Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

Official FFXIV Benchmarking program.Follow

#252 Jun 17 2010 at 1:15 AM Rating: Decent
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
xXMalevolenceXx wrote:


Just my opinion, but I would buy a single $250 card instead of two $125 cards. When I upgrade my video card I tend to stick to the $200 range. Anything cheaper and I'm probably not going to have satisfactory performance, anything more expensive is just too expensive for me, and I feel like I'm starting to pay for new technology at that point. If I was going to buy something today I would probably get a Sapphire HD5830.


$250 is overpriced for the 5830 when you consider it has 1120 stream processors, 56 texture units and 16 ROPs vs 1440 stream processors 72 texture units and 32 ROPs on the 5850 which usually sells for $275-$300. It's not a matter of a small difference in performance. It is a large difference in performance for a small increase in price.

Edited, Jun 17th 2010 4:29am by Lobivopis
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.


I thought of it first:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
#253 Jun 17 2010 at 2:00 AM Rating: Good
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
I'm pretty sure the FFXIV benchmark takes advantage of multi core CPUs.

On my i7 I set core affinity to one core and it crashed. Set core affinity to 2 cores and it ran very badly (framerate skipped like crazy). On 3 cores it ran a little better but was still choppy. Only on 4 or more cores did it actually run smoothly.

Driver level FSAA doesn't do anything, just like in FFXI.

They're using DirectX 9.0c, I had really hoped for DirectX 10 or higher.
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.


I thought of it first:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
#254 Jun 17 2010 at 2:27 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
14 posts
4774 on high
I7 975
Radeon 5870
6GB 1600 Ram

____________________________
Monk Jebent Retired

FFXIV Jebent

#255 Jun 17 2010 at 2:37 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Any guesses at how running the alpha will compare to the retail product? If you can run the former Windowed, is it safe to assume that you shouldn't have much trouble with the latter full screen, or will newer settings potentially present problems?

Edit: Finally remembered what this thread made me think of hours ago. I just started a thread about this, but I recall that long ago there was mention of allowing cross-platform logins. i.e., being able to log into your account from both a PS3 and a PC, rather than being constrained to one.

The reason this thread reminded me of that, is that if you are concerned about PC performance for now, you may be able to play on PS3 optimized settings for the time being, and then as optimized PC hardware becomes more accessible, you could just make a smooth transition when the time comes. So no need to worry about phantasmal rigs that don't yet exist if three or four years in, you can acquire one with relative ease and play the game in all its splendor. In the mean time play on a PS3 with little real difference.

All that assumes that these plans are actually enacted by SE though.

Edited, Jun 17th 2010 1:49am by Kachi
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#256 Jun 17 2010 at 4:03 AM Rating: Decent
Lobivopis wrote:
I'm pretty sure the FFXIV benchmark takes advantage of multi core CPUs.

On my i7 I set core affinity to one core and it crashed. Set core affinity to 2 cores and it ran very badly (framerate skipped like crazy). On 3 cores it ran a little better but was still choppy. Only on 4 or more cores did it actually run smoothly.

Driver level FSAA doesn't do anything, just like in FFXI.

They're using DirectX 9.0c, I had really hoped for DirectX 10 or higher.


Nice, looks like i'll replace my mobo/cpu first, before i go spending the cash on video and new ram. Maybe it will bump my score up enough to play the game. I still plan on building a complete system, but money is an issue these days, so it may take a while.
#257 Jun 17 2010 at 4:21 AM Rating: Decent
**
370 posts
I am still looking for results for an Alienware m15x or a laptop with 330M graphics.
____________________________
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
#258 Jun 17 2010 at 6:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Yogtheterrible wrote:
Nupinu the Eccentric wrote:
I fully expected my laptop to land smack in the middle of average, based on FFXI performance


You could strap two hamsters to a series of wooden cogs and a tissue box with a candle in it and get it to run FFXI.

I knew I was doing something wrong -- I forgot to light the candle! Smiley: lol


What I meant was that my laptop scored near the high end of the scale on the original FFXI benchmark, so I expected it to be somewhere middle-of-the-road on the XIV benchmark. The 568 was a surprise to me (though really, it probably shouldn't have been).

Oh well, I started with XI on PS2, so it will be just like old times again. Sort of.
____________________________
[ffxisig]49934[/ffxisig]

SMN 90 | BLM 90 | WHM 83
twitter.com/nupinu
It rubs the fewell on its skin or else it gets the thwack again.

Thydonon wrote:
SMN is just epic in it's scope. You gain fame in all cities to have their avatars. When others finish ToAU, they get toys; you get gods.
#259 Jun 17 2010 at 9:12 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
743 posts
Aarre wrote:
Low: 3935
High: 2641

Intel core i3-530 2.93GHz OC@3.52GHz
Kingston HX1600 2x2GB
Radeon HD5770 128-bit 1GB
WD caviar SATA 7200RPM 16MB non-RAID config
Asus P7P55-M
Windows 7 64-bit



Thank you, finally someone else with an i3 posting a decent score. Now I can sleep at night. :D
____________________________
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)
#260 Jun 17 2010 at 9:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
4,775 posts
Well it looks like the PS3 will be the best platform for most people for a few years at least. I'm not even talking about maxed resolution or anything that mundane. Frame rate >> everything else I never thought I see the day when "PC limitations" would haunt a FF game.
#261 Jun 17 2010 at 9:47 AM Rating: Excellent
**
473 posts
Alright so got home all excited last night.

Updated my nvidia drivers and the direct x drivers and
still cannot run the benchmark.

Running i5 Q9000 intel quad 2.0
dual 260M's
4GB ram
using windows 7 home standard


the program just keeps crashing after I choose
a race and hit start.

i have nvidia's newest drivers right now
and the darn thing keeps crashing

any thoughts on a work around. if I disengage sli
and run on integrated graphics would it work you guys think?

or is there a way in windows i can run the benchmark on just a single
card and see how it holds up? I am running this on my alienware and have never
figured out how to use one card with out removing the second card physically
from the system.

thoughts or advice would be greatly appreciated.
#262 Jun 17 2010 at 9:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
743 posts
I'm pretty sure that FFXI had fairly high specs at NA PC lease. It didn't take too long for technology to catch up.
____________________________
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)
#263 Jun 17 2010 at 9:53 AM Rating: Good
12 posts
I had the same problem and had to update my catalyst driver to run it.

But now when its showing the scene of the "galka" killing the sea monsters on deck, my screen turns off and then 2 seconds later my whole computer turns off!

The same thing happens when I tried to install Windows 7
I have;
Windows Vista 32bit
AMD Phenom 9500 Quad Core Processor
Gigabyte Technology Motherboard
ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series

Any ideas what I can do?
#264 Jun 17 2010 at 10:05 AM Rating: Good
AngusX wrote:
I'm pretty sure that FFXI had fairly high specs at NA PC lease. It didn't take too long for technology to catch up.


It did have high requirements at PC release. I had a very good computer for its time when I started playing XI and couldn't run everything maxed without stutter and low frames in a variety of circumstances. Tanaka said as much when he first addressed the XIV requirements.
#265 Jun 17 2010 at 10:31 AM Rating: Decent
*
134 posts
Lobivopis wrote:
xXMalevolenceXx wrote:


Just my opinion, but I would buy a single $250 card instead of two $125 cards. When I upgrade my video card I tend to stick to the $200 range. Anything cheaper and I'm probably not going to have satisfactory performance, anything more expensive is just too expensive for me, and I feel like I'm starting to pay for new technology at that point. If I was going to buy something today I would probably get a Sapphire HD5830.


$250 is overpriced for the 5830 when you consider it has 1120 stream processors, 56 texture units and 16 ROPs vs 1440 stream processors 72 texture units and 32 ROPs on the 5850 which usually sells for $275-$300. It's not a matter of a small difference in performance. It is a large difference in performance for a small increase in price.

Edited, Jun 17th 2010 4:29am by Lobivopis


That card was $220 yesterday. Looks like the deal expired.
#266 Jun 17 2010 at 10:35 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
340 posts
Quote:
Alright so got home all excited last night.

Updated my nvidia drivers and the direct x drivers and
still cannot run the benchmark.

Running i5 Q9000 intel quad 2.0
dual 260M's
4GB ram
using windows 7 home standard


the program just keeps crashing after I choose
a race and hit start.

i have nvidia's newest drivers right now
and the darn thing keeps crashing

any thoughts on a work around. if I disengage sli
and run on integrated graphics would it work you guys think?

or is there a way in windows i can run the benchmark on just a single
card and see how it holds up? I am running this on my alienware and have never
figured out how to use one card with out removing the second card physically
from the system.

thoughts or advice would be greatly appreciated.


Try right-clicking the program, and running it as administrator. See if that helps.
____________________________
WoW Blackhand-US-Date of Retirement: 9/21/2010... /Sigh
Devari - 90 Rogue 85 DK Druid/Mage/Warrior 70+

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

FFXIV - Devari Garamond - Sargatanas 50 Paladin / Culinarian / Weaver / Armorer
Beta - Devaria Ariadne - Ultros - Pugilist
#267 Jun 17 2010 at 10:38 AM Rating: Default
*
134 posts
Lobivopis wrote:
xXMalevolenceXx wrote:
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?)



As far as the benchmark goes, it uses like 600MB of RAM at 1920x1080, so unless you are already using over 3.5GB of your RAM, I wouldn't think you would see a higher benchmark score.


Just an FYI if you have 32-bit windows you probably don't have 3.5 gigs of RAM available. The maximum amount of RAM 32-bit windows can access is 4 gigs minus your video card's RAM and the adddress space used by your hardware. And yes this means if you have a video card with 2 gigs you now have less than 2 gigs of RAM available in 32-bit windows.


3990 at 1920x1080 with a Radeon 5850 btw.



Edited, Jun 17th 2010 4:01am by Lobivopis


Um, yes that's true/common knowledge but if you look at the quote you'll see he's running Win7 64-bit.
#268 Jun 17 2010 at 10:41 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,614 posts
I managed to run it last night with a driver update. Got about 10 fps, which I thought was pretty good for onboard video!

Even at that framerate, this is a **** pretty game. Some of the uglier alpha screens had me a little worried, but I'm feeling better about it now.

Something I thought was a little odd -- my X6 1055T showed a max of about 40% CPU load (except during loading screens for some reason, when it went to 90+) with the majority of the load on only one of the six cores. I haven't dealt much with looking at core usage... is there some reason a GPU bottleneck would reduce CPU load?
#269 Jun 17 2010 at 10:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
4,150 posts
My scored sucked.

High:440
Low:897

Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit
AMD Phenom II 2.8 GHz (4 core)
8 GB RAM (unsure of specs atm)
Nvidia Geforce 9500 GT, 1 GB RAM

After running the benchmark in both high and low, I went to Nvidia's website to see if there were any more current drivers for my card. Turns out they released one two days ago. I'll install it and re-run the benchmark to see if my scores improve.

EDIT: My high went from 440 to a whopping 442; low actually dropped to 887. Good thing I plan on using the PS3 to play.

Edited, Jun 17th 2010 12:43pm by Ralrra
____________________________
FFXI-Garuda 2003-2009; Lakshmi 2011-8/20/13 (retired)
FFXIV: ARR - Ghost Bear, Balmung server
#270 Jun 17 2010 at 11:46 AM Rating: Good
**
473 posts
Alright i'll that a try, thanks for the info.
I am really interested in how the system will
run.

Hopefully the score will be a bit higher considering
what other with the 260M have been getting.

This worries me that on high res on 260M score average is about
1200-1300 grrrrrr

Edited, Jun 17th 2010 1:46pm by Speeral
#271 Jun 17 2010 at 12:42 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
117 posts
Quote:
Excenmille
Scholar
Send PM

Add to address book
360 posts
Score: Good Don't rate me down but I have never understood why people do the SLI/Crossfire thing. You're only paying for 30% more efficiency so in the end you're getting ripped off by nVidia/ATI. I would never run a dual setup unless I got the same performance of each card x2. It just seems a waste of money. Something always dies inside of me when people mention it. Not knocking anyone for wanting 30% more increase in graphics but you're just throwing money away, where's the other 70%?


You're 100% correct in your assumption, at least in my case. I am considering crossfire because my board has full support (16X bandwidth for 1 or 2 cards or quad in 8X). It's a MSI 790FX-GD70. If it were 16X for one and 16X + 8X for the second I wouldn't even consider crossfire.
#272 Jun 17 2010 at 12:43 PM Rating: Decent
*
88 posts
BluemageOfDoom wrote:
[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.


maybe i misunderstood the context but you know a 1.8 ghz core 2 is faster than a 3 ghz p4 right?

back on tpoic though i wouldnt look at the score the benchmark gives but the actual fps you get with some fraps program

Edited, Jun 17th 2010 2:43pm by jamiehavok

Edited, Jun 17th 2010 2:56pm by jamiehavok
#273 Jun 17 2010 at 12:52 PM Rating: Decent
**
341 posts
Well I took a stab at it 6 times. Results don't vary too much.

System:

Core 2 Duo e8400 Overclocked to 3.6 ghz
8 GB of RAM: spd 10666


ATI driver 9.1 (due to it working better with FFXI than later ones)

Win7 Pro 64 bit:
High: 1470
Low: 2870


WinXP Pro 32 bit:
High: 1450
Low: 2760


ATI driver 10.6 (newest)

Win7 Pro 64 bit:
High: 1470
Low: 2840


Didn't run with winXP as I figured they will release as win7/vista only. Not much difference between an old driver and brand new ones.



Now with the win7 Pro x64 I get to use all 8 gb of RAM, whereas winXP limits RAM to 3.5 gb (stupid 32 bit OS's).


This is with a 3870 ATI graphics card.


Overall, fps are still close in each OS.
____________________________
Notable Jobs: 90war, 90sam, 75thf, 62rdm, 52pld

'He will bring them death, and they will love him for it.'

Useful FFXI Japanese Phrases Guide
#274 Jun 17 2010 at 1:01 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
117 posts
Quote:
My scored sucked.

High:440
Low:897

Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit
AMD Phenom II 2.8 GHz (4 core)
8 GB RAM (unsure of specs atm)
Nvidia Geforce 9500 GT, 1 GB RAM

After running the benchmark in both high and low, I went to Nvidia's website to see if there were any more current drivers for my card. Turns out they released one two days ago. I'll install it and re-run the benchmark to see if my scores improve.



You and I are in the same boatt I think. I'm choosing to believe that it's the 95ooGT that we have. I think it's simply to old and is making everything bottleneck.
#275 Jun 17 2010 at 1:06 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
4,150 posts
jhariya wrote:
Quote:
My scored sucked.

High:440
Low:897

Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit
AMD Phenom II 2.8 GHz (4 core)
8 GB RAM (unsure of specs atm)
Nvidia Geforce 9500 GT, 1 GB RAM

After running the benchmark in both high and low, I went to Nvidia's website to see if there were any more current drivers for my card. Turns out they released one two days ago. I'll install it and re-run the benchmark to see if my scores improve.



You and I are in the same boatt I think. I'm choosing to believe that it's the 95ooGT that we have. I think it's simply to old and is making everything bottleneck.

That's a very good possibility. I bought a new HP at Best Buy back in March, and I wanted a video card to go along with it so I wouldn't have to rely on the onboard video. The 9500 seemed to be the best balance of specs and price based on the money I had available to spend at the time. Perhaps somewhere down the road I can pick up a better video card.
____________________________
FFXI-Garuda 2003-2009; Lakshmi 2011-8/20/13 (retired)
FFXIV: ARR - Ghost Bear, Balmung server
#276 Jun 17 2010 at 2:09 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,122 posts
I don't understand this benchmark...

My computer:

CPU: Intel Core i5
GPU: Radeon 4890
RAM: 4GB

My score on 1080p: 2400

My friend's computer:

CPU: AMD Phentom II X2
GPU: Radeon 4870
RAM: 4GB

His score on 1080p: 3400

Either there's something seriously wrong with my drivers or hardware or this benchmark has something wrong with it.
#277 Jun 17 2010 at 2:35 PM Rating: Good
*
230 posts
http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/17/ff14.jpg

*facepalm*

I haven't even had this graphics card for a year yet! And it runs everything else at the highest settings without any problems at all.

I'll have to wait for a trial version and try the actual game. Street Fighter IV's benchmark said I wouldn't be able to run the game at all yet it runs flawlessly on here.


-Edit-
Should specify: this is the low quality. I can't even run the high quality (the resolution is bigger than what my monitor can handle, lol)

Edited, Jun 17th 2010 3:51pm by Iyouboushi
#278 Jun 17 2010 at 2:35 PM Rating: Decent
**
341 posts
Dizmo wrote:
I don't understand this benchmark...

My computer:

CPU: Intel Core i5
GPU: Radeon 4890
RAM: 4GB

My score on 1080p: 2400

My friend's computer:

CPU: AMD Phentom II X2
GPU: Radeon 4870
RAM: 4GB

His score on 1080p: 3400

Either there's something seriously wrong with my drivers or hardware or this benchmark has something wrong with it.



I would ask what the CPU's are clocked at. His might be faster thus not bottlenecking his GPU.

Edited, Jun 17th 2010 3:36pm by FFXIFiresoul
____________________________
Notable Jobs: 90war, 90sam, 75thf, 62rdm, 52pld

'He will bring them death, and they will love him for it.'

Useful FFXI Japanese Phrases Guide
#279 Jun 17 2010 at 2:56 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,353 posts
delete

Edited, Jun 17th 2010 5:12pm by TheShadowWalker
____________________________
I will wake up at six a.m. again.
and I will find my way to the front door
like a soldier crawling through the smoking carnage.
smoldering bodies at my feet,
I'd love to stick around, but I've got someone to meet.
and I will put my best foot forward.
and I'll thank god I made it out of there
on the day when my new friends come.
#280 Jun 17 2010 at 4:08 PM Rating: Decent
*
134 posts
Dizmo wrote:
I don't understand this benchmark...

My computer:

CPU: Intel Core i5
GPU: Radeon 4890
RAM: 4GB

My score on 1080p: 2400

My friend's computer:

CPU: AMD Phentom II X2
GPU: Radeon 4870
RAM: 4GB

His score on 1080p: 3400

Either there's something seriously wrong with my drivers or hardware or this benchmark has something wrong with it.


That is strange. Here's me compared to your friend:

CPU: AMD Phenom II x4 (3.2ghz)
GPU: Radeon 4890 (10.6 [latest] drivers)
RAM: 4GB (1600mhz)

My score on 1080p: 2,524

I've played around with 3D driver settings but it doesn't seem to make a difference. Does your friend have 2 video cards? Anything overclocked? Because my cpu (I think) and gpu is better... compared to your rig which is similar to mine, I scored similar. But, your friend scored 1,000 higher than both of us with weaker hardware.
#281 Jun 17 2010 at 4:17 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
xXMalevolenceXx wrote:
Dizmo wrote:
I don't understand this benchmark...

My computer:

CPU: Intel Core i5
GPU: Radeon 4890
RAM: 4GB

My score on 1080p: 2400

My friend's computer:

CPU: AMD Phentom II X2
GPU: Radeon 4870
RAM: 4GB

His score on 1080p: 3400

Either there's something seriously wrong with my drivers or hardware or this benchmark has something wrong with it.


That is strange. Here's me compared to your friend:

CPU: AMD Phenom II x4 (3.2ghz)
GPU: Radeon 4890 (10.6 [latest] drivers)
RAM: 4GB (1600mhz)

My score on 1080p: 2,524

I've played around with 3D driver settings but it doesn't seem to make a difference. Does your friend have 2 video cards? Anything overclocked? Because my cpu (I think) and gpu is better... compared to your rig which is similar to mine, I scored similar. But, your friend scored 1,000 higher than both of us with weaker hardware.


Core i5 come in dual and quad core configurations. Motherboard can factor in to it as well.

Why a dual core Phenom II with a 4870 would outperform a quad core with a 4890 and the latest drivers with the same amount of RAM on either (You have DDR3, I'm going to assume the other guy does but I can't say)

Something is definitely fishy there.
____________________________
[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.
#282 Jun 17 2010 at 4:30 PM Rating: Good
**
296 posts
Iyouboushi wrote:
I'll have to wait for a trial version and try the actual game. Street Fighter IV's benchmark said I wouldn't be able to run the game at all yet it runs flawlessly on here.


That's a solid option. We know they are planning at least a short open beta period. So at some point we all will have a shot to try out a near-retail version of the client and see for ourselves exactly what we're dealing with, while still allowing time for some last minute shopping :P
#283 Jun 17 2010 at 4:35 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
441 posts
Curiously, I have benchmarked a few times now, and each time I get this massive blips in the visual graph (only for an instant but there nonetheless). Any ideas on what this represents - i.e. is this a CPU/GPU bottleneck, or something else?
____________________________
War 75 Nin75 Sam75
#284 Jun 17 2010 at 6:16 PM Rating: Decent
*
134 posts
Mikhalia wrote:
Why a dual core Phenom II with a 4870 would outperform a quad core with a 4890 and the latest drivers with the same amount of RAM on either (You have DDR3, I'm going to assume the other guy does but I can't say)

Something is definitely fishy there.


I'm going to guess he has a 4870x2, or a 5870, although I'd honestly expect a higher score if it was a 5870.
#285 Jun 17 2010 at 7:57 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
**
312 posts
Finally got around to hooking my tower up to my TV for the 1080 test. As it stands (with one gfx card), I'm getting 6600 on the 720 test and 4030 on the 1080 test. I have to find a place to host a couple screenshots, but I figured I'd post this for now.

The second card should be coming soon, so it'll be interesting to see what (if any) difference it makes.

On a side note, I was totally surprised to find out my DVI to HDMI converter carried my audio! I connected it up to my Onkyo receiver, just to pass it to my TV... lo and behold, my speakers chimed in! :D
____________________________
Steam: Xavier1216
FFXI: Astyanax (Bismarck)


#286 Jun 17 2010 at 8:41 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
384 posts
Ok update from last night...

1. Got my computer working. The "motherboard issues" I was having was due to the IPod that my wife had plugged into my computer to charge it...

2. Upgraded to the latest Nvidia driver.


Windows XP Pro SP3 (fully updated)
Intel Core2 Extreme CPU Q6850 @ 3.0 Ghz (4 CPUs)
Nvidia GeForce GTS 250 (x2)

Score on HQ: 2283 with SLI Enabled
Score on HQ: 2285 with SLI Disabled

Either I have something screwed up, or SLI is not supported...

According to Aurelius (the OMG a branch guy), SLI is driver side and is therefore supported with the benchmark. At this point, I believe him. Any ideas on what to look at next?
____________________________
Drunktexan of Phoenix ~ Mithra

Monsieur MojoVIII wrote:
I campaign like I make love.



Naked and bellowing while swinging my large weapon at ugly things.
#287 Jun 17 2010 at 8:51 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,801 posts
801 and my rig is only about 2 years old. I can play pretty much all the latest games at high or maxed settings with no issues. :/

Looks like I'll be going with a PS3 after all.
____________________________
WoW -- Zaia -- Dragonmaw -- Mage 80 BABY! Alchemy 450
Also... Hunter 62, Rogue 52, Warrior 66, Warlock 43, Death Knight 70, Shaman Who Cares? ;)

FFXI -- Caia -- Retired/Deleted -- Blm 75, Alchemy 97
Pandimonium server - Rank 10 - Bastok

Zaela Rdm -- 35, Alchemy 45 -- Forced into retirement because I didn't have the right kind of credit card. Hope it was worth 18 bucks a month, SE.

#288 Jun 17 2010 at 8:55 PM Rating: Good
drunktexan wrote:
Windows XP Pro SP3 (fully updated)
Intel Core2 Extreme CPU Q6850 @ 3.0 Ghz (4 CPUs)
Nvidia GeForce GTS 250 (x2)

Score on HQ: 2283 with SLI Enabled
Score on HQ: 2285 with SLI Disabled

Either I have something screwed up, or SLI is not supported...

According to Aurelius (the OMG a branch guy), SLI is driver side and is therefore supported with the benchmark. At this point, I believe him. Any ideas on what to look at next?


Something tells me part of the issue is the 32-bit OS. Could also be a CPU bottleneck. It seems the benchmark tends to plateau based on a bottleneck of some sort at some point regardless of hardware. I've done all kinds of little tweaks and adjustments and my scoers all come in +/- 20 points of the original.
#289 Jun 17 2010 at 8:58 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
384 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
Something tells me part of the issue is the 32-bit OS. Could also be a CPU bottleneck. It seems the benchmark tends to plateau based on a bottleneck of some sort at some point regardless of hardware. I've done all kinds of little tweaks and adjustments and my scoers all come in +/- 20 points of the original.


Ok, well I'll update when I get windows 7 ultimate (64 bit) installed. I do appreciate the help.
____________________________
Drunktexan of Phoenix ~ Mithra

Monsieur MojoVIII wrote:
I campaign like I make love.



Naked and bellowing while swinging my large weapon at ugly things.
#290 Jun 17 2010 at 9:02 PM Rating: Decent
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
drunktexan wrote:
Windows XP Pro SP3 (fully updated)
Intel Core2 Extreme CPU Q6850 @ 3.0 Ghz (4 CPUs)
Nvidia GeForce GTS 250 (x2)

Score on HQ: 2283 with SLI Enabled
Score on HQ: 2285 with SLI Disabled

Either I have something screwed up, or SLI is not supported...

According to Aurelius (the OMG a branch guy), SLI is driver side and is therefore supported with the benchmark. At this point, I believe him. Any ideas on what to look at next?


Something tells me part of the issue is the 32-bit OS. Could also be a CPU bottleneck. It seems the benchmark tends to plateau based on a bottleneck of some sort at some point regardless of hardware. I've done all kinds of little tweaks and adjustments and my scoers all come in +/- 20 points of the original.

I made some video card tweaks, and went from 266ish to 533ish. It seems to me, that there is no 1 component that makes or breaks it. Looking at whats been written, everything will bottleneck everything else. Seems you are ok with a quad cpu, a high end vid card, and at least 4 GB ram. If you lack in any one of those, it will lower your score.
His problem, is he is running XP, which is causing the bottleneck at the ram. If he was running win 7 and at least 4 gb ram, he'd prolly score around 3000.
#291 Jun 17 2010 at 9:20 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
384 posts
edit

Edited, Jun 18th 2010 8:31pm by drunktexan
____________________________
Drunktexan of Phoenix ~ Mithra

Monsieur MojoVIII wrote:
I campaign like I make love.



Naked and bellowing while swinging my large weapon at ugly things.
#292 Jun 17 2010 at 10:12 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
802 posts
Guys, anyone still remember what level of details Alpha built is capped at?

And also is the benchmark running on this Alpha cap?
____________________________


#293 Jun 17 2010 at 10:40 PM Rating: Decent
Humster wrote:
Guys, anyone still remember what level of details Alpha built is capped at?

And also is the benchmark running on this Alpha cap?


Alpha is forced windowed mode at 1024(1280?)x768 resolution. No, the benchmark is not running with the alpha restrictions. They wouldn't release a benchmark based on the alpha.

Edited, Jun 17th 2010 11:02pm by Aurelius
#294 Jun 18 2010 at 12:16 AM Rating: Decent
1 post
My result with a i7 920 and 5870 in 1080P Mode = 5375
[img=http://lh3.ggpht.com/_WKGkHFzCWkE/TBsGdE5z_mI/AAAAAAAAANk/HlM2Z766DaE/s800/Untitled.jpg]

Edited, Jun 18th 2010 2:17am by Pen3
#295 Jun 18 2010 at 12:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,911 posts
I got a 5162 on the high resolution pass. that was without any driver updates, etc. Might be able to push that to 6K
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#296 Jun 18 2010 at 1:57 AM Rating: Good
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
I got a 5162 on the high resolution pass. that was without any driver updates, etc. Might be able to push that to 6K


Not to be outdone by a tech savvy admin, I did a little GPU overclocking and managed to squeeze out a 5275 on high res. Thanks to you, many pink/green/sh*t colored screens of death were seen, but I finally found some stable values. If I can find a decent utility that will let me freely overvolt, I can probably squeeze a little bit more out of it.

Your move, pard. Smiley: sly

Edit: I broke the benchmark D: Apparently it can't count past 4.0ghz on the processor Smiley: motz

Screenshot


Edited, Jun 18th 2010 1:44am by Aurelius
#297 Jun 18 2010 at 4:18 AM Rating: Decent
**
353 posts
I have had this under suspicion for awhile, I was wondering why people with Quad Cores and Radeon 5850 were outscoring my hexacore 1090T and GTX 480. Then I found someone on http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1526223&page=5 who scored a 4540 with the SAME cpu as me with the exception of the Radeon 5870 as I own a GTX480 instead. However, i scored a 3784 on the benchmark. With the only difference being the video card its conclusive that ATI cards are doing better in FFXIV at the moment than nvidia EVEN THOUGH it says "works best on nvidia."



Edited, Jun 18th 2010 6:18am by Imaboomer
#298 Jun 18 2010 at 5:19 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Considering the fiasco with certain nvidia cards on Vista, even though I'm running w7, I didn't take any chances when I upgraded my card. I got an ATI. Still need to see how the one I got actually stacks up on the benchmark.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#299 Jun 18 2010 at 8:44 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
44 posts
Imaboomer wrote:
I have had this under suspicion for awhile, I was wondering why people with Quad Cores and Radeon 5850 were outscoring my hexacore 1090T and GTX 480. Then I found someone on http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1526223&page=5 who scored a 4540 with the SAME cpu as me with the exception of the Radeon 5870 as I own a GTX480 instead. However, i scored a 3784 on the benchmark. With the only difference being the video card its conclusive that ATI cards are doing better in FFXIV at the moment than nvidia EVEN THOUGH it says "works best on nvidia."

Edited, Jun 18th 2010 6:18am by Imaboomer


The other persons X6 is over clocked I bet, and that is the reason why his score is so much higher than yours. Btw the Intel i7 quads outperform the AMD 6 cores by a huge margin. Dont be fooled by thinking that 6 is better than 4. If you look at the postings on BlueGartr and overclcok.net you see that people with i7's and 480s are able to easily score above 5000.
#300 Jun 18 2010 at 9:35 AM Rating: Decent
**
353 posts
Quote:
The other persons X6 is over clocked I bet, and that is the reason why his score is so much higher than yours. Btw the Intel i7 quads outperform the AMD 6 cores by a huge margin. Dont be fooled by thinking that 6 is better than 4. If you look at the postings on BlueGartr and overclcok.net you see that people with i7's and 480s are able to easily score above 5000.


No, he took a screenshot. Hes using stock speed on video card and CPU. Like I said EVERY single person with a GTX480 or Radeon 5970 had extremely poor scores when compared to those with Radeon 5870s.
http://img252.imageshack.us/f/50777550.jpg/

Further proof about the issue:
i7 920 @ 4GHz, GTX 480 @ 835MHz core / 4.05GHz RAM, 3GB DDR3 1600 @ 8-8-8-24, Intel X25-M G2 80gb SSD
Results:
Score: 4555
Load time: 11738ms

This person OC'd the i7 920 to 4ghz and uses a GTX480, the result is a score similar to the one who owned a PhenomII 1090T with a GTX480. HOWEVER, those who owned a i7-920 OC'd to that same clockspeed that had a 5870 was posting scores over 5000 mark. Yeah, its definitely nvidia.

Even more proof :http://i.imgur.com/yNSwL.png
i7-930 @ 3.8ghz, GTX 480
High score: 4688




Edited, Jun 18th 2010 11:43am by Imaboomer
#301 Jun 18 2010 at 9:38 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
770 posts
My laptop wont run the benchmanrk at all, its my video card, cant handle it even on low, crashes the program lol. Alot of people have been having issues with it it seems from reading this forum. Im 1/2 wondering its its designed to be compatible with only certain video cards. Even if my laptop was compatible would still crash im sure lol.
____________________________
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
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 19 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (19)