Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

Official FFXIV Benchmarking program.Follow

#52 Jun 15 2010 at 5:15 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
743 posts
I'm waiting for someone to say, "It's over 9000!"
BTW, pics or it didn't happen.
____________________________
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)
#53 Jun 15 2010 at 5:17 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Well, fixed my problem by updating directx and my video card drivers (odd, since I had just barely installed and upgraded them a week or so ago).

Anyway, my score was 4064 on high. Seems I'll need to do some overclocking and see if I can't put in those 4g of ram that i couldn't install earlier (long story on that). Would be nice to run the game on high.
#54 Jun 15 2010 at 5:26 PM Rating: Good
Guru
Avatar
*****
11,084 posts
3058 on low res. Monitor resolution couldn't go high enough to see how High did. Feel like I should've done better, though. Win7 64, 3.2ghz 2x Core, 8gb RAM, GeForce 285XT. Oh well, looked good on both, at least.
____________________________
Violence good. **** bad. Yay America.
#55 Jun 15 2010 at 5:42 PM Rating: Decent
*
210 posts
Score: 943

Not even joking.

Windows 7 64-bit
Intel Core2Quad 2.66 ghz
8 GB DDR3 RAM
Nvidia GeForce GT 230 1.5 GB

This is after I updated DirectX from the website directly, and updated my Nvidia driver from THEIR website directly, after getting around the same score before updating. Everything displayed and animated fine but had issues with being choppy when the camera was panning.

My computer can run the Unigine HEAVEN benchmark with zero problems on the highest settings. :(
____________________________
R.I.P Teraud, Dragoon main on Seraph (2004-2007)
R.I.P. Atli, Blue Mage main on Seraph (2007-2008)
R.I.P. Silje, Beastmaster main on Odin (2008-2008)
R.I.P. My Final Fantasy XI Account forevahz

Back on ZAM for FFXIV!
#56 Jun 15 2010 at 5:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Well, on a good note, i was able to jump from 266 to 533 in low res by making an adjustment in Nvidia control panel. I set the 3d performance slider to performance instead of quality. Still, it amazes me, that i can run Aion with graphics on full, but i won't even be able to run FF XIV. Not sure if that sucks,or if that is really really awesome lol.

Edit: LMAO @ PC limitations.

Edited, Jun 15th 2010 7:46pm by Tenfooterten
#57 Jun 15 2010 at 5:47 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
185 posts
my high-res and low-res scores were both just over 1100. I knew I needed a new pc anyway. **** ancient single core pc's. good thing I'm getting one around september/october.
____________________________

Dranio - FFXI Tarutaru BLM/BLU

#58 Jun 15 2010 at 6:01 PM Rating: Good
**
472 posts
Just because you score low on this benchmark, doesn't mean that anyone should go out and buy new hardware. Wait for the game to come out, see how it runs, and by that time the amount of money you spend will be lower and/or you will have something even more powerful. Just my 2 gil.

PS
Sometimes drivers and other things can make something like this benchmark misreport how your system will perform, compared to when the game is released. I have played other mmo's that upon launch my system had very low frame-rates, until they later implemented changes.

Edited, Jun 15th 2010 8:07pm by Parsalyn
#59 Jun 15 2010 at 6:01 PM Rating: Decent
6 posts
I'm running it on low settings and my score was bad. I need some advice as before this I had planned on buying a new laptop anyways. I did think that my computer would be able to handle it "ok" but it appears I can't. I could use some direction in purchasing a new laptop. I plan on buying this for ps3 as well. I was thinking about buying a new laptop when I went to open my bags in WoW would cause my window to say (Not Responding) in low populated areas. I was going to go straight to alienware to buy a laptop but a friend of mine told me your buying pretty much a brand name and there are cheaper good quality computers out there. My spending limit would be around 3,500 - 4,000. I don't want to go all out unless I have to but 2,000 - 2,500 would be a great a price. Any help would be much appreciated.

My specs and score;

Windows Vista Home Premium Service Pack 2
Intel Core 2 Duo CPU T5450 @ 1.66GHz (2 CPUs), ~1.7GHz
NVIDIA GeForce 8700M GT
RAM: 2.00 GB
32 Bit Operating system

Score: 250
Load Time: 290818 ms

Thanks and please excuse my wall~o~text! :)

EDIT: The not responding is not my only problem. My computer will randomly just shut off while playing WoW. This does not happen with any other games or while doing anything else on my computer so I assume it'll do the same on FFXIV.

Edited, Jun 15th 2010 8:07pm by Spellsxoxo
#60 Jun 15 2010 at 6:02 PM Rating: Decent
Guru
***
1,673 posts
Updated Direct x and video drivers. Getting black screen with logos and sound. Should have known my 7950GT wouldn't cut it.
#61 Jun 15 2010 at 6:03 PM Rating: Default
*
210 posts
If you guys are all having issues even with really good computers and set ups... It's the benchmark itself that sucks.

Everyone on FFXIVCore is having the same problems.
____________________________
R.I.P Teraud, Dragoon main on Seraph (2004-2007)
R.I.P. Atli, Blue Mage main on Seraph (2007-2008)
R.I.P. Silje, Beastmaster main on Odin (2008-2008)
R.I.P. My Final Fantasy XI Account forevahz

Back on ZAM for FFXIV!
#62 Jun 15 2010 at 6:07 PM Rating: Good
*
94 posts
Puppy1 wrote:
Zerxion wrote:
For some reason this program crashes on start-up for me. I know my gfx is capable (4850) and my drivers and direct x is up to date, but it still crashes. Can anyone help?


try a reboot, reinstall, dosnt work reinstall direct x. Or if your getting a specific error.. Add it in your post. Try these anyway may help


Alright I got it to work... had to update the catalyst drivers. Thanks for helping

Anyway... my scores were:
Low - 2289
High - 1736

On a Radeon 4850 and athlon ii x2 240 processor.
#63 Jun 15 2010 at 6:09 PM Rating: Decent
mortalabattoir wrote:
If you guys are all having issues even with really good computers and set ups... It's the benchmark itself that sucks.

Everyone on FFXIVCore is having the same problems.


The people having issues are not using really good computers. Mine is what some might call a really good computer and my benchmark scores were just fine. A lot of people posting their scores are running the benchmark on the same computers they used to play FFXI (and haven't upgraded since the NA release.) Benchmark is fine. We were told a long time ago that XIV would be demanding at release and nobody wanted to believe it. Now they're seeing cold hard proof and it's the benchmark that sucks? Naw.
#64 Jun 15 2010 at 6:12 PM Rating: Default
*
210 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
The people having issues are not using really good computers. Mine is what some might call a really good computer and my benchmark scores were just fine. A lot of people posting their scores are running the benchmark on the same computers they used to play FFXI (and haven't upgraded since the NA release.) Benchmark is fine. We were told a long time ago that XIV would be demanding at release and nobody wanted to believe it. Now they're seeing cold hard proof and it's the benchmark that sucks? Naw.


Well, see my score:
Score: 943
Windows 7 64-bit
Intel Core2Quad 2.66 ghz
8 GB DDR3 RAM
Nvidia GeForce GT 230 1.5 GB

Someone else in FFXIVCore had about the same specs (except Duo instead of Quad, only 4 GB of RAM, and GPU speed of 1 GB instead of 1.5 GB) and got a 976.

I refuse to believe that the issue is my computer, I'm sorry.
____________________________
R.I.P Teraud, Dragoon main on Seraph (2004-2007)
R.I.P. Atli, Blue Mage main on Seraph (2007-2008)
R.I.P. Silje, Beastmaster main on Odin (2008-2008)
R.I.P. My Final Fantasy XI Account forevahz

Back on ZAM for FFXIV!
#65 Jun 15 2010 at 6:14 PM Rating: Good
*
94 posts
Well your gfx is quite lacking, it's not something that's really meant to play games on high settings.
#66 Jun 15 2010 at 6:16 PM Rating: Decent
*
57 posts
Quote:
Tried running the benchmark and couldn't even get myself to score. With the exception of logos, everything was black T_T


same :__(

updated nvidia drivers......nothing

#67 Jun 15 2010 at 6:17 PM Rating: Default
*
210 posts
Zerxion wrote:
Well your gfx is quite lacking, it's not something that's really meant to play games on high settings.


Even though it is?

Like I said, could run Unigine HEAVEN on highest settings with no problems, and that was much more graphic intensive than this.

In fact I've never had an issue with any game on the highest setting. The 230 is relatively new, and is a dedicated video card meant for gaming on high settings.
____________________________
R.I.P Teraud, Dragoon main on Seraph (2004-2007)
R.I.P. Atli, Blue Mage main on Seraph (2007-2008)
R.I.P. Silje, Beastmaster main on Odin (2008-2008)
R.I.P. My Final Fantasy XI Account forevahz

Back on ZAM for FFXIV!
#68 Jun 15 2010 at 6:22 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Spellsxoxo wrote:
My spending limit would be around 3,500 - 4,000. I don't want to go all out unless I have to but 2,000 - 2,500 would be a great a price. Any help would be much appreciated.


If you travel a lot and would like to access your games anywhere go ahead and pay that much but for the love of all that is holy if you only play your video games at home keep your laptop and buy a desktop. I bought my current laptop about two years ago and at the time it was one of the better laptops. I didn't spend as much as you are planning but it was a good one. Now, though, it doesn't play anything that well unless it's a simple program (torchlight, for example) and this is only after two years. I promise you, if you buy a gaming laptop you'll be unhappy with it within a year and will need to replace it within 2 or 3...they just don't have the longevity of a desktop.

If you really need a gaming laptop just look around to see who gives the best deal.
#69 Jun 15 2010 at 6:22 PM Rating: Decent
9 posts
Low
3158
high
1882

Windows 7 home premium 64bit
Intel quad-core 2.66ghz
4gb ddr2 pc6400 ram
geforce 8800 ultra
#70 Jun 15 2010 at 6:32 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
mortalabattoir wrote:

Nvidia GeForce GT 230 1.5 GB

I refuse to believe that the issue is my computer, I'm sorry.


It's probably that graphics card that is holding you back. It wasn't that good when it first came out, certainly isn't good now.

I know a this link isn't a true test of how good a video card is but it gives you at least an idea.

As you can tell from the OP's post the benchmark is heavily dependent on your graphics card as it is using his 100% which is substantially better than yours.

Edited, Jun 15th 2010 6:34pm by Yogtheterrible
#71 Jun 15 2010 at 6:55 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
**
312 posts
Only 6600? :(
I gotta put that other card in SLI before I test again.

As for the benchmark itself: It. Was. Beautiful. And it sounded great through my G35 headset. After following Nintendo's E3 announcements all morning at work, this was just the cherry on top of the icing on the sumptuous cake.
____________________________
Steam: Xavier1216
FFXI: Astyanax (Bismarck)


#72 Jun 15 2010 at 6:57 PM Rating: Good
High Settings

http://www.pixymisa.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ffxiv-high.jpg

Low Settings

http://www.pixymisa.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ffxiv-low.jpg

Win7 64-bit
i7-920 @ 3.8Ghz
6GB Ram
Radeon 5870

Edit: Forgot the OS

Edited, Jun 15th 2010 9:01pm by Miitan
____________________________
RotZ: Complete | CoP: Complete | ToAU: Complete | ACP: Complete | MKE: Complete | ASA: Complete | WotG: Complete
#73mortalabattoir, Posted: Jun 15 2010 at 6:57 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Once again I will state: It is not my graphics card. The GT 230 is not worse than graphics cards that came out 6+ years ago, and people with those graphics cards that old are getting better scores than me.
#74 Jun 15 2010 at 6:58 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
**
312 posts
AngusX wrote:
I'm waiting for someone to say, "It's over 9000!"
BTW, pics or it didn't happen.


I wish I could, maybe when my system is actually finished (though I doubt it will push it another 3k). I got to use it on the Tech Thread a while back, though (my score for XI's benchmark was somewhere over 11,000).
____________________________
Steam: Xavier1216
FFXI: Astyanax (Bismarck)


#75 Jun 15 2010 at 6:59 PM Rating: Decent
**
423 posts
don't buy a new pc just because of the benchmark... lol. Save yourself 1k-2k and just wait till a month before the game is out. Heck save yourself even more, buy a ps3 and hook it up to your monitor and plug in a keyboard. I don't know... i think outside the box sometimes.
#76 Jun 15 2010 at 7:01 PM Rating: Decent
A new graphics card ( at least one that will run FF 14) means a new PS, which may also mean a new Mobo lol. This might get expensive. Heres what i'm looking at so far..

ASUS M3N-HT Deluxe/HDMI Desktop Board - M3N-HTDLX/HDMI ( http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=209708375&SearchEngine=CJchannelintelligence&SearchTerm=209708375&Type=CJ )

ASUS Geforce GTX480 PCI-E 2.0 1536 MB DDR5 Graphics Card ENGTX480/2DI/1536MD5 ( http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_gtx_480_us.html )

$700 already ; ; I'm hoping my dual core AMD CPU will be good enough. It's a decent chip.
#77 Jun 15 2010 at 7:12 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
339 posts
Every time I try to run the program I get the " ....Has encountered a problem and has to close" message?

Any one else? Any help?
#78 Jun 15 2010 at 7:12 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
Avatar
**
600 posts
nvm >.>

Edited, Jun 15th 2010 10:04pm by jayfly
____________________________

Quote:
Fiddle Faddle!

#79 Jun 15 2010 at 7:19 PM Rating: Good
mortalabattoir wrote:
Zerxion wrote:
Well your gfx is quite lacking, it's not something that's really meant to play games on high settings.


Even though it is?

Like I said, could run Unigine HEAVEN on highest settings with no problems, and that was much more graphic intensive than this.

In fact I've never had an issue with any game on the highest setting. The 230 is relatively new, and is a dedicated video card meant for gaming on high settings.


The GT 230M is on the budget end of notebook graphics cards based on an architecture that is over two years old. That's what nVidia and ATI do...they release the best of the best (and charge a premium for it) and then as the card advances through its lifespan, they start releasing "feature reduced" versions aimed towards the budget user. After that, they start producing notebook versions because it tends to take them a lot longer to get the power consumption and heat generation down to the point where you can put it into a notebook and expect it to perform. The 230M may have only been released late last year, but it's a far cry from new technology. Don't believe the marketing hype. I can't think of a single video card you can buy that doesn't have great big flashy assurances plastered on the box claiming that the card will run all the greatest, most demanding games. That's all it is...marketing hype.

Sorry man, your GPU isn't as good as you seem **** bent on convincing yourself that it is. It's not a bad card...for its time. Now it's old, and you're running a benchmark for a game the devs said straight up was going to be very demanding for current hardware at release. 2 years in the lifespan of a person is not all that long. 2 years in the lifespan of a GPU is starting to get pretty dated.
#80 Jun 15 2010 at 7:19 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
jayfly wrote:
I attempted to run the benchmark and my computer directed me here... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ


Weak, I totally saw that coming from a mile away.
#81 Jun 15 2010 at 7:19 PM Rating: Decent
jayfly wrote:
I attempted to run the benchmark and my computer directed me here... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ


There was an admin here at ZAM not all that long ago that would mute/ban people for Rickrolling. And now we start to see why...
#82 Jun 15 2010 at 7:21 PM Rating: Good
Tenfooterten wrote:
A new graphics card ( at least one that will run FF 14) means a new PS, which may also mean a new Mobo lol. This might get expensive. Heres what i'm looking at so far..

ASUS M3N-HT Deluxe/HDMI Desktop Board - M3N-HTDLX/HDMI ( http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=209708375&SearchEngine=CJchannelintelligence&SearchTerm=209708375&Type=CJ )

ASUS Geforce GTX480 PCI-E 2.0 1536 MB DDR5 Graphics Card ENGTX480/2DI/1536MD5 ( http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_gtx_480_us.html )

$700 already ; ; I'm hoping my dual core AMD CPU will be good enough. It's a decent chip.


480s are pulling close to 400W under load. They're fantastic cards, but you're going to want to make sure you've got a very good PSU to go with it. I wouldn't go below 650-700W, but I'd recommend 800+ just to be safe. Also...Corsair. That is all.
#83 Jun 15 2010 at 7:21 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,232 posts
Got the test to work.... 595 low res..

Can I once again say how glad I am that I'll be playing on PS3? lol

Windows 7 Premium 64bit
AMD Quad core @ 2.8ghz
ATI Radeon HD 4350 (I'm guessing this is why my score is so low)
8GB system RAM

Edited, Jun 15th 2010 6:42pm by LebargeX
____________________________
Character: Urzol Thrush
Server: Ultros
FC: The Kraken Club

Outshined

Teneleven wrote:
We secretly replaced your tank wemelchor with Foldgers Crystal's. Let's see what happens.

#84 Jun 15 2010 at 7:43 PM Rating: Good
*
75 posts
.. I'm getting 1600 (sometimes 1590 sometimes 1610) at both high and low resolutions which is just odd that it doesn't change either way.

Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit
AMD Phenom 9500 Quad-Core 2.2ghz
System RAM: 4 gigs
Graphics: ATI Radeon HD 5700 series, 1 GIG


I notice some people are guessing at what the scores mean, but right on the website it tells you at the bottom.

Quote:
[8000 and over] Extremely High Performance
Easily capable of running the game on the highest settings.

[5500–7999] Very High Performance
Easily capable of running the game. Should perform exceptionally well, even at higher resolutions.

[4500-5499] High Performance
Easily capable of running the game. Should perform well, even at higher resolutions.

[3000-4499] Fairly High Performance
Capable of running the game on default settings. Consider switching to a higher resolution depending on performance.

[2500-2999] Standard Performance
Capable of running the game on default settings.

[2000-2499] Slightly Low Performance
Capable of running the game, but may experience some slowdown. Adjust settings to improve performance.

[1500-1999] Low Performance
Capable of running the game, but will experience considerable slowdown. Adjusting settings is unlikely to improve performance.

[Under 1500] Insufficient Performance
Does not meet specifications for running the game.

http://www.finalfantasyxiv.com/media/benchmark/na/index.html

Little scary.



Edited, Jun 15th 2010 7:04pm by happybyday
____________________________


FFXIV: Here's to the future ...
#85 Jun 15 2010 at 7:57 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
W7x64 Pro
AMD Phenom II x4 925 (2.8)
XFX ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB GDDR5
RAM: 4 GB DDR3

Low: 3908
High: 2495

It should be noted that my monitor's maximum display is 1280x1024, so even though I could run it on high, I couldn't actually SEE half of it. Also, on both versions, my performance seemed to drop down to about 25-30% at the beginning of the second part where the character looks up to see a cloudy sky and fireballs. As soon as the clouds fade to a facial closeup, the bar goes back up, and aside from an occasional spike, the line seemed to sit at about 75-80%.

Also, I expected the Galka Roegadyn's voice to be deeper and slower; James Earl Jones-ish. Taru Lalafell was pretty much exactly what I expected it to sound like. I was worried it might be chipmunk squeaky and was glad that it wasn't.

I also would have liked to see how the game would have performed in fullscreen 1280x1024 instead of windowed, since it always seems to my perception that games appear to run smoother when fullscreened.

Maybe I'll run it on another system for comparison's sake.

Edited, Jun 15th 2010 10:01pm by Mikhalia
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#86 Jun 15 2010 at 8:01 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
**
600 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
jayfly wrote:
I attempted to run the benchmark and my computer directed me here... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ


There was an admin here at ZAM not all that long ago that would mute/ban people for Rickrolling. And now we start to see why...


My bad, didn't realize this was a crime... I haven't been on a forums in a while.

Didn't mean to offend.
____________________________

Quote:
Fiddle Faddle!

#87 Jun 15 2010 at 8:26 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
For comparison, this is the system I played FFXI on (It has been upgraded to W7x64 Pro from XP Pro SP2). It plays many decently graphics intensive semi-older games (SoF2, FFXI, Oblivion, UT2004, WoW) at max and plays somewhat newer, more graphics intensive games (Fallout 3, UT3) at average/default. It chokes on higher end stuff (GTAIV was maybe 1-2 FPS at best on minimum settings).

W7x64 Pro
Intel Pentium 4 3.0 GHz HT
Sapphire ATI Radeon HD 3650
3 GB DDR2 RAM

Low: 707
High: 390

Monitor max resolution is also 1280x1024 so high quality doesn't fit on the screen completely.

So yeah, having both systems available to me, let me just come out and say that your computer that ran FFXI great and runs most games at good settings may very well be a good system for what you're running on it now. But if the benchmark tool is telling you you're under 1k, you really might want to look into upgrading something if you're planing to play XIV on it. Maybe it's your processor (dual core or lower may be holding you back), better RAM (4-8 GB is nice, but if it's DDR/DDR2, it's not doing what it should), a better video card (integrated graphics is bad, bad, bad. Non integrated may need an upgrade if it's more than 2-3 years old) or even a newer motherboard (what good are the best components if they can't talk to each other efficiently?)

I'm inclined to agree with the statement that "If you're getting a low score, it's not the benchmark program, it's your computer." It hurts to sit there and say to yourself "Didn't I JUST buy new parts for this thing only a couple years ago?", suck it up, and realize that you need to upgrade. I had to do it a few months ago when Fallout 3 started giving me weird artifacts and I realized that I'd have to upgrade my video card, which left my processor as a bottleneck, which meant I needed to replace just about everything (including PSU) but the case, the HD, and the optical drive.

The sh*tty thing is, I know the fiancee (the new owner of the above computer built on my hand me downs) is going to want to play FFXIV so I'm semi hoping that a new video card will get it to run on minimum settings on her system. But I already know (because I just dealt with it myself) that she might end up needing to replace more than that, and since we're currently trying to save up for the honeymoon and wedding next year, new computer parts for one game may take a back seat.

I honestly don't expect XIV to run on her system. Hoping it will, but expecting it won't.

Edited, Jun 15th 2010 10:27pm by Mikhalia
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#88 Jun 15 2010 at 8:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Guru
**
691 posts
I've run a few tests using sundry hardware monitoring tools and have been able to put together a set of guidelines for dealing with low scores on this Benchmark:

CPU Balance:
The CPU use seems to be balanced fairly well between cores. This is a marked change from XI, which did not play well with multicore systems. The upshot of this is that the game will see a significant increase in speed as you add processor cores.

CPU Speed:
The general feeling of this thread so far has been "If my score is low, upgrade my GPU". It is true that older GPUs are going to struggle with this game, but from my observations, XIV follows its elder (XI) and pounds on your CPU pretty hard. It used an average of 45% of my CPU (3.2x4 GHz) during the Benchmark. If you are experiencing low frame rates and/or low scores and have a CPU below 2.66GHz, I would honestly advise upgrading this before you even touch your GPU. Edit: There are a few exceptions to the rule, more recent multicore computers have gotten quite efficient with relatively slow speeds (more with less as it were), if your CPU has 4 or more cores with anywhere above 2.0-2.33GHz, you can probably skip upgrading your CPU and look towards your GPU for the problem.

GPU Usage:
This part is a little fuzzy, and susceptible to quite a few special cases. Generally, though, the Benchmark seemed to suck a decent amount of juice from the GPU. If you have a CPU above the level mentioned above, this would be the place to look for improvements. As a baseline, my GTX280 was not breathing too hard and hit the "Average" score on the High settings just about on the nose.

RAM Usage:
Not much to say about this, as it's just a benchmark, not the real game, but for those curious, it came in at just a hair over 0.5 GB. Fluctuations were low, meaning they probably load all of their resources ahead of time, and not dynamically.

Hard Drive:
This thing clobbered my Hard Drive between scenes, spiking the I/O up to 100%. If you happen to have some spare cash laying around, looks like you'll experience much faster load times (between zones and CSs) with a faster Hard Drive.

Edited, Jun 15th 2010 11:07pm by Hulan

Edited, Jun 16th 2010 2:43am by Hulan
#89 Jun 15 2010 at 8:50 PM Rating: Decent
Hulan wrote:

This thing clobbered my Hard Drive between scenes, spiking the I/O up to 100%. If you happen to have some spare cash laying around, looks like you'll experience much faster load times (between zones and CSs) with a faster Hard Drive.


My first test was with the benchmark application running from my primary storage HDD (WD Caviar Black 640GB, 7200RPM, yadda yadda) and got 4800 on high res. I then copied the entire benchmark application to my SSD (Intel X25-M 80GB) and got 4802 on high res, so no real appreciable difference. I would imagine that if you were running a rather slow HDD and upped to a faster HDD, or slow HDD t an SSD, you'd notice an improvement but it would seem that the benefit for a faster drive only goes so far. Of course, when it comes to actually playing the game when your system is needing to load myriad different plyer/gear models and textures, you'd notice more substntial difference. In terms of the benchmark, it's iffy.
#90 Jun 15 2010 at 9:21 PM Rating: Good
***
3,177 posts
Score on low: 919.

So are they saying the game won't run at all with this score? I saw some slowdown on the cutscenes, but it wasn't bad enough to where I thought I wouldn't play the game.
____________________________
Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Grover Eyeveen - Hyperion Server
Viva Eorzea Free Company/Linkshell Leader - Hyperion Server

Aegis Server (2012-2013)
Figaro Server (2010-2012)

Final Fantasy XI:
Retired

Blog
#91 Jun 15 2010 at 9:30 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
602 posts

Best thing to do is hope you get an Alpha/Beta Invite and test out your specifications with that and see what happens before you upgrade. Some people are willing to play with the minor lag here and there during intensive stuff. I scored low as well although I score Excellent on FFXI. Before I run out and upgrade I will just wait until the Retail game is out. Because if it can be ran without upgrading off the bat, I'll probably stick to playing it that way.

Besides, can't help but notice the nVidia propaganda all over the Benchmark like the FFXI one. Conspiracy! lol.... anyways, that's my advice. Wait for the retail to come out. And if you're strapped for cash, it's only 300.00 for a PS3... basically the cost of the 5870 right now, though it's more close to 400.00 And if you're in the Florida area, I got a PS3 for sale with 8 games :-P 120gb Slim. But anyways.

I will buy the retail. Then upgrade from there. Hopefully the new ATI APU cards will be out by then or at least in Spring. But eh no one wants to not start the game from day one either and be left behind. It's really your call what you do. I can wait. Can you? Can your friends and family?
#92 Jun 15 2010 at 9:30 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Hulan wrote:
CPU Speed:
The general feeling of this thread so far has been "If my score is low, upgrade my GPU". It is true that older GPUs are going to struggle with this game, but from my observations, XIV follows its elder (XI) and pounds on your CPU pretty hard. It used an average of 45% of my CPU (3.2x4 GHz) during the Benchmark. If you are experiencing low frame rates and/or low scores and have a CPU below 2.8GHz, I would honestly advise upgrading this before you even touch your GPU.

GPU Usage:
This part is a little fuzzy, and susceptible to quite a few special cases. Generally, though, the Benchmark seemed to suck a decent amount of juice from the GPU. If you have a CPU above the level mentioned above, this would be the place to look for improvements. As a baseline, my GTX280 was not breathing too hard and hit the "Average" score on the High settings just about on the nose.


It's not that I don't believe you but that is like competely opposite from what the OP said, namely that it only used 17% of his cpu and 100% of his gpu. Granted, his CPU is a i7 extreme 980x with 6 cores and is overclocked to 4ghz but even if he downgraded it would still be using his gpu to full capacity and his cpu at half. Who should we trust?
#93 Jun 15 2010 at 9:31 PM Rating: Decent
**
697 posts
Guh, so close, 1434. Need to add RAM, only have 2 gigs, updating drivers to see if that helps as well. Worst case scenario i just get it for ps3, but would really prefer to play on PC. Cutscene video looked great btw, not lag or glitchiness, wonder if that was supposed to be a representation of how the real deal would look on my system.
____________________________
FFXI: Odin - Merylstryfe Summoner Woo Hoo!


#94 Jun 15 2010 at 9:35 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
5,587 posts
Windows 7 64 Bit
Intel Core Duo P7350 @2Ghz
4GB Ram
Nvidia 9700M GTS

This is a laptop. Got a 1348 on low. Granted I was using a year old driver. It's the last signed one by my manufacturer but going to try the most recent and see what I get. Was a little choppy at times, but by no means not playable. Was planning on getting a PS3 when it comes out anyway, but would be nice to be able to play on this as well.

Edit: Ran it with the latest driver from Nvidia's website and it actually went down slightly to 1327. Guess I'm better off with the signed driver.

712 High
1348 low

Edited, Jul 14th 2010 11:59pm by Harri
____________________________
Harri
80BLU/80BST/76RNG/75THF/75WHM/60SCH
100+3 Bonecraft
#95 Jun 15 2010 at 9:36 PM Rating: Good
UltKnightGrover wrote:
Score on low: 919.

So are they saying the game won't run at all with this score? I saw some slowdown on the cutscenes, but it wasn't bad enough to where I thought I wouldn't play the game.


SE is saying that below 1500 will be unplayble so if you're rocking 919 on low resolution, I'd start sticking a few extra bucks under the ol' mattress for around release time.
#96 Jun 15 2010 at 9:39 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Score: 943

Not even joking.

Windows 7 64-bit
Intel Core2Quad 2.66 ghz
8 GB DDR3 RAM
Nvidia GeForce GT 230 1.5 GB

This is after I updated DirectX from the website directly, and updated my Nvidia driver from THEIR website directly, after getting around the same score before updating. Everything displayed and animated fine but had issues with being choppy when the camera was panning.


My friend had the exact same problem as this. A good computer, better than mine by all accounts, but I had a higher score and he apparently can't even run it. I don't really understand what's going on.

I'm not a technical genius at all, but could it have something to do with the 64-bit operating system? My engineer co-worker mentioned there were some issues with certain programs running on Windows 7 64-bit, but if that's complete crap than I'm going to go back to not really understanding what's going on.
____________________________
[ffxisig]183434[/ffxisig]
#97 Jun 15 2010 at 9:42 PM Rating: Good
***
3,177 posts
I have the Nvidia Geforce 230 GT as well, so I'm betting that is the problem. Argh!

To be fair - it says that the benchmark does not guarantee that the system can run the game, might it be true for the opposite as well?

Edited, Jun 15th 2010 8:54pm by UltKnightGrover
____________________________
Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Grover Eyeveen - Hyperion Server
Viva Eorzea Free Company/Linkshell Leader - Hyperion Server

Aegis Server (2012-2013)
Figaro Server (2010-2012)

Final Fantasy XI:
Retired

Blog
#98 Jun 15 2010 at 9:54 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Stoodle wrote:
I'm not a technical genius at all, but could it have something to do with the 64-bit operating system? My engineer co-worker mentioned there were some issues with certain programs running on Windows 7 64-bit, but if that's complete crap than I'm going to go back to not really understanding what's going on.


Considering that most everyone here is running 64 bit I'd say that's not the problem, plus if SE couldn't design a game for pretty much the most popular OS in like 10 years I'd say they have issues.
#99 Jun 15 2010 at 9:58 PM Rating: Good
**
296 posts
UltKnightGrover wrote:
Score on low: 919.

So are they saying the game won't run at all with this score? I saw some slowdown on the cutscenes, but it wasn't bad enough to where I thought I wouldn't play the game.


Remember that what we saw in the Benchmark is nothing more than something akin to an instanced intro (if I'm understanding correctly). If you're experiencing slowdown there, imagine the strain put on the system when you actually get to rendering the open world with NPCs and PCs all about you...
#100 Jun 15 2010 at 9:58 PM Rating: Decent
Stoodle wrote:
Quote:
Score: 943

Not even joking.

Windows 7 64-bit
Intel Core2Quad 2.66 ghz
8 GB DDR3 RAM
Nvidia GeForce GT 230 1.5 GB

This is after I updated DirectX from the website directly, and updated my Nvidia driver from THEIR website directly, after getting around the same score before updating. Everything displayed and animated fine but had issues with being choppy when the camera was panning.


My friend had the exact same problem as this. A good computer, better than mine by all accounts, but I had a higher score and he apparently can't even run it. I don't really understand what's going on.

I'm not a technical genius at all, but could it have something to do with the 64-bit operating system? My engineer co-worker mentioned there were some issues with certain programs running on Windows 7 64-bit, but if that's complete crap than I'm going to go back to not really understanding what's going on.


If it's not running, it's likely driver/directX issue. There's a subtle yet significant difference between "won't run at all" and "runs but with low scores".
#101 Jun 15 2010 at 10:00 PM Rating: Decent
28 posts
So I'm not exactly sure what I need to update, but this is my best score so far.

http://i728.photobucket.com/albums/ww287/FireDemon2370/Mystats.jpg
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 17 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (17)