Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

Official FFXIV Benchmarking program.Follow

#102 Jun 15 2010 at 10:01 PM Rating: Good
***
3,177 posts
ascorbic wrote:
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...


Well, that might be true, but I'm really not experiencing many lag issues, nor is the game choppy. Maybe I need to see a movie with someone who has it running fine on high settings because I'm really not seeing any issues with mine. *Shrug*
____________________________
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
#103 Jun 15 2010 at 10:02 PM Rating: Decent
Cannot get the program to run, it crashes...
Reinstalled the benchmark and updated the video drivers and Directx
Here's my spec:

Windows 7 64 bit
Intel Core i5 2.27GHZ
4GB RAM
Intel HD Graphics (i5 integrated video)
(if you need more information, please ask and I'll try my best)

Is it simply because of the spec, or could it be other problem?
BTW it's a laptop, NV5927u w/ core i5 (instead of i3)

Any help is appreciated

Edited, Jun 16th 2010 12:03am by flyingpussyfoot
#104 Jun 15 2010 at 10:03 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
5,587 posts
flyingpussyfoot wrote:
Cannot get the program to run, it crashes...
Reinstalled the benchmark and updated the video drivers and Directx
Here's my spec:

Windows 7 64 bit
Intel Core i5 2.27GHZ
4GB RAM
Intel HD Graphics (i5 integrated video)<<<<<<<<<<

Is it simply because of the spec, or could it be other problem?
BTW it's a laptop, NV5927u w/ core i5 (instead of i3)

Any help is appreciated
This is probably your problem. Game is probably only going to run on a dedicated graphics card.
____________________________
Harri
80BLU/80BST/76RNG/75THF/75WHM/60SCH
100+3 Bonecraft
#105 Jun 15 2010 at 10:05 PM Rating: Decent
OK so it is probably the integrated video that's causing a problem.

I guess I might get myself a PS3 version...
#106 Jun 15 2010 at 10:10 PM Rating: Good
**
296 posts
UltKnightGrover wrote:
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?



Well... you could hope, but I wouldn't put too much faith in that assumption. Remember, they say sub 1500 isn't capable. Might someone be able to get the final retail to run on something that scores below? Sure. But (by SE's accounting) you shouldn't expect to run without slowdowns until around the 2500 range, and that's for the default settings. The minumum "Passing score" performance expectation reads:

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


... So the lower you are below that (assuming you got it to run at all) you should expect even worse. And that doesn't sound very good.
#107 Jun 15 2010 at 10:12 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 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.


My two systems again, for comparison:

Mikhalia wrote:
W7x64 Pro
AMD Phenom II x4 925 (2.8)
XFX ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB GDDR5
RAM: 4 GB DDR3

Low: 3908
High: 2495


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

Low: 707
High: 390


One is a P4HT (Benchmark tool saw it as 2 core) vs AMD Phenom x4 925 (Quad Core). Motherboard to match with faster bus speeds too.
Two is video card; 1GB DDR2 (3650) vs 1 GB DDR5 (5770). Both Radeon HD series; difference is in GPU speed and VRAM access time.
Three is RAM; 3 GB DDR2 vs 4 GB DDR3. Not a MASSIVE difference but I'm sure it can't curt either.

Both are W7x64 Pro, and the HD in the older system is actually newer (SATA 3 500 GB vs an IDE 160 GB in the faster system).

So the biggest differences between the two is the motherboard and processor, specifically the number of cores (3.0 HT GHz vs 2.8 GHz Quad core) and the video card (GDDR5 1200 MHz core clock, 800 SPU vs GDDR2 800 MHz core clock, 120 SPU)

So minus all the technical jargon, It's not the x64 part. If the rating is low, it probably doesn't like your processor, possibly video card or RAM. As others have said, FFXI was notorious for depending largely on CPU; it wouldn't come as a huge surprise if XIV does too.
____________________________
[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.
#108 Jun 15 2010 at 10:12 PM Rating: Decent
*
216 posts
1505 on high
2511 on low

Core2Duo @ 2.53GHz
ATI Radeon HD 4850 512mb
2GB ram
XP Home

My monitor doesn't go anywhere near the resolution the high setting test is using. I've been putting off picking up more ram for a while, but now I'm interested to see how much of an improvement it gets. If I pick up some and re-test, I'll post the new results for those in a similar boat.
#109 Jun 15 2010 at 10:16 PM Rating: Good
**
263 posts
This thread makes me happy I have a PS3, 55 inch HDTV and a comfy couch.
#110 Jun 15 2010 at 10:17 PM Rating: Good
**
296 posts
UltKnightGrover wrote:
ascorbic wrote:
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...


Well, that might be true, but I'm really not experiencing many lag issues, nor is the game choppy. Maybe I need to see a movie with someone who has it running fine on high settings because I'm really not seeing any issues with mine. *Shrug*


My buddy ran it on a Laptop he knew for sure wouldn't pass muster (and never expected it to be capable of running XIV). He got a score around 640, and it mostly ran and looked great. I don't believe the movie you are watching is supposed to lead you to assume that it represents the quality the game itself will run at. My lil' laptop scored in the 240s >< but I still had ~15 FPS for the cutscenes. If I thought I could get 15 fps out of that old budget laptop on this game, I wouldn't even consider buying a new machine around the new year XD
#111 Jun 15 2010 at 10:21 PM Rating: Good
***
3,177 posts
ascorbic wrote:
UltKnightGrover wrote:
ascorbic wrote:
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...


Well, that might be true, but I'm really not experiencing many lag issues, nor is the game choppy. Maybe I need to see a movie with someone who has it running fine on high settings because I'm really not seeing any issues with mine. *Shrug*


My buddy ran it on a Laptop he knew for sure wouldn't pass muster (and never expected it to be capable of running XIV). He got a score around 640, and it mostly ran and looked great. I don't believe the movie you are watching is supposed to lead you to assume that it represents the quality the game itself will run at. My lil' laptop scored in the 240s >< but I still had ~15 FPS for the cutscenes. If I thought I could get 15 fps out of that old budget laptop on this game, I wouldn't even consider buying a new machine around the new year XD


Thank you for clearing that up, I thought it was representative, and your answer makes sense. Thank you! I guess I'll start stowing away money for a PS3 then.
____________________________
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
#112 Jun 15 2010 at 10:30 PM Rating: Good
**
296 posts
I wanna thank everyone that's been posting their results and/or advice on this thread today. It's been a great read, very informative, and can only help people with their questions in the months to come as we all get geared up for the game.

...Something tells me a lot of PS3s got sold today as a result of this benchmark :P


Personally, I'm still planning on using my old PS3 at launch and (provided launch hits 2010) using Christmas ($$$), Christmas sales, and the general lowering price of PCs to get a machine capable of running the game nicely shortly after the new year. I really would prefer a laptop, but... well, we'll see I guess!

I get a feeling that in the next 6 months I'll be visiting this thread countless times to see what's working and what isn't.
#113 Jun 15 2010 at 10:36 PM Rating: Good
Guru
**
691 posts
Yogtheterrible wrote:

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?


To clarify, this is a matter of diminishing returns. The OP has quite simply one of the best processors on the market right now (bar a few), and his GPU is pretty close (all I can find is that it's somewhere in the 5800 series). It's true that his GPU was stressing more than his CPU, but below a threshold of about 2.8GHz (I'll admit this is an educated estimate) on the CPU, no matter how much you crank your GPU, it's not going to make any difference at all. I wrote that in the hopes of preventing people from seeing all of the "Go buy a better GPU" posts and then being mistified when their 1.6GHz computer still isn't fast enough to play the game. It seems like common sense to some of us, but to others, it's not so much.

To site a specific example, the entire discussion about mortalabattoir's slow GTX230. Now the 230 is certainly getting up there in age as far as GPUs go, and it was never designed to be the workhorse the 280 and beyond were, but I would argue that it's much more probable that his <1000 score probably comes from his 2.66GHz processor more than his GTX230. The 230 isn't helping, but if he OCed that CPU up to 3.0+, he'd probably see a marked difference without spending a cent. If he want's to see 2k+ numbers, he's probably going to be wanting to get a new GPU, but I should think bumping up his CPU would be more than enough to net him another 1k on this Benchmark.

(on a related note, I stand by my original assessment, however, my GPU usage readings may well be modified by the fact that my CPU may well be bottlenecking it a bit. However, as I received well above average marks on the low-def ratings, and average marks on hi-def, it should be enough to help get people with to-low-to-use scores on the right track)
#114 Jun 15 2010 at 10:59 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
349 posts
I think this is an important question, and one I hope some one can answer: Where is a PS3 likely to rank in regards to the scoring system (assuming latest model)? Is a PS3 likely to run with no stutter/jaggies?

My PC - fairly new - only managed 360 in Low quality :s (with dual Nvidia 7800 GTX graphics cards).
#115 Jun 15 2010 at 11:02 PM Rating: Decent
Astarataru wrote:
I think this is an important question, and one I hope some one can answer: Where is a PS3 likely to rank in regards to the scoring system (assuming latest model)? Is a PS3 likely to run with no stutter/jaggies?

My PC - fairly new - only managed 360 in Low quality :s (with dual Nvidia 7800 GTX graphics cards).


PS3 will have set graphics settings and will be optimized to run smoothly. 7800 GTX cards are two full generations behind the current. SLI or no, they're old, old cards.
#116 Jun 15 2010 at 11:05 PM Rating: Good
**
736 posts
2,126 on Low.
1,202 on High.

Windows 7 (64 bit)
Intel Duo Core 2 Duo CPU P8600 @ 2.40 GHz
NVIDIA GE Force GTX 260 M
4.00 GB Ram

Auuughhhh! Not low enough to justify buying a whole new desktop rig. Not high enough to be satisfactory.
Don't suppose any techsavvy gent out there might know if throwing more RAM at the problem would do any good? (that's about all I can do to a do laptop, ne?)

#117 Jun 15 2010 at 11:10 PM Rating: Good
Zemzelette wrote:
2,126 on Low.
1,202 on High.

Windows 7 (64 bit)
Intel Duo Core 2 Duo CPU P8600 @ 2.40 GHz
NVIDIA GE Force GTX 260 M
4.00 GB Ram

Auuughhhh! Not low enough to justify buying a whole new desktop rig. Not high enough to be satisfactory.
Don't suppose any techsavvy gent out there might know if throwing more RAM at the problem would do any good? (that's about all I can do to a do laptop, ne?)



I'm in the same boat Zem... scorewise at least. I'm using a desktop though. But with win XP, my 2GB of RAM is as far as I can go.

Right now I'm looking at some hardware upgrades, but I'm right at the point where I'd need to go the whole hog if I wanted to upgrade my CPU to anything higher than a dual core. I'm definitely not buying a thing though until XIV is ready to be released. I run my current games fine right now, and prices will be much lower around XIV release time.
#118 Jun 15 2010 at 11:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Zemzelette wrote:
2,126 on Low.
1,202 on High.

Windows 7 (64 bit)
Intel Duo Core 2 Duo CPU P8600 @ 2.40 GHz
NVIDIA GE Force GTX 260 M
4.00 GB Ram

Auuughhhh! Not low enough to justify buying a whole new desktop rig. Not high enough to be satisfactory.
Don't suppose any techsavvy gent out there might know if throwing more RAM at the problem would do any good? (that's about all I can do to a do laptop, ne?)



You'd probably see an improvement if you bumped it up to 6 or 8GB, but the question is whether or not the improvement would justify the cost. Something tells me that it wouldn't. Even if the extra RAM is super cheap, I'm not sure you'd see that much of a difference. You should be squared away to get yourself started, but I'd seriously look at moving over to a desktop system.
#119 Jun 15 2010 at 11:16 PM Rating: Excellent
**
736 posts
::snaps fingers: ****. Alright.
Thanks for the speedy answer, Aurelius (and Hulan) :)

Edited, Jun 16th 2010 1:19am by Zemzelette
#120 Jun 15 2010 at 11:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Guru
**
691 posts
Zemzelette, you may see some improvement if you replace that RAM with a faster set, but I doubt you'll see a tremendous amount of improvement. From what I've seen, the load on your RAM is pretty light in this Benchmark (could probably run it on 2GB without seeing a tremendous drop in performance). Since you're on a laptop, about the only thing you can do is tweek your CPU up a little (not too much, wouldn't want it getting too hot). That would help a little, but I'm with Aurelius, you're not going to see much improvement in a laptop, they're just not very malleable.
#121 Jun 15 2010 at 11:18 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
209 posts
No joke, my FIRST score was 666. I'm not sure what this means. From now on I call this my 'Satan PC Build'.

plan on upgrading to HD5770


Pics to prove the 666->

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/6808/ffxiv666.png
____________________________
"If it could go wrong, it happened in the Dunes." - Sephrick
#122 Jun 15 2010 at 11:19 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
802 posts
theweenie wrote:
1505 on high
2511 on low

Core2Duo @ 2.53GHz
ATI Radeon HD 4850 512mb
2GB ram
XP Home

My monitor doesn't go anywhere near the resolution the high setting test is using. I've been putting off picking up more ram for a while, but now I'm interested to see how much of an improvement it gets. If I pick up some and re-test, I'll post the new results for those in a similar boat.


Dude, almost same specs as you.

But I OCed my E7200 to 3Ghz and my Rams are 4GB.

2737 on Low. On low, CPU usage for both cores is at a almost consistent 55%

1726 on High. On high, CPU usage at 58% at lowest and 78% at highest.

Seems like if anyone want a system built for FFXIV, you probably need a good CPU + GPU.

Really help if someone can post their CPU usage on Quad, Hex, etc cores (>...<
____________________________


#123 Jun 15 2010 at 11:21 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
44 posts
So I overclocked my CPU, Ram and GPU a bit further and was able to hit 8062. My goal is to break "9000" and i should be able to do it after getting the CPU to 4.6-5GHz.

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/9230/gpuoverclock.jpg
#124 Jun 15 2010 at 11:28 PM Rating: Decent
**
829 posts
My bro keeps getting a blank screen with logos, score and sound, but no actual video:

Intel Core 2 Duo 2.14ghz
GeForce 9600 GT
1 GB RAM
Directx 9.0c
Latest nVidia driver

Any idea what's wrong?
____________________________
Tauu Aori
Lalafell
WHM
Sargatanas
#125 Jun 15 2010 at 11:30 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
349 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
Astarataru wrote:
I think this is an important question, and one I hope some one can answer: Where is a PS3 likely to rank in regards to the scoring system (assuming latest model)? Is a PS3 likely to run with no stutter/jaggies?

My PC - fairly new - only managed 360 in Low quality :s (with dual Nvidia 7800 GTX graphics cards).


PS3 will have set graphics settings and will be optimized to run smoothly. 7800 GTX cards are two full generations behind the current. SLI or no, they're old, old cards.


So if I understand correctly Aurelius, a PS3 is unlikely to compare in resolution quality to a PC who scores above the 'Standard Performance' range with default settings? I have never seen how a PS2 quality compared to a good quality PC with FFXI, so I'm just trying to get my mind around the contrasts in quality between the two options. I assume the PS3 version isn't likely to have a 1080p native resolution for example.

I'm sorry if i'm rehashing old territory - you'll have to forgive my lack of insight when it comes to benchmark assessments. I would prefer to play FFXIV with the smoothest possible framerate while using the most advanced settings available. If a PS3 isn't likely to compare favourable to a well-built PC, that would be handy to know now.

THanks for any info -it’s greatly appreciated!
#126 Jun 15 2010 at 11:32 PM Rating: Decent
Humster wrote:

Really help if someone can post their CPU usage on Quad, Hex, etc cores (>...<


Mine peaked at 52% (average across all cores) between scenes and hovered in the 12-15% range during the scenes themselves. Out of four used cores, Core by core, they were little high on 2 cores (spiking to 90% and generally hovering in the 50-60% range) and 2 were moderate/low (spiking to 50-55% and generally hovring in the 10-20% range).
#127 Jun 15 2010 at 11:37 PM Rating: Decent
Astarataru wrote:

So if I understand correctly Aurelius, a PS3 is unlikely to compare in resolution quality to a PC who scores above the 'Standard Performance' range with default settings? I have never seen how a PS2 quality compared to a good quality PC with FFXI, so I'm just trying to get my mind around the contrasts in quality between the two options. I assume the PS3 version isn't likely to have a 1080p native resolution for example.

I'm sorry if i'm rehashing old territory - you'll have to forgive my lack of insight when it comes to benchmark assessments. I would prefer to play FFXIV with the smoothest possible framerate while using the most advanced settings available. If a PS3 isn't likely to compare favourable to a well-built PC, that would be handy to know now.

THanks for any info -it’s greatly appreciated!


To give you an idea, there's a near cult-like following of emulator developers who spend years trying to write applications that let you run console games on PCs. If you compare what you need in terms of PC performance in order to get acceptable framerates with a PS2 emulator, you start to realize just what a difference there is between a console optimized for gameplay and a PC (hint: it takes WAY more system resources to get acceptable framerates on a PC playing a PS2 game than a PS2 has). FFXIV for PS3 will likely be gorgeous. The difference is, what you see on launch day with the PS3 version is the best it's ever going to get for that platform. What PC users see on launch day is likely to be improved even more within couple of years when SE patches for DX11 support...which they will, otherwise they run the risk of having an upstart MMO company like Turbine outperform them in the client support end of things.
#128 Jun 15 2010 at 11:47 PM Rating: Decent
TauuOfSiren wrote:
My bro keeps getting a blank screen with logos, score and sound, but no actual video:

Intel Core 2 Duo 2.14ghz
GeForce 9600 GT
1 GB RAM
Directx 9.0c
Latest nVidia driver

Any idea what's wrong?


Ehhh...ermm. 1GB of RAM? I'm assuming under Windows XP? A little birdie told me that the system requirements for XIV under XP will be 1.5GB RAM, which may or may not be for the alpha client which, if it were, would be a lower requirement than what the full game will require since it's only running a limited selection of races, gear, areas within zones, etc. for his rig to juggle all at once. That same birdie pointed out that the minimum GPU requirements that may or may not apply to the alpha client call for a GTX 8800, and the 9600 GT (while newer than the 8800) does not perform as well as an 8800. It's a budget card that's over two years old. Same as the 230M, it's just not up to snuff. And lastly, said birdie (because he's a talkative little ******) is pointing to a 2.4Ghz minimum requirement on ye olde CPU.

All in all, your brother's system is not adequate to run the game. He looks squred away in the DirectX category, but ya...
#129 Jun 15 2010 at 11:54 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
802 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
Humster wrote:

Really help if someone can post their CPU usage on Quad, Hex, etc cores (>...<


Mine peaked at 52% (average across all cores) between scenes and hovered in the 12-15% range during the scenes themselves. Out of four used cores, Core by core, they were little high on 2 cores (spiking to 90% and generally hovering in the 50-60% range) and 2 were moderate/low (spiking to 50-55% and generally hovring in the 10-20% range).


So its likely to be Dual core optimized.

But will use as many cores available to process.

Guess I'm getting a Hex core AMD (>....>
____________________________


#130 Jun 16 2010 at 12:05 AM Rating: Good
***
3,177 posts
Well, I performed an update on my graphics drivers and now it's hitting 1000, there's an improvement I guess.
____________________________
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
#131 Jun 16 2010 at 12:10 AM Rating: Decent
*
209 posts
I only got 2700 on high and 3700 on low is 2700 on high good enough to run max graphics?
#132 Jun 16 2010 at 12:15 AM Rating: Good
**
296 posts
Astarataru wrote:
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
Astarataru wrote:
I think this is an important question, and one I hope some one can answer: Where is a PS3 likely to rank in regards to the scoring system (assuming latest model)? Is a PS3 likely to run with no stutter/jaggies?

My PC - fairly new - only managed 360 in Low quality :s (with dual Nvidia 7800 GTX graphics cards).


PS3 will have set graphics settings and will be optimized to run smoothly. 7800 GTX cards are two full generations behind the current. SLI or no, they're old, old cards.


So if I understand correctly Aurelius, a PS3 is unlikely to compare in resolution quality to a PC who scores above the 'Standard Performance' range with default settings? I have never seen how a PS2 quality compared to a good quality PC with FFXI, so I'm just trying to get my mind around the contrasts in quality between the two options. I assume the PS3 version isn't likely to have a 1080p native resolution for example.

I'm sorry if i'm rehashing old territory - you'll have to forgive my lack of insight when it comes to benchmark assessments. I would prefer to play FFXIV with the smoothest possible framerate while using the most advanced settings available. If a PS3 isn't likely to compare favourable to a well-built PC, that would be handy to know now.

THanks for any info -it’s greatly appreciated!


We know (or at least I'm pretty sure we know) that the PS3 version will render at 720p - or the low setting on the benchmark. It will be highly optimized to run on the platform and will look and run great on a PS3/HDTV. But it isn't going to match a PC able to run the benchmark at high settings and above 4500 certainly. At that point not only will you double the resolution, but will be able to add AA and other effects to boost the picture quality. However, if you aren't able to run the benchmark on low with at least a 3000 score or thereabouts, you'll likely enjoy a smoother ride on the PS3.

Of course that's all provided I actually understand the benchmark ratings and the PS3 version's capabilities.
#133 Jun 16 2010 at 12:16 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
802 posts
TheBSTGuy wrote:
I only got 2700 on high and 3700 on low is 2700 on high good enough to run max graphics?



No. Only Standard performance.

Click on page 2.
____________________________


#134 Jun 16 2010 at 12:22 AM Rating: Decent
*
209 posts
Quote:
No. Only Standard performance.


Well thats sucks what kind of PC does it take to max the game out?
#135 Jun 16 2010 at 12:23 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Hulan wrote:
To site a specific example, the entire discussion about mortalabattoir's slow GTX230. Now the 230 is certainly getting up there in age as far as GPUs go, and it was never designed to be the workhorse the 280 and beyond were, but I would argue that it's much more probable that his <1000 score probably comes from his 2.66GHz processor more than his GTX230. The 230 isn't helping, but if he OCed that CPU up to 3.0+, he'd probably see a marked difference without spending a cent. If he want's to see 2k+ numbers, he's probably going to be wanting to get a new GPU, but I should think bumping up his CPU would be more than enough to net him another 1k on this Benchmark.


Hmm, with my i5-750 that I haven't managed to OC yet (so it's still at 2.67...had stability issues with the ram so I never got around to it) I got a 4064. I was looking at speedfan while the benchmark was working and while it did actually get to 100% cpu use during the loading time in between scenes it stayed mostly around the 30-35% range for the rest. Are you still saying if I overclock it I'll get a significantly higher score even if I have a good graphics card (HD 5850)? Not trying to trick you here, just gauging whether or not it will be worth going through the potential trouble of more stability issues.
#136 Jun 16 2010 at 12:28 AM Rating: Decent
TheBSTGuy wrote:
Quote:
No. Only Standard performance.


Well thats sucks what kind of PC does it take to max the game out?


It doesn't exist yet.

Edit: Though I'd be very interested to see what a 2x480 SLI (watercooled and OC'd) with an SR2 mobo and dual Xeon hexcore processors would do, I still think you'd be hard pressed to breach the 8000 mark on the benchmark. If someone wanted to sponsor the build, I'd make it and report back ;D

Edited, Jun 15th 2010 11:36pm by Aurelius
#137 Jun 16 2010 at 12:32 AM Rating: Decent
*
209 posts
Quote:
It doesn't exist yet.


Well is 2700 on high good enough to run it smooth? Or do I need to buy a PS3?
#138 Jun 16 2010 at 12:34 AM Rating: Good
**
296 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
TheBSTGuy wrote:
Quote:
No. Only Standard performance.


Well thats sucks what kind of PC does it take to max the game out?


It doesn't exist yet.


But Aurelius' system is a good place to start :P
#139 Jun 16 2010 at 12:37 AM Rating: Decent
TheBSTGuy wrote:
Quote:
It doesn't exist yet.


Well is 2700 on high good enough to run it smooth? Or do I need to buy a PS3?


Please refer to page 2 of this thread for a list of what the scores mean relative to what kind of performance you can expect to get.
#140 Jun 16 2010 at 12:39 AM Rating: Good
**
296 posts
TheBSTGuy wrote:
Quote:
It doesn't exist yet.


Well is 2700 on high good enough to run it smooth? Or do I need to buy a PS3?


No one has the retail version, so all we know is what you know: what the benchmark says.

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


Which to me would say if you're in that range on high settings you're at least ok to run the game. When it launches you may find it beneficial to run lower settings/resolution to up performance rather than worrying about 1080p on a PC monitor, but you'll have the ability to decide it yourself and know you have options.
#141 Jun 16 2010 at 12:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Guru
**
691 posts
Yog, perhaps I should go revise my original post as you do bring up a good point. The i5 is somewhat of a special case, as it is a core that is below 2.8GHz and still good for high preformance. This is a mixture of it being a Quadcore and having excellent design and emulation technology (basically, it's technically not faster in terms of operations per second, but it does those operations more efficiently than other processors). This also holds true for the i7 that the OP is using. I'm a bit tired so I was thinking faster than I could keep myself straight. I was writing the post to help people who weren't sure what they should do to get higher scores, and made the silly assumption that they would not likely have cores as new as the i5 and i7s.

In your specific case, not really, you would see a little bit of an improvement, since you are getting bottlenecks during load time, but nothing drastic. This is just a guess, as I'd have to look at your readings individually, and maybe not even then, but I'd say your i5 is probably past the point where it's slowing down your GPU. Once you pass that point, it's better to upgrade your GPU, although there are always shades of gray. At speeds like that (4k+) you're going to be running into RAM I/O issues, so you could possibly increase your score by getting RAM with faster timings. Or even things like how quickly your Hard Drive pages memory (this happens less often today since there's just so much space). So to conclude, you're computer is fast enough that any one thing is probably not going to make a huge difference, you need to tweek this and that to find what works best.

I apologize if some of this information is a little jumbled or misstated, I'm getting a little tired, and I do not do my best thinking this late.
#142 Jun 16 2010 at 12:47 AM Rating: Decent
*
209 posts
Quote:
Which to me would say if you're in that range on high settings you're at least ok to run the game. When it launches you may find it beneficial to run lower settings/resolution to up performance rather than worrying about 1080p on a PC monitor, but you'll have the ability to decide it yourself and know you have options.
Quote:
No one has the retail version, so all we know is what you know: what the benchmark says.


Well this really sucks I want to do better then just run the game. What can I change to improve my test results?

Phenom 2 x4 3.2GHZ
4GB of ddr2 1066ram
275gtx 896mb
soundblaster x-fi
500GB hard drive
850watt power supply

It looks like this game is going to be selling a lot of PS3's!
#143 Jun 16 2010 at 12:57 AM Rating: Good
TheBSTGuy wrote:
Quote:
Which to me would say if you're in that range on high settings you're at least ok to run the game. When it launches you may find it beneficial to run lower settings/resolution to up performance rather than worrying about 1080p on a PC monitor, but you'll have the ability to decide it yourself and know you have options.
Quote:
No one has the retail version, so all we know is what you know: what the benchmark says.


Well this really sucks I want to do better then just run the game. What can I change to improve my test results?

Phenom 2 x4 3.2GHZ
4GB of ddr2 1066ram
275gtx 896mb
soundblaster x-fi
500GB hard drive
850watt power supply

It looks like this game is going to be selling a lot of PS3's!


I think the easiest way to say it without exaggerating or otherwise being mean guy is that if you're not willing to spend $2000-2500 on a new rig (current hardware at current prices), you're not going to be running XIV at anywhere near max settings. Prices will come down in the next 6 months or so, but not by such a huge margin that you're going to be getting the same rig much cheaper. (I'm still a big advocate to those thinking about upgrading to wait until closer to release...even if you only save $20, it's still $20 saved). Remember what the devs told us a year ago: XIV is going to be very demanding. A good rig 5 years from now will run the game easily at max settings. A good rig 5 years from now will be way better than a top of the line rig today.

My current rig (not counting water cooling components) cost in the neighborhood of $2500-2700. My hi-res benchmark score was 4800. According to the information SE gave us, you need a score of 8000+ to be able to run the game easily at max settings. As with XI, XIV is being developed with future hardware in mind.
#144 Jun 16 2010 at 1:03 AM Rating: Good
**
296 posts
TheBSTGuy wrote:
Well this really sucks I want to do better then just run the game. What can I change to improve my test results?

Phenom 2 x4 3.2GHZ
4GB of ddr2 1066ram
275gtx 896mb
soundblaster x-fi
500GB hard drive
850watt power supply

It looks like this game is going to be selling a lot of PS3's!


Hehe, yeah. I'm sure the PS3 version looks a little more attractive to some people today.

We've got a few knowledgeable guys here that could likely tell you what the most effective upgrade would be for you. Me? I would advise some patience. You won't be running this game until towards the end of the year (if things go smooth). In the time between now and then, you'll be able to get plenty of advice on what upgrades might give you the biggest bang for the buck, AND watch those components drop in price.

The good thing here is you at least know you can run now. You go through this whole thread and you'll see a lot of people that aren't close yet. No reason to do anything now that you can do with more knowledge and for less money later and still be sitting pretty at release.
#145 Jun 16 2010 at 1:05 AM Rating: Decent
*
209 posts
Quote:
I think the easiest way to say it without exaggerating or otherwise being mean guy is that if you're not willing to spend $2000-2500 on a new rig (current hardware at current prices), you're not going to be running XIV at anywhere near max settings. Prices will come down in the next 6 months or so, but not by such a huge margin that you're going to be getting the same rig much cheaper. (I'm still a big advocate to those thinking about upgrading to wait until closer to release...even if you only save $20, it's still $20 saved). Remember what the devs told us a year ago: XIV is going to be very demanding. A good rig 5 years from now will run the game easily at max settings. A good rig 5 years from now will be way better than a top of the line rig today.

My current rig (not counting water cooling components) cost in the neighborhood of $2500-2700. My hi-res benchmark score was 4800. According to the information SE gave us, you need a score of 8000+ to be able to run the game easily at max settings. As with XI, XIV is being developed with future hardware in mind.


Well I am not going to spend $2500 on a PC. So looks like I am going to be playing this game on a PS3! =/

Good news is a bought a HDTV last Xmas =)

Edited, Jun 16th 2010 3:07am by TheBSTGuy
#146 Jun 16 2010 at 1:07 AM Rating: Excellent
I got a 2,086 on the low-res on my computer... looks like it barely made the cut. I guess the next question is, what's the easiest way to boost system performance?
____________________________
Thayos Redblade
Jormungandr
Hyperion
#147 Jun 16 2010 at 1:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Guru
**
691 posts
Thayos wrote:
I got a 2,086 on the low-res on my computer... looks like it barely made the cut. I guess the next question is, what's the easiest way to boost system performance?


Easiest or Cheapest? ^.^;
#148 Jun 16 2010 at 1:26 AM Rating: Good
Sage
***
1,949 posts
Scored 4756 on High on my gaming PC. It was smooth as butter and oh so pretty.
____________________________
FFXIV: Cloe Delisle Scholar, officer of the SWAGGER Free company, Sargatanas server.
#149 Jun 16 2010 at 1:30 AM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
So, here's what I've compiled from the posts up to this point. For reference, I only included people who listed at least one score AND at least two of Processor, GPU, RAM.

Data is available in a spreadsheet; if you want it, tell me how you want me to send it to you.

 
Low 	High	OS	Processor			GPU		RAM 
250		Vis HP	Core 2 Duo T5450 1.66		GF 8700M GT	2 GB 
	260	7x64	Athlon 64 x2 6000+		GF 9800 GT	4 GB DDR2 
595		7x64	AMD x4 2.8			ATI 4350	8 GB 
707	390	7x64 Pr	Pentium 4 3.0 HT		ATI 3650	3 GB DDR2 
943		7x64	Core 2 Quad 2.66		GF GT 230	8 GB DDR3 
1047		XP x32	Core 2 Quad Q6600 – 1.4				3 GB 
1150	666	7x64 HP	Core 2 Quad Q8300 – 2.5		GF GT 220	8 GB DDR2 
1242		XP Home	AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+		GF9600 GSO	 
1348		7x64	Core Duo P7350 2.0		GF 9700M GTS	4 GB 
1505	2511	XP Home	Core 2 Duo 2.53			ATI 4850	2 GB 
1600	1600	7x64 HP	AMD Phenom 9500 x4 2.2		ATI 5700	4 GB DDR2 
2126	1202	7x64	Core 2 Duo P8600 – 2.4		GF GTX 260M	4 GB 
2289	1736		Athlon II x2 240		ATI 4850	 
2538	1593	7x64 Ul	Core i7 Q720M – 1.6		GF GTX 280M	4 GB DDR3 
2737	1726		Core 2 Duo E7200 3.0				4 GB 
3039	1877		Core 2 Quad Q6600 – 2.4		ATI 4870	 
3158	1882	7x64 HP	Core Quad 2.66			GF 8800 Ultra	4 GB DDR2 
3288	1780	Vista	Core i7 920 – 2.67		ATI 4800	8 GB 
3908	2495	7x64 Pr	AMD Phenom II x4 925 2.8	ATI 5770	4 GB DDR3 
	2500	7x64	Core 2 Quad Q9300 – 2.5		GF GTX 260	4 GB DDR2 
	3743	7x64	Phenom x6 1090T			GF GTX 480	4 GB DDR3 
5154	4064	7x64	Core i5 750 – 2.67		ATI 5850	4 GB DDR3  
7320	4896	7x64	Core i7 920 – 3.8		ATI 5870	6 GB 
7413	4800		Core i7 920 4.0			ATI 5870	 
8062		7x64	Core i7 980 3.33 (OC 4.3)	ATI 5800 x2	 


General trends seems to be (to me) that the minimum specs will be AT LEAST Dual Core processor (Probably Quad). I'm noticing that some Radeons under 5k are doing well and some over 5k have done less than stellar, which leads me back to the thought that this game may rely more on CPU than GPU.

Still, data can say whatever you want it to say if you stare at it long enough. So I place no warranty on my statements. The data is the data.

I probably won't add to this list anything posted after this post unless I'm extremely bored, so enjoy :)

EDIT: And the more I stare at this inconsistency, it boggles the mind... why is my old P4HT box with a Radeon 3650 (that needs to be replaced because it will periodically turn the screen monocolor, then force a BSOD and restart for no apparent reason other than because it sucks, but I digress) outdoing two quad cores, both of which have better video cards?

Inconsistent benchmark tool is inconsistent. *scratches head*


EDIT2: Reorganized list by low res score. People who didn't list a low res score were put where they logically seemed like they should be.

Edited, Jun 16th 2010 3:44am by Mikhalia

Edited, Jun 16th 2010 2:32pm by Mikhalia

Edited, Jun 17th 2010 10:54pm 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.
#150 Jun 16 2010 at 1:35 AM Rating: Decent
21 posts
Low: 1278
High: 667

Windows 7 64 bit
Core 2 Quad Q8400 @2.66GHz
6gb Ram
Nvidia GT220 1gb

My PC didn't made it :(
____________________________
Titan Server - Tarus
#151 Jun 16 2010 at 1:47 AM Rating: Decent
*
209 posts
Quote:
My PC didn't made it :(


Don't feel bad I get over 90FPS in BF BC 2 on max settings but only scored 2700 on high on the FFXIV benchmarks. This game is going to cut its own throat its going to force 90% of the people who want to play it to buy a PS3 or buy a new PC. Last I checked the economy was in the gutter this game will sell a lot but nothing like what it would have sold if the requirements were not so high!

Edited, Jun 16th 2010 3:47am by TheBSTGuy
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 15 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (15)