Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

Official FFXIV Benchmarking program.Follow

#402 Jun 22 2010 at 9:43 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Pawkeshup Delivers on Time wrote:
Sure thing. My gaming notebook is an XPS 1730 running Windows XP with an Intel Core 2 Duo X7900 running at 2.8Ghz (Overclockable to 3.0 Ghz, 4GB of RAM, SLI 8700M GT's with 512MB of RAM onboard (if you need more info I'll just screenshot it), and RAID 0 configured HDDs whose specs elude me at the moment.


I have a laptop with similar specs and I tell you I had no delusions of it working for FFXIV. Laptops grow old a lot faster than desktops. I haven't even bothered downloading the benchmark on my laptop because it would be a waste of time. I use my laptop for school now and my new desktop for games.
#403 Jun 22 2010 at 9:46 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
135 posts
DirectX 9.0c, did Nvidia smart scan to update drivers, went to Microsoft update, made sure EVERYTHING was good, downloaded and re-extracted benchmark from both download sites still get the same old error message when launching:

"FFXIV Benchmark has encountered a problem and needs to shut down. Send error report blah blah blah".

There are no specifics given as to why and no troubleshooting steps offered. I don't expect this old beast of a PC to score high at all on the benchmark but it'd be nice to see these gorgeous animations...

Seriously, for those that had this problem as well, did you get it fixed?
#404 Jun 22 2010 at 9:49 AM Rating: Decent
ChoochZero wrote:
DirectX 9.0c, did Nvidia smart scan to update drivers, went to Microsoft update, made sure EVERYTHING was good, downloaded and re-extracted benchmark from both download sites still get the same old error message when launching:

"FFXIV Benchmark has encountered a problem and needs to shut down. Send error report blah blah blah".

There are no specifics given as to why and no troubleshooting steps offered. I don't expect this old beast of a PC to score high at all on the benchmark but it'd be nice to see these gorgeous animations...

Seriously, for those that had this problem as well, did you get it fixed?


If you've downloaded the most up to date drivers for your hardware, you've downloaded the DirectX runtime directly from Microsoft and you're still not able to run the game, it's a safe bet that it's because your PC can't handle it. System specs might help in making that determination, however.
#405 Jun 22 2010 at 10:13 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,825 posts
Ok, I got my GTX 470 in today so I re-ran the benches.

With SLi 8800 GTS 640mb cards I got

1245 High
2186 Low

With the GTX 470 and (not that it has an effect on the bench) one of the GTS' as PhysX

2893 High
3555 Low

I'm running a Q6700 stock w/8GB DDR2, Soundblaster XFI, Striker II Formula MoBo, and both HDDs are 500 GB 7200 rpm

All 4 CPU cores are being used almost equally, and this time around I was getting 60-90% usage on them during the high test.

Anyway you could throw a similar rig to mine together (replace the GTX 400 with an older ATI or 200 series Nvidia card(s)) for under 500 bucks, especially if you use e-bay.

My plan is to go SLi 470's at some point, but I'd rather upgrade my monitor first since I'm capped at 1680x1050.

*EDIT*
Assuming I can link these without being premium; Here's the shots of the CPU usage around the same time frame.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b99/myponyrocks/MISC/DSC01051.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b99/myponyrocks/MISC/DSC01053.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b99/myponyrocks/MISC/DSC01052.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b99/myponyrocks/MISC/DSC01055.jpg

Edited, Jun 22nd 2010 5:36pm by PerrinofSylph
____________________________
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


#406 Jun 22 2010 at 10:14 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
743 posts
Cyberbeing wrote:
... Though as long as your low resolution score continues to go up when you overclock the ATI 5770, there should be no problem. If it doesn't go up, you also may want to make sure you raised your BCLK adequately when you did your overclock...


I'll play with OCing the GPU later this week. Funny you mention the BCLK, I can't push it past 166. Doesn't matter if I lower the SPD. I've wondered if it could be the RAM holding me back. OCZ Platinum DDR 3 1333, Timing: 7-7-7-20, 1.64V,
QPI Voltage 1.35, tRFC=88, cmdrate = 2. Sorry for going off-topic.
____________________________
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)
#407 Jun 22 2010 at 2:48 PM Rating: Excellent
*
59 posts
Quote:
Funny you mention the BCLK, I can't push it past 166.

Take a look at the guides here: http://www.overclockers.com/3-step-guide-overclock-core-i3-i5-i7/ and http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&articID=988

Particularly the Isolate the bclock from the iGPU (Clarkdale only) section, as that may be what is limiting your stable BCLK to 166Mhz. That pesky iGPU within the Core i3 processor die seems to add one additional complication to getting a good BCLK overclock.
#408 Jun 22 2010 at 3:25 PM Rating: Decent
1 post
that game is rediculus when it comes to needed specs ...

i scored around 4k on low and 2900 on high

and here are my specs
intel i7 920 overclocked to 3.2 ghz
12 Go Ram
nvidia 295 GTX (1.8 Go GPU)
and my screen and card are 3D ready!

my Ram and CPU meter never went over 40%... and yet my scores are that low ...
#409 Jun 22 2010 at 3:26 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
770 posts
Ran it on my GF's pc.. scored 75 lol , after a few driver updates, 105 .. hehe, she dosnt wanna play final fantasy anyway.. not yet anyway :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
#410 Jun 22 2010 at 3:27 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
and my screen and card are 3D ready!


Sweet.

If you get in the beta and they lift the NDA you really need to make a post about how it looks.
#411 Jun 22 2010 at 3:58 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
117 posts
My HAF 932 case arrived this afternoon....holy #$%^ is this thing huge =D My HD5770 and Noctua CPU cooler should be here thursday or friday. Hopefully I can get some stable OC's to the 965 and 5770 and end up with satisfactory bench scores....Probably shouldn't be posting this but the case got me all excited lol
#412 Jun 22 2010 at 5:01 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
jhariya wrote:
My HAF 932 case arrived this afternoon....holy #$%^ is this thing huge =D My HD5770 and Noctua CPU cooler should be here thursday or friday. Hopefully I can get some stable OC's to the 965 and 5770 and end up with satisfactory bench scores....Probably shouldn't be posting this but the case got me all excited lol


It takes a dedicated gamer to get excited about metal and silicon.
____________________________
[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.
#413 Jun 22 2010 at 5:02 PM Rating: Decent
*
58 posts
i7 920 paired with a gtx 285 (both with mild overclocks) got me these scores:

High: 3654

http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg228/KaipoLex/highbenchmark-1.jpg

Low: 5986

http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg228/KaipoLex/lowbenchmark-1.jpg

I could probably get more out of the gpu, but I'll just wait until the game is released to see if it's necessary.

Edited, Jun 22nd 2010 7:33pm by HooraySoysauce
#414 Jun 22 2010 at 5:09 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Mikhalia wrote:

It takes a dedicated gamer to get excited about metal and silicon.


Oh the simple joys in life.
#415 Jun 22 2010 at 5:16 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Yogtheterrible wrote:
Mikhalia wrote:

It takes a dedicated gamer to get excited about metal and silicon.


Oh the simple joys in life.


My fiancee's brother just bought a bunch of parts for a new system. I'm supposed to help him assemble it after he gets off of work. I may quite possibly be waiting for 9:00 even more than he is.
____________________________
[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.
#416 Jun 22 2010 at 9:17 PM Rating: Excellent
33 posts

Hi everyone,

Firstly, thanks everyone for providing excellent discussion here as to what hardware is and isn't working and for comparing for both fun and upgrade routes for the future. Though my main system is in the process of being shhipped home from a temp job, I can at least give some insight as to my brothers' 3 systems and how well they are all faring (or well, shall I say not :)).

Now to be fair, none of them are big Final Fantasy fans and have no intention to play XIV or really even game that much so not holding it against them since they are unable to run the benchmark. I hope however that this can shed more light as to what kind of system is required because obviously their old hardware isn't cutting it. Let me see if I can recall all their specs...

Brother's Desktop:
Dell Dimension 8300 (yes, ancient Dell black box in PC terms heh)
Intel P4 HT @ 2.4 Ghz
RAM (PC3200) 400mhz, DDR I believe, 2 GB
Geforce FX 5600 (128 MB VRAM)
WD Raptor 74GB @ 10,000 RPM
Monitor is a standard Dell 17" maxing at 1280x1024
Windows 7 RC (not bought it yet)
Benchmark Results - After picking race, screen launches (low) and fades to white with a Windows error saying the program has stopped responding. I ensured his DirectX and Nvidia drivers were up to date.

Brother's Laptop:
Dell Studio 1535
Windows 7 Professional (not sure if 32 or 64 but no diff really for the scope of this post)
Intel Dual Core T3200 @ 2.0 Ghz
2 GB RAM (PC5400 667mhz DDR2)
Intel P965 Integrated Chipset - 384MB shared VRAM
Samsung 250GB @ 5400 RPM HDD
LCD is a 17" maxed at 1280x800
Benchmark Results are the same as above, save for ensuring Intel drivers were up to date.

Brother's Netbook:
Gateway LT2104u
Windows 7 Starter 32 bit
Intel Atom @ 1.66 Ghz
1 GB RAM
Intel GMA (Graphics Media Accelertor) 3150 (128MB Shared VRAM)
Hitachi 300 GB HDD
LCD is maxed at 1024x800
Benchmark Results are the same as above.

--------------

Am I surprised at any of the results? Not terribly so, but at the same time I'm surprised a newer Studio laptop within the past year was even unable to launch the benchmark at all - though it is still a laptop. I'm presuming a simple lack of graphics horsepower is the culprit for all 3 systems here, slower HDDs and lack of RAM notwithstanding.

Interesting also that all 3 had the same "fade out" error with regards to Windows encountering an error message. I ensured DirectX was at least updated all the way but I'm curious as to if a simple lack of horsepower in this case would be more at fault than bad drivers or a DirectX issue.

Hopefully within a couple days of my system getting here I can at least post with some good #s for you guys :). While I don't intend to score say, over 9,000, I do hope I can at least get a couple of k. I'll report back once I have more numbers for you guys.
#417 Jun 23 2010 at 2:43 AM Rating: Decent
Sage
*
93 posts
I've read most (but not all) of the posts in this thread so I'm not sure if this came up, but apparently upgrading to the most recent 2xx.xx (nVidia) from my old 19x.xx drivers has cost me around 50-100 points in my benchmark scores. Oh well, I'm not too worried about it. I'm hopeful that they'll release some better drivers geared more towards FFXIV when the time comes. Either way, it looks like upgrade time for me!

I'm getting 2500-2600 on low with the following:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ @3.2GHz
2x 8800GTS 512MB
4GB RAM
Vista 64bit

My guess is that I might squeeze in a few more points if my CPU were better and the benchmark would run in full screen with SLI support.

EDIT: Just tried that 3DMark06 SLI trick mentioned earlier in the thread and it really killed my scores haha. Definitely have to go the PS3 / new PC route when the time comes.

Edited, Jun 23rd 2010 5:27am by Rhysen
#418 Jun 23 2010 at 10:03 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
743 posts
Reallink wrote:


Brother's Netbook:
Gateway LT2104u
Windows 7 Starter 32 bit
Intel Atom @ 1.66 Ghz
1 GB RAM
Intel GMA (Graphics Media Accelertor) 3150 (128MB Shared VRAM)
Hitachi 300 GB HDD
LCD is maxed at 1024x800
Benchmark Results are the same as above.


I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. You "tortured" that poor netbook with the benchmark. HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Green arrow worthy

Edited, Jun 23rd 2010 9:05am by AngusX
Spelling

Edited, Jun 23rd 2010 11:29am 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)
#419 Jun 23 2010 at 11:22 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Reallink wrote:

Interesting also that all 3 had the same "fade out" error with regards to Windows encountering an error message. I ensured DirectX was at least updated all the way but I'm curious as to if a simple lack of horsepower in this case would be more at fault than bad drivers or a DirectX issue.


My system had the same problem but I fixed it by manually upgrading both dx and my drivers and then restarting. If you haven't upgraded manually I would try that and restart the computer...but I wouldn't expect any of them to get anything above 300...and that netbook might just explode if it actually started doing the benchmark.

In other words, don't bother.
#420 Jun 23 2010 at 12:06 PM Rating: Good
***
1,146 posts
Well, after reading that XIV would use up to date hardware I couldn't resist any longer and got myself some new hardware a few weeks ago.

I tried to get good performance at a reasonable price so the components aren't the absolute high end but there's room for OC.

Mainboard: Asus Sabertooth
CPU: Intel Core i7 860 @2,8GHz (watercooled with existing system)
RAM: 8GB Corsair DDR3 @1666MHz
GPU: MSI 5850 Twin Frozr II
PSU: Enermax Modu82+ 525W
Main HDD: Corsair P128 SSD
Price: ~1300€

High setting: 4033
Load time: 17532ms

Low setting: 5843
Load time: 17331ms

After this I tried to OC the GPU to get better performance but the results were just slightly better.
Taking that into account and looking at others results I'd say CPU speed is the main factor for performance but I didn't test enough to be sure of that.

CPU load was around 40%-60% for 4 cores during animations while the other 4 were idling around at 0%-2%.
When loading a new scene the load on all cores increased by 20%-30%.
That said it looks like XIV does scale pretty well with multicore CPUs.

Frame rate was constant except for a few spikes when new scenes were loaded or the camera view changed.
Also it doesn't look like driver settings would have an effect on the frame rate of the benchmark. Even if I set everything to max or min there is almost no difference in the scores.

I'd rather run the system without OC for now but maybe I'll try increasing CPU and RAM speeds to see if really depends on clock speed that much.

Anyhow. Since beta didn't start yet and the code of the game will be optimized till release there will be improvements in performance for sure but the benchmark does what it should. It shows how well FFXIV will probably run on your machine.

Btw. I really like the voice acting, especially the Miqo'te in white sounds fantastic.

Edited, Jun 23rd 2010 8:20pm by RidingBean
____________________________

Final Fantasy XI
Server: Quetzalcoatl
Name: Kyana (retired)
Jobs: THF75 PLD70 BST70

#421 Jun 23 2010 at 12:41 PM Rating: Decent
33 posts
delete

Edited, Jun 23rd 2010 2:47pm by Reallink
#422 Jun 23 2010 at 12:46 PM Rating: Decent
33 posts
AngusX wrote:
Reallink wrote:


Brother's Netbook:
Gateway LT2104u
Windows 7 Starter 32 bit
Intel Atom @ 1.66 Ghz
1 GB RAM
Intel GMA (Graphics Media Accelertor) 3150 (128MB Shared VRAM)
Hitachi 300 GB HDD
LCD is maxed at 1024x800
Benchmark Results are the same as above.


I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. You "tortured" that poor netbook with the benchmark. HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Green arrow worthy

Edited, Jun 23rd 2010 9:05am by AngusX
Spelling

Edited, Jun 23rd 2010 11:29am by AngusX


Well like I said, I'm here semi-computerless without my desktop so in lieu of being bored, I thought for fun to see if the netbook would stand a snowball's chance of running the benchmark. Obviously, I was wrong :).
#423 Jun 23 2010 at 1:17 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
764 posts
Im getting the benchmark has stopped working error, but I'm certain my drivers are up to date and 100% certain my computer can the game (its a high end computer). Anything else might cause this error?
____________________________


#424 Jun 23 2010 at 5:22 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
**
312 posts
Rhysen wrote:
I've read most (but not all) of the posts in this thread so I'm not sure if this came up, but apparently upgrading to the most recent 2xx.xx (nVidia) from my old 19x.xx drivers has cost me around 50-100 points in my benchmark scores.


That's weird, I just did the upgrade to 257.21 last night and my 1080 score jumped from 4050 to 4300. Maybe it affects different cards in different ways? My other 480 should be arriving tomorrow morning, too, so I'll be able to test out my SLI setup before long!
____________________________
Steam: Xavier1216
FFXI: Astyanax (Bismarck)


#425 Jun 24 2010 at 12:46 AM Rating: Decent
11 posts
162 (low-res) Not even gonna try high-res. The screen was choppy as ****...Running Vista 64 on a Laptop. I need to run FFXIV on a laptop for universal play, anywhere, otherwise, I'll need to invest in a more sophisticated laptop. Or my ps3. :)
#426 Jun 24 2010 at 1:30 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
441 posts
If people with moderately powered desktops are struggling to benchmark above 3000 on 1080 resolution, I daresay that running FFXIV on laptops is a risky proposition.

Problem is, I doubt there's a laptop on the market now which isn't exhorbitantly expensive and which has the power (and battery life) to cope with FFXIV on the run.

Edit - got home and gave my ATI 5770 a mild overclock, the benchmark on 1080 improved by around ~160 to 2660.

Edited, Jun 24th 2010 12:18pm by Dik
____________________________
War 75 Nin75 Sam75
#427 Jun 25 2010 at 4:19 PM Rating: Decent
26 posts
This benchmark does not utilize SLI.

low = 2292
high = why bother?


Board = ASUS Crosshair
RAM = 4gb DDR2 800
CPU = AMD X2 6400+ @3.3
GPU = 8800GTS 640mb 320bit SSC version in SLI
3Dmark06 = 13100

I got my 2292 score with SLI disabled. When I enabled SLI I got 2286. I was not expecting to score higher than 2500 but I hope the game takes advantage of SLI unlike the benchmark. Maybe the window mode made SLI not work I don't know.
#428 Jun 25 2010 at 4:33 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
630 posts
psychoholick wrote:
Maybe the window mode made SLI not work I don't know.


I've heard this a couple times and it might be true. Aurelius also has a post with tips to try to get SLI working...not sure if that is what you are referring to when you said you enabled SLI.
#429 Jun 25 2010 at 4:49 PM Rating: Decent
26 posts
Quote:
I've heard this a couple times and it might be true. Aurelius also has a post with tips to try to get SLI working...not sure if that is what you are referring to when you said you enabled SLI.


I meant I turned SLI on and off through the nvidia control pannel and there was no difference in scores. This leads me to believe that the benchmark isn't utilizing SLI whatsoever. I will need a new board, cpu, and RAM but I don't fully trust this benchmark as of yet.
#430 Jun 25 2010 at 5:01 PM Rating: Default
2 posts
actually im kinda sure that this benchmark cannot make use of SLI, because i get exactly the same score with it disabled as i get with it enabled.
#431Sefalicious, Posted: Jun 25 2010 at 6:01 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I don't put a lot of faith in a benchmark that's merely video, not actual in-game models... But eh - This relic of a processor continues to bring me down. ; ;
#432 Jun 25 2010 at 6:22 PM Rating: Good
Sefalicious wrote:
I don't put a lot of faith in a benchmark that's merely video, not actual in-game models... But eh - This relic of a processor continues to bring me down. ; ;
Still, I should be okay on low to medium settings. Too early to tell for certain.


The benchmark uses all real-time rendered models the likes of which will be used during gameplay. Originally I thought the scene with Leviathan arching over the ship was CGI but it was proven that it, too, is rendered real-time.

In other words, what you see your PC doing in the benchmark is what it will be required to do during gameplay. I'm not trying to crush your hopes and dreams, but if you're thinking that all your PC is doing in the benchmark is showing you a pre-rendered cutscene and that it will be different for gameplay, you're mistaken.
#433 Jun 25 2010 at 7:25 PM Rating: Good
**
557 posts
My results for my laptop are as follows:

Low before Overclocking GPU: 3558

High before overclocking GPU: 2076

Low after overclocking GPU: 3704

High after overclocking GPU: 2293

OS: Windows 7 Home Premium
Processor: Intel i7-Q720 1.6GHZ
GPU: ATI Mobility Radeon 5870
RAM: 8GB DDR3
HDD: 1TB 7200RPM


Edited, Jun 25th 2010 9:28pm by DukeVedamDren
____________________________
Laptop: Sager NP9150
Processor: Intel Core i7-3610
GPU: Nvidia GTX675M
RAM: 8GB DDR3 @ 1600MHz
HDD: 120GB SSD + 500GB 7200RPM
OS: Windows 8 64-bit

#434 Jun 25 2010 at 10:57 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
630 posts
My low score exceeded my expectations with a score of 5780 and my high score fell below my expectations with a score of 3314.

Intel core i5 overclocked to 3.7
gtx 465 with slight core overclock
4GB DDR3 1600

I think I'm losing a little on the GPU side because my power supply doesn't have enough juice to keep it powered. I'm gonna tweak a little more to see if I can hit mid 3s. I also am going to do some tests w/ different mobos, cpus and possibly gpus (if I can get my hands on them). I'll keep this post updated with all the info.


just re-ran the test with some more clock improvements, up'd the fan speed to 65% and it ran at 87°, 3407 this time around. I understand they are under performing right now, but I also feel if I had a slightly better PSU/Mobo I could get a little more out of the card without it freezing on me. oh well, not too shabby, and plus i'll throw in an upgraded GPU later in the year via EVGA's upgrade program. On my highest settings I hit 6076 on Low now.

Edited, Jun 26th 2010 1:11am by burtonsnow

Edited, Jun 26th 2010 2:13am by burtonsnow
#435 Jun 25 2010 at 10:59 PM Rating: Good
**
353 posts
NVidia cards underperform compared to the ATI right now. You can do everything but unless you change card you wont see a big improvement. I think nvidia will improve performance via new drivers at some point when FFXIV is released
#436 Jun 26 2010 at 6:44 PM Rating: Good
**
610 posts
Windows 7 Home Premium (SP1, 64-bit)
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9000 (2GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 6MB Cache)
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M 1GB GDDR3 memory
4GB DDR2-800 SDRAM (2GB x 2)

2043 on low.....Profound sadness has ensued.


Also wow havn't posted in ages....have to get use to this new look of Zam....dun like change.
____________________________
Coincidence:
Crashing on the way to the hospital.
Irony:
Crashing into an ambulance on the way to the hospital.
BS:
Ambulance crashes into an hospital.
#437 Jun 26 2010 at 7:10 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
34 posts
Here is the results that i got from my fairly new HP HPE-180t

Specs:
Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit
Intel core I7 930 @2.80 Ghz (8CPUs) ~2.8 GHz
ATI Radeon HD 5770

High: 2502
Low: 4482

Debating whether or not to run FFXIV on 1080 or just 720, even though my high score puts my specs in the normal range I'm worried how online performance will affect the frame rate , ie; crowded city areas.

While running the actual benchmark is smooth visually my audio keeps catching on things and either giving a rather annoying bleep sound or just stops output from the speakers for a short time. updated my audio drivers have shown really no improvement in that aspect. Anyone else been having similar problems?
____________________________

#438 Jun 26 2010 at 7:25 PM Rating: Decent
**
353 posts
If you remembered how FFXI worked, not all the characters are loaded in cities. They only slowly appear as you get near to their location. I assume the same will happen for 14. Remember Jueno AH? Same thing again.
#439 Jun 27 2010 at 9:56 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
136 posts
And... as I expected...
will need to upgrade my pc before I can play this. ah well
____________________________
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/profile.xml?14296
Vaseka
No it wasn't my online name so I didn't register initially as such. I finally got around to exposing my identity however O.o
#440 Jun 28 2010 at 1:24 AM Rating: Default
33 posts
Ok guys, my system's back and operational! I spent most of the day doing this so it might be enough number crunching to choke a chocobo :)

------------------

Nvidia Geforce 7900 GS 256MB (Dell XPS 410 stock)
(Nvidia Driver Ver. 8.15.11.8593 aka 185.93 5-14-09) Old but stable.

1280x720 (LOW) @ Monitor Resolution of 1024x768 - Score: 801 Load: 67,175
Notes: (Sound but no video (black screen), GPU graph pegged solid).

1280x720 (LOW) @ Monitor Resolution of 1280x720 - Score: N/A (didn't test)

1920x1080 (HIGH) @ Monitor Resolution of 1024x768 - Score: N/A (didn't test)

1920x1080 (HIGH) @ Monitor Resolution of 1920x1080 - Score: N/A (didn't test)

--------

EVGA Geforce 9800 GTX+ 512MB
(Nvidia Driver Ver. 8.16.11.9107 aka 191.07 9-27-09) Old but stable.

1280x720 (LOW) @ Monitor Resolution of 1024x768 - Score: 3,044 Load: 12,581

1280x720 (LOW) @ Monitor Resolution of 1280x720 - Score: 3,069 Load: 12,818

1920x1080 (HIGH) @ Monitor Resolution of 1024x768 - Score: 2.015 Load: 12,738
(Temporarily raised screen resolution to read the scores but bench was run at 1024x768).

1920x1080 (HIGH) @ Monitor Resolution of 1920x1080 - Score: 1,997 Load: 12,850
(All normal behavior with slight graph dips, great video, no audio problems).


-----------------


Nvidia Geforce 7900 GS 256MB (Dell XPS 410 stock)
(Nvidia Driver Ver. 8.17.12.5721 aka 257.21 6-27-10)

1280x720 (LOW) @ Monitor Resolution of 1024x768 - Score: 687 Load: 58,515
Notes: (Sound but no video (black screen), GPU graph pegged solid).

1280x720 (LOW) @ Monitor Resolution of 1280x720 - Score: N/A (didn't test)

1920x1080 (HIGH) @ Monitor Resolution of 1024x768 - Score: N/A (didn't test)

1920x1080 (HIGH) @ Monitor Resolution of 1920x1080 - Score: N/A (didn't test)

--------

EVGA Geforce 9800 GTX+ 512MB
(Nvidia Driver Ver. 8.17.12.5721 aka 257.21 6-27-10)

1280x720 (LOW) @ Monitor Resolution of 1024x768 - Score: 3,120 Load: 60,898

1280x720 (LOW) @ Monitor Resolution of 1280x720 - Score: 3,116 Load: 12,347

1920x1080 (HIGH) @ Monitor Resolution of 1024x768 - Score: 2,007 Load: 12,653
(Temporarily raised screen resolution to read the scores but bench was run at 1024x768).

1920x1080 (HIGH) @ Monitor Resolution of 1920x1080 - Score: 1,978 Load, 12,563

-------

Ok so after all this, it basically seems I'm right inline with what others are getting on this forum. There are a couple important things I've noticed:

1. Graph seems to be GPU load, not CPU. It only hit rock bottom a couple small times but was 3/4s of the way up during most of the benchmarks. Does anyone know for sure on that?
2. Regardless if the game is not windowed, there seems to be no real difference of the resolution of your monitor VS the quality mode of the benchmark selected. Usually playing at the native resolution would produce better results but in this case, it seems like the benchmark is still making the card draw all data even if the screen can't show it.
3. I didn't run results screencaps but I did let the high mode run with all character choices and #s were about the same, give or take 100 points.
4. The battle scene for me kept going smoothly and very well despite a score that would seem to say otherwise. Do you guys think the actual game will still be managable or am I standing to upgrade at this point. Due to my bad eyesight I normally don't game anywhere near 1080p levels (usually fine with 1024x768 or 1280x1024 etc.) but I'd rather not have a crapy experience either.
5. Old drivers VS new drivers helped slightly. Lost 100 or so points on my old card, gained 100 or so on low with my newer card. High didn't really change so I'm hitting a limit.
6. Not overclocking, sorry. PSU is at a comfortable limit given this system's age and I don't know what the board can take (only one intake fan for the heatsink as well. I'm sure anything faster in general, whether it be an i7 processor or better graphics card would help though but that would require a complete rebuild since I'm at the LGA775 limit w/this board. The small load times were achieved since my C: is an Intel 160GB SSD. The fluke 60,000 load was probably the first pre-fetching of data for the bench upon a reboot so I'll take the 12,000s as average for me.
7. Don't see minimum specs on the bench now that we mention it. I'd stand to say at least a Core 2 Duo and 512 MB of graphics RAM though.
8. Tried one test of upping my graphics card's fan to a constant 100%. No score change.
9. HOLY CRAP this is pretty :)

-----------------

System specs:
Dell XPS 410 (Somewhat stock but upgraded a lot in it)
Windows 7 Professional 64 bit
Intel Q6600 Core 2 Quad @ 2.4 Ghz (stock speed, though the box originally shipped with a C2D @ 2.4).
RAM is 4GB of DDR2 667mhz (PC 5400 I think)?
Graphics (stock was an Nvidia 7900 GS 256 MB), now a 9800 GTX+ 512 MB
Sound - Creative Soundblaster X-Fi Extreme Gamer
HDD - Only tested this with the SSD. (Intel 160GB G2 SSD) I didn't attempt any traditional HDD tests at all, sorry.

----------------

I also screencapped almost 40 shots so if you guys can't run the bench, feel free to view some here: http://thereallink.livejournal.com/429187.html#cutid2

Also, shots of each run for what it's worth... Runs are in the order of my scores from the notes above.
Run 1-1 http://dfullerton.smugmug.com/photos/915920525_d83Yp-X3.jpg
Run 1-2 http://dfullerton.smugmug.com/photos/915920544_9Yxpx-X3.jpg
Run 2 http://dfullerton.smugmug.com/photos/915920599_kKUKh-X3.jpg
Run 3 http://dfullerton.smugmug.com/photos/915920614_6CSpL-X3.jpg
Run 4-1 http://dfullerton.smugmug.com/photos/915920627_xauBW-X3.jpg
Run 4-2 http://dfullerton.smugmug.com/photos/915920662_HtEZ3-X3.jpg
Run 5 http://dfullerton.smugmug.com/photos/915920685_8uFfj-X3.jpg
Run 6 http://dfullerton.smugmug.com/photos/915920699_K8bvH-X3.jpg
Run 7 http://dfullerton.smugmug.com/photos/915920738_c59Es-X3.jpg
Run 8 http://dfullerton.smugmug.com/photos/915920752_H7xj3-X3.jpg
Run 9 http://dfullerton.smugmug.com/photos/915920776_LF2Ko-X3.jpg
Run 10 http://dfullerton.smugmug.com/photos/915920806_CWGcx-X3.jpg

---------------

This took awhile to test and awhile to type! I hope it helps you guys and feel free to add it to your 1st page chart if you wish.

Edited, Jun 28th 2010 3:30am by Reallink

Edited, Jun 28th 2010 3:34am by Reallink

Edited, Jun 28th 2010 3:36am by Reallink

Edited, Jun 28th 2010 4:00am by Reallink
#441 Jun 28 2010 at 5:50 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
372 posts
Okay~

So I like, probably scored the lowest numbers ever.

Low: 253
High: Didn't try, was scared it might...explode or something.

My system isn't that old, although I am aware that computers and the components there-in age fast! I've taken a look at my specs and talked it over with some friends and pretty much spotted what I need to change.

Specs are as follows.

AMD Phenom(tm) 9500 Quad Core Proc 2.2 GHz
3Gb DDR2 Ram (will be upgrading this to another Gig)
nVidia 8400 <----- THE problem

So, I'm preparing to shell out at least £150 for a graphics card for my birthday, which is this month *grin*. I want a half way decent one, which will be able to handle FFXIV.

Now I've been reading through the thread and all I see is a whole load of computer tech speak that's making my eyes hurt :D

Could anyone maybe recommend something for me? Within that price range, or even something a little more expensive, that could possibly come down in price in the next few months?
#442 Jun 28 2010 at 9:49 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
61 posts
Wow it's been ages since I've posted here. But FFXIV draws me back!

So I ran across this forum and the benchmark the other day, and aside from the coolness of the extra video, I thought I'd check to see how the computer I've not touched for years except for replacing the graphics card (the previous one died somehow, perhaps after being in storage for a year) for a Radeon HD4890 1GB could possibly run it. This is without any overclocking or such as well, which I'd prefer not to do... though my e4300 is supposed to work well with it.

After reading some of the comments on here, I halfway expected the benchmark to not even be able to run, but it actually did and I was able to enjoy the video! I ended up with a score of almost 1900 on low-res at 720p HD resolution (I don't have an HD monitor yet - though one should be in the mail this week!). Running it on 1280x1024 cost me about 50 points. This fits in the "low" spectrum, but I'm happy to see it even runs with the rig I have now! Here are its complete specs iirc (I told you it's been awhile):

Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit (so with DX11)
Intel e4300 dual-core @1.8ghz
2GB DDR3 RAM
ATI Radeon HD4890 1GB


So I've got some work to do if I want to play this enjoyable on PC. XD I think I'm ok enough for now with Windows 7 and my graphics card, but next project would be to upgrade mobo/processor/RAM, and probably a HDD too cause I think even that's slow now (not to mention small). I see everyone talking about these i7 rigs, and once again I'm re-learning those specifications, so I'll have to decide where to go without completely overblowing spending...
#443 Jun 28 2010 at 12:50 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Roquis wrote:
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit (so with DX11)
Intel e4300 dual-core @1.8ghz
2GB DDR3 RAM
ATI Radeon HD4890 1GB


So I've got some work to do if I want to play this enjoyable on PC. XD I think I'm ok enough for now with Windows 7 and my graphics card, but next project would be to upgrade mobo/processor/RAM, and probably a HDD too cause I think even that's slow now (not to mention small). I see everyone talking about these i7 rigs, and once again I'm re-learning those specifications, so I'll have to decide where to go without completely overblowing spending...


Your 4890 is fine. According to this, going up would likely mean a 5800+ or a Fermi.

I'd double the RAM at least. I'd definitely suggest a processor increase.

i7 and i7 Extreme and Phenom II x6 are pretty much top of the line in terms of performance and price. You won't get much better, but you'll pay an arm and a leg.
i5 Quad and Phenom II x4 are good performance for a much lower price. You'll pay significantly less for a Quad Core than a Hexacore, and the performance is still good (I got a 4000/2600 on a Phenom II x4 with a 5770), but it's not "top of the line".

CPUs
____________________________
[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.
#444 Jun 28 2010 at 1:56 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
61 posts
Ah, thanks for the technical info! :) Helps instead of shooting somewhat aimlessly around the web through endless reviews to find which direction is the best to go. I wondered if I went fishing a little if there'd be someone out there who'd give some direction! Upgrading the CPU and RAM is pretty much what I had in mind, but the specific info on CPUs helps! Especially since I've been out of it for a few years and have to catch up on labeling terminology.
#445 Jun 28 2010 at 8:53 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
30 posts
x3470
4GB DDR3 1600mhz
BFG 285 1GB OC
3xRAID0
Win7 x64

1080: 3000
720: 4800

good news to hear that the newer version is more optimized than the benchmark :D
#446 Jun 29 2010 at 5:06 PM Rating: Decent
Sage
**
784 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
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



Aurelius,

If you read this, can you sling me a PM with your system specs and OC, including RAM please?

I just got in my parts the other day, built the new rig and OC'd the i7 930 to 4ghz, and am not impressed with the score. Something is wrong, but I can't figure out what.

-I played around with my old system, and managed to get it to score a 3000 on high (E8500 3.16ghz, 8gb ram, 5870 all stock no OC)
-New system is an I7 930 OC'd to 4ghz, 6gb ram, stock 5870, scored a 3122 on high.
-Then I OC'd the **** out of the 5870 and only managed to pull a 3300.

Something is wrong. I am seeing a lot of people scoring significantly higher than I am with lower specs and/or lower OC's.
____________________________
Amazing linkshell/guild hosting

#447 Jun 29 2010 at 8:03 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
92 posts
Quote:
Dual-core is multi-core. FFXIV has a single high-utilization thread, and a secondary low utilization thread. The single high-utilization thread is what limits CPU performance in FFXIV. Hence why single-threaded performance is currently king in FFXIV.

As you can see from this image, on a dual-core, only a single-thread (which equals 50% CPU usage on a dual-core) from the FFXIV benchmark is doing much of anything. A secondary thread doing much of nothing, and the rest are completely idle. If FFXIV had proper multi-threading, the image below would be showing two or more of its threads with near-equal CPU utilization, yet it doesn't. CPU usage is very lop-sided with emphasis on a single thread.


I get the same results on my dual-core machine. You can't extrapolate how the program will behave with more cores, since _if_ they made a proper thread scheduler, they might not cause more high-utilization threads to run than cores that are available. They may even limit rendering threads to 1-#of cores and spare one core just for IO and whatnot. Considering how laughably horrible FFXI was (and still is) coded, I'm a bit doubtful they can do it well for XIV. On the other hand, I'd expect that they couldn't get away with a bad threading implementation on the PS3, so they may have learned a thing or two.

Also, why are people buying hardware at this point -- the game won't be released until the end of the year! Is there really nothing on the horizon, not even price drops?

Edited, Jun 30th 2010 1:04am by HeatSink
#448 Jun 29 2010 at 8:30 PM Rating: Decent
14 posts
SLI/Crossfires users
to run FFXIV benchmark at full screen, which will enable Crossfire/SLI, you will need a modified .dll, download the .dll from this website, http://bygzam.seesaa.net/article/153685727.html and put it in your "/ffxibenchmark/data" folder and rename you ffxibenchmark.exe "3DMark06", this will run the benchmark at fullscreen. to change to 1080P open the config.ini and change the resolution to 0, to change to 720P change it to 1.
i would like to see some benchmark's from someone running some 5970's in Crossfire, or some 480 fermi's in SLI.
____________________________
I dream of a better tomorrow... where chickens can cross roads and not have their motives questioned
#449 Jun 29 2010 at 9:37 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
47 posts
Should I be nervous that my laptop scored a 3045 on the benchmark?
#450 Jun 30 2010 at 5:13 AM Rating: Decent
24 posts
High 5230
Low 6937

First i want talk in a way objetive. I dont will act and talk like a fanboy. All i wish is show FF14 not is the MMRPG with the MARVELOUS graphic.... There a no reason... for the average and medium high PCS, cant run it smoothly.

I saw in this post. Computers can run games like CRYSIS, RE5, DIRT2, AION, GTA4. With a very high qualify. And... these Computers cant RUN smooth a benchmark looks only "AVERAGE".

You dont believe "What iam saying"?. Here a link for see Aion 3.0 trailer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WtzP-y-Ua8

Look the lights, the shadows, tne wheather effects, the movement from the characters. And compare it with our crappy benchmark.....

Here is a link for blade & soul, another game can destroy FF14 On graphics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODD790bO2VU

Again compare the qualify of characters, the qualify of textures, the qualify of lights and shadows, the movement of chars. "FF14 there rumors will be capped 30 crappy fps". And for run 30 fps you need waste 2000 euros? Nah


Iam a big fan from Final Fantasy XI and from All Final fantasy games in general. But i dont will lye myselft thinking this game will have the best graphics posible and i need spend 2000 euros on a new pc.

Iam sure nvidia and square enix did this... With the purpose everyone go and waste 1500 - 2000 euros on a new pc. SOO everyone can feed their bank acounts.

If you are planing play ff14. Go and buy a PS3 is the cheapest solution for now.

If you hate play on console. The max money you can waste from this "average graphic game" Is 700 - 800 euros. If you waste more than that you are blinding yourself thinking this game need more than that.

On the benchmark FF14. The game Dont have dynamic shadows, dont have dynamic lights, the weather effects looks ALMOST LIKE A PS2 FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. I cant believe i7 cpus and video cards 9800 gt, 4800ati, 260gtx. Cant get 6000 without problems.

Talking about game in "General". I know aion 3.0 and blade & soul are the classic grinding and lineal mmrpg games. Everyone know after play they from 1 month. You will finish very bored. "Nsoft always make the same game with another name"

FF14 will have a great qualify on all the elements talking gameplay and other things. But on graphics the game looks "Average".

This game dont deserve waste 1500 euros. This game will use in a way very stupid Pc hardwares. Like crysis did in the moment.

This Pc can destroy FF14 in all ways

Intel Core i5 750 BX80605I5750 Processor - 2.66GHz, LGA 1156, 8MB L3 Cache, Quad-Core, Lynnfield. This cpu cost $170 - $180 dolars

This CPU only waste 95 W. It can be Overclocked 3.2 Without problems.

This video card is $250 - $290 dolars

Diamond Radeon HD 5850 Video Card - 1GB GDDR5, PCI-Express 2.0, CrossFireX Ready, Dual DVI, Display Port, HDMI

The cpu need be OC 3.2 ghz. In this way the CPU dont bottle neck the Video card.

The ram and the mother board look it yourself. But 4 Gigas ram is enough. "The games and all other programs have a limit for ram use. Even if you have 200 millions of ram, the game dont will use it"

#451 Jun 30 2010 at 9:55 AM Rating: Decent
3 posts
Well I finally got the benchmark working after realizing my graphics drivers were out of date, also my first post on here :)

I kind of get the impression the benchmarking program isn't the most reliable indicator of whether your computer can run the game or not... I got a score of 800 which according to the benchmark is "unplayable" yet it ran quite smoothly on Low. The graphics are pretty sweet though :D

My Computer:

AMD Athlon II X4 620 Processor 2.59GHZ
2 GB RAM (but should be upgrading to 4 soon)
ATI Radeon HD 4600 graphics card
Windows 7 Home Premium (64 Bit)
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 25 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (25)