substantially between a relatively underpopulated area and a densely populated hub.

Once you've let it run for a while (by default it loop back to the beginning of the predefined camera path if you let it run long enough), compare your rough average framerate to this general guide:

10-30fps: You may want to seriously consider upgrading before FFXIV goes live and/or be prepared to run the game at lower graphics settings.

30-45fps: You should be fine to run FFXIV at low/medium settings, but expect noticeable hardware lag in densely populated areas or in fights that involve a large number of players and/or monsters.

45-60fps: FFXIV should run fine at medium settings in all but the most hardware intensive situations. You should also be able to push your graphics settings a little higher with good results outside of major population centers.

60+fps: Pfft. You're fine. Expect some hardware lag in extreme situations, but it won't be enough to significantly detract from the experience.

Hope that helps.


Edited, Apr 20th 2010 3:18pm by Aurelius
#2 Apr 20 2010 at 1:01 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
27 posts
Pretty sweet.. Is there something i'm missing that seems to be capping my fps at 30? I'm a bit tired so I probably just missed it but I was sitting right at 30 almost the whole time.
____________________________
FFXI: 75BLM, 75THF, 58NIN, 52WHM, 49WAR, 43 SMN
WoW lvl 80: Shaman, Paladin, Warlock, Rogue, Mage
#3 Apr 20 2010 at 1:05 AM Rating: Decent
Timekill wrote:
Pretty sweet.. Is there something i'm missing that seems to be capping my fps at 30? I'm a bit tired so I probably just missed it but I was sitting right at 30 almost the whole time.


I haven't seen anything in the setup features that would force a cap on your FPS. Depending on what settings I run it at, I've had it go well over 60fps in certain scenes. You could try lowering the "Shaders" setting and see if that results in an increase in your frame rate.
#4 Apr 20 2010 at 1:09 AM Rating: Decent
13 posts
Looks like I'm getting a PS3.. lol
#5 Apr 20 2010 at 1:18 AM Rating: Decent
I'm actually forced to post from the mac. The fiancee took over the laptop as she's getting antsy for her new build. lol. Can't wait to see if I can beast heaven 2.0, good looking out on the new thread, seems people got scared after our other hit 4 pages Smiley: grin

Edited, Apr 20th 2010 3:21am by flukedrk
____________________________
Hyanmen wrote:
It's a frocobo, duh.


Currently playing: Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate (WiiU): comatose1
#6 Apr 20 2010 at 1:30 AM Rating: Decent
flukedrk the Shady wrote:
I'm actually forced to post from the mac. The fiancee took over the laptop as she's getting antsy for her new build. lol. Can't wait to see if I can beast heaven 2.0, good looking out on the new thread, seems people got scared after our other hit 4 pages Smiley: grin


Ya, I wanted to give it a little while before starting a new thread just to see how many reads the other one was getting. I was originally going to recommend Furmark for the bench but it's not nearly so interesting to look at and it doesn't have spiffy RPG-esque music tootling on in the background. And hey...an airship. In the absence of a genuine FFXIV benchmarking application, that's about as close as you can hope to get lol

I just ran the test as recommended above again noticed that the most graphically intensive scene is actually the one where you're on a small platform covered in long grass moving in the breeze with a rope fence and a view of the larger islands off in the distance. I really like that benchmark...it brings me back to the days of the early-mid 90s when European hacker crews would create what were at the time eye-popping graphics and sound demos and trash talk their rivals in the credits :P
#7 Apr 20 2010 at 4:35 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,495 posts
I know I need to upgrade my VPU but wow. That's the first time I've ever heard my fan go into jet fighter mode.

30-40 FPS with a single drop to 17 and several spikes into the 50-60 range. Exactly where I expected to be with a 8800GT.
#8 Apr 20 2010 at 6:31 AM Rating: Good
**
349 posts
I've been laugh a little about in one of my WoW guild because I am playing with a "dinosaur" comp. I won't gives you the specs, as it is quite old, but still able to play WotLK at the lowest setting (so my graphic card don't explode outta me) and play high-resolution FF XI.


But, Heaven, can't even makes it play.


I am so happy to have a PS3 to compensate for playing FF XIV
#9 Apr 20 2010 at 6:45 AM Rating: Good
26 on low shading -_-.

Gonna need to figure out what needs upgrading and price that vs. a PS3.

Unigine Heaven Benchmark v2.0 wrote:

FPS:
26.0
Scores:
654
Min FPS:
13.8
Max FPS:
46.5
Hardware
Binary:
Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1500 Release Mar 7 2010
Operating system:
Windows 7 (build 7600) 64bit
CPU model:
Pentium(R) Dual-Core CPU E5400 @ 2.70GHz
CPU flags:
2700MHz MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 HTT
GPU model:
NVIDIA GeForce GT 240 8.16.11.9107 1024Mb
Settings
Render:
direct3d11
Mode:
1600x900 fullscreen
Shaders: low
Textures:
medium
Filter:
trilinear
Anisotropy:
4x
Occlusion:
enabled
Refraction:
enabled
Volumetric:
enabled
Replication: disabled
Tessellation: disabled


Any tech people see something quick and easy to upgrade first?

Edited, Apr 20th 2010 8:48am by Lubriderm
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#10 Apr 20 2010 at 6:50 AM Rating: Good
*
232 posts
I got a pretty solid 43 FPS through all of it, dropped to 20~ once.
____________________________
Wise/Funny quotes go here
#11 Apr 20 2010 at 8:31 AM Rating: Good
*
134 posts
Lubriderm the Hand wrote:
NVIDIA GeForce GT 240 8.16.11.9107 1024Mb

Get an ATI HD4890 or better IMO. Also, not sure how much RAM you have, but 4 gigs is decent.
#12 Apr 20 2010 at 8:42 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
****
4,148 posts
Lubriderm the Hand wrote:
26 on low shading -_-.

Gonna need to figure out what needs upgrading and price that vs. a PS3.


Sell the GT 240 for around $40 on ebay $299 for a ps3 +40$ leaves you with a $340 budget for the video card vs. the PS3 which puts you squarely into the range for a used ATI HD5870 (I got mine for 325) or a new 470GTX if you prefer to stick with Nvidia
____________________________
Mishana: DRG | THF | RDM | NIN
#13 Apr 20 2010 at 11:11 AM Rating: Good
Don't measure FFXIV performance with the Heaven benchmark! It will only work if you know for sure that FFXIV will have same polygon count as Heaven benchmark. You can be way off at estimating using this benchmark.

Edit: I wouldn't be surprised if SE comes out with their benchmark like FFXI before FFXIV is even released. Wait till then before worrying about upgrading your computer. Plus longer you wait the more you can get for less.




Edited, Apr 20th 2010 1:26pm by Pseudopsia
____________________________
WoW Pkite Blood Elf 80 Retribution Paladin Active
FFXI Yakumo Tarutaru 75 Black Mage Retired
Aion Pkite Elyos 43 Gladiator Retired
#14 Apr 20 2010 at 11:51 AM Rating: Decent
13 posts
No one is really using it as a direct measure. It's just for a general idea, the difference won't be that large that Heaven won't be a considerable benchmark.

Though I do agree, I hope they release a FFXIV benchmark closer to release, so I can get an idea of exactly how much I'm going to be putting into my new computer.

I'm holding off on building it until closer to release, I don't feel like dropping over $1.2k into a machine for new parts to be put out closer to the release.
#15 Apr 20 2010 at 11:52 AM Rating: Decent
Pseudopsia wrote:
Don't measure FFXIV performance with the Heaven benchmark! It will only work if you know for sure that FFXIV will have same polygon count as Heaven benchmark. You can be way off at estimating using this benchmark.



A benchmark like Heaven 2.0 is specifically designed to test a system across a broad range criteria. As I mentioned in the OP, it's not intended as a concrete comparison. The purpose was to put forward a tool that people can use to see how their PC manages under a heavy load DX9 application, which is what FFXIV is going to be.
#16 Apr 20 2010 at 12:07 PM Rating: Default
What I don't like, is you might be causing people to choose to use PS3 when their computer is more then adequate to play FFXIV even better then a PS3 can using same resolution.

PS3 is really showing its age, that system with a Geforce 240 GT is already more powerful then a PS3.


Edited, Apr 20th 2010 2:23pm by Pseudopsia
____________________________
WoW Pkite Blood Elf 80 Retribution Paladin Active
FFXI Yakumo Tarutaru 75 Black Mage Retired
Aion Pkite Elyos 43 Gladiator Retired
#17 Apr 20 2010 at 1:11 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
743 posts
Pseudopsia wrote:
What I don't like, is you might be causing people to choose to use PS3 when their computer is more then adequate to play FFXIV even better then a PS3 can using same resolution.

PS3 is really showing its age, that system with a Geforce 240 GT is already more powerful then a PS3.


Warning: Flaming derail ahead!
____________________________
I think you've been smoking the Moko...
http://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodestone/character/350413/
http://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodestone/character/1628942/
http://www.nerdist.com/
Angus of Cerberus (retired)
#18 Apr 20 2010 at 1:22 PM Rating: Good
Pseudopsia wrote:
What I don't like, is you might be causing people to choose to use PS3 when their computer is more then adequate to play FFXIV even better then a PS3 can using same resolution.

PS3 is really showing its age, that system with a Geforce 240 GT is already more powerful then a PS3.


PS3 also doesn't run at anywhere near the same resolution as a PC. You can't compare what a PS3's hardware can do and try to find an equivalent in PC specs and expect comparable performance.

I'm not responsible for the decisions other people make, and the OP was carefully worded so as to avoid making any concrete recommendations if someone's framerate under Heaven 2.0 was on the low side. SE said very soon after the game was announced that FFXIV will be tuned so that a good PC 1-2 years from now should be able to run it without much difficulty. A good PC 1-2 years from now. Not an average PC today, not a dated PC a year from now. A good PC. That leaves a ton of wiggle room for older PCs to reduce and/or disable non-essential effects and still be able to run the game at a comfortable level, but I think a greater disservice would be downplaying what SE has told us about the requirements and having a bunch of people running the official benchmark (if there is one) only to find that their PC's performance is disappointing.

Worst case scenario, someone scores lower numbers in Heaven 2.0 than might be ideal so they make a minor upgrade or start setting money aside for upgrades towards launch only to find SE grossly overstated the requirements. Gee fella, sorry you've got a slightly more current rig or a bank account full of cash. My bad.
#19 Apr 20 2010 at 3:00 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
340 posts
And here is the thing. That benchmark is configurable. You can pull down anti-aliasing and resolutions if you want to boost your framerate some. That is pretty much standard with most things. I'll probably be upgrading my desktop in the next six months if I get a new job, but if I don't, I know I could use my laptop just fine for now. I could run it at the 1920x1080 native resolution where it obviously looks the best, but if I knock the anti-aliasing down to 2x and the resolution down to 1600x900 I end up gaining 12 fps. It is all about having it look a certain way. If it looks acceptable to you and plays at an acceptable framerate, then roll with it. The thing with a PC is that your graphical ceiling will be higher if you decide to sink more money into your PC.
____________________________
WoW Blackhand-US-Date of Retirement: 9/21/2010... /Sigh
Devari - 90 Rogue 85 DK Druid/Mage/Warrior 70+

FFXI - Shiva "Retired.... Or not? One more try, honest."
Desmar - 65 Sam 36 Mnk 18 Thf 12 War

FFXIV - Devari Garamond - Sargatanas 50 Paladin / Culinarian / Weaver / Armorer
Beta - Devaria Ariadne - Ultros - Pugilist
#20 Apr 20 2010 at 3:32 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
30 posts
isn't this a benchmark for the same engine that FFIX is gonna use?
#21 Apr 20 2010 at 3:46 PM Rating: Decent
Plays better than you
*****
11,852 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
Pseudopsia wrote:
What I don't like, is you might be causing people to choose to use PS3 when their computer is more then adequate to play FFXIV even better then a PS3 can using same resolution.

PS3 is really showing its age, that system with a Geforce 240 GT is already more powerful then a PS3.


PS3 also doesn't run at anywhere near the same resolution as a PC. You can't compare what a PS3's hardware can do and try to find an equivalent in PC specs and expect comparable performance.

I'm not responsible for the decisions other people make, and the OP was carefully worded so as to avoid making any concrete recommendations if someone's framerate under Heaven 2.0 was on the low side. SE said very soon after the game was announced that FFXIV will be tuned so that a good PC 1-2 years from now should be able to run it without much difficulty. A good PC 1-2 years from now. Not an average PC today, not a dated PC a year from now. A good PC. That leaves a ton of wiggle room for older PCs to reduce and/or disable non-essential effects and still be able to run the game at a comfortable level, but I think a greater disservice would be downplaying what SE has told us about the requirements and having a bunch of people running the official benchmark (if there is one) only to find that their PC's performance is disappointing.

Worst case scenario, someone scores lower numbers in Heaven 2.0 than might be ideal so they make a minor upgrade or start setting money aside for upgrades towards launch only to find SE grossly overstated the requirements. Gee fella, sorry you've got a slightly more current rig or a bank account full of cash. My bad.


Firstly, The PS3 runs at 1920x1080 (aka 1080p). Most PCs these days run at 1920x1080 or 1920x1200. Pretty much the same.

Psyudopsia - you are completely and utterly wrong. You are missing a huge element of the equation - the operating system. The PS3 will provide a steady, tested frame rate. Everyone's PS3 is the same. Every PS3 game is engineered to perform properly on the PS3.

On the other hand, a Windows based PC has a TON of overhead behind the scenes. Windows7 is great, but it is still nowhere near as efficient as a PS3 that doesn't have to worry about managing nearly as many processes and threads.

A GT240, as per your example, was never intended to be a lasting gaming card. A PS3 will likely provide a far better experience.

The bottom line is that PC gaming is expensive. If you don't LOVE your PC, and the games you desire are available for consoles, you would be a lot better off in the long run buying a console and a non-gaming PC. Aurelius' advice is sound.
____________________________
Trubbles Stormborn - 25 ARC / 22 CNJ ... 18 FSH / 14 CUL

#22 Apr 20 2010 at 3:46 PM Rating: Decent
ogboot wrote:
isn't this a benchmark for the same engine that FFIX is gonna use?


I wasn't aware that SE was developing FFIX for PC release. If you meant FFXIV, Crystal Tools is the proprietary engine that SE is using for development, meaning that nobody will be able to benchmark or test with that engine until SE releases the game or a benchmarking tool.
#23 Apr 20 2010 at 3:48 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
30 posts
whoops, yes: FFXIV :D
#24 Apr 20 2010 at 3:57 PM Rating: Decent
**
845 posts
My computer dropped to 49 fps at the grassy scene but got over 190 fps on the least intense parts, was around 70-120 most of the time. but i did it with directx9 and i dont know much about computers so i might have messed up.


Ok I redid it with the exact settings you had in your screen shot and my framerate dropped all the way down to 28 at the grassy part and was in the 30-60 range most of the time for the rest of it. I also did it with another window pulled up, would that make a difference?

Edited, Apr 20th 2010 6:03pm by UncleRuckusForLife
____________________________

#25 Apr 20 2010 at 4:08 PM Rating: Default
UncleRuckusForLife wrote:
My computer dropped to 49 fps at the grassy scene but got over 190 fps on the least intense parts, was around 70-120 most of the time. but i did it with directx9 and i dont know much about computers so i might have messed up.


Sounds like you did it right. We know for sure that FFXIV is going to support DirectX 9 so that seemed the best place to start for this benchmark. Whether or not FFXIV will support DX10/11 at any time (at or after initial launch) is unknown at this point. I don't notice much of a difference running the benchmark on DX10 vs. DX9, but I do notice a substantial difference running it under DX11 (DX11 is a fair bit more demanding).
#26 Apr 20 2010 at 4:12 PM Rating: Default
UncleRuckusForLife wrote:
My computer dropped to 49 fps at the grassy scene but got over 190 fps on the least intense parts, was around 70-120 most of the time. but i did it with directx9 and i dont know much about computers so i might have messed up.


Ok I redid it with the exact settings you had in your screen shot and my framerate dropped all the way down to 28 at the grassy part and was in the 30-60 range most of the time for the rest of it. I also did it with another window pulled up, would that make a difference?


I'm not sure. Maybe try it again using the same settings and have it run full screen without anything else in the foreground. Just to be safe, it's also helpful to try to limit the number of other applications you might have running in the background as well.
#27 Apr 20 2010 at 5:03 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
****
4,148 posts
Quote:
Firstly, The PS3 runs at 1920x1080 (aka 1080p). Most PCs these days run at 1920x1080 or 1920x1200. Pretty much the same.

Psyudopsia - you are completely and utterly wrong. You are missing a huge element of the equation - the operating system. The PS3 will provide a steady, tested frame rate. Everyone's PS3 is the same. Every PS3 game is engineered to perform properly on the PS3.

On the other hand, a Windows based PC has a TON of overhead behind the scenes. Windows7 is great, but it is still nowhere near as efficient as a PS3 that doesn't have to worry about managing nearly as many processes and threads.

A GT240, as per your example, was never intended to be a lasting gaming card. A PS3 will likely provide a far better experience.

The bottom line is that PC gaming is expensive. If you don't LOVE your PC, and the games you desire are available for consoles, you would be a lot better off in the long run buying a console and a non-gaming PC. Aurelius' advice is sound.


Sure, it does run 1920x1080 but it does so at 24/25/30fps ... lol! (and garbage texture quality to boot)

The only experience a PS3 would provide is PS3 specific, a gaming on the PC opens up the library of PC games and other uses that a PS3 is mediocre for at best.

Don't get me wrong, i have a PS3/Xbox360/Wii but the PC is order of magnitude a better gaming platform and its biggest strike is developers exclusivity to a specific console.
____________________________
Mishana: DRG | THF | RDM | NIN
#28 Apr 20 2010 at 6:09 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:

Firstly, The PS3 runs at 1920x1080 (aka 1080p). Most PCs these days run at 1920x1080 or 1920x1200. Pretty much the same.

Psyudopsia - you are completely and utterly wrong. You are missing a huge element of the equation - the operating system. The PS3 will provide a steady, tested frame rate. Everyone's PS3 is the same. Every PS3 game is engineered to perform properly on the PS3.

On the other hand, a Windows based PC has a TON of overhead behind the scenes. Windows7 is great, but it is still nowhere near as efficient as a PS3 that doesn't have to worry about managing nearly as many processes and threads.

A GT240, as per your example, was never intended to be a lasting gaming card. A PS3 will likely provide a far better experience.

The bottom line is that PC gaming is expensive. If you don't LOVE your PC, and the games you desire are available for consoles, you would be a lot better off in the long run buying a console and a non-gaming PC. Aurelius' advice is sound


Firstly, The PS3 runs most games at 1280x720 (aka 720p) and upscales to 1080p. I have Street Fighter IV and FFXIII and they both run at 720p during game play. However FFXIII CGI plays at 1080p. I use a crisp LCD monitor and it's very noticable, however if you use a TV you probably wouldn't notice because you're sitting at a distance from it.
http://www.ps3vault.com/final-fantasy-xiii-is-not-native-1080p-4439

The reason why the PS3 runs games at 720p is because there's so much detail in the models of good games that the PS3 GPU can't render it at 1080p without major frame loss. Game developers are required to make the game run at a smooth frame rate so instead of using WoW models at 1080p they force the PS3 to render at 720p.

What overhead? Windows is idles at less then 1% cpu when I'm playing games.

I was using GT240 as an example because it was discussed in this forum. I would never recommend it if buying a new PC. And it is more powerful then the PS3 GPU (RSX), not buy much, you can compare the specs here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units

Problem with the heaven benchmark is that there's nothing to compare it against, just because it uses directx 9 doesn't mean anything. The closest benchmarks I would use would Devil May Cry IV or Street Fighter IV because they are actual PS3 to PC ports.





Edited, Apr 20th 2010 8:10pm by Pseudopsia
____________________________
WoW Pkite Blood Elf 80 Retribution Paladin Active
FFXI Yakumo Tarutaru 75 Black Mage Retired
Aion Pkite Elyos 43 Gladiator Retired
#29 Apr 20 2010 at 6:16 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,112 posts
Benchmark wrote:
Unigine
Heaven Benchmark v2.0
FPS:
36.6
Scores:
923
Min FPS:
15.0
Max FPS:
75.0
Hardware
Binary:
Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1500 Release Mar 7 2010
Operating system:
Windows Vista (build 6002, Service Pack 2) 32bit
CPU model:
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU E7400 @ 2.80GHz
CPU flags:
2799MHz MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 HTT
GPU model:
NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250 8.17.11.9621 512Mb
Settings
Render:
direct3d11
Mode:
1680x1050 fullscreen
Shaders:
high
Textures:
high
Filter:
trilinear
Anisotropy:
4x
Occlusion:
enabled
Refraction:
enabled
Volumetric:
enabled
Replication: disabled
Tessellation: disabled


Honestly I think this was better than I was expecting lol.
____________________________
95THF, 95DRG, 90BRD, 94BLM, 95BLU, 90COR - Retired: Nov 2011
Someday soon my friends, this ride will come to and end, and we can't just get in line again.
#30 Apr 20 2010 at 6:33 PM Rating: Decent
Sage
Avatar
*
51 posts
Im pretty sure that most PS3 games run @ 720p. But some also run @ 1080p. I will be playing on my PS3. All that specs info is irrelevant to me. FFxiv will be optimized on the ps3 and should run great. If you just want to play the game without worrying about upgrading I would recommend just getting a PS3. You can still play with a k/b if thats your style of play.

If some one wants to pay the amounts upgrading, that I saw in the other thread, my best wishes.
____________________________
Name: Huey Hiiirule
Server: Ultros
PSN: Link-2the-Past
#31 Apr 20 2010 at 7:13 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
73 posts
disabling the extra flashy stuff like ambient occlusion gives you a generous amount of FPS. i think that's what i'll do if i'm unable to upgrade by release.
#32 Apr 20 2010 at 10:23 PM Rating: Decent
Video Card used is SAPPHIRE VAPOR-X HD5870 1GB GDDR5 PCIE

Heaven Benchmark v2.0
FPS: 119.9
Scores: 3019
Min FPS: 41.6
Max FPS: 263.3
Hardware
Binary: Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1500 Release Mar 7 2010
Operating system: Windows 7 (build 7600) 64bit
CPU model: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 860 @ 2.80GHz
CPU flags: 2808MHz MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 SSE41 SSE42 HTT
GPU model: ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series 8.712.0.0 1024Mb
Settings
Render: direct3d9
Mode: 1280x720 fullscreen
Shaders: high
Textures: high
Filter: trilinear
Anisotropy: disabled
Occlusion: enabled
Refraction: enabled
Volumetric: enabled
Replication: disabled
Tessellation: disabled


FPS: 74.9
Scores: 1887
Min FPS: 42.6
Max FPS: 139.0
Hardware
Binary: Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1500 Release Mar 7 2010
Operating system: Windows 7 (build 7600) 64bit
CPU model: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 860 @ 2.80GHz
CPU flags: 2808MHz MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 SSE41 SSE42 HTT
GPU model: ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series 8.712.0.0 1024Mb
Settings
Render: direct3d9
Mode: 1920x1080 fullscreen
Shaders: high
Textures: high
Filter: trilinear
Anisotropy: disabled
Occlusion: enabled
Refraction: enabled
Volumetric: enabled
Replication: disabled
Tessellation: disabled


Street Figher IV vsync off, full screen, Rest Default Settings

SCORE: 34455
AVERAGE: 355.60FPS
OS: Windows 7 Professional
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 860 @ 2.80GHz
Memory: 8192MB
Graphics Card: ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series
Display Setting: 1280x720 60Hz

SCORE: 24278
AVERAGE: 262.86FPS
OS: Windows 7 Professional
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 860 @ 2.80GHz
Memory: 8192MB
Graphics Card: ATI Radeon HD 5800 Series
Display Setting: 1920x1080 60Hz



Devil May Cry 4 Scene 4 Default Settings
1280x720 223.33 FPS
1920x1080 161.64 FPS


Edit: Updated with Heaven Benchmark V2.0. I choose Scene 4 for Devil May Cry because it had the most monsters, more then any part of the actual game. Other Scenes had a much higher framerate close to SFIV.

FYI: If you're capped at 30 or 60 FPS turn off V-Sync.

Edited, Apr 21st 2010 12:49am by Pseudopsia

Corrected mix up of FPS in Devil May Cry 4

Edited, Apr 21st 2010 9:36am by Pseudopsia
____________________________
WoW Pkite Blood Elf 80 Retribution Paladin Active
FFXI Yakumo Tarutaru 75 Black Mage Retired
Aion Pkite Elyos 43 Gladiator Retired
#33 Apr 20 2010 at 11:35 PM Rating: Default
Pseudopsia wrote:
Video Card used is SAPPHIRE VAPOR-X HD5870 1GB GDDR5 PCIE


I think it's unfortunate that you'd invest so much effort attempting to discredit the potential benefits of Heaven 2.0 as a benchmark. I appreciate that what you're saying makes sense in terms of a recent PS3 console port to PC, but you seem to be overlooking two extremely important elements:

1) FFXIV will not be a console -> PC port. It's being developed simultaneously for PS3 and PC.
2) SE has indicated that it will be fairly demanding from a hardware point of view in order to take advantage of the full set of features the game supports. They've said that they built Crystal Tools with the goal in mind to take advantage of current and future hardware, and have made reference to future PCs in trying to offer an idea of what you'll need to take advantage of the game's full visual potential.

So you're saying one thing and SE is saying another. I'm not sure why you seem to feel that there would be harm in assuming that SE's assessment will be accurate.
#34 Apr 21 2010 at 12:28 AM Rating: Good
22 posts
how do you know this is an accurate indicator for FFXIV?
#35 Apr 21 2010 at 12:31 AM Rating: Decent
koderx wrote:
how do you know this is an accurate indicator for FFXIV?


I think it's just meant to be more of a general idea. Obviously we don't know the absolute spec requirement for XIV yet.
#36 Apr 21 2010 at 12:40 AM Rating: Default
koderx wrote:
how do you know this is an accurate indicator for FFXIV?


From my first post in the thread:

Quote:
Please note that the procedure and references for comparison I'm about to offer are not guaranteed or intended to offer you a concrete estimation of how well FFXIV will run on your machine. It will, however, give you a general frame of reference for where you stand.
#37 Apr 21 2010 at 5:41 AM Rating: Good
xXMalevolenceXx wrote:
Lubriderm the Hand wrote:
NVIDIA GeForce GT 240 8.16.11.9107 1024Mb

Get an ATI HD4890 or better IMO. Also, not sure how much RAM you have, but 4 gigs is decent.


6 gigs of DDR3. I'll start looking into vid cards. Thanks for the help.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#38 Apr 21 2010 at 7:35 AM Rating: Default
Quote:
I think it's unfortunate that you'd invest so much effort attempting to discredit the potential benefits of Heaven 2.0 as a benchmark. I appreciate that what you're saying makes sense in terms of a recent PS3 console port to PC, but you seem to be overlooking two extremely important elements:

1) FFXIV will not be a console -> PC port. It's being developed simultaneously for PS3 and PC.
2) SE has indicated that it will be fairly demanding from a hardware point of view in order to take advantage of the full set of features the game supports. They've said that they built Crystal Tools with the goal in mind to take advantage of current and future hardware, and have made reference to future PCs in trying to offer an idea of what you'll need to take advantage of the game's full visual potential.

So you're saying one thing and SE is saying another. I'm not sure why you seem to feel that there would be harm in assuming that SE's assessment will be accurate.


Maybe I shouldn't call SFIV and Devil May Cry 4 ps3 to pc ports because they really aren't. The following links are producer interviews that describe the developement.
Street-Fighter-IV-PC-explained-in-detail
Quote:
Yoshinori Ono: SFIV development started with the arcade version which was Windows PC based. We developed it on DX9 and designed the development environment such as the game editor and authoring tools to run on dev Windows PC.

devil-may-cry-4
Quote:
Kobayashi: It wasn't that the PS3 was a hard-to-work with machine. Capcom has a PC-based engine that they use to develop games and Devil May Cry 4 was developed with that same PC engine.


Capcom didn't force the PS3 resolution of SFIV to 720p just because they felt like it. Obviously 1080p was too much for the PS3. That being said if you can run SFIV PC benchmark at 60 FPS 720p it gives you an idea that your PC can perform just as well as a PS3. I still believe Heaven benchmark is too stressful benchmark to compare to FFXIV, and given that I get twice the FPS in pc benchmarks of actual PS3 games shows this. SE is very good at making their models look better then the performance to render them. Just because FFXIV looks far better doesn't mean it takes that much performance to render it.


Edited, Apr 21st 2010 10:04am by Pseudopsia
____________________________
WoW Pkite Blood Elf 80 Retribution Paladin Active
FFXI Yakumo Tarutaru 75 Black Mage Retired
Aion Pkite Elyos 43 Gladiator Retired
#39 Apr 21 2010 at 8:34 AM Rating: Default
Pseudopsia wrote:
Capcom didn't force the PS3 resolution of SFIV to 720p just because they felt like it. Obviously 1080p was too much for the PS3. That being said if you can run SFIV PC benchmark at 60 FPS 720p it gives you an idea that your PC can perform just as well as a PS3. I still believe Heaven benchmark is too stressful benchmark to compare to FFXIV, and given that I get twice the FPS in pc benchmarks of actual PS3 games shows this. SE is very good at making their models look better then the performance to render them. Just because FFXIV looks far better doesn't mean it takes that much performance to render it.


You're still ignoring what SE has said about what it will take in terms of PC hardware to get the most out of FFXIV, and I'm not interested in participating in conversations that perpetuate the ZAM trend of ignoring what SE has said for the sake of hopeful speculation so I'm just going to leave it at that.
#40 Apr 21 2010 at 9:04 AM Rating: Default
Quote:
You're still ignoring what SE has said about what it will take in terms of PC hardware to get the most out of FFXIV, and I'm not interested in participating in conversations that perpetuate the ZAM trend of ignoring what SE has said for the sake of hopeful speculation so I'm just going to leave it at that.


If you give me a reference to what SE said that would help. And their definition of a Good PC.

Edited, Apr 21st 2010 11:07am by Pseudopsia
____________________________
WoW Pkite Blood Elf 80 Retribution Paladin Active
FFXI Yakumo Tarutaru 75 Black Mage Retired
Aion Pkite Elyos 43 Gladiator Retired
#41 Apr 21 2010 at 10:08 AM Rating: Decent
Pseudopsia wrote:
Quote:
You're still ignoring what SE has said about what it will take in terms of PC hardware to get the most out of FFXIV, and I'm not interested in participating in conversations that perpetuate the ZAM trend of ignoring what SE has said for the sake of hopeful speculation so I'm just going to leave it at that.


If you give me a reference to what SE said that would help. And their definition of a Good PC.


Source

Quote:
Originally, thought to be a PS3 exclusive, Final Fantasy XIV will in fact be making an appearance on the PC. The developers delve into this a bit, mentioning Crystal Tools, a development platform that will also be used for Final Fantasy XIII and is designed to allow them to port more smoothly to multiple systems. In regards to the PC version, the game will utilize the most current version of Direct X that is out when beta testing begins. This goes for Operating System as well. Similarly, they do not specify Vista or Windows 7 as an operating system, saying again that it will depend on what is out at the time. For those of you looking to prep a new PC, Tanaka claims they are really looking to get on the cutting edge of technology with this installment. Like Final Fantasy XI, the game specs will be extremely high for the time, but in about 5 years, an average machine can run it on max settings with little to no issues. Tanaka also expressed interest in making a benchmark program available.


From the very first press release SE did where they announced the game.
#42 Apr 21 2010 at 10:41 AM Rating: Decent
Your estimate can be way off if you base it off SE statement. You have to take it like a grain of salt, they even claim to be using cutting edge technology when in fact they are using directx 9 instead of 11. I think we should revisit this when we can actually measure FFXIV performance to see the accuracy. However, I recommend no one follow yours or my analysis to determine if you need to upgrade or not for FFXIV. There is a still lot of time before official release. If you have to upgrade earlier for other reasons take a look at the minimum beta specs and make sure your new system is better then that. Also take a look a hardware sites like techreport, tomshardware, anandtech to compare hardware.

Edited, Apr 21st 2010 12:45pm by Pseudopsia

Edited, Apr 21st 2010 12:53pm by Pseudopsia
____________________________
WoW Pkite Blood Elf 80 Retribution Paladin Active
FFXI Yakumo Tarutaru 75 Black Mage Retired
Aion Pkite Elyos 43 Gladiator Retired
#43 Apr 21 2010 at 10:59 AM Rating: Default
Pseudopsia wrote:
Your estimate can be way off if you base it off SE statement. You have to take it like a grain of salt, they even claim to be using cutting edge technology when in fact they are using directx 9 instead of 11. I think we should revisit this when we can actually measure FFXIV performance to see the accuracy. However, I recommend no one follow yours or my analysis to determine if you need to upgrade or not for FFXIV. There is a still lot of time before official release. If you have to upgrade earlier for other reasons take a look at the minimum beta specs and make sure your new system is better then that. Also take a look a hardware sites like techreport, tomshardware, anandtech to compare hardware.


They haven't confirmed which DirextX versions FFXIV is going to support. The alpha...which apparently is only using DX9...is also only running in windowed mode at 1028x768 resolution. That's why I didn't suggest people test with DX10 (or DX11 if their hardware supports it.) It wasn't SE that said the game won't support DX11...it was the people around here who came to the conclusion that since DX11 is restricted to higher end video cards that SE would see no reason to support it. They've said the same thing about DX10, even though DX10 was available at the time of the press release.

Yes, there's a big fat maybe that allows for the consideration that nothing SE has said will come to pass. There's also the big fat dumb that comes from ignoring what they've said altogether. This isn't a hardware recommendation thread. It's not a, "WARNING!! You must upgrade your PC or XIV won't run!" thread. It's a, "Hey...wondering how your PC handles hardware intensive 3D graphics the likes of which we might expect in FFXIV? Take a look at this to give yourself an idea" thread.
#44 Apr 21 2010 at 12:01 PM Rating: Good
Sage
Avatar
**
448 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:

Yes, there's a big fat maybe that allows for the consideration that nothing SE has said will come to pass. There's also the big fat dumb that comes from ignoring what they've said altogether. This isn't a hardware recommendation thread. It's not a, "WARNING!! You must upgrade your PC or XIV won't run!" thread. It's a, "Hey...wondering how your PC handles hardware intensive 3D graphics the likes of which we might expect in FFXIV? Take a look at this to give yourself an idea" thread.


I get what you are saying and its a nice preview of what to kinda expect, but when you put this out there you can't underestimate how many people are going to start crying about how their machine only runs at this low mark or that low mark and completely jump the rail into the conclusion that they will need about $1100 to buy FFXIV. That's on them and not you, but trying to hint at a benchmark for this game based on scant specs released by SE is a bit premature.

A better gauge will be when the game is released and all the non-forum dwellers come out of the woodwork crying that their P4 2.3gHz 1gig RAM intel mobo graphics won't run this game ~ which will lead to all sorts of "but it will run WoW" bickering.
____________________________
"We're getting close, real close. And now for some more bad news... Ready?"
-- Egg Shen
#45 Apr 21 2010 at 12:05 PM Rating: Default
Refews wrote:
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:

Yes, there's a big fat maybe that allows for the consideration that nothing SE has said will come to pass. There's also the big fat dumb that comes from ignoring what they've said altogether. This isn't a hardware recommendation thread. It's not a, "WARNING!! You must upgrade your PC or XIV won't run!" thread. It's a, "Hey...wondering how your PC handles hardware intensive 3D graphics the likes of which we might expect in FFXIV? Take a look at this to give yourself an idea" thread.


I get what you are saying and its a nice preview of what to kinda expect, but when you put this out there you can't underestimate how many people are going to start crying about how their machine only runs at this low mark or that low mark and completely jump the rail into the conclusion that they will need about $1100 to buy FFXIV. That's on them and not you, but trying to hint at a benchmark for this game based on scant specs released by SE is a bit premature.


I agree that upgrading at this point would be premature. Regardless of what specs XIV may or may not require at launch, the game is still several months from retail shelves and prices on current hardware are only likely to go down between now and then. This was just a response to the apparently significant interest people have had in terms of how well their PC can perform in relation to current standards. There have been a number of threads about it, and a fun benchmarking tool seemed like an appropriate alternative.
#46 Apr 21 2010 at 12:12 PM Rating: Good
Sage
Avatar
**
448 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
There have been a number of threads about it, and a fun benchmarking tool seemed like an appropriate alternative.


Indeed. I'd venture to put EASY before the fun as well. Most previous benchmarking tools were frightening.
____________________________
"We're getting close, real close. And now for some more bad news... Ready?"
-- Egg Shen
#47 Apr 21 2010 at 1:36 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
73 posts
i think, unless you have a very high end card and a multi-core CPU, preferably a quad-core, you shouldn't be worrying that much about DX11 and to a lesser extent, DX10. if the API is only going to provide a few graphical improvements such as tessellation (and will subtract a good chunk of FPS in doing so, especially in DX11 mode) i think it's safe to say that DX11 is more of a 'luxury' mode reserved for a minority of players with super nice GPUs (that are actually compatible!) and multi-core CPUs that can take advantage of multithreaded rendering.
#48 Apr 21 2010 at 2:00 PM Rating: Default
snuggans wrote:
i think, unless you have a very high end card and a multi-core CPU, preferably a quad-core, you shouldn't be worrying that much about DX11 and to a lesser extent, DX10. if the API is only going to provide a few graphical improvements such as tessellation (and will subtract a good chunk of FPS in doing so, especially in DX11 mode) i think it's safe to say that DX11 is more of a 'luxury' mode reserved for a minority of players with super nice GPUs (that are actually compatible!) and multi-core CPUs that can take advantage of multithreaded rendering.


I have the hardware to make use of DX11, but I'm fairly certain it wouldn't be up to the task of running FFXIV maxed if it shipped with DX11 support. Second generation DX11 cards will probably have a much easier time with it.
#49 Apr 21 2010 at 2:48 PM Rating: Good
*
94 posts
With a 4850
Benchmark wrote:

Unigine
Heaven Benchmark v2.0
FPS:
33.4
Scores:
842
Min FPS:
19.6
Max FPS:
65.2
Hardware
Binary:
Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1500 Release Mar 7 2010
Operating system:
Windows 7 (build 7600) 64bit
CPU model:
AMD Athlon(tm) II X2 240 Processor
CPU flags:
2812MHz MMX+ 3DNow!+ SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSE4A HTT
GPU model:
ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series 8.681.0.0 512Mb
Settings
Render:
direct3d10
Mode:
1920x1080 fullscreen
Shaders:
high
Textures:
high
Filter:
trilinear
Anisotropy:
4x
Occlusion:
enabled
Refraction:
enabled
Volumetric:
enabled
Replication: disabled
Tessellation: disabled

I bought this a small while ago for only around $400... It shouldn't take too much money to run ffxiv on pc, especially upon release.
#50 Apr 21 2010 at 3:02 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
280 posts
Ok, so when I used the benchmark my laptop did not perform well at all. Not that I expected it to but I want to get the input of you techies to see what would be my best option. Here are my laptop's vitals:

Intel Core 2 Duo T6400 @ 2.00GHz, 3 GB RAM, and 32 bit Vista OS, ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3400 GPU

I am not expecting anyone to be wowed by that but would upgrading the ram and even the graphics card be enough to run XIV (assuming the benchmark is a decent guide to go by)? Or would I be better suited to just pay $300 and buy the PS3?
____________________________
AFH
Siren Server- Drofrehter- Retired/Missing-In-Action
WAR75, PLD75, SAM75, NIN37, THF37, MNK28, DRG23, BLM13, RDM11
Siren Server
Windurst Rank 10 Sandy Rank 7
ZM:Done, CoP:Done, ToA:29, WotG:Dancers in Distress

Coming soon to a FFXIV server near you.
#51 Apr 21 2010 at 3:07 PM Rating: Default
Drofrehter wrote:
Ok, so when I used the benchmark my laptop did not perform well at all. Not that I expected it to but I want to get the input of you techies to see what would be my best option. Here are my laptop's vitals:

Intel Core 2 Duo T6400 @ 2.00GHz, 3 GB RAM, and 32 bit Vista OS, ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3400 GPU

I am not expecting anyone to be wowed by that but would upgrading the ram and even the graphics card be enough to run XIV (assuming the benchmark is a decent guide to go by)? Or would I be better suited to just pay $300 and buy the PS3?


I would expect that a PS3 would be your least expensive option. I'd almost recommend going that route and then 2-3 years from now see where you're at and go for a whole new laptop as opposed to upgrading parts of a dated system that will leave you with a semi-dated but partially almost current system, if you get my meaning.
« Previous 1 2
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 16 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (16)