Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »
This Forum is Read Only

Official FFXIV Benchmarking program.Follow

#752 Aug 28 2010 at 5:12 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
10,907 posts
Threx wrote:
Doug, Averter of the Apocalypse wrote:
Please help...


What do you mean CPU-Z is showing 0% usage? Is that on idle or during the benchmark?

What about your GPU during the benchmark? How much usage is it?

I don't -think- this will help, but try resetting your BIOS once and see how it goes. If that doesn't work, try updating/reinstalling your motherboard's firmware and see how that goes.


Sorry, I was tired when I wrote that. 0-1% on idle and no higher than 78% with the benchmark running.
____________________________
Quote:
The Tower of Power, too sweet to be sour, I'm funky like a monkey, skies the limit and space is the place!
#753 Aug 28 2010 at 6:54 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
44 posts
@ Tassene

Its the Sapphire 256 x1950pro. So ya its not high enough ; ; .
Its also a PCIX if i remember correctly. Its been awhile since i built any machines so i cant remember the different Card slots.

Im looking to upgrade my card, that plus a little more ram and i should run just fine.. i think ^^
#754 Aug 30 2010 at 1:14 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
73 posts
Quote:
Quote:
High: 2552
Low: 3883

Intel Core 2 Duo E8600 @ 4.0 Ghz
XFX 4890 1gb @ 900/1050
8.0gb DDR2 @ 533 Mhz (5-5-5-15)
Gigabyte EP45-UD3P Mobo
Creative Xi-FI Audio Processor
4X WDC 250 gb RAID 0+1
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit


Just ordered a Sapphire Vapor-X 5870 1 gb video card. Will post improved scores once available


Installed my new Sapphire Vapor-X 5870 1 gb @ 875/1200 video card and ran the benchmark again

High: 4226
Low: 4370

Score on high increased by 1674, a 74.3% increase.
Score on low increased by 487, a 12.5% increase

Replaced Intel core 2 Duo E8600 @ 4.0Ghz with Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 @ 3.6Ghz

High: 4750
Low: 5500
____________________________
#755 Aug 30 2010 at 1:38 AM Rating: Decent
*
228 posts
I jumped in because I too have an HD4890 card and my bench is almost identical to the original one you posted. With my Q6600 over clocked to 2.9 GHz I can just break 4000 on low and 2500 on high. At this point the GPU is the bottleneck. It would seem that switching to the HD5870 your CPU became the bottleneck. At least for higher resolutions.

I noticed only around 50% CPU utilization from my Q6600 @ 2.9 GHz using Realtemp. This confirms my thoughts that a dual core somewhere over 3 GHz is sufficient for decent performance unless you have a really high end card (the HD4890 is no slouch despite being old tech now).

On real in-game performance. I run at 1080p resolution windowed. It seems that 720p and 1080p are optimized btw. I was getting about 25 fps in Limsa in beta2, now it's around 50+. if there are further optimisations ongoing then the game is going to run fine for almost everyone with a 1500 score on high.
____________________________
oleum
Old Nick Sargantanas
Merlon Wytarensyn - not there yet but probably Balmung
#756 Aug 31 2010 at 7:45 PM Rating: Good
**
711 posts
After some more overclocking on both CPU and GPU, here are the result I got.

STOCK:
i-7-930 2.8Ghz
ASUS P6T Deluxe V2 Motherboard
6G RAM
GTX470 Stock Core speed 608Mhz Processor 1215Mhz
Window 7 64bit
Low - 5418

MIDLY Overclocked
i7-930 OCed 3.5Ghz
GTX470 OCed Core speed 725Mhz Processor 1450MHz
Low - 6100
High - 3800

Current Overclocked
i7-930 OCed 4Ghz
GTX470 OCed Core speed 770Mhz Processor 1540Mhz
Low - 6600
High - 4000
____________________________
春天不是讀書天,
夏日炎炎正好眠,
等到秋來冬又至,
收拾書包好過年。

#757 Aug 31 2010 at 8:11 PM Rating: Decent
**
423 posts
OneFatAngel wrote:
Current Overclocked
i7-930 OCed 4Ghz
GTX470 OCed Core speed 770Mhz Processor 1540Mhz
Low - 6600
High - 4000


For some reason I'm getting 4600 low, 4100 high. Everyone else seems to have this huge difference, but I'm so close for some reason.
____________________________
Esthalos of Fairy
Hume, rank 10, San d'Oria
BRD75, PLD67, WHM42, WAR37, NIN37, SMN20

Armant wrote:
ok let no say this again once...

U have 20 dmg, u shoot 30 dmg, but if ur not RNG, u want HALF, with no time reload, so u get 10. but, BUT, u want no DRG since ur shooting, so its 30 dmg or 10?
#758 Aug 31 2010 at 8:12 PM Rating: Good
**
711 posts
Esthalos wrote:
OneFatAngel wrote:
Current Overclocked
i7-930 OCed 4Ghz
GTX470 OCed Core speed 770Mhz Processor 1540Mhz
Low - 6600
High - 4000


For some reason I'm getting 4600 low, 4100 high. Everyone else seems to have this huge difference, but I'm so close for some reason.


System spec?
____________________________
春天不是讀書天,
夏日炎炎正好眠,
等到秋來冬又至,
收拾書包好過年。

#759 Aug 31 2010 at 8:15 PM Rating: Decent
*
57 posts
Sounds like a bottleneck.

But I ain't so smrt.
#760 Aug 31 2010 at 8:16 PM Rating: Decent
Esthalos wrote:
OneFatAngel wrote:
Current Overclocked
i7-930 OCed 4Ghz
GTX470 OCed Core speed 770Mhz Processor 1540Mhz
Low - 6600
High - 4000


For some reason I'm getting 4600 low, 4100 high. Everyone else seems to have this huge difference, but I'm so close for some reason.


From what I've read the closer your scores the better. It's supposed to mean that your CPU and GPU are balanced and are not bottle necking either way. Not sure it that's true or not, maybe someone can explain it better or debunk if necessary.
#761 Aug 31 2010 at 8:31 PM Rating: Good
**
711 posts
SkinwalkerAsura wrote:
Esthalos wrote:
OneFatAngel wrote:
Current Overclocked
i7-930 OCed 4Ghz
GTX470 OCed Core speed 770Mhz Processor 1540Mhz
Low - 6600
High - 4000


For some reason I'm getting 4600 low, 4100 high. Everyone else seems to have this huge difference, but I'm so close for some reason.


From what I've read the closer your scores the better. It's supposed to mean that your CPU and GPU are balanced and are not bottle necking either way. Not sure it that's true or not, maybe someone can explain it better or debunk if necessary.


Actually I would think something is bottlenecking the low score. My guess would be the CPU.

From this post,

lsykora wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
High: 2552
Low: 3883

Intel Core 2 Duo E8600 @ 4.0 Ghz
XFX 4890 1gb @ 900/1050
8.0gb DDR2 @ 533 Mhz (5-5-5-15)
Gigabyte EP45-UD3P Mobo
Creative Xi-FI Audio Processor
4X WDC 250 gb RAID 0+1
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit


Just ordered a Sapphire Vapor-X 5870 1 gb video card. Will post improved scores once available


Installed my new Sapphire Vapor-X 5870 1 gb @ 875/1200 video card and ran the benchmark again

High: 4226
Low: 4370

Score on high increased by 1674, a 74.3% increase.
Score on low increased by 487, a 12.5% increase

Replaced Intel core 2 Duo E8600 @ 4.0Ghz with Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 @ 3.6Ghz

High: 4750
Low: 5500


High on 5870 should be over 4K and Low should be well pass 6k. Yet his score on low was limited to 4370. Looking at his CPU that certainly would be the bottle neck. After he changed his CPU, the score on high jumped 500 yet and the low score jumped over 1100+. I still think his CPU is limiting the score on low...so I figure if your score is too close between high and low, the CPU is holding you back.
____________________________
春天不是讀書天,
夏日炎炎正好眠,
等到秋來冬又至,
收拾書包好過年。

#762 Aug 31 2010 at 8:44 PM Rating: Decent
OneFatAngel wrote:
SkinwalkerAsura wrote:
Esthalos wrote:
OneFatAngel wrote:
Current Overclocked
i7-930 OCed 4Ghz
GTX470 OCed Core speed 770Mhz Processor 1540Mhz
Low - 6600
High - 4000


For some reason I'm getting 4600 low, 4100 high. Everyone else seems to have this huge difference, but I'm so close for some reason.


From what I've read the closer your scores the better. It's supposed to mean that your CPU and GPU are balanced and are not bottle necking either way. Not sure it that's true or not, maybe someone can explain it better or debunk if necessary.


Actually I would think something is bottlenecking the low score. My guess would be the CPU.

From this post,

lsykora wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
High: 2552
Low: 3883

Intel Core 2 Duo E8600 @ 4.0 Ghz
XFX 4890 1gb @ 900/1050
8.0gb DDR2 @ 533 Mhz (5-5-5-15)
Gigabyte EP45-UD3P Mobo
Creative Xi-FI Audio Processor
4X WDC 250 gb RAID 0+1
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit


Just ordered a Sapphire Vapor-X 5870 1 gb video card. Will post improved scores once available


Installed my new Sapphire Vapor-X 5870 1 gb @ 875/1200 video card and ran the benchmark again

High: 4226
Low: 4370

Score on high increased by 1674, a 74.3% increase.
Score on low increased by 487, a 12.5% increase

Replaced Intel core 2 Duo E8600 @ 4.0Ghz with Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 @ 3.6Ghz

High: 4750
Low: 5500


High on 5870 should be over 4K and Low should be well pass 6k. Yet his score on low was limited to 4370. Looking at his CPU that certainly would be the bottle neck. After he changed his CPU, the score on high jumped 500 yet and the low score jumped over 1100+. I still think his CPU is limiting the score on low...so I figure if your score is too close between high and low, the CPU is holding you back.


Ah that makes much more sense, thanks.
#763 Aug 31 2010 at 11:14 PM Rating: Decent
**
423 posts
SkinwalkerAsura wrote:
Actually I would think something is bottlenecking the low score. My guess would be the CPU.


I thought that, too, but overclocking the CPU a couple hundred MHz made literally almost no difference. It was 20 or 30 points.

I'm not that concerned. 4000+ on high is fiiiiiine by me.
____________________________
Esthalos of Fairy
Hume, rank 10, San d'Oria
BRD75, PLD67, WHM42, WAR37, NIN37, SMN20

Armant wrote:
ok let no say this again once...

U have 20 dmg, u shoot 30 dmg, but if ur not RNG, u want HALF, with no time reload, so u get 10. but, BUT, u want no DRG since ur shooting, so its 30 dmg or 10?
#764 Sep 01 2010 at 5:30 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
***
2,536 posts
It's not just the CPU speed that makes a difference. The CPU type makes a huge difference.

There is a huge difference between a Phenom at 3Ghz and an i7 at 3Ghz.

____________________________
FF11 Server: Caitsith
Kalyna (retired, 2008)
100 Goldsmith
75 Rng, Brd
Main/Acc
Exp/Hybrid
Str/Attk
Spam/Others
#765 Sep 01 2010 at 6:04 AM Rating: Good
Sage
*
85 posts
I just got around a score of 500..

2.9ghz Quad Core Processor
4GB Ram
9800 GT Nvidia

Not sure, It might be the Direct X. It's not over heating etc
#766 Sep 01 2010 at 7:02 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
2,536 posts
Phanty wrote:
9800 GT Nvidia


It's likely because of that.
____________________________
FF11 Server: Caitsith
Kalyna (retired, 2008)
100 Goldsmith
75 Rng, Brd
Main/Acc
Exp/Hybrid
Str/Attk
Spam/Others
#767 Sep 01 2010 at 12:11 PM Rating: Good
**
576 posts
Threx wrote:
Phanty wrote:
9800 GT Nvidia


It's likely because of that.


I doubt it. My 9600GT gets more than twice that score in Hi-Res.
____________________________
FFXI, Siren: Pickins BST99.:~:.BLM75.:~:.RDM56
FFXIV, Siren: Miss Pickins - Builder of the Realm
#768 Sep 01 2010 at 1:16 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
20 posts
my notebook got dismal scores... Just ordered some parts to upgrade my desktop. I'm crossing my fingers that everything comes in on Friday so I can get it running by sometime on Sat. Will post results.Building 2 identical machines with thought of future crossfire in mind (wife is gonna play FFXIV also).
#769 Sep 02 2010 at 1:11 PM Rating: Decent
1 post
I am going to buy a laptop lecture and FFXIV. I am currently aim to G51JX-X5. Please advise if it is ok for the game. Does anyone have try this laptop for the benchmark?

CPU: i7-720QM
GPU: GTS 360M
RAM: 6GB
#770 Sep 02 2010 at 4:02 PM Rating: Decent
1 post
I've been reading this read for a few days now and have noticed that most people have a big difference in score between the high res and low res. Anyone know why my score would be almost the same?
low - 2239
high - 2177

my system:
Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Athlon 64 X2 6000+
8GB DDR2 RAM
Sapphire 5770 1GB

I'm currently making sure all drivers are up to date...but i'm just really curious why if i am getting a 2177 on high, my low isn't better than 2239.
#771 Sep 02 2010 at 4:26 PM Rating: Good
**
711 posts
paravia wrote:
I've been reading this read for a few days now and have noticed that most people have a big difference in score between the high res and low res. Anyone know why my score would be almost the same?
low - 2239
high - 2177

my system:
Windows 7 Ultimate x64
Athlon 64 X2 6000+
8GB DDR2 RAM
Sapphire 5770 1GB

I'm currently making sure all drivers are up to date...but i'm just really curious why if i am getting a 2177 on high, my low isn't better than 2239.


As I stated before, if your scores between low and high are close to each other. It is most likely your CPU is the bottle neck. And judging from your computer's spec, it would seems to be the case.
____________________________
春天不是讀書天,
夏日炎炎正好眠,
等到秋來冬又至,
收拾書包好過年。

#772 Sep 02 2010 at 6:08 PM Rating: Decent
Sage
*
221 posts
These are results on my PC I built a few months ago when the Radeon 5850 was released. Ran benchmarks for both Aero effects turned on and off:

Intel i5 750 2.67 GHz (no overclock)
ATI Radeon 5850 (no overclock)
4GB DDR3 Ram
Windows 7 64-bit

Low = 5189
Low = 5214 (Aero turned off)

High = 3928
High = 4034 (Aero turned off)


Out of curiosity I also ran this on my Alienware M11x ultra-portable laptop. I like this laptop a lot but it is still underpowered for running many of the more demanding modern games at higher settings. Not surprisingly, the results were much lower - turning off Aero effects helped a little bit:

Alienware M11x Ultraportable laptop
Intel U7300 (1.30 GHz dual-core)
NVidia GeForce GT 335M
4GB RAM
Windows 7 64-bit

Low = 1226
Low = 1277 (Aero turned off)

(Didn't bother running it in High - max native resolution on M11x is 1366 x 768 anyway...)



Edited, Sep 2nd 2010 5:17pm by zpanda

Edited, Sep 2nd 2010 5:41pm by zpanda
____________________________

#773 Sep 04 2010 at 7:15 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
685 posts
Just finished building my rig for the game!

High Resolution: 2480
Low Resolution: 3966

AMD Phenom II X6 1055T, ~2.8 GHz, no overclock
Gigabyte Radeon HD 5770s, 2x Crossfired, no overclock
4 GB DDR3 RAM, 1333 MHz
Windows 7 64 bit
____________________________

Crafter Consortium Craftsman/Gatherers Linkshell
#774 Sep 04 2010 at 9:39 PM Rating: Decent
3 posts
if i got 2700 @ high,is that mean i can handle the game in high settings?
i always get a 4200 @ low
#775 Sep 05 2010 at 3:17 PM Rating: Decent
2 posts
Specs:
OS: Windows 7 Home Premium (32-bit)
Version: 6.1.7600 Build 7600
System Model: Dell Studio Slim 340s
System type: X86-based PC
Processor: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E7200 @
2.53GHz, 2533 Mhz, 2 Core(s), 2 Log...
Graphics Card: ATI Radeon HD 3400 Series
BIOS Version/Date: Dell Inc. 1.0.1 8/11/2008
SMBIOS Version: 2.5
Installed Physical Memory (RAM): 4.00 GB
Total Physical Memory: 3.25 GB
Available Physical Memory: 1.85 GB
Total Virtual Memory: 6.50 GB
Available Virtual Memory: 4.40 GB

Total Score? A whoppin, monstrous...
... 375.

I'm going to take the initiative and say that a whole new computer is more or less my only hope.
#776 Sep 18 2010 at 10:41 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
16 posts
Core2 Quad 6600, ATI 4870, Windows 7, 3gb Dual channel

Score Load
High 1895 23866
Low 2575 23585

Ran it again using ATI's overdrive

Score Load
High 1976 29596
Low 2552 27441

Low res score went down.

Edited, Sep 18th 2010 5:20pm by bs0
#777 Sep 18 2010 at 10:42 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Dilidala wrote:
I am going to buy a laptop lecture and FFXIV. I am currently aim to G51JX-X5. Please advise if it is ok for the game. Does anyone have try this laptop for the benchmark?

CPU: i7-720QM
GPU: GTS 360M
RAM: 6GB
360M won't cut it. Get at least a mobility HD 5870 or a 480M.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#778 Sep 18 2010 at 4:52 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
24 posts
1953 on high
3211 on low
Better than I thought it would be on my 2 year old comp!

Updated my nvidia drivers and score went up to 3367 on low.

Intel Core2 Duo e8500 @ 3.16GHz
4GB RAM
Vista64 SP2
Nvidia gts250 1GB

Edited, Sep 18th 2010 7:51pm by rotny
#779 Sep 18 2010 at 5:39 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,608 posts
For those of you experiencing downward spikes shown on the EKG of the benchmark simply move it out of your downloads folder and place it in another partition/hard disk. Most, if not all of the spikes will disappear.
____________________________

#780 Sep 18 2010 at 5:42 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
LyleVertigo wrote:
For those of you experiencing downward spikes shown on the EKG of the benchmark simply move it out of your downloads folder and place it in another partition/hard disk. Most, if not all of the spikes will disappear.
I never had it in my downloads folder and I still get the spikes. What's the reasoning behind that plan?
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#781 Sep 18 2010 at 7:13 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,608 posts
Maybe because the download folder is where it is normally downloaded to. The reasoning has to do with what I posted. Try it.
____________________________

#782 Sep 18 2010 at 8:00 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
LyleVertigo wrote:
Maybe because the download folder is where it is normally downloaded to. The reasoning has to do with what I posted. Try it.
I read what you posted, the reasoning isn't there. If you had read my post you'd find out that I was never doing that in the first place.

So, why would moving the file away from the download folder make a difference?
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#783 Sep 18 2010 at 8:04 PM Rating: Decent
46 posts
5713 on low

4173 on high

i7 930

HD 5850

2x 3 gb ram DDR 3

edit: overclocked 25-30%

Edited, Sep 18th 2010 10:05pm by mynussyfitches
#784 Sep 18 2010 at 9:10 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
152 posts
Latest Bench results:

Low= 5121
High = 3866

Both scores come in with timings around 10-11kms, which seems pretty nice.

This is my build:

AMD Phenom 955BE Overclocked to 3.925 ghz(using an aftermarket cpu cooler from Arctic Cooling),
4 gigs GSkill low latency ram(7-7-7-21)
EVGA GTX470 (Not overclocked, cuz this thing is warm enough as it is;)
MSI 790fx-gd70 mobo(cuz it works well with my cpu and will be compatible with a bulldozer when I upgrade next year;)

My scores aren't outrageous, but currently in open beta, I'm suffering no lag, and maintaining fps of 60 in the open world, around 45-50 in heavily congested areas. I'll get the occassional lag spike, but that's only random and rare(I get fire crystals more frequently than I get lag spikes, if that's any indication for you;)
#785 Sep 19 2010 at 1:04 AM Rating: Decent
*
66 posts
im only getting just over 4,000 on high , do you think they is any reason for this my pc should run it loads quicker ?
____________________________
FFXIV -Server Bodhum - Name - Mia Kato

MY New Rig For FFXIV

Antec 902 Nine Hundred Two
Intel Core i7 950 (4 x 3.06GHz) 8 MB
Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro - Silent
Corsair 6GB Dominator GT CAS7 (3x2GB) 1600MHz
Graphics Card ATI Radeon HD 5850 VaporX - 2 GB - 2xDVI/HDMI/DP (Sapphire)
Asus P6X58D Premium
Corsair 850W
1 TB (1000 GB) SATA-III Western Digital- 64 MB - Caviar Black
Windows 7 64 bit
#786 Sep 19 2010 at 1:16 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
IIIvirusIII wrote:
im only getting just over 4,000 on high , do you think they is any reason for this my pc should run it loads quicker ?
wat

If I'm translating this correctly, you want the game to load quicker? That's mostly going to have to do with your HD speed. You can run two hard drives in a RAID 0 setup to load files quicker by splitting the load across two HDDs, but you end up putting your data at a higher risk of failure. One crashed disk results in a loss of data across both, because the data is being split into pieces between the two and will be meaningless with only half.

Even better would be a SSD (Single State Drive), essentially a high-speed flash drive with a lot more storage being used as a hard drive. The different architecture allows for much faster read/write rates. Compared to a regular disk based drive, SSDs don't have nearly the capacity (80-160 GB on average, compared to 500 GB to 1 TB for a disk drive. They're also drastically more expensive, just due to the fact that it's an emerging technology.



Edited, Sep 19th 2010 2:18am by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#787 Sep 19 2010 at 1:25 AM Rating: Decent
*
66 posts
sorry what i meant was i thought id get a bigger score but i guess 4000 will have to do .
____________________________
FFXIV -Server Bodhum - Name - Mia Kato

MY New Rig For FFXIV

Antec 902 Nine Hundred Two
Intel Core i7 950 (4 x 3.06GHz) 8 MB
Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro - Silent
Corsair 6GB Dominator GT CAS7 (3x2GB) 1600MHz
Graphics Card ATI Radeon HD 5850 VaporX - 2 GB - 2xDVI/HDMI/DP (Sapphire)
Asus P6X58D Premium
Corsair 850W
1 TB (1000 GB) SATA-III Western Digital- 64 MB - Caviar Black
Windows 7 64 bit
#788 Sep 19 2010 at 1:37 AM Rating: Default
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
IIIvirusIII wrote:
sorry what i meant was i thought id get a bigger score but i guess 4000 will have to do .
Load times have nothing to do with in-game performance. Once the data is loaded into RAM you're really not getting any benefit out of a nicer hard drive. Your score won't improve at all, just the load time will go down.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#789 Sep 19 2010 at 2:55 AM Rating: Decent
*
66 posts
sorry when did i mention loading ? i just said i thought my rig would get a better score on the benchmark ,
____________________________
FFXIV -Server Bodhum - Name - Mia Kato

MY New Rig For FFXIV

Antec 902 Nine Hundred Two
Intel Core i7 950 (4 x 3.06GHz) 8 MB
Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro - Silent
Corsair 6GB Dominator GT CAS7 (3x2GB) 1600MHz
Graphics Card ATI Radeon HD 5850 VaporX - 2 GB - 2xDVI/HDMI/DP (Sapphire)
Asus P6X58D Premium
Corsair 850W
1 TB (1000 GB) SATA-III Western Digital- 64 MB - Caviar Black
Windows 7 64 bit
#790 Sep 19 2010 at 3:02 AM Rating: Default
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
IIIvirusIII wrote:
sorry when did i mention loading ? i just said i thought my rig would get a better score on the benchmark ,
Here:
IIIvirusIII wrote:
im only getting just over 4,000 on high , do you think they is any reason for this my pc should run it loads quicker ?
Then again I'm having a really hard time understanding what the f*ck you're trying to say, so if that's not what you meant, try thinking more about making a readable post?
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#791 Sep 19 2010 at 5:22 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
30 posts
Just built a new system since my old one was getting pretty dated... spent about $1100 after rebates and selling some of my old stuff.

CPU: i7 950 at stock settings (3.08ghz idle, 3.33 in "turbo")
motherboard: asus sabertooth x58
GPU: 2x gtx 465 SLI, OC'd at 780mhz core, 1560 shader, 1630 memory
memory: 6gb (3x2gb) tri-channel DDR3 1600 gskill
PSU: 850W Xion PowerReal
storage: OCZ Agility II 90gb SDD and 1.5TB seagate barracuda 7200rpm HDD

[img=http://i.imgur.com/1NnvU.jpg]

16x AA / 16x AF (in nvidia control panel)
Low: 6001
High: 4813

AA/AF off
Low: 5799
High: 4813

Kind of strange that using 16x/16x AA/AF actually improved my score in 720p and didn't affect my score at all in 1080p.
#792 Sep 19 2010 at 5:55 PM Rating: Good
**
711 posts
ButterflyM wrote:
Latest Bench results:

Low= 5121
High = 3866

Both scores come in with timings around 10-11kms, which seems pretty nice.

This is my build:

AMD Phenom 955BE Overclocked to 3.925 ghz(using an aftermarket cpu cooler from Arctic Cooling),
4 gigs GSkill low latency ram(7-7-7-21)
EVGA GTX470 (Not overclocked, cuz this thing is warm enough as it is;)
MSI 790fx-gd70 mobo(cuz it works well with my cpu and will be compatible with a bulldozer when I upgrade next year;)

My scores aren't outrageous, but currently in open beta, I'm suffering no lag, and maintaining fps of 60 in the open world, around 45-50 in heavily congested areas. I'll get the occassional lag spike, but that's only random and rare(I get fire crystals more frequently than I get lag spikes, if that's any indication for you;)


Actually the GTX470 is pretty overclockable. I use MSI Afterburner and what you need to do is make a custom fan speed profile. The stock auto fan speed is utterly crap, and will have you GPU runs into the 90C. After I adjust the fan speed profile (running 50% fan speed at 50C and up to 100% at 90C), the GPU never touch 80C. It is still a bit hot but it is A LOT better than 90s. Oooh...My GTX470 is also an EVGA and I have the Core Clock running at 770MHz...stock is 602 :D

Edited, Sep 19th 2010 7:55pm by OneFatAngel
____________________________
春天不是讀書天,
夏日炎炎正好眠,
等到秋來冬又至,
收拾書包好過年。

#793 Sep 19 2010 at 6:15 PM Rating: Decent
5 posts
i had that problem too at first, does the crash error say anything about "d3dx9_41.dll" not being found? if so go to the ff14 official benchmark site and click the link to download directx9c... i thought i had it already but apparently was missing something, re-installing it via the link provided fixed it right up. hope it helps.
____________________________
"Stupidity is a Terminal Disease." - Some Anonymus Dead Guy
#794 Sep 28 2010 at 5:13 AM Rating: Decent
25 posts
Hello All,

Long time lurker here..really looking forward to FFXIV. Im a bit of a 360 gamer so dont really have that much knowledge of PC gaming or indeed specs etc. However I have managed to obtain authorisation for expenditure on a PC for Christmas... I have been doing some research and I have a limited budget but please could someone tell me if the following specs will run the game well and also I want to plug it into my lcd telly (rather than a monitor) and if it will work ???

AMD Phenom II X4 955 (3.20GHz/8MB CACHE/AM3) - Black Edition
ASUS M4A87TD/USB3: DUAL DDR3,SATA 6.0GB/S
8GB SAMSUNG DDR3 DUAL DDR3 1333MHZ
768MB NVIDIA GTX460 DirectX11


Thanks for the help !!
#795 Sep 30 2010 at 5:20 PM Rating: Decent
*
108 posts
Windows 7 Home Premium
3.0 Ghz AMD Athlon II 640
ATI Radeon 5770

Hight 2540
Low 3696
____________________________
#796 Oct 08 2010 at 7:32 AM Rating: Decent
22 posts
Keitto wrote:
Began with

WIN7 64 bit Home Premium
CPU: AMD X2 7750 @ 2.7Ghz
Integrated: GF 8300
2Gb RAM
--- > LOW: 252 points http://yfrog.com/2offxivbenchmarklowj

Bought MSI 260 GTX 768Mb (used card, 100eur)
--- > LOW: 2162 points
http://yfrog.com/5effxivlow260j

And OC'd CPU 10% (3.0Ghz):
--- -> LOW: 2374
http://yfrog.com/1rffxivlowcpuocj

Good enough for now..


Edited, Jul 20th 2010 6:11pm by Keitto

Edited, Jul 20th 2010 6:12pm by Keitto


Replaced the processor. New processor is AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE.
New score on LOW: 3922
____________________________
Linkshell Journal
#797 Oct 18 2010 at 8:21 PM Rating: Decent
11 posts
Hi started playing the game on 1st Oct , the play was so bad, lagging very badly , so went looking for the causes, first thing I found was a benchmark test you could do for your system, the result was 723, hmmm seems to be 4 times slower then mim, crap!
So then started looking at requirements. Upgraded ge 8600 to gtx470, windows7 32 to 64 bit, and ram from 3.6g to 6g , improved my benchmark to 1500, according to my spec of the graphic card it was atleast 28 to 38 times faster then the ge 8600, so what happened,
more internet searching. Found that my mobo only surported up to 2000mHz my processor is an amd Athlon 64x2 5200+, 2700 MHz 2 cores, so losing preformance here mobo socket is am2.

I am still playing the game, though at times I have no idea if any of my action mean anything due to lag..

Then after more reading about the game I've come across the idea this game is designed for
the PS3 and in the PS3 nearly all memory, processing and graphics is done in the cpu. A 8 cell/core device, the closest fit to this proccessor would be a 6 core amd or intel device.
Costs are looking very grim , $300 for AMD Phenom II X6 1090T(3.2GHz)AM3 9MBCache125W, a good mobo socket am3 $250 , ram DDR3 6 to 8 gig up to $250, power supply 800 to 1000 watts $250, this to play a game that I didn't like very much just now.
Ok so at sometime I know I need to upgrade, but I don't like being forced to buy at this point in time, as what can only be classed as top shelf items.
I already have spent game $90, graphics card $388, power supply $75 and hours and hours searching and rage at the game itself.
So what do I do commit myself to another PC build, or just drop this game.
will keep this updated for when I make up my mind.






#798 Oct 18 2010 at 8:47 PM Rating: Good
**
711 posts
NeebiT wrote:

Costs are looking very grim , $300 for AMD Phenom II X6 1090T(3.2GHz)AM3 9MBCache125W, a good mobo socket am3 $250 , ram DDR3 6 to 8 gig up to $250, power supply 800 to 1000 watts $250, this to play a game that I didn't like very much just now.
Ok so at sometime I know I need to upgrade, but I don't like being forced to buy at this point in time, as what can only be classed as top shelf items.
I already have spent game $90, graphics card $388, power supply $75 and hours and hours searching and rage at the game itself.
So what do I do commit myself to another PC build, or just drop this game.
will keep this updated for when I make up my mind.


Your CPU is definitely the bottle neck. However, upgrade doesn't have to be THAT expensive.
Decent AM3 motherboard
Phenon IIx4 is pretty good.
Decent Power Supply that doesn't break the bank.
I'm not going to comment much on your GTX470's price....let's just it is on the expensive side >.>
____________________________
春天不是讀書天,
夏日炎炎正好眠,
等到秋來冬又至,
收拾書包好過年。

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next »
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 21 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (21)