Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

Official FFXIV Benchmarking program.Follow

#152 Jun 16 2010 at 1:57 AM Rating: Good
TheBSTGuy wrote:
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



What would you suggest they do? Make another XI? A game that was already behind it's generation when it was released? A game that isn't able to adapt to the future? SE is doing the right thing.

If your pc is scoring in the mid to low triple digits, it's time to upgrade anyway. You can always buy a PS3, keyboard and mouse exponentially cheaper than a high-end PC anyway. But, as Aur (and I) have suggested, wait until the game is getting ready for release. Save money up to that point and take what's considered good to high-end hardware today and get it in 6 months cheaper.
#153 Jun 16 2010 at 2:03 AM Rating: Decent
**
791 posts
I've had the intention of buying a new PC once FFXIV is immanent. I haven't even bothered to run the benchmark program since I'm scrapping this computer once FFXIV release is less than a month out. I'm thinking my current computer is stopping me from getting a Beta invite though, which is sort of sad.
____________________________


#154 Jun 16 2010 at 2:12 AM Rating: Good
**
296 posts
TheBSTGuy wrote:
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!


But (IMHO) that's also the beauty of SE's approach. Instead of making a last gen MMO that anyone can run but looks dated as the next line of MMOs come out, they're leading the charge. And if you don't currently have a PC that runs XIV at a level you're happy with, you could upgrade or use the PS3: a system that should have 45 million units sold by release, and is available for less than 300 bucks if you don't already have one in your living room.

It may seem like the game is asking for a lot now, but they want this to go for a decade or so. By the the time XIV is hitting middle age in five years or so, any computer off the shelf will likely run this better than many of the best systems now.

I'll admit that it isn't the approach we commonly see employed by MMO publishers. Most of the time you'll see a game launch with the barest requirements to grow the potential user base. But with XIV's cross platform approach, they are able to set the bar high while still giving budget minded consumers an affordable way to jump in at launch.

Edited, Jun 16th 2010 4:14am by ascorbic
#155 Jun 16 2010 at 2:13 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,825 posts
My native resolution is 1680x1050

Running at high then low I got 1245 and 2186.

Win7 64bit - Q6700 - 8GB DDR2 - SLI 8800 GTS 640mbs

I thought both run throughs looked pretty smooth. I am positive they did the bench in window so that it over estimates.

My GTX470 is supposed to be in soon so I'll be re-running the bench with it and one of the 8800's turned into a PhysX processor. I'll try to edit this post if I can find it then.
____________________________
FFXI:Sylph - Perrin 75 Hume THF; Retired (At least from my use any way)
EVE Online:ScraperX; Retired
WAR:IronClaw- Peryn SW;SkullThrone- Grymloc BO; Retired


#156 Jun 16 2010 at 2:49 AM Rating: Decent
*
209 posts
Quote:
What would you suggest they do? Make another XI? A game that was already behind it's generation when it was released? A game that isn't able to adapt to the future? SE is doing the right thing.

If your pc is scoring in the mid to low triple digits, it's time to upgrade anyway. You can always buy a PS3, keyboard and mouse exponentially cheaper than a high-end PC anyway. But, as Aur (and I) have suggested, wait until the game is getting ready for release. Save money up to that point and take what's considered good to high-end hardware today and get it in 6 months cheaper.


The thing is I have this thing called a family to support. There is no way I can come up with $2500 by the end of the year just to play this game. So I am going to be forced to go out and buy a $300 PS3 just to play. Yes the PS3 is cheap but I can asure you the graphics will look no where near as good a a high end PC.

Also IDK if you played FFXI on PS2 or the 360 but the consoles lag a lot and disconnect often under high loads. I never played FFXIV but if they used the same network code as FFXI there is going to be problems! I guess the only way I will truly be able to enjoy this game is on next generation consoles or in a few years on PC when PC's become faster and cheaper.
#157 Jun 16 2010 at 2:55 AM Rating: Decent
*
209 posts
Quote:
But (IMHO) that's also the beauty of SE's approach. Instead of making a last gen MMO that anyone can run but looks dated as the next line of MMOs come out, they're leading the charge. And if you don't currently have a PC that runs XIV at a level you're happy with, you could upgrade or use the PS3: a system that should have 45 million units sold by release, and is available for less than 300 bucks if you don't already have one in your living room.


The PS3 will save this game for sure. But IDK if you remember a few years back when VANGUARD came out with insane PC requirements like FFXIV is today. The game was a total flop because no one could afford a PC to run the game. Good thing for SE is the PS3 is flying off the store shelf as fast as retailers can restock them.
#158 Jun 16 2010 at 3:45 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
802 posts
TheBSTGuy wrote:
......................................... But IDK if you remember a few years back when VANGUARD came out with insane PC requirements like FFXIV is today. The game was a total flop because no one could afford a PC to run the game. Good thing for SE is the PS3 is flying off the store shelf as fast as retailers can restock them.


VANCRAP: Suckers and Zeros is a total flog because the game is 70% made at best.

The insane bugs, glitches, etc are insane.

I even took down the amount of times I crash, before I had it (>...<.

Total close to 70 times in 1.5 mth.
____________________________


#159 Jun 16 2010 at 4:47 AM Rating: Decent
**
370 posts
Is anyone playing on a laptop? I want to know how well a pc with 310M graphics holds up.
____________________________
Thaumaturge/Archer/Marauder
http://xivpads.viion.co.uk/?id=1847776
Moogle Inc linkshell
http://www.moogleinc.com
Stand in front of me fool...I am a Thaumaturge
#160 Jun 16 2010 at 4:50 AM Rating: Good
***
3,825 posts
Obiar wrote:
Is anyone playing on a laptop? I want to know how well a pc with 310M graphics holds up.


I'm guessing all but the newest Nvidia and ATI mobile grapics solution won't score over 1k, so very unlikely. But ya never know unless you try.
____________________________
FFXI:Sylph - Perrin 75 Hume THF; Retired (At least from my use any way)
EVE Online:ScraperX; Retired
WAR:IronClaw- Peryn SW;SkullThrone- Grymloc BO; Retired


#161 Jun 16 2010 at 5:35 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,523 posts
PerrinofSylph wrote:
Obiar wrote:
Is anyone playing on a laptop? I want to know how well a pc with 310M graphics holds up.


I'm guessing all but the newest Nvidia and ATI mobile grapics solution won't score over 1k, so very unlikely. But ya never know unless you try.


Using a laptop, but the benchmark crashes before it tells me anything, so I still don't know....
____________________________
____(>°°)D_->__(O°°)>-_<(;,,;)>_C-(°°Q)__O~~_t(°°<)_(;o0)___<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_<(;,,;)>_____

#162 Jun 16 2010 at 5:45 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
179 posts
im planing to upgrade my pc soon, i was planing to do so long time ago but waiting for prices to drop and see what ffxiv needs to run it smooth, but i need someone that tested these before so to make sure it will be good to buy or not:

win 7 64 home
EVGA 141-BL-E757-TR X58 SLI Mainboard
Corsair TR3X6G1600C8D Dominator 6 GB 3 x 2 GB PC3-12800 1600MHz 240-Pin DDR3
Intel Core i5 750 Processor 2.66 GHz 8 MB LGA1156 CPU I5-750BOX
EVGA GeForce GTX465 1 GB GDDR5

all around 950$

if anyone have same spec please post your score

Thanks
____________________________
#163 Jun 16 2010 at 7:10 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
441 posts
High: 2504
Low: 4546

Windows 7 64-bit
i7-930 (not overclocked)
Sapphire ATI 5770 Vapor-X 1GB DDR5 (not overclocked)
Kingston 6GB DDR3 2ghz

I built this system 2 months ago and it's only going to be capable of running at high resolution barely at standard o.O? Oh well, when we get a closer release date I will look into going into Crossfire setup...I'm not a big fan of overclocking so that probably impacted the benchmark performance.

***
Edit:

2500 7x64 Core 2 Quad Q9300 – 2.5 GF GTX 260 4 GB DDR2

Someone else had a very similar build to mine (the GTX 260 is almost equivalent to ATI 5770), similar chipset, same OS, I had 2GB more RAM (and DDR3 vs DDR2). Based on the results, this may suggest (as other posters have commented) that the benchmark could be highly affected by CPU clock speed (which is consistent with the posters who returned the highest benchmark scores).


Edited, Jun 16th 2010 1:17pm by Dik
____________________________
War 75 Nin75 Sam75
#164 Jun 16 2010 at 8:34 AM Rating: Decent
TheBSTGuy wrote:
Quote:
But (IMHO) that's also the beauty of SE's approach. Instead of making a last gen MMO that anyone can run but looks dated as the next line of MMOs come out, they're leading the charge. And if you don't currently have a PC that runs XIV at a level you're happy with, you could upgrade or use the PS3: a system that should have 45 million units sold by release, and is available for less than 300 bucks if you don't already have one in your living room.


The PS3 will save this game for sure. But IDK if you remember a few years back when VANGUARD came out with insane PC requirements like FFXIV is today. The game was a total flop because no one could afford a PC to run the game. Good thing for SE is the PS3 is flying off the store shelf as fast as retailers can restock them.


I guess on some level, it was unavoidable. The denial and rage, I mean. We were told a year ago that XIV's hardware requirements for PC would be quite high. And just like anything/everything else SE told us that people didn't want to believe, everyone tried to downplay it. "No, they wouldn't do that...they'll probably just <whatever> instead." And for the last several months we're seeing a trend emerge for XIV that could basically be summed up as, "If SE says it will be so, it's a pretty safe bet that it will be so." Much as I hate to see people disappointed after clinging to faint hope for so long, I look at this as a positive thing. Hopefully, and with a little luck, people will start paying attention to what SE says and stop rationalizing their prefered alternatives in its place. I think that would be a big step forward for the community as a whole.
#165 Jun 16 2010 at 8:36 AM Rating: Decent
**
472 posts
Some speculation on the PS3 graphics. Since they showcased yesterday that the PS3 is going to have all these 3d games added to the list this year, and after seeing that they posted something about FF14 running in 3d, this is what I speculate: The PS3 graphics are much better than most people imagine. FF14 will be in 1080 resolution. The 3d aspect I assume means that they have to overlay graphics. So instead of doing say 70 FPS, it would be halved to 35 FPS?
#166 Jun 16 2010 at 9:12 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
113 posts
2821 on low

xp sp3
Q6600 2.4ghz
8800gt
4gb ram

Playing on the ps3 though, this was just my pc at work, still, this def gets me excited. Such a tease heh
____________________________
I read the news today, oh boy...
#167 Jun 16 2010 at 9:34 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
**
312 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.

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


I'll let you know my numbers when my other 480 comes in (I'm not springing for the 3-way SLI, though). As it stands, I'm averaging 6600 from my system
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit 
Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD7 mobo 
Intel i7-980x (not OC'd) 
12 GB DDR3 RAM 
SDD Boot with 7200RPM HDD data 
Single PNY 480 (for now)

I doubt, similarly to you, that this will break 8k. I'll be happy as **** if it does, though.
____________________________
Steam: Xavier1216
FFXI: Astyanax (Bismarck)


#168 Jun 16 2010 at 9:34 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
209 posts
Quote:
Data is available in a spreadsheet; if you want it, tell me how you want me to send it to you.


I PM'd you a few things :)
____________________________
"If it could go wrong, it happened in the Dunes." - Sephrick
#169 Jun 16 2010 at 10:02 AM Rating: Decent
Intel Core i7 CPU 965 @ 3.20GHz
Windows Vista 64bit
2 NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250
6GB DDR3

High-2200
Low-3800
Any help is much appreciated. I know the graphics cards could use an update but I want to make sure everything else is good.

Edited, Jun 16th 2010 12:06pm by ashleyinsanity
#170 Jun 16 2010 at 10:22 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
315 posts
So I can't get the thing to run, first it was the missing file error that I fixed by updating the Direct X drivers and now once the program opens up it just say "Program has stopped working" and shuts down. I updated all the drivers but cant figure it out still.
#171 Jun 16 2010 at 10:46 AM Rating: Good
**
592 posts
Before people panic, realize that there will be newer drivers released closer to launch that will likely be tweaked to perform better than the current ones.

Additionally, there are lots of graphical tweaks that can be made on most games that have large impacts on frame rate, with only minor impact on the actual appearance of the graphics. Unless SE gives almost no player control to things like AA, AF, bloom effects, texture resolution, etc, it should be possible to get the 1000-2000 benchmarks running smoothly at 1200x800 resolutions.

A windowed benchmark for anyone running Aero desktop (Vista and 7 users) is going to give you a crappy result, period.
____________________________
Inralkil-Seraph 75NIN/75SAM/68BST

Retired: Inra-Dark Crag 40/40 Witch Elf
Retired: Hollow-Thunderlord 70 Warlock S1/S3 T4 SL/SL
Retired: Horknee-Thunderlord 70 Druid T4/T5 Feral
#172 Jun 16 2010 at 10:57 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
5,684 posts
I tried running the benchmark, but it crashes on me. Here are my laptop specs:

OS: Windows 7 x64
CPU: Intel Core i5 430M, 2.26GHz
Graphics: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5650
RAM: 4GB


...Is my graphics card not good enough? It's a brand new computer, so I might need to update some drivers still.
#173 Jun 16 2010 at 10:58 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,416 posts
Update Catalyst drivers.
____________________________
SE:
Quote:
We really want to compete against World of Warcraft and for example the new Star Wars MMO.

#174 Jun 16 2010 at 11:15 AM Rating: Good
***
1,888 posts
Inralkil wrote:


Additionally, there are lots of graphical tweaks that can be made on most games that have large impacts on frame rate, with only minor impact on the actual appearance of the graphics. Unless SE gives almost no player control to things like AA, AF, bloom effects, texture resolution, etc, it should be possible to get the 1000-2000 benchmarks running smoothly at 1200x800 resolutions.



Yeah, turning off fancy lighting effects and dropping the texture res can make a big change in games like this. You could render at 720 and display a window of 1080 and enjoy good visuals with less graphical lag.

Also, for those worrying about FFXIV on PS3, there is no need to worry. The console is capable of amazing things and the game will still look better than any other MMO around for a good while yet. All you are missing are scaleability options that PC users gain.

If you are quibbling over an upgrade, then you probably don't fit to what SE envision as a PC gamer - yearly upgrades are part and parcel, and the console route with a decent HDTV or monitor will work really well as this game is being programmed for both platforms unlike XI's hackjob ports to PC and 360.

The guys posting good scores on the benchmarker don't have off the shelf PC's from a few years back (or older as some of you appear to have). They were built as enthusiast machines, so dont try to match those scores with a run of the mill set up. My 2 years old Q6600 machine posts 2000's in the bench, and within a matter of seconds can see where to squeeze way more power with a few cheap upgrades - though by doing so I wont match the OP, or get anywhere near.

By the time XIV launches retail, i7's will be much cheaper (the 920 is a great little CPU for very little cash allready), and fingers crossed, RAM might have taken a more realistic pricing turn too.
____________________________
Reiginsei, San'doria Rank 8 Hume Male.
75RDM/75NIN/69BLM59PLD
[5/5 Duellist 01/17/08][4/5 Koga][0/5 Valor][CoP+RotZ]
Linkshells:
Europa/Wabbits/OmegaStoleMyBike
#175 Jun 16 2010 at 11:19 AM Rating: Good
2260 on High. Haven't run Low yet.

Win7 32bit
Intel Core2Duo E8400 3.0Ghz
2GB RAM
ATI Radeon HD4870

It is, erm, entirely possible that I knew my system would need upgrading before the Benchmark arrived.

Edited, Jun 16th 2010 4:17pm by Mieck
____________________________

Mieck of Siren // Mieck Corcoczeck of Lindblum

#176 Jun 16 2010 at 11:23 AM Rating: Good
Mieck, Pie Eating Champion wrote:
2260 on High. Haven't run Low yet.

Intel Core2Duo E8400 3.0Ghz
2GB RAM
ATI Radeon HD4870

It is, erm, entirely possible that I knew my system would need upgrading before the Benchmark arrived.


With those specs, and for High res setting, that score isn't bad at all.
#177 Jun 16 2010 at 11:48 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
5,684 posts
xypin wrote:
I tried running the benchmark, but it crashes on me. Here are my laptop specs:

OS: Windows 7 x64
CPU: Intel Core i5 430M, 2.26GHz
Graphics: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5650
RAM: 4GB
Updated DirectX, GPU drivers, and CPU drivers. Benchmark still crashes. Any thoughts?
#178 Jun 16 2010 at 11:52 AM Rating: Decent
*
102 posts
I have the newish m11x Alienware laptop.

I got 1180 on the low resolution.

When I tried to run the high resolution, the window was far too big. I wasn't able to see the part of the video with my score on it (granted I didn't try very long). The max resolution on the m11x is only 1366 x 768 so the lower resolution setting should be a good representation. The higher resolution was a little choppy, but still playable.

____________________________
Here are some pictures from the XI beta:
http://s1016.photobucket.com/albums/af289/Paranoidpuma/
Some cool pics of the Gigatoad and GM characters in there

Some old videos I made (Don't make fun of them, I was young at the time):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdxdzD3gNtI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3jUcsKt0E0

XI beta tester, played for 3 years, if you remember Superguy send me a PM
#179 Jun 16 2010 at 11:56 AM Rating: Good
xypin wrote:
xypin wrote:
I tried running the benchmark, but it crashes on me. Here are my laptop specs:

OS: Windows 7 x64
CPU: Intel Core i5 430M, 2.26GHz
Graphics: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5650
RAM: 4GB
Updated DirectX, GPU drivers, and CPU drivers. Benchmark still crashes. Any thoughts?


Not really sure what to tell ya here. What type of crash is it? Does the program load, hang and just get stuck? Does windows give you any sort of error?
#180 Jun 16 2010 at 12:06 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,416 posts
Updated Catalyst drivers?
____________________________
SE:
Quote:
We really want to compete against World of Warcraft and for example the new Star Wars MMO.

#181 Jun 16 2010 at 12:08 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
5,684 posts
Osarion, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
xypin wrote:
xypin wrote:
I tried running the benchmark, but it crashes on me. Here are my laptop specs:

OS: Windows 7 x64
CPU: Intel Core i5 430M, 2.26GHz
Graphics: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5650
RAM: 4GB
Updated DirectX, GPU drivers, and CPU drivers. Benchmark still crashes. Any thoughts?


Not really sure what to tell ya here. What type of crash is it? Does the program load, hang and just get stuck? Does windows give you any sort of error?
The program loads, I can get to the settings selection screen. When I hit the Start button, I get the window for the benchmark video, but the window stays black and I get the message "Benchmark has stopped working". I've tried both high and low settings.
#182 Jun 16 2010 at 12:13 PM Rating: Decent
40 posts
Quote:
xypin wrote:
I tried running the benchmark, but it crashes on me. Here are my laptop specs:

OS: Windows 7 x64
CPU: Intel Core i5 430M, 2.26GHz
Graphics: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5650
RAM: 4GB
Updated DirectX, GPU drivers, and CPU drivers. Benchmark still crashes. Any thoughts?


My computer is very similar to yours and I am also having similar problems.
My specs:

OS - windows 7 x64
CPU - intel core i3 M 330 @2.13GHz
Graphics - ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5450
RAM - 4GB
#183 Jun 16 2010 at 12:20 PM Rating: Good
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
TheBSTGuy wrote:
Quote:
But (IMHO) that's also the beauty of SE's approach. Instead of making a last gen MMO that anyone can run but looks dated as the next line of MMOs come out, they're leading the charge. And if you don't currently have a PC that runs XIV at a level you're happy with, you could upgrade or use the PS3: a system that should have 45 million units sold by release, and is available for less than 300 bucks if you don't already have one in your living room.


The PS3 will save this game for sure. But IDK if you remember a few years back when VANGUARD came out with insane PC requirements like FFXIV is today. The game was a total flop because no one could afford a PC to run the game. Good thing for SE is the PS3 is flying off the store shelf as fast as retailers can restock them.


I guess on some level, it was unavoidable. The denial and rage, I mean. We were told a year ago that XIV's hardware requirements for PC would be quite high. And just like anything/everything else SE told us that people didn't want to believe, everyone tried to downplay it. "No, they wouldn't do that...they'll probably just <whatever> instead." And for the last several months we're seeing a trend emerge for XIV that could basically be summed up as, "If SE says it will be so, it's a pretty safe bet that it will be so." Much as I hate to see people disappointed after clinging to faint hope for so long, I look at this as a positive thing. Hopefully, and with a little luck, people will start paying attention to what SE says and stop rationalizing their prefered alternatives in its place. I think that would be a big step forward for the community as a whole.

I understand what you are saying here, but please try to understand this:
SE saying that the graphic demands would be high is somewhat vague. To me, you are pretty much going to need a high end gaming machine to run FF XIV the way it's meant to be played. They never really gave us anything to compare in their statement. My PC is 6 months old, and scored at highest a 533 on the benchmark. I'm a gamer, so i already realized that this piece of crap probably wouldn't be good enough, but most people aren't computer savvy enough to come to the same realization.
#184 Jun 16 2010 at 12:38 PM Rating: Decent
**
445 posts
Score on Low: 2819
OS: Win7 Home 64bit
CPU: AMD Phenom x4 9750 2.4GHz
GPU: GeForce GTS250 512mbDDR3
RAM: 8GB DDR2

however, i am a little bit concerned as GPU goes up to 82'C.....

Edited, Jun 16th 2010 11:49am by timmyofalex
____________________________
Timfung (Alexander) 75WHM72RDM46PUP Cooking81 (retired)

http://lodestone.finalfantasyxiv.com/rc/character/status?cicuid=1662475
#185 Jun 16 2010 at 12:39 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,825 posts
So can we change it from "Can it play Crysis" to "Can it max FFXIV Benchmark"?
____________________________
FFXI:Sylph - Perrin 75 Hume THF; Retired (At least from my use any way)
EVE Online:ScraperX; Retired
WAR:IronClaw- Peryn SW;SkullThrone- Grymloc BO; Retired


#186 Jun 16 2010 at 12:43 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
My PC is 6 months old, and scored at highest a 533 on the benchmark. I'm a gamer, so i already realized that this piece of crap probably wouldn't be good enough, but most people aren't computer savvy enough to come to the same realization.



A 6 month gaming PC scoring a 533? My PC is like 3 years old and I'm around 2100 on low. Sure you have the newest drivers?
#187 Jun 16 2010 at 12:51 PM Rating: Decent
9 posts
Doesn't take up much cpu for me, mine sat comfortably at around 20-30% usage and that's with a bunch of firefox tabs open and aim up, not to mention i never turned off my virus scanner for these tests.

on low Ive gotten 3100, and high 1800.

I'm still going to upgrade my gpu but my cpu is fine.


Windows 7 home premium 64bit
Intel quad-core 2.66ghz
4gb ddr2 pc6400 ram
geforce 8800 ultra


#188 Jun 16 2010 at 12:56 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
743 posts
For the people keeping score, I got a low res score of about 650 and a high res score of about 321 (I'll update the numbers when I get home).
My current rig:

Case Used HP case free
Power Supply OCZ 600W ModXStream Pro $50 (on sale + rebate)
MB Gigabyte ga-h55m-ud2h $100
Mem OCZ 3P1333LV4GK 2x2GB Platinum DDR3 $115
HD Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 500 GB $55
Optical drive Asus dvd $25
CPU Intel i3-530 (OC'ed to 3.6 GHz) $100
OS Win7 Ult. 64 $50
CPU cooler CoolerMaster 212+ $30
GPU PowerColor HD4650 $35 (after rebate)

Total $510

Yeah, the GPU sucks, but it let me get the CPU OC'ed to my liking. I hope an HD5830 will push it to an adequate level.

Edited, Jun 16th 2010 11:57am by AngusX
____________________________
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)
#189 Jun 16 2010 at 1:10 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,539 posts
Tenfooterten wrote:
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
TheBSTGuy wrote:
Quote:
But (IMHO) that's also the beauty of SE's approach. Instead of making a last gen MMO that anyone can run but looks dated as the next line of MMOs come out, they're leading the charge. And if you don't currently have a PC that runs XIV at a level you're happy with, you could upgrade or use the PS3: a system that should have 45 million units sold by release, and is available for less than 300 bucks if you don't already have one in your living room.


The PS3 will save this game for sure. But IDK if you remember a few years back when VANGUARD came out with insane PC requirements like FFXIV is today. The game was a total flop because no one could afford a PC to run the game. Good thing for SE is the PS3 is flying off the store shelf as fast as retailers can restock them.


I guess on some level, it was unavoidable. The denial and rage, I mean. We were told a year ago that XIV's hardware requirements for PC would be quite high. And just like anything/everything else SE told us that people didn't want to believe, everyone tried to downplay it. "No, they wouldn't do that...they'll probably just <whatever> instead." And for the last several months we're seeing a trend emerge for XIV that could basically be summed up as, "If SE says it will be so, it's a pretty safe bet that it will be so." Much as I hate to see people disappointed after clinging to faint hope for so long, I look at this as a positive thing. Hopefully, and with a little luck, people will start paying attention to what SE says and stop rationalizing their prefered alternatives in its place. I think that would be a big step forward for the community as a whole.

I understand what you are saying here, but please try to understand this:
SE saying that the graphic demands would be high is somewhat vague. To me, you are pretty much going to need a high end gaming machine to run FF XIV the way it's meant to be played. They never really gave us anything to compare in their statement. My PC is 6 months old, and scored at highest a 533 on the benchmark. I'm a gamer, so i already realized that this piece of crap probably wouldn't be good enough, but most people aren't computer savvy enough to come to the same realization.


I think the problem stems from the fact that most people are "not a computer person" anyway, and take whatever they're told to mean whatever they think they're being told.

e.g.: The "All I do is use Facebook and email pictures of my kids" people who get sold $1100 systems because "It's way faster, and it has a thousand gigabites of memory! (sic)" despite the fact that a 1 TB HD is not going to be even 25% filled by this user, EVER, and a Quad Core processor is wasted on someone who isn't going to run anything more elaborate than IE and AIM. ****, the only reason they would arguably "need" a better processor and RAM is to compensate for all the toolbars and free offers and other junk they're going to sh*t up their computer with.

Now the situation we currently have, is the same, but different. There are three types of gamers. There are the types of gamers who are ready and willing to fork out big bucks for a $3000 (or higher) system that is usually way overpowered for 95% of the games currently available, just so that they can run everything on max without the system breaking a sweat, and then there are the gamers who build rigs at $700-1200 which can run 95% of the games currently available at max settings, and they would have to adjust the sliders down to run the other 5% on "default".

And then there's the third category, people who can play 85% of the games at max, 10% at default, and if they ever try out the top 5%, they get blindsided when their system chokes. Many of them tend to blame the game because if their system can play 95% of games, then it can play 100%, and this is clearly just a bad game.

Here's my thoughts, and make note of the word "probably" to indicate "There are exceptions". If you're one of them, you don't need to argue with me, because you're right, and you don't need me to tell you that. If you feel you NEED to argue with me in an effort to PROVE you're right, you're probably wrong.

If your system shipped with XP or Vista, it's probably in need of an overhaul (processor/motherboard/RAM/video), regardless of whether you updated it to 7.
If you built your system before Windows 7 was released as a retail/OEM purchase, the above still applies.
If your system shipped with 7 Home Basic or Starter, it probably needs either a better processor or more/better RAM or a new video card.
If you built your system and installed Windows 7 Home Basic or Starter, shame on you.
If your video card currently sells for under $100 on newegg, you probably need a new video card. Retail stores overprice video cards to ****, so the fact that you may have paid $150 in Worst Buy does not mean that the card isn't worth substantially less. I'd personally advise $130-180 if you consider yourself a "serious gamer on a budget" (which the higher end gamers would argue is an oxymoron, but let's not get into that)
If your processor isn't at least a quad core, consider upgrading your CPU. This may require a motherboard upgrade too. Look to spend $300-450 between the two if you're interested in upgrading but on a budget.
If you have less than 4 GB RAM, upgrade to at least 4 GB. More is better, but 2x2 GB is relatively inexpensive. If you're using DDR RAM, you would benefit highly from upgrading to DDR3. If you're using DDR2, upgrading to DDR3 may provide a boost.

Overall, if you're only concerned with price, the PS3 is cheaper than upgrading a motherboard/processor, but not a mid range video card and RAM.

Personally, I don't like paying more than $199 for ANY console and would rather drop 500-700 to upgrade my gaming rig, but that's just my opinion, and yours may differ.

And honestly, I'm kinda glad that FFXIV's requirements are so high in a way, because after I just got finished fully overhauling my system (and giving the old parts to my fiancee), I'd be pretty annoyed if I found out my old system could run it without problems. Although at the same time, it still means hers is going to need an upgrade, which is going to cost more money, so that kinda sucks too.

Chances are, if we haven't upgraded hers by then, I may end up just trying to install my copy on both systems and see if I can run hers at ultra super omg awful settings, just for the **** of it. Worst case it still runs on my system and all I'm out is install time.

As for the people who are getting sub 1k scores, ya can't really return a PC game.

Tinfoil hat: Maybe they're making the requirements so high to force PC players onto consoles to "reduce cheating"? Doubt this is true, but *shrug*

Edited, Jun 16th 2010 3:13pm 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.
#190 Jun 16 2010 at 1:22 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
AngusX wrote:
Case Used HP case free
CPU Intel i3-530 (OC'ed to 3.6 GHz) $100
GPU PowerColor HD4650 $35 (after rebate)

Total $510

Yeah, the GPU sucks, but it let me get the CPU OC'ed to my liking. I hope an HD5830 will push it to an adequate level.

Edited, Jun 16th 2010 11:57am by AngusX


Core i3 is a low end processor, and the Core i3 530 (What you have) is only a Dual Core. Upgrading that to at least a Core i5 Quad Core would help a lot. Upgrading the video card would help also, but I'd personally upgrade the processor to a Core i5 and upgrade the card to a 57XX series.

Upgrading the card to a 5830 with a Dual Core processor means that your CPU is your bottleneck, and will limit what your GPU can provide you.

If money is no object, then Core i7 and 58XX all the way.
____________________________
[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.
#191 Jun 16 2010 at 1:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Mikhalia wrote:
[quote=AngusX]
If money is no object, then Core i7 and 58XX all the way.


If money truly is no object...
Intel Core i7-980X Extreme Edition Gulftown 3.33GHz LGA 1366 130W Six-Core Desktop Processor Model BX80613I7980X

What's a grand here or there? ^^

Edited, Jun 16th 2010 12:29pm by Osarion
#192 Jun 16 2010 at 1:29 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
770 posts
Osarion, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Mikhalia wrote:
[quote=AngusX]
If money is no object, then Core i7 and 58XX all the way.


If money truly is no object...
Intel Core i7-980X Extreme Edition Gulftown 3.33GHz LGA 1366 130W Six-Core Desktop Processor Model BX80613I7980X

What's a grand here or there? ^^


>.< if moneys no object give me some :P
____________________________
I do not suffer from insanity.. I rather enjoy it.

{retired} Devalynn Mithra WHM extrodinare -Garuda (gives everyone a high paw! yeah!)

Church OF Mikhalia
#193 Jun 16 2010 at 1:30 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
**
312 posts
Osarion, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Mikhalia wrote:
[quote=AngusX]
If money is no object, then Core i7 and 58XX all the way.


If money truly is no object...
Intel Core i7-980X Extreme Edition Gulftown 3.33GHz LGA 1366 130W Six-Core Desktop Processor Model BX80613I7980X


Edited, Jun 16th 2010 12:29pm by Osarion


That's what I got. And it is GOOD :D

Edited, Jun 16th 2010 3:38pm by PLDXavier

Edited, Jun 16th 2010 3:39pm by PLDXavier
____________________________
Steam: Xavier1216
FFXI: Astyanax (Bismarck)


#194 Jun 16 2010 at 1:38 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
743 posts
For the record, I am not the one saying money is no object, LOL. I do plan on upgrading the CPU eventually (i7-860 or 875K), but it'll have to wait. And the i3 isn't a bad CPU, people are pushing it into the 4 GHz range.
____________________________
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)
#195 Jun 16 2010 at 1:54 PM Rating: Good
**
296 posts
Inralkil wrote:
Before people panic, realize that there will be newer drivers released closer to launch that will likely be tweaked to perform better than the current ones.

Additionally, there are lots of graphical tweaks that can be made on most games that have large impacts on frame rate, with only minor impact on the actual appearance of the graphics. Unless SE gives almost no player control to things like AA, AF, bloom effects, texture resolution, etc, it should be possible to get the 1000-2000 benchmarks running smoothly at 1200x800 resolutions.

A windowed benchmark for anyone running Aero desktop (Vista and 7 users) is going to give you a crappy result, period.


Newer driver certainly might help, though I think it's a bit optimistic to expect large increases. And until we have the game, we won't positively know what tweaks will have what benefits, but it's good to remember that SE is saying:

Quote:
[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.


So, according to SE's opinion of the requirements, you'd need to be scoring above 2k to be able to meaningfully improve performance by stripping out effects and lowering all settings. Anything is possible I guess, but I think it's a mistake to assume you'll be able to tweak a system in the 1-2k range to run smoothly (at a higher resolution than the low benchmark to boot) when SE is clearly stating otherwise.
#196 Jun 16 2010 at 2:02 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
6,470 posts
I got the same .dll error that an earlier poster mentioned. I updated my drivers, and started to download the DirectX SDK, before I realized that it would take me about 4 hours on the horrific connection at my girlfriend's house.

**** it, I'm sure my computer can run the game fine enough.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#197 Jun 16 2010 at 2:09 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
**
312 posts
Eske wrote:
I got the same .dll error that an earlier poster mentioned. I updated my drivers, and started to download the DirectX SDK, before I realized that it would take me about 4 hours on the horrific connection at my girlfriend's house.

@#%^ it, I'm sure my computer can run the game fine enough.


Try going to Microsoft's website and do a search for "DirectX End-User Runtime". The first result should be what you need for that DX9 dll (the page's section heading should read, "DirectX End-User Runtime Web Installer").

Edited, Jun 16th 2010 4:11pm by PLDXavier
____________________________
Steam: Xavier1216
FFXI: Astyanax (Bismarck)


#198 Jun 16 2010 at 2:13 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
ascorbic wrote:
So, according to SE's opinion of the requirements, you'd need to be scoring above 2k to be able to meaningfully improve performance by stripping out effects and lowering all settings. Anything is possible I guess, but I think it's a mistake to assume you'll be able to tweak a system in the 1-2k range to run smoothly (at a higher resolution than the low benchmark to boot) when SE is clearly stating otherwise.


On one hand, companies do tend to round up with their requirements. If something can run on a Radeon 4800, I wouldn't put it past them to make the "minimum requirement" a 5000 or higher, just to compensate for the people with 4800/4900s who can't get it to work.

On the other hand, no matter what the requirements are, there are always people out there who will ignore the requirements and try to run it anyway. ****, I'm one of them. Despite GTAIV clearly stating that the requirements are a "Core 2 Duo 1.8 GHz", I tried to run it on my P4HT 3.0. Spoiler: It didn't run very well. I got under 2 FPS, and it would usually force me to manually kill the system because I couldn't even force quit the program.

I'm not going to claim I'm some kind of genius, but I know I'm not the biggest idiot out there either. And if someone like me is going to willfully disregard the minimum specs "Just to see if it will work anyway" (Which I've readily admitted I'm going to try FFXIV on my fiancee's system even though I'm pretty **** sure it won't work), then it can be reasonably expected that the people who ARE idiots will not only do the same thing, but will likely expect it to work, and get hella ****** when it doesn't and they can't return the game.

It also doesn't help that the benchmark bases itself off of a video, because the result is that you'll have people thinking "Well this video ran well, so the game should run well too" and completely disregard the benchmark score.
____________________________
[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.
#199 Jun 16 2010 at 2:17 PM Rating: Good
Osarion, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Mieck, Pie Eating Champion wrote:
2260 on High. Haven't run Low yet.

Intel Core2Duo E8400 3.0Ghz
2GB RAM
ATI Radeon HD4870

It is, erm, entirely possible that I knew my system would need upgrading before the Benchmark arrived.


With those specs, and for High res setting, that score isn't bad at all.


Should also have mentioned I'm on Win7 32bit. Edited main to reflect this. Thanks for the vote of confidence :)
____________________________

Mieck of Siren // Mieck Corcoczeck of Lindblum

#200 Jun 16 2010 at 2:36 PM Rating: Decent
**
581 posts
Quote:
Despite GTAIV clearly stating that the requirements are a "Core 2 Duo 1.8 GHz", I tried to run it on my P4HT 3.0. Spoiler: It didn't run very well. I got under 2 FPS, and it would usually force me to manually kill the system because I couldn't even force quit the program.


Depends on your gfx card to.
Try performance mods for GTAIV from Enbdev, that should boost FPS to decent levels.

hopefully people will be working on texture/shader mods for FFXIV to improve performance for lowend PCs.
#201 Jun 16 2010 at 2:40 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Mikhalia wrote:

 
Low 	High	OS	Processor			GPU		RAM 
 
4064			Core i5 750 – 2.67		ATI 5850	 
	 




Don't want to be vain here (I totally am) but my score was a high res score, not a low res.

Good job with the spreadsheet though...I'll adust your list here with some additions to my entry:

 
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	 
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 18 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (18)