Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

Official FFXIV Benchmarking program.Follow

#302 Jun 18 2010 at 9:45 AM Rating: Good
Imaboomer wrote:
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/


There's a bit of uncertainty about whether or not multiple GPUs are getting optimum performance with the benchmark. People who have actually checked their core usage on their Crossfire/SLI setups are saying that they're seeing activity on both cores that is consistent with the benchmark using both (though perhaps not as well as one might hope). That helps to explain why 5970s aren't posting such great numbers...it's basically a crossfired 5870 pair on one card.

As for the GTX470/480s, there's one key thing to remember and that's that ATI has had a lot longer to tweak and refine their drivers for various different circumstances and applications. Fermis have the hardware to post better numbers than a 5870 but they need the drivers to be tweaked and refined to consistently deliver the performance the card is capable of.

So far, we're seeing that for the low res scores, CPU is more important than GPU. For the high res scores, it's somewhat the other way around but CPU is still factoring heavily into the mix.

There are other things to consider when evaluating performance, especially under such a demanding application. Bus speeds and RAM speeds are important when you're moving around vast amounts of data and performing lots of intensive calculations on the fly. You could have a great processor and a solid GPU but if you stuck them all together in a budget motherboard, your numbers aren't going to be the same as someone who went with quality from the ground up.

Edit: This might be a long shot, but I'd like to see the temperatures on the 480s. It almost makes me wonder if they're not throttling back due to overheating.

Edited, Jun 18th 2010 8:47am by Aurelius
#303 Jun 18 2010 at 9:55 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
44 posts
Imaboomer wrote:
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.


Edited, Jun 18th 2010 11:41am by Imaboomer


Are you sure its not over clocked? Because the benchmark doesn't show OC values. My screens show 3.33 but its actually 4.5. I'm actually quite jealous of the 480, and I'm planning on swapping my 5850 for one after seeing someone with my processor and a 480 above 9k on low and near 6k on high. Seeing those numbers make me a bit skeptical about there being an nvidia issue. Also, the other GPU in the 5970 is not working with the benchmark.


Edited, Jun 18th 2010 12:13pm by malcolmtn
#304 Jun 18 2010 at 9:57 AM Rating: Decent
Puppy1 wrote:
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.


A lot of people are experiencing crashes with the benchmark because their drivers aren't up to date. Sometimes they update their drivers and it still crashes because their DirectX install is missing key updates.
#305 Jun 18 2010 at 10:03 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
770 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
Puppy1 wrote:
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.


A lot of people are experiencing crashes with the benchmark because their drivers aren't up to date. Sometimes they update their drivers and it still crashes because their DirectX install is missing key updates.


Yeah, seen that a few times. Unfortunatly for me though its still my video gard, no updated are going to fix mine (tried them):P. If i ever want to play this game on a PC i will have to buy a new one. And I see what your saying, its working with most video cards.
____________________________
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
#306 Jun 18 2010 at 10:09 AM Rating: Good
**
281 posts
http://img532.imageshack.us/img532/6268/benchmarkresultsugh.jpg


Ugh T.T need to upgrade soon
____________________________
"I reject your reality and substitute my own"
Adam Savage
Server - Back on Fenrir
Race - Alien Male
Job - War Mage
http://ca.youtube.com/user/koga41
#307 Jun 18 2010 at 10:10 AM Rating: Good
**
353 posts
Quote:
There's a bit of uncertainty about whether or not multiple GPUs are getting optimum performance with the benchmark. People who have actually checked their core usage on their Crossfire/SLI setups are saying that they're seeing activity on both cores that is consistent with the benchmark using both (though perhaps not as well as one might hope). That helps to explain why 5970s aren't posting such great numbers...it's basically a crossfired 5870 pair on one card.

As for the GTX470/480s, there's one key thing to remember and that's that ATI has had a lot longer to tweak and refine their drivers for various different circumstances and applications. Fermis have the hardware to post better numbers than a 5870 but they need the drivers to be tweaked and refined to consistently deliver the performance the card is capable of.

So far, we're seeing that for the low res scores, CPU is more important than GPU. For the high res scores, it's somewhat the other way around but CPU is still factoring heavily into the mix.

There are other things to consider when evaluating performance, especially under such a demanding application. Bus speeds and RAM speeds are important when you're moving around vast amounts of data and performing lots of intensive calculations on the fly. You could have a great processor and a solid GPU but if you stuck them all together in a budget motherboard, your numbers aren't going to be the same as someone who went with quality from the ground up.

Edit: This might be a long shot, but I'd like to see the temperatures on the 480s. It almost makes me wonder if they're not throttling back due to overheating.


I ran the benchmark and CPUID hardware monitor and the GTX480 maximum temperature was 86 degrees so thats not the problem. I am using a Antec 1200 case which has lots of air cooling.
#308 Jun 18 2010 at 10:55 AM Rating: Decent
*
134 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
If I can find a decent utility that will let me freely overvolt, I can probably squeeze a little bit more out of it.


Have you used MSI Afterburner?
#309 Jun 18 2010 at 10:58 AM Rating: Good
**
473 posts
ok finally got to run the bench mark.

man i was a moron at one point i unzipped and didn't extract the files i just tried to
run it with out unzipping.

anywho thanks for all the help everyone.

ok so running this benchmark i did it three ways

have an i5 dual quad Q9000 2.0 intel
with 4GB memory 1333 MHz
upgraded mother board
dual 260M's
and my screen is 720p
and my LG tv is 1080p

low res test 1 running not in sli scored 2250 no OC
low res test 2 running with sli enabled and 10% OC 2510
High res test 1 running not in sli 1475 no OC
High res test 2 running in sli 1635 10 OC

decent numbers but I will be buying a new desktop
so for mobile gaming and running in low res looks like i'm good
#310 Jun 18 2010 at 12:07 PM Rating: Decent
xXMalevolenceXx wrote:
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
If I can find a decent utility that will let me freely overvolt, I can probably squeeze a little bit more out of it.


Have you used MSI Afterburner?


Ya, I downloaded it last night and messed around with it a bit but it was getting late and I didn't really have time to figure out how to unlock overvolting and enable unofficial overclocking. I just did a test with voltage set to maximum safe value (1.35), GPU core pushed to 1Ghz and memory to 1.3Ghz. Final result:

5478 @ 1080p

Screenshot


Edited, Jun 18th 2010 11:36am by Aurelius
#311 Jun 18 2010 at 12:09 PM Rating: Decent
**
845 posts
So my computer did decent on low setting 4500ish but Something I noticed was I couldnt fit the whole picture on my screen for some reason. Then when I did it on high setting I fit even less of the video on my screen at once, it was so much bigger than my screen that I couldnt even see what I scored when it was over, can anyone help me with this?
____________________________
[ffxivsig]1777016[/ffxivsig]
#312 Jun 18 2010 at 12:12 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
770 posts
UncleRuckusForLife wrote:
So my computer did decent on low setting 4500ish but Something I noticed was I couldnt fit the whole picture on my screen for some reason. Then when I did it on high setting I fit even less of the video on my screen at once, it was so much bigger than my screen that I couldnt even see what I scored when it was over, can anyone help me with this?


Do yo know what you had your screen size set to compated to the benchmark?
____________________________
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
#313 Jun 18 2010 at 12:19 PM Rating: Decent
*
92 posts
Windows Vista Premium (64 Bit)
Centrino 2 duo @2.3GHz
4GB Ram
GeForce 9600M GS

Low Res:~790

... The tech part of my Computer Skills is lacking. I'm guessing its the CPU but what do you all think?
____________________________
RDM75/SCH71/BLU49/BLM39/WHM38/DRK37/NIN37

Quote:
Every time you take someone else's post and quote it word for word without posting anything else like it's your own opinion, God kills a kitten.

#314 Jun 18 2010 at 12:21 PM Rating: Decent
**
845 posts



I dont know much about computers so I dont even know how to check or change that.

Edited, Jun 18th 2010 2:21pm by UncleRuckusForLife
____________________________
[ffxivsig]1777016[/ffxivsig]
#315 Jun 18 2010 at 12:21 PM Rating: Decent
Aramail wrote:
Windows Vista Premium (64 Bit)
Centrino 2 duo @2.3GHz
4GB Ram
GeForce 9600M GS

Low Res:~790

... The tech part of my Computer Skills is lacking. I'm guessing its the CPU but what do you all think?


Based on the results everyone is getting, I'd say that yes, it's the CPU holding you back. There's a lot of talk about CPU performance having the greatest impact on low resolution results.
#316 Jun 18 2010 at 12:44 PM Rating: Decent
*
92 posts
Thanks for the response.

Next question, how hard is it to switch out a CPU in a laptop if possible at all?

If I can how do I find what socket type I need before disecting the computer?
____________________________
RDM75/SCH71/BLU49/BLM39/WHM38/DRK37/NIN37

Quote:
Every time you take someone else's post and quote it word for word without posting anything else like it's your own opinion, God kills a kitten.

#317 Jun 18 2010 at 12:46 PM Rating: Decent
Aramail wrote:
Thanks for the response.

Next question, how hard is it to switch out a CPU in a laptop if possible at all?

If I can how do I find what socket type I need before disecting the computer?


I can't speak specifically to laptops because I have next to no experience upgrading them, but I know that in the case of a desktop, you'd most likely need a new motherboard before you could upgrade the CPU. I would assume it would be a similar hardware restriction for a laptop, though I can't say that I've personally heard of anyone upgrading a laptop mobo...they usually just replace the whole unit.
#318 Jun 18 2010 at 12:53 PM Rating: Good
*
92 posts
If I have to replace the motherboard I might as well just build a new desktop. I'd like to play on campus but I gotta do what I gotta do.

Kinda funny that ffxi is why I bought my current desktop 6 years ago or so. Guess I'll just use FF MMOs as my benchmarks on when to upgrade.
____________________________
RDM75/SCH71/BLU49/BLM39/WHM38/DRK37/NIN37

Quote:
Every time you take someone else's post and quote it word for word without posting anything else like it's your own opinion, God kills a kitten.

#319 Jun 18 2010 at 12:57 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
770 posts
UncleRuckusForLife wrote:



I dont know much about computers so I dont even know how to check or change that.

Edited, Jun 18th 2010 2:21pm by UncleRuckusForLife


Im not sure if the benchmark is a specifig size or not, I cant run it , but if you go into your graphic properties it says what your screen is set to in the display settings 1280 x 1024 or something like that. If you can try to up the screen resolution and try again.
____________________________
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
#320 Jun 18 2010 at 1:06 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,122 posts
Hmm, I did some GPU overclocking and increased my score from 2400 to 2758

CPU: Core i5
GPU: Radeon 4890 1GB
RAM: 4gb, forgot speed

Old clock speeds:
Core: 870mhz
Memory: 975mhz

New speeds:
Core: 960mhz (reduced to 950 for now though just in case)
Memory: 1135mhz (reduced to 1130 now)
#321 Jun 18 2010 at 1:33 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Imaboomer wrote:


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.


There's a cap on how much the benchmark benefits from your cpu. I've personally done several tests with and without overclocking and it does no good once you go past a certain point (2.6ghz in my case). It could very well be that AMD performs better than Nvidia but that is how it works. Some games are better optimized for one while others are better optimized for another. "Works best with Nvidia" is just Nvidia's slogan...doesn't actually mean it does...which I suppose is good marketing on Nvidia's part as it tricks people into thinking everything works better with Nvidia.
#322 Jun 18 2010 at 1:55 PM Rating: Decent
**
353 posts
Quote:
There's a cap on how much the benchmark benefits from your cpu. I've personally done several tests with and without overclocking and it does no good once you go past a certain point (2.6ghz in my case). It could very well be that AMD performs better than Nvidia but that is how it works. Some games are better optimized for one while others are better optimized for another. "Works best with Nvidia" is just Nvidia's slogan...doesn't actually mean it does...which I suppose is good marketing on Nvidia's part as it tricks people into thinking everything works better with Nvidia.


I dont think you understand my post. I was comparing people who had a i7-920 with a GTX 480 and people who had a i7-920 with a Radeon 5870. Same OC at 4ghz, but the one with the 5870 scored above 5000.
#323 Jun 18 2010 at 2:14 PM Rating: Default
*
209 posts
I just find it disgusting that a Phenom II X4 3.2GHZ scores a mere 2700 on high. The fastest quad AMD on the market right now is 3.4GHZ. So basically the second fastest AMD quad processor is not fast enough to run the game on high. This games requirements are outrageous which is why I am buying a PS3 and waiting for PC teck to catch up to this game!
#324 Jun 18 2010 at 2:31 PM Rating: Decent
**
353 posts
You cant judge based on the CPU alone, its partly because of the GPU also. I think once the game is further optimized, video cards will become the bottleneck and not the CPU.
#325 Jun 18 2010 at 2:33 PM Rating: Decent
*
209 posts
Quote:
You cant judge based on the CPU alone, its partly because of the GPU also. I think once the game is further optimized, video cards will become the bottleneck and not the CPU.
I have a 275GTX which maxes every game I have for my PC including BF:BC 2 which have some pretty heavy graphics.
#326 Jun 18 2010 at 2:34 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
72 posts
1080p: 4585 (my monitor doesn't even support 1080p anyway)

720p: 5773

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v609/supersexyevil/ffxivbenchmark.jpg

Pretty pleased with these results. I figure overclocking my CPU will boost the score, but not worried right now. Bring on FFXIV!
#327 Jun 18 2010 at 5:02 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
44 posts
I just wanted to post this pic below to show that there isn't a problem with Nvidia cards. For those of you that have the 465/470/480 its most likely your CPU that is your bottleneck.

http://www.overclock.net/attachments/hardware-news/160547d1276886117-square-final-fantasy-xiv-benchmark-470ffbench2.png


Edited, Jun 18th 2010 7:02pm by malcolmtn
#328 Jun 18 2010 at 5:18 PM Rating: Decent
**
415 posts
Here are my results 720p as the imaage is too big when I tried it in 1080p which my monitor does not support.

[IMG]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h84/blasphemy_06/i.jpg[/IMG]

Edited, Jun 18th 2010 7:20pm by jakarai
____________________________
http://vigilantcitizen.com/?p=3571 - Mind Control Theories Used By Mass Media
#329 Jun 18 2010 at 5:31 PM Rating: Decent
*
209 posts
Quote:

Scholar
Send PM Add to address book
29 posts
Score: Decent I just wanted to post this pic below to show that there isn't a problem with Nvidia cards. For those of you that have the 465/470/480 its most likely your CPU that is your bottleneck.

http://www.overclock.net/attachments/hardware-news/160547d1276886117-square-final-fantasy-xiv-benchmark-470ffbench2.png


You just linked a pic with a $1000 processor. How many people do you think have $1700+ to go out and blow on a new MB processor and ram?
#330 Jun 18 2010 at 5:48 PM Rating: Decent
TheBSTGuy wrote:
Quote:

Scholar
Send PM Add to address book
29 posts
Score: Decent I just wanted to post this pic below to show that there isn't a problem with Nvidia cards. For those of you that have the 465/470/480 its most likely your CPU that is your bottleneck.

http://www.overclock.net/attachments/hardware-news/160547d1276886117-square-final-fantasy-xiv-benchmark-470ffbench2.png


You just linked a pic with a $1000 processor. How many people do you think have $1700+ to go out and blow on a new MB processor and ram?


You may have missed my post where I addressed the 4xx series issues right now. They're brand new cards with nearly brand new drivers. The reason ATI is outperforming nVidia right now is because ATI's drivers are much more evolved. ATI has had a lot longer to tweak them and squeeze more performance out of the cards. That's the reason. There's nothing wrong with the cards. nVidia just needs more time to tweak the drivers.
#331 Jun 18 2010 at 6:04 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,825 posts
People, it's mostly GPU if you have a CPU within the last 2 years. You need minimum a 2 core CPU with at least a GTX or 55 whatever series GPU to run this decently. RAM doesn't matter when over 2 GB and CPU isn't taxed much at all. Ultimately it's the GPU.

Pay some money or buy a PS3 for around the same price as the current top range of GPU. PS3 is the guarantee. Some of us like PC gaming, those that understand it will get a GTX4XX GPU and be happy for a year and then trade up. It's the way the PC game works.
____________________________
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


#332 Jun 18 2010 at 7:09 PM Rating: Decent
*
57 posts
Alright, Planning on building a 2nd machine for FFXIV and SWTOR, bear in mind this is so i can have a PC capable of playing the games at home, and while in my other home in chicago for school.

Currently pulling 4.7k low, 4k high with my

i7-920 CPU
DX58SO mobo
6gb of G.Skill PC12800 DDR3 RAM
Geforce 285GTX FTW Edition video card
G.skill 128gb SSD
and a 650W Corsair PSU
1 x203w Acer monitor
1 AL2216W Acer monitor

Looking to upgrade to

i7-940 CPU
DX58SO mobo
6gb of the same memory
EVGA Geforce 480 GTX 1.5gb video card
Intel X25m SSD
a 750W Corsair PSU
2x Asus VW246H
all contained within an Antec900 case

What i want to know, comparing the soon to be 2nd system based on what other top end machine owners, any ideas what kind of expectations i can assume from this kind of beast of a machine? I know it'll walk all over SWTOR for max but **** this benchmark has got me kinda nervous, if I can't get it to play smoothly on max settings i'll never feel truly satisfied in having the best gaming experience FFXIV can offer.

Edited, Jun 18th 2010 9:10pm by PandhaBear
#333 Jun 18 2010 at 7:14 PM Rating: Decent
*
209 posts
Quote:
if I can't get it to play smoothly on max settings i'll never feel truly satisfied in having the best gaming experience FFXIV can offer.


Well be prepared for disappointment, because there isn't a PC out on the market that can max out the game. They developed the game for PC's 2+ years in the future, depending on how fast technology evolves.
#334 Jun 18 2010 at 7:25 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
For those that don't know, there were certain nvidia cards that didn't work for Vista in the alpha, and there was no fix for it other than "get a different card." I would assume since the benchmark is just the same opening video from the alpha, the issue would remain, but I really have no qualification to say whether that's the case, or whether there are general problems with nvidia compatibility or whatever else.

Anyway, finally ran the benchmark:
Low: 3325
High: 2077

w7 64 bit
AMD Phenom II X4 805, 2.5GHz
ATI Radeon HD 5750
8GB DDR2 RAM

Thus far I've only spent about $500 on the entire rig, so I'm pretty pleased.
____________________________
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.
#335 Jun 18 2010 at 7:49 PM Rating: Decent
*
134 posts
PerrinofSylph wrote:
People, it's mostly GPU if you have a CPU within the last 2 years. You need minimum a 2 core CPU with at least a GTX or 55 whatever series GPU to run this decently. RAM doesn't matter when over 2 GB and CPU isn't taxed much at all. Ultimately it's the GPU.

Pay some money or buy a PS3 for around the same price as the current top range of GPU. PS3 is the guarantee. Some of us like PC gaming, those that understand it will get a GTX4XX GPU and be happy for a year and then trade up. It's the way the PC game works.

+1

For those of you overclocking your video card, what program are you using? I'm using MSI Afterburner, but the voltage will not go above 1350mV, so I can only get a very small OC. Stock voltage is 1312mV on my HD4890. Also, when you look at temps do you just look at the GPU temps? My GPU might peak at 70*C, but my VDDC slave temps will hit over 100*C according to GPUTool.

Edits:
Eh... according to this documentation the voltage limit on my card is 1350mV. Lame. I've read a little about volt modding which requires soldering things on the video card, but I don't have the money to buy a new one if I break mine. I guess I will have to do with what I have and not worry about another 10fps for now.

It sucks because I see plenty of OCs on my card up to 1ghz (stock 850mhz) without volt modding or after-market cooling. I can't even OC to 900mhz without pushing voltage as high as it will let me.


Edited, Jun 18th 2010 9:07pm by xXMalevolenceXx
#336 Jun 18 2010 at 8:44 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
386 posts
Just thought I'd chip in with a laptop score, anybody else out there using one?

Asus G73J-H

Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU Q720 @ 1.6GHz (2.8 GHz because of using Turbo Mode)
RAM 8 GB
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5780 1GB

High Score: 2035

I forgot my low score. I guess that's pretty good for a laptop, yes? :)

Edited, Jun 18th 2010 10:48pm by ThePacster
#337 Jun 18 2010 at 9:40 PM Rating: Decent
**
353 posts
Quote:
I just wanted to post this pic below to show that there isn't a problem with Nvidia cards. For those of you that have the 465/470/480 its most likely your CPU that is your bottleneck.

http://www.overclock.net/attachments/hardware-news/160547d1276886117-square-final-fantasy-xiv-benchmark-470ffbench2.png


Basically you paid 1000+ dollars to get the same score that someone with an i7 with a Radeon 5870 is getting for 1000 dollars less? Your GTX480 is limiting your score here, you would get a way higher score with a 5870 instead (for now anyway).
#338 Jun 19 2010 at 12:25 AM Rating: Decent
3 posts
Ok I ran the benchmark and got a 1200. My system is as follow

Intel Q6600 QuadCore 2.4gh
Windows XP (32bit) SP3
2gb's of ram
EVGA GeForce GT 220 1GB

My planned upgrades from this point are:
Windows 7(64-bit)
2-4 more gigs of RAM
1 (possibly 2) EVGA GeForce 9800 GT HDMI 1GB

Am I on the right track or am i going have to rebuild from the ground up?
#339 Jun 19 2010 at 12:33 AM Rating: Decent
Demantamer wrote:
Ok I ran the benchmark and got a 1200. My system is as follow

Intel Q6600 QuadCore 2.4gh
Windows XP (32bit) SP3
2gb's of ram
EVGA GeForce GT 220 1GB

My planned upgrades from this point are:
Windows 7(64-bit)
2-4 more gigs of RAM
1 (possibly 2) EVGA GeForce 9800 GT HDMI 1GB

Am I on the right track or am i going have to rebuild from the ground up?


Absolutely no point buying a 9800 GT, and doubly pointless buying two. You're not going to be happy upgrading an old rig just so you can run XIV at minimum settings. Save your clams, buy quality, be happy with the results. If high end is out of the budget, play on a PS3 for a year or two.
#340 Jun 19 2010 at 1:27 AM Rating: Decent
*
230 posts
Ok 4774(1920 X 1080) score so this benchmark is not optimized so well for me ><

CPU: i7 920 @ 4.2ghz
GPU: SLI 480gtx OC 850/2256memory
RAM: 6gigs DDR3 1603mhz
vista 64bit

If this setup wouldn't run ff14 on max i don't know what will xD
#341 Jun 19 2010 at 8:14 AM Rating: Decent
3 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
Demantamer wrote:
Ok I ran the benchmark and got a 1200. My system is as follow

Intel Q6600 QuadCore 2.4gh
Windows XP (32bit) SP3
2gb's of ram
EVGA GeForce GT 220 1GB

My planned upgrades from this point are:
Windows 7(64-bit)
2-4 more gigs of RAM
1 (possibly 2) EVGA GeForce 9800 GT HDMI 1GB

Am I on the right track or am i going have to rebuild from the ground up?


Absolutely no point buying a 9800 GT, and doubly pointless buying two. You're not going to be happy upgrading an old rig just so you can run XIV at minimum settings. Save your clams, buy quality, be happy with the results. If high end is out of the budget, play on a PS3 for a year or two.


Well I wouldn't say its out of the budget, its just going to take a couple more months to get. Been looking into getting an i5/i7 setup for awhile now. OK now next question if the 9800's are out of the question what is the suggested video card then? (Keep in mind I am trying to maintain HDMI output)
Cause my plan rebuild if said above options failed was:

EVGA P55 SLI Intel ATX Motherboard
Intel Core i5-750 Lynnfield 2.66GHz Quad-Core Processor
Kingston HyperX 4gb
#342 Jun 19 2010 at 8:26 AM Rating: Decent
3 posts
TheBSTGuy wrote:
Quote:
if I can't get it to play smoothly on max settings i'll never feel truly satisfied in having the best gaming experience FFXIV can offer.


Well be prepared for disappointment, because there isn't a PC out on the market that can max out the game. They developed the game for PC's 2+ years in the future, depending on how fast technology evolves.


LoL your telling me, alot of my friends are looking to have to drop close to $1000+ just get new machines or upgrade their machines just to play this game.
#343 Jun 19 2010 at 9:07 AM Rating: Decent
6 posts
i need to upgrade my system anyway. but for this game i wil make little more..

AMD Phenom II X6 1090T
Sapphire HD5970
and 8gb Ram
GIGABYTE GA-890FXA-UD7 (mainboard)

taht should work.

wehn i play FFXIV i wil enjoy it, not only play it


i know, atm the Benchmark dont suport SLI/Crossfire, but i think at realese it wil do.

the game suport 3D, so SLI/Crossfire wil also come.
#344 Jun 19 2010 at 12:15 PM Rating: Default
*
230 posts
WHAT? who said that this game was build to not run on max settings until 2 years in the future? LIESSSSSS
#345 Jun 19 2010 at 12:26 PM Rating: Decent
geotrick wrote:
WHAT? who said that this game was build to not run on max settings until 2 years in the future? LIESSSSSS


Actually, the statement directly from Tanaka's mouth a year ago was that a "good" PC five years from now will be able to run XIV on maximum settings with no problem. A "good" PC five years from now is a cutting edge PC two years from now.
#346 Jun 19 2010 at 12:39 PM Rating: Decent
*
230 posts
OOO ok makes more sense. The benchmark was strange though. Couldn't really choose many settings for it but it seems to run really bad on high end computeres compared to lower end computers.

Perhaps a different benchmark where you can actually tweak the settings on max could show that a score of 8800 would run the game on max. This benchmark didn't seem like it had AA on or alot of options? :X
#347 Jun 19 2010 at 2:34 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
755 posts
I posted this back in Jan.
http://ffxiv.zam.com/forum.html?game=268&mid=1262728853138162500
I think it could max the benchmark, lol.
____________________________
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)
#348 Jun 19 2010 at 4:42 PM Rating: Decent
geotrick wrote:
OOO ok makes more sense. The benchmark was strange though. Couldn't really choose many settings for it but it seems to run really bad on high end computeres compared to lower end computers.

Perhaps a different benchmark where you can actually tweak the settings on max could show that a score of 8800 would run the game on max. This benchmark didn't seem like it had AA on or alot of options? :X


It's not really running poorly on high end computers. It's running about as you might expect based on what Tanaka said. The people who are in a position to really push their rigs from a user standpoint are the ones seeing the best results. I just starting messing around seriously with overclocking my GPU when the XIV benchmark came out. I've gone from a score just over 4800 to my latest score as of about 30 minutes ago at 5633. According to the scale we were given from SE, that falls under the category of "Very High Performance. Easily capable of running the game. Should perform exceptionally well, even at higher resolutions."

My new highest score for low res is 7991, again, not at all bad and 9 points shy of the mythical 8000 required to run the game with all settings maxed (except for resolution, of course). It's also just 70 points shy of the highest low res bench score I've seen to date and that was on the previously mentioned i7 980X.

In all fairness and honesty, those are some fairly extreme overclocks hovering on the verge of unstable. For day to day gaming, I'd probably be running a mild GPU overclock at best, but based on the scores I'll still be able to play the game at a fairly generous setting.

For reference, hi res screen:

Screenshot


Lo res screen:

Screenshot


Edited, Jun 19th 2010 3:49pm by Aurelius
#349 Jun 19 2010 at 7:40 PM Rating: Decent
Well I have been planning on picking up a new machine for this game, hitting a 1700 with what I have right now. But is there something wrong with the 9800 card that you suggest not getting one? I have a 9800GTX+ 512MB right now, and was just planning on throwing that into my new machine. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883241023 on that subject, this is the one I am looking at right now, if anyone has any opinions on it.

Edited, Jun 19th 2010 9:42pm by ukikithemonkey
____________________________
[wowsig]1572354[/wowsig]
#350 Jun 19 2010 at 7:48 PM Rating: Decent
ukikithemonkey wrote:
Well I have been planning on picking up a new machine for this game, hitting a 1700 with what I have right now. But is there something wrong with the 9800 card that you suggest not getting one? I have a 9800GTX+ 512MB right now, and was just planning on throwing that into my new machine. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883241023 on that subject, this is the one I am looking at right now, if anyone has any opinions on it.


It's a card that was originally released almost 2.5 years ago. The highest high res benchmark score I've seen with a 9800 was 2153 and that was with a heavily overclocked Q6600. The other two scores I've seen with 9800 cards were < 1.5k. XIV is going to demand more than 2 year old technology can deliver.
#351 Jun 19 2010 at 8:21 PM Rating: Good
*
59 posts
Quote:
I just wanted to post this pic below to show that there isn't a problem with Nvidia cards. For those of you that have the 465/470/480 its most likely your CPU that is your bottleneck.

http://www.overclock.net/attachments/hardware-news/160547d1276886117-square-final-fantasy-xiv-benchmark-470ffbench2.png


The part I bolded in the quote above is false. The CPU isn't the limitation in the above screenshot, it's the GPU. Notice how that GTX 470 has an absolutely massive overclock on it (930 core, 1860 shader, and 1100 memory). That alone is what is giving him 5104 on that benchmark. The same could be achieved by any Core i7 clocked at 3.33Ghz with a similarly overclocked GPU.

AMD X2 4800+ @ 2.64Ghz + 7800GTX 512MB @ Stock clocks = ~1000 on Low (The NVIDIA 7800 GTX 512MB is GPU limited.)
AMD X2 4800+ @ 2.64Ghz + GTX 470 @ Stock clocks = ~2300 on High | 2300 on Low (The AMD X2 is CPU Limited)
Core i5-750 @ 3.2Ghz + GTX 470 @ Stock clocks = ~3300 on High (GPU Limitation only)
Core i5-750 @ 4.0Ghz + GTX 470 @ Stock clocks = ~3300 on High (GPU Limitation only)
Core i5-750 @ 3.2Ghz + GTX 470 @ 800 core, 1600 shader, 950 memory = ~4300 on High (GPU Limitation only)
Core i5-750 @ 4.0Ghz + GTX 470 @ 800 core, 1600 shader, 950 memory = ~4300 on High (GPU Limitation only)
Core i7-980x @ 3.33Ghz + GTX 470 @ 930 core, 1860 shader, 1100 memory = 5104 on High (GPU limitation only)

Unfortunately, I don't have water-cooling to bring the GTX 470 to 930 core, 1860 shader, and 1100 memory, but if I did, I'm sure I could achieve 5000 on high even with a $200 Core i5-750. In any case, this Core i5-750 computer was something I built for someone else as a low-budget non-gamer machine. The GTX 470 which I only bought for curiosities sake got returned yesterday, and an ATI 5750 will being going in instead.

If you have a Nehalem based Intel CPU (Core i3/i5/i7), your only real limitation is your GPU until you hit ~5500 on high. If you have a previous generation Intel or any AMD which isn't a highly-clocked Phenom II, you'll likely run into a CPU limitation before you max a high-end GPU on the FFXIV Bechmark. NVIDIA Fermi based GPUs (GTX 470/480) are just slower in this benchmark then their ATI 5850/5870 counterparts.

As for CPU limitations, it really comes down to FFXIV basically being a single-threaded application. It has a main thread which handles rendering that only maxes out a single core (100% / Number of cores or 25% CPU utilization on a Quad-core) , and a secondary thread (DAT loading thread?) which has ultra-low utilization the entire time. If Square-Enix ever adds real multi-threading to FFXIV, almost nobody with a modern 2.4Ghz dual-core or above would be having any sort of CPU limitation.

Edited, Jun 20th 2010 12:48am by Cyberbeing
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 31 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (31)