Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
This Forum is Read Only

Need advice on new PC (rig specs inside)Follow

#1 Jun 18 2010 at 3:04 PM Rating: Decent
43 posts
I just recently tried out the benchmark for FF14, and sadly, I didn't make the cut. I only scored around 989... so now I'm considering getting a new rig (with permission from my wife of course lol!) and I wanted to get some advice from some of the tech savvy people here.

Now I have heard some of the people here claim that I'd need a $2000 to $2500 rig in order to play this. If that is the case... chances are, I will not be playing this on PC, and might even consider not playing it on PS3 either. Sorry, I just never liked the PS3. What I WILL consider, is getting a relatively decent-good rig at around $1000 MAYBE a little higher, but not even close to $2000. I have ALWAYS done this in the past and I've never had any issues playing ANY MMO in the past. My rig can currently play Batman: arkham asylum like a charm, and that is a very graphic demanding game as it is, so is Dragon Age, and Assassins creed. All of which I've been able to play a rig that I bought last year at around $1200 (I can't remember the exact amount, it might've been $1400)

my system, for comparison sake is:
Windows Vista Home Premium SP1
Intel Core 2 Quad
processor of 2.33 GHZ
Nvidia GeForce GT120
8GB DDR2 of RAM
500GB hard drive

Yes, I am well aware that I was probably gonna have to replace my PC anyway due to the fact that I'm running Windows Vista, which is garbage anyway.

Yes, I am also a little peeved that after only about 1 and a half year, a rig that has MORE than met my expectations for ALL my games, not just standalone, but MMO's as well AND video/audio editing (independent film maker here and I require a lot of computing power for my projects) is gonna have to be replaced if I want to play this game.

But I digress, sorry for the little rant but I couldn't help myself.

I looked in the benchmarking pages and I looked at some of the specs people had, and what scores people had etc. etc. and the trend seems to be that an i7 with a quad core, at more than 2.6g GHZ processing speed, 8GB DDR RAM seem to do the job. In fact, one poster mentioned that a 6 Core system would probably do the job as well.

Well, I looked at the Best Buy website and I found this little system at $999.99 (which is more around what I'm looking for):

HP - Pavilion Elite Desktop / AMD Phenom™ II 6-Core Processor / 8GB Memory / 1TB Hard Drive
Model: HPE-235f PC | SKU: 9980786

I looked at the specifications, and I found some more stuff on it,
Processor speed is 2.6 GHZ (wonder if I'll be able to get a better processor for a little more?)
Ram IS DDR3
card is an ATI Radeon HD 5570


Link to Best Buy website:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/HP+-+Pavilion+Elite+Desktop+/+AMD+Phenom%26%23153%3B+II+6-Core+Processor+/+8GB+Memory+/+1TB+Hard+Drive/9980786.p?id=1218204947749&skuId=9980786

they have a similar one at Fry's electronics, except that the GFX card is a Ge Force, not an an ATI radeon:
www.frys.com/product/6139049

Here's another one slightly different with a 3.0 GHZ processor at $929.00 (again, more along the range I'm looking for anyway:
www.frys.com/product/6139009

I did see some of their gaming rigs and I MIGHT even consider something like this at $1,200.00 but not more than this:
www.frys.com/product/6058198?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG


The question is obvious... does anyone think any of these rigs would be capable of AT LEAST either meeting or exceeding the default (score of 2000-2500 on low) settings? Is there anyone here that might have this rig that might be able to weigh in with an answer? The reason is obvious, if this rig can do a very good job of running the game on low resolution (which BTW, don't look all THAT bad on the benchmark) then I won't really need to fork over $2000-$2500 for a rig.

RE-EDIT: I just re-read the scores again, and I guess I might've gotten ahead of myself... it seems that 2000-2500 might run the game ok with some slow down... which I would like to avoid however, it seems that 3000-4500 will run the game great on default settings. So I'm guessing this is more what I'm looking for. Do you guys think any of these rigs will be easily capable of running to the 3000-4500 score?

Edited, Jun 18th 2010 5:36pm by Yofune
#2 Jun 18 2010 at 3:21 PM Rating: Decent
*
209 posts
My advice would be wait until the game is released you might find a much better deal then what your going to buy now.
#3 Jun 18 2010 at 3:24 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
770 posts
TheBSTGuy wrote:
My advice would be wait until the game is released you might find a much better deal then what your going to buy now.


Specs may change as well. I agree that you may want to wait, no harm looking now though. Does seem like a decent PC though.
____________________________
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
#4 Jun 18 2010 at 3:27 PM Rating: Decent
43 posts
Yeah, I do plan on waiting at least a month before release, because then, the prices might drop, OR I might be able to find a better PC for the same price. But the question stand. Will any of those rigs (other than my own crappy Vista Rig) exceed the 2500 performance (on low resolution) and play the game well without any issues?
#5 Jun 18 2010 at 3:34 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
44 posts
You need to do some research on the graphics card. The system with the 5570 will barely be able to run this game.
Take a look at this hierarchy chart below and go for a system that has a graphics card within the top 3 rows where the gtx 260 and HD 4870 starts.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-card-geforce-radeon,2646-7.html
#6 Jun 18 2010 at 3:42 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
4,327 posts
There are numerous problems with the benchmark which I'm sure you've read about. I suggest trying to get into the beta client and seeing how it runs, but if you're running the games you mentioned in OP comfortably I don't see why FFXIV should run poorly, even if you have to use low settings.

And although nobody likes to have to use the 'low' settings on anything, if the game can only run on a system that powerful in low, then the low will probably look damned nice.

I suggest waiting a while, beta isn't even released yet and I'm not sure the marks you gain in the benchmark and the comparitive what-your-score-means are really working as intended. People with gaming PC's that can run the absolute best possible video games currently available today at the highest graphics seem to be getting "you can run this in medium".

Not to mention the benchmark is testing the game running at a steady 60FPS (running in 60fps the entire time for the max score, I'd assume). tbh I'm happy with 30fps, it gets incredibly hard to discern anything once you get past this and the game isn't exactly going to be super-fast-gameplay.

I've been watching 'zero punctuation' for about the past two hours so it's probably best to read everything here in yahtzee's voice, feel free to add in witty addendums when neccesary.
____________________________
drk = 80 sam = 76
pld = 79 thf= 80
nin = 80 drg = 75
mnk = 76 war = 52

Retired for now ^ ***** you Abyssea. FFXIV woo eh..
milich wrote:
buttfucking
#7 Jun 18 2010 at 3:44 PM Rating: Decent
43 posts
Quote:
You need to do some research on the graphics card. The system with the 5570 will barely be able to run this game.
Take a look at this hierarchy chart below and go for a system that has a graphics card within the top 3 rows where the gtx 260 and HD 4870 starts.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-card-geforce-radeon,2646-7.html


Well... this is the specs for the $1200.00 rig
Quote:

Specifications:
Processor
Model: Intel® Core™ i7 860
Speed: 2.8GHz
# of Cores: 4
Cache: 8MB L3
Bus Speed: 4.8 GT/s
Chipset: Intel® P55

Memory:
Size: 8GB
Type: DDR3
Speed: 1333MHz
Total Slots: 4
Open Slots: 0

Storage
Hard Drive: 1TB SATA
Optical Drive: Dual 22x DVD R/W with Lightscribe
Media Drive: 8 in 1: xD, MMC, SD, SDHC, Memory Stick, Memory Stick Pro, MMC+

Graphics
Type: PCI-Express x16 Video Card
GPU: GTX 275
Memory: 896MB
Ports: DVI


But I don't think that is what you're talking about.
#8 Jun 18 2010 at 3:46 PM Rating: Decent
43 posts
here are the specs for the $999.99 system at fry's

Quote:
SPECIFICATIONS

OPERATING SYSTEM • Genuine Windows® 7 Home Premium 64-bit - makes everyday tasks simple—and makes new things possible

PROCESSOR • Intel® Core™ i7-920 Processor

PROCESSOR SPEED • 2.66GHz CACHE (L2) • 1MB L2 + 8MB shared L3 cache with QPI Technology

CHIPSET • Intel® X58 Express Chipset

MEMORY • 9GB PC3-8500 DDR3 SDRAM memory (3x2048MB and 3x1024MB) (expandable to 24GB)

HARD DRIVE • 1 Terabyte Serial ATA hard drive

OPTICAL DRIVE(S) • SuperMulti DVD Burner with LightScribe Technology Write: 16x max DVD±R, 12x max DVD±R DL, 8x max DVD+RW, 6x max DVD-RW, 12x max DVD-RAM, 40x max CD-R, 32x max CD-RW Read: 16x max DVD-ROM, 40x max CD-ROM

VIDEO GRAPHICS • NVIDIA Geforce GTX 260 graphics card with 1.8 GB dedicated graphics memory, DVI capabilities and support for Microsoft® DirectX® 10


Do you think this system would do?
#9 Jun 18 2010 at 3:53 PM Rating: Good
Unless you're desperate to get something that will run XIV because your current rig is just not up to the task and you don't want to play on a PS3, don't waste the money on a budget rig even at launch. You're just going to be throwing good money after bad. Play on a PS3 to start if you have to, save up your clams and buy a good PC. It's more money up front but it's better value over time.
#10 Jun 18 2010 at 3:55 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
44 posts
You really shouldn't compare what you are able to play now with a game with a different engine. Alot of people where dumbfounded when they struggled with Battlefield Bad Company 2 even though they were able to play MW2 just fine. As for the benchmark, don't take any FPS it gives you as a good indication of what game play might be like. I know benchmarks are scaled most the time, for example if you are able to get 80 FPS in a small area, expect to get 40 in the actual game. This is why people say the benchmark ran smooth but they still received a low score. That may mean that they were able to get 30FPS but Square Enix believes that in an open environment it may only be 15. For example Crisis benchmark give me 50FPS but in the real game, at the same settings I only get 26-31.
#11 Jun 18 2010 at 3:57 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
44 posts
I think it will do just fine at 1280*720 resolution with a few toned down graphics. Dont jump on it just yet, wait for the beta.

Edited, Jun 18th 2010 6:48pm by malcolmtn
#12 Jun 18 2010 at 4:02 PM Rating: Default
43 posts
Quote:
Unless you're desperate to get something that will run XIV because your current rig is just not up to the task and you don't want to play on a PS3, don't waste the money on a budget rig even at launch. You're just going to be throwing good money after bad. Play on a PS3 to start if you have to, save up your clams and buy a good PC. It's more money up front but it's better value over time.


NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, I happen to have RL to take care of and I can't be as frivolous as I was when I was a carefree college student. Don't have a PS3, nor am I really all that interested in getting one in the first place. Again, I've been able to get decent running PC's in the past that have been more than capable to running the most recent games (again, Arkham Asylum, Assassins creed, dragon age, call of duty 2, on top of that, many MMO's that I've played etc. etc.) and I have never had to shell out anywhere NEAR the $2000-$2500 price mark.

That might be all well and good for those of you that have money to toss away, or are such a big gamer that all you care about is gaming rigs. But some of us have RL to deal with, and we can't afford as much. Not to mention, I'm not sure if many here are even aware of it, but we ARE STILL going through tough economic times... that's why I have to consider a "low end" computer.
#13 Jun 18 2010 at 4:04 PM Rating: Decent
43 posts
Quote:
I think it will do just fine at 1080*720 resolution with a few toned down graphics. Dont jump on it just yet, wait for the beta.


which rig are you talking about?
#14 Jun 18 2010 at 4:17 PM Rating: Decent
Yofune wrote:
Quote:
Unless you're desperate to get something that will run XIV because your current rig is just not up to the task and you don't want to play on a PS3, don't waste the money on a budget rig even at launch. You're just going to be throwing good money after bad. Play on a PS3 to start if you have to, save up your clams and buy a good PC. It's more money up front but it's better value over time.


NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, I happen to have RL to take care of and I can't be as frivolous as I was when I was a carefree college student. Don't have a PS3, nor am I really all that interested in getting one in the first place. Again, I've been able to get decent running PC's in the past that have been more than capable to running the most recent games (again, Arkham Asylum, Assassins creed, dragon age, call of duty 2, on top of that, many MMO's that I've played etc. etc.) and I have never had to shell out anywhere NEAR the $2000-$2500 price mark.

That might be all well and good for those of you that have money to toss away, or are such a big gamer that all you care about is gaming rigs. But some of us have RL to deal with, and we can't afford as much. Not to mention, I'm not sure if many here are even aware of it, but we ARE STILL going through tough economic times... that's why I have to consider a "low end" computer.


If you think it makes more sense to waste money on a budget rig just to play a game that's going to require you to tone all the settings way down just to get acceptable frame rates, by all means. To me, that's more wasteful than saving your nickels and dimes until you can afford quality.
#15 Jun 18 2010 at 4:24 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
44 posts
Yofune wrote:
Quote:
I think it will do just fine at 1280*720 resolution with a few toned down graphics. Dont jump on it just yet, wait for the beta.


which rig are you talking about?


The one with the i7 920 and GTX 260 1.8GB.


Edited, Jun 18th 2010 6:48pm by malcolmtn
#16Yofune, Posted: Jun 18 2010 at 4:26 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Or maybe I think that the low resolution graphics are actually MORE than acceptable, and maybe I don't need to waste so much money on a really expensive gaming system, only so it can be replaced again in a short amount of time? Maybe its because, again, I'm not so ludicrously demanding of my PC that I'm willing to throw away more money than what is actually needed? Yes, we may always WANT more, but there's a difference between a WANT, and a NEED.
#17 Jun 18 2010 at 4:33 PM Rating: Good
Yofune wrote:
Quote:
If you think it makes more sense to waste money on a budget rig just to play a game that's going to require you to tone all the settings way down just to get acceptable frame rates, by all means. To me, that's more wasteful than saving your nickels and dimes until you can afford quality.


Or maybe I think that the low resolution graphics are actually MORE than acceptable, and maybe I don't need to waste so much money on a really expensive gaming system, only so it can be replaced again in a short amount of time? Maybe its because, again, I'm not so ludicrously demanding of my PC that I'm willing to throw away more money than what is actually needed? Yes, we may always WANT more, but there's a difference between a WANT, and a NEED.

I know I NEED a new system, not just for this game, but actually for my other work as well... Now I may WANT a high end super computer all day long. But ultimately, if I can play the game at a decent pace and with good enough graphics... guess what? I don't NEED a $2500 rig.

As mentioned before, I have my real life to deal with, and I'm not about to put my bills or my marriage on hold just so I can buy a ludicrously expensive PC I... DON'T... NEED...!


My initial response in this thread was aimed at the general idea of a budget system for XIV. This is an XIV forum. I don't care about your work, your marriage, or your bills. If people are coming here asking about specs for a PC, I respond based on its relevance to XIV. And my response stands...buying a budget rig for XIV at this point would be a poor choice. Try not to get too worked up over it, ya?
#18 Jun 18 2010 at 4:49 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
23 posts
My favorite way to get a new computer is to build it myself. It's better value per monetary unit than paying a megastore for pre-builts that may or may not contain proprietary hardware. That's just my opinion of course. To be fair, I hear that stores like Best Buy sometimes have pretty good service plans.

If the idea of building one intimidates you, and you don't have a handy friend hanging around to help you like I did the first time I put together some components, then a good alternative is to find a small, reputable, local computer repair store. They often, although not always, have helpful knowledgeable people working for them, and will usually put together something custom for you for a reasonable price.

Like others before me have said, wait as long as possible before buying anything.

I respectfully disagree that it's a waste of money to purchase anything but top-end equipment. Computer components become dated quickly. If money is no object, then sure, buy that $1000 processor, why not? However, if you're on a budget, the trick is to find components that do what you need at a reasonable price.

I try to buy stuff that leaves a little wiggle-room for upgrades. Then in a year or two, if my hardware isn't doing what I need, I decide which part is the bottleneck and look around for an upgrade. That's just the way I do things. YMMV

I'd estimate that it's at least 4 months until retail release. If you have time, I suggest that you learn in general what each of the computer components do. Then even if you do decide to go with a pre-built, you'll have more tools with which to make a decision.
#19 Jun 18 2010 at 4:51 PM Rating: Default
*
209 posts
Quote:
My initial response in this thread was aimed at the general idea of a budget system for XIV. This is an XIV forum. I don't care about your work, your marriage, or your bills. If people are coming here asking about specs for a PC, I respond based on its relevance to XIV. And my response stands...buying a budget rig for XIV at this point would be a poor choice. Try not to get too worked up over it, ya?


I 100% agree with you, paying $1000 for a PC thats going to have worse graphics then a PS3. Just dosent make much sense.
#20 Jun 18 2010 at 5:13 PM Rating: Decent
Aarre wrote:
I respectfully disagree that it's a waste of money to purchase anything but top-end equipment. Computer components become dated quickly. If money is no object, then sure, buy that $1000 processor, why not? However, if you're on a budget, the trick is to find components that do what you need at a reasonable price.


I'm not talking about top-end equipment. I'm talking about buying 2 year old technology to run a game that demands cutting edge current technology just to be able to pull off the jaw dropping task of running full screen at stock settings. It's a bad time to be buying right now and it's not going to be a good time to buy for another year or so.
#21 Jun 18 2010 at 5:16 PM Rating: Decent
10 posts
My machine is scoring just under 4400 on High right now, and I built it around OCT '09, about 9 month ago. The cost was around $1250 or so (actually, I replaced the GTX 275 card a couple days ago with an ATI 5850. The GTX 275 cost the same as my new 5850 back then)

Here's my specs, and you can still buy what I have at a probably lower price now, yet still play pretty much any game nicely...including FFXIV, based on the benchmark scoring :)

Case: Cooler Master HAF
Psu: Corsair 850W
Board: Asus P7P55D Deluxe with OC remote
Cpu: i5 750 @ 3.65ghz @ 22 C
RAM: Corsair Dominator 6GB DDR3 1600
Videocard: ATI Radeon HD 5850
HD's: Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB


The Asus board is really cool because it has a ton of OC tweaking tools and it pretty much does everything for you. You don't have to boot to BIOS if you're uncomfortable with overclocking...the Asus software was designed with the non-technical gamer in mind. It even has a remote to change the overclocking on the fly...pretty nifty.
#22 Jun 18 2010 at 6:13 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
180 posts
I built my machine almost three years ago I think now for between $1000-$1500 and I scored 2963 at 720p. That's just a few points shy of "Fairly High Performance". so there's no need to spend over two grand for a machine now that can run this. If you're on a budget, reuse things from your current PC like the monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers, hard drive, and find a computer shop to build a custom box for you. You'll get to pick better components that way. ~$500 for a video card, ~$400-$500 for a processor and motherboard - that makes up the bulk of what you'd be spending for something decent. If your current machine is only a year and a half old, all those other reusable components should still be in good condition.

If you go with a budget components you'll only be disappointed in the end. If you're curious, I'm currently running an Intel Core2Duo(E6850) 3.0GHz, Nvidia 8800GTX, and 4GB of memory. I also have Vista (albeit 64-bit) so that may even be holding me back when compared to a score with the same components under Windows 7.
#23 Jun 18 2010 at 6:59 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
23 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:

I'm not talking about top-end equipment. I'm talking about buying 2 year old technology to run a game that demands cutting edge current technology just to be able to pull off the jaw dropping task of running full screen at stock settings. It's a bad time to be buying right now and it's not going to be a good time to buy for another year or so.


I see what you're saying now. I guess that my idea of "budget" is somewhat skewed. Most of the components in my system are fairly new, because until March, I was using hardware compatible with an 8 year old motherboard. When it died, I had 750 euros to spare (approximately 1000USD).

Stuff I bought:
i3-530
Asus P7P55-M
2x2G DDR3 (PC3 12800)
500GB SATA HD
Radeon HD 5770
Antec 650W PSU
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit OEM

Total, including shipping: 749e

That's more along the lines of what I meant about low-end systems. It scores ~3900 in the 720p benchmark. Admittedly, the benchmark might mean jacksquat when it comes time to actually play the game itself.

ETA: Double negatives are bad.

Edited, Jun 19th 2010 3:01am by Aarre
#24 Jun 19 2010 at 1:45 AM Rating: Default
*
230 posts
Im pretty sure this benchmark has flaws to it

Lots of people with high end computers are getting really low scores..

How about you wait until a different benchmark is released because this one seems like a joke :(
#25 Jun 19 2010 at 8:45 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
743 posts
Aarre wrote:
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:

I'm not talking about top-end equipment. I'm talking about buying 2 year old technology to run a game that demands cutting edge current technology just to be able to pull off the jaw dropping task of running full screen at stock settings. It's a bad time to be buying right now and it's not going to be a good time to buy for another year or so.


I see what you're saying now. I guess that my idea of "budget" is somewhat skewed. Most of the components in my system are fairly new, because until March, I was using hardware compatible with an 8 year old motherboard. When it died, I had 750 euros to spare (approximately 1000USD).

Stuff I bought:
i3-530
Asus P7P55-M
2x2G DDR3 (PC3 12800)
500GB SATA HD
Radeon HD 5770
Antec 650W PSU
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit OEM

Total, including shipping: 749e

That's more along the lines of what I meant about low-end systems. It scores ~3900 in the 720p benchmark. Admittedly, the benchmark might mean jacksquat when it comes time to actually play the game itself.

ETA: Double negatives are bad.

Edited, Jun 19th 2010 3:01am by Aarre


That's almost the same thing I'm running, except for the video card. My HD 5770 should be here next week ($130 before tax and after rebate). Are you overclocking anything?
____________________________
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)
#26 Jun 19 2010 at 10:09 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
97 posts
Currently i have a custom built computer that i did myself. I was a completely new build and the total cost for the tower came out to be about $2,300. Here are my specs
Processor: Intel Core i7 920
Ram: Corsair Dominator DDR3 1600 6gigs
Motherboard: EVGA X58 Classified 3-way SLI
Video Card: EVGA GTX260 Superclocked edition
Power Supply: ABS Tagan BZ 1300w
CPU Heatsink:Cooler Master V8
Hard Drive: Seagate 1TB
Case: Apevia X-Jupiter S Type
Operating System: Windows 7 64-bit Home Edition

My other components are:
Monitor: Samsung ToC 220 Rose-Black 22"
Mouse: Logitech MX 518
Keyboard: Logitech G15 (older version)
Sound: Home Stereo system
Cooling: Metal bladed house fan for when i decide to push my computer and run several high end games at once :P


My settings are not overclocked because I am not that advanced yet but on the low res benchmark setting i ran a 4226 score and the high res is in the 2300's. I will be playing FFXIV on launch to say the least and if anybody has and good Beginner overclocking guides email them to me at Chadkp@gmail.com

I posted this so that you can get some sort of comparison with a price to pay for a pc to run this game when it is released. If you want to make the decision to build your own pc which can be tedious, websites like www.newegg.com and www.tigerdirect.com can be your best friend. There are people with ridiculous rigs posting their scores and i saw one guy that had a 4300 rating on high res and a 8400 rating on low res, that isn't exactly necessary but like other people are saying...hey if you have the money why not? lol

Edited, Jun 19th 2010 12:23pm by Kratore
#27 Jun 19 2010 at 10:33 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
23 posts
AngusX wrote:
That's almost the same thing I'm running, except for the video card. My HD 5770 should be here next week ($130 before tax and after rebate). Are you overclocking anything?

The CPU is overclocked to 3.52Ghz.
The GPU is overclocked to 900Mhz.
The VRAM is overclocked to 1250Mhz.

I haven't actually tested what the highest stable frequencies are on these particular pieces of hardware, but from what I've read, there's plenty more room for OCing if necessary.
#28 Jun 19 2010 at 11:21 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
743 posts
Yofune wrote:
here are the specs for the $999.99 system at fry's

Quote:
SPECIFICATIONS

VIDEO GRAPHICS • NVIDIA Geforce GTX 260 graphics card with 1.8 GB dedicated graphics memory, DVI capabilities and support for Microsoft® DirectX® 10


Do you think this system would do?


This will probably get you a good score on low res mode. In another post, someone said they got a 2500 in high res with lower system specs.

Like others have stated; there will be a big difference between a vendor's $1000 system and a custom built $1000 system.
____________________________
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)
#29 Jun 19 2010 at 11:26 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
630 posts
One of my current systems, on the low benchmark has a score around 3200 (this was built 2 years ago for $1500). Here are the specs:

Intel Q6600 2.4Ghz overclocked to 2.7Ghz
6GB DDR2 RAM
Gigabyte DSL3R MoBo
Nvidia GeForce GTX 8800 Ultra
Win 7
500GB HD



I have a new system coming in that was around $1400 and it should reach around 5500 (at least) in the benchmark. You could easily build a $1000 system that gets you 4000+.

Intel Core i5 lynfield 2.66Ghz
4GB DDR3 RAM
GeForce GTX 465
Gigabyte GA-P55
Win 7
10k 150GB velociraptor


Also, my suggestion is go w/ EVGA for the graphics card, they have this great trade up system. If within a year they come out with a card that you really like, you can trade in your current card and pay the difference +shipping.



Edited, Jun 19th 2010 1:33pm by burtonsnow
#30 Jun 19 2010 at 12:31 PM Rating: Decent
*
230 posts
Becareful what u say that your new system will reach at least 5500 score. It probably won't..

This benchmark isn't customized correctly with SLI/crossfire nore quad core but maybe dual core?

Ran my comp specs:::

EVGA X58 le motherboard
EVGA SLI 480gtx overclocked 850/2256memory
6gigs DDR3 1603mhz
i7 920 overclocked 4.2ghz

Got a 4774 score for my higest one.
Don't frown if you get a bad score on this benchmark.. They need to release a better one xD
#31 Jun 19 2010 at 1:06 PM Rating: Decent
burtonsnow wrote:
I have a new system coming in that was around $1400 and it should reach around 5500 (at least) in the benchmark. You could easily build a $1000 system that gets you 4000+.

Intel Core i5 lynfield 2.66Ghz
4GB DDR3 RAM
GeForce GTX 465
Gigabyte GA-P55
Win 7
10k 150GB velociraptor


Also, my suggestion is go w/ EVGA for the graphics card, they have this great trade up system. If within a year they come out with a card that you really like, you can trade in your current card and pay the difference +shipping.


You won't be seeing 5500+ scores on that build without some heavy overclocking and/or optimizations to the benchmark from SE. I've seen i7 930s overclocked to 4ghz with GTX480s struggling to break 5000 on the benchmark (looking at one now with a score of 5100).
#32 Jun 19 2010 at 1:08 PM Rating: Decent
*
230 posts
or my score right above ! xD
#33 Jun 19 2010 at 1:09 PM Rating: Decent
geotrick wrote:
Becareful what u say that your new system will reach at least 5500 score. It probably won't..

This benchmark isn't customized correctly with SLI/crossfire nore quad core but maybe dual core?


Quad core support is working just fine. My i7 shows activity on four cores running the benchmark and overclocked my highest score on 720p (the CPU intensive side of the benchmark) was 7800.


Edited, Jun 19th 2010 12:09pm by Aurelius
#34 Jun 19 2010 at 2:01 PM Rating: Decent
*
230 posts
7800? wait you were able to see a different score for cpu side on the benchmark? @_@

how so?
#35 Jun 19 2010 at 2:11 PM Rating: Decent
geotrick wrote:
7800? wait you were able to see a different score for cpu side on the benchmark? @_@

how so?


The low res benchmark is affected more by CPU than GPU. It's the opposite for the high res where GPU will make or break your final result. I run with two monitors so I had my hardware monitoring utilities running on my secondary screen and the benchmark running on my main screen and it was clearly apparent that all four cores were being used. The highest low res score I've seen was just over 8000 and that was with an i7 980X processor and a Radeon 5850 card. Point is, quad/hex core processors are fully supported.
#36 Jun 19 2010 at 2:28 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
743 posts
geotrick wrote:
Don't frown if you get a bad score on this benchmark.. They need to release a better one xD


Agreed, I really hope a new benchmark is released shortly before FFXIV goes to retail.
____________________________
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)
#37 Jun 19 2010 at 5:10 PM Rating: Default
43 posts
Quote:
My initial response in this thread was aimed at the general idea of a budget system for XIV. This is an XIV forum. I don't care about your work, your marriage, or your bills. If people are coming here asking about specs for a PC, I respond based on its relevance to XIV. And my response stands...buying a budget rig for XIV at this point would be a poor choice. Try not to get too worked up over it, ya?


Then you obviously need to re-read my OP. I was sure that I had made it pretty clear that buying a $2000-$2500 was NOT and option. I gave my budget, and what score I was looking for, for a reason. So therefore... your 'advice' doesn't really help me at all does it? Sorry to disappoint that I'm not one of those lucky few who are made out of money and can afford to frivolously spend ridiculous amounts of money for a state of the art rig that will have to be replaced in 3-4 years anyway. I'm sure that you could care two bits whether my real life affects my budget or not, but that just shows how narrow your view is since you doesn't bother to take into consideration other factors that in fact ARE important to a consumer. I'm sure it must be great for yout to be able to toss away money in a very wasteful manner though.

Many of the other posters on the other hand, HAVE in fact provided better information and better help than what you've provided ("Just buy the best-est system dur!") they've managed to take into consideration what I CAN afford, as opposed to what I WANT to afford (I.E. don't have the money to toss away) have managed to look into what it is that I'm looking for my system to do, and have managed to do it without be-littling my reasoning in the manner you have.
#38 Jun 19 2010 at 5:32 PM Rating: Decent
Yofune wrote:
Quote:
My initial response in this thread was aimed at the general idea of a budget system for XIV. This is an XIV forum. I don't care about your work, your marriage, or your bills. If people are coming here asking about specs for a PC, I respond based on its relevance to XIV. And my response stands...buying a budget rig for XIV at this point would be a poor choice. Try not to get too worked up over it, ya?


Then you obviously need to re-read my OP. I was sure that I had made it pretty clear that buying a $2000-$2500 was NOT and option. I gave my budget, and what score I was looking for, for a reason. So therefore... your 'advice' doesn't really help me at all does it? Sorry to disappoint that I'm not one of those lucky few who are made out of money and can afford to frivolously spend ridiculous amounts of money for a state of the art rig that will have to be replaced in 3-4 years anyway. I'm sure that you could care two bits whether my real life affects my budget or not, but that just shows how narrow your view is since you doesn't bother to take into consideration other factors that in fact ARE important to a consumer. I'm sure it must be great for yout to be able to toss away money in a very wasteful manner though.

Many of the other posters on the other hand, HAVE in fact provided better information and better help than what you've provided ("Just buy the best-est system dur!") they've managed to take into consideration what I CAN afford, as opposed to what I WANT to afford (I.E. don't have the money to toss away) have managed to look into what it is that I'm looking for my system to do, and have managed to do it without be-littling my reasoning in the manner you have.


I really don't understand why all this angst directed at me. You asked for advice. I offered it in the context of these forums. You went all crazy with the "NOT GOING TO HAPPEN" stuff. You're talking budgets and such, I'm talking about what makes sense. You say a year and a half ago you bought a PC that cost you somewhere in the neighborhood of $1200-1400. And now you're looking at spending another $1000-1200 to replace it with an "adequate" system that will let you run the game full screen with all other settings on low or disabled. The highest 1080p (full screen) benchmark score I've seen so far with a GT 275 is 2665. That puts you at the low end of default settings at full screen. That's your $1200 rig in action right there.

And two years from now when you're sick and tired of lagging out in towns and large group events and GTX 4xx cards are down in price $150 or so and you decide to upgrade again, you'll be adding more to the bill. And let's not forget that the odds of your prebuilt system having a PSU that's going to support an upgrade to a higher end card are slim to none, so add on another $100-150 for an appropriate PSU. Oh, and now that you've got the GPU and the PSU...oops...the stock case your rig came in doesn't support the ventillation you need to keep your shiny new GPU from overheating, so throw on another $100-150 for a proper case. Now your $1200 rig that you bought to replace your $1200-1400 rig has suddenly become a $1700 rig and you've spent more on hardware than me because my rig is going to last me for a solid 5 years before I think about a rebuild.

If you don't want to spend that much, don't spend that much but stop being such a dink about it. You asked, I answered. If you weren't prepared for an answer you didn't want, you shouldn't have asked the question.

Edited, Jun 19th 2010 4:33pm by Aurelius
#39 Jun 19 2010 at 6:25 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
630 posts
I meant on low, I should have been specific. High i'm expecting low 4s.
#40 Jun 19 2010 at 6:33 PM Rating: Decent
burtonsnow wrote:
I meant on low, I should have been specific. High i'm expecting low 4s.


That sounds about right. With a little OC on the CPU you could probably push 6-6.5k on low fairly easily. When I did my last round of low res benchmarks, my GPU was only seeing 100% use about 10% of the time. Actually, he's the graph:

Screenshot


The early part of the benchmark scrolled off to left side of the graph...it shows about halfway through the below-decks segment up to the end. If you look about 1/3 of the way over from the left you can a see a very short plateau at max load, and then another 1/3 of the way over another very short plateau. The rest of the time, the GPU wasn't even working at 100%. High res is totally different...it's pinned at max load pretty much the whole time. Low res will be based on your processor, so the more you can squeeze out of it, the better your results will be. High res still works your CPU fairly hard, but GPU will be your bottleneck and a 465 (when the drivers are refined a bit more) should do fairly well for you (relative to other options).
#41 Jun 19 2010 at 6:53 PM Rating: Default
*
230 posts
im pretty sure that by the graphics of this game, there is no way you need to spend alot of money to play this on high settings.

This game is not ground breaking at all and people always stress over getting new equipment to run the game. That benchmark is dirt. Don't buy anything until you can actually play ff14 and test it yourself.
#42 Jun 19 2010 at 6:56 PM Rating: Decent
geotrick wrote:
im pretty sure that by the graphics of this game, there is no way you need to spend alot of money to play this on high settings.


You could say that based on the graphics of the game and I wouldn't agree with you, but it would be subjective disagreement. If you were to base your opinion on a combination of benchmark results + Tanaka's statements, there would be no foundation for your opinion. XIV isn't going to run at high settings without some serious hardware by today's standards.

Please stop trying to downplay the benchmark results. Some optimization and new drivers might bump scores up a bit here and there, but you have to keep in mind what we were told about the system requirements. It's a bit disheartening to see people finally being able to get a grasp on what is required only to have a small handful of people constantly deny reality. The benchmark, as it stands, is a reasonable indicator of what the game will require at release. That's all we need to know.
#43 Jun 19 2010 at 7:02 PM Rating: Decent
*
230 posts
im trying to get to the point that i would wait till the game is released. My benchmark only used one of my graphic cards and not both. The game didnt seem to have many options to look at. How do you know what type of computer you will need if your not even able to choose details for the benchmark? You kinda need more insight then 1920X1080 and 720p. What do those scores indicate? You can't run it with AA, does it have AA on? you can't run it on high settings? are those high settings? What were the settings like actually? One guy says the benchmark on 1080p and 720p test graphic and cpu? 720 was less stressful on gpu and more on cpu? @_@
#44 Jun 19 2010 at 7:17 PM Rating: Decent
geotrick wrote:
im trying to get to the point that i would wait till the game is released. My benchmark only used one of my graphic cards and not both. The game didnt seem to have many options to look at. How do you know what type of computer you will need if your not even able to choose details for the benchmark? You kinda need more insight then 1920X1080 and 720p. What do those scores indicate? You can't run it with AA, does it have AA on? you can't run it on high settings? are those high settings? What were the settings like actually? One guy says the benchmark on 1080p and 720p test graphic and cpu? 720 was less stressful on gpu and more on cpu? @_@


Consider this: do you REALLY think SE would produce and release a benchmark application if they didn't think it would provide a reasonably accurate assessment of where your hardware stands for running XIV?

It doesn't matter if the benchmark allows for testing with AA or any of the other shiny features because it doesn't need to. Scores above 2500-3000 represent your headroom to enable those extra features and preserve adequate framerates. You have no basis for your claims that the benchmark is lacking. You're looking at inadequate driver support for SLI/Crossfire setups and a healthy dose of denial over what we've been told as the basis for your claims and sadly, that's just not going to cut it. Again, I don't begrudge people for being disappointed with their PC's performance if it's not where they had hoped it would be, but I DO take issue with people making statements like yours that are not only false but misleading.
#45 Jun 19 2010 at 7:36 PM Rating: Default
*
230 posts
Well i did mention before when we were talking on a different post that the drivers need to be defined of course but how can you just say "shiny" features?? AA makes or breaks performance for every computer out there.. What are you talking about?

I forgot that this was a different post where i stated driver support but your making false accusations by stating "Shiny" features as though AA and other details are tiny itty bitty things that you don't need to worry about.........

I believe everyone in this world will confirm AA makes or breaks performance? along with other "shiny" little details
#46 Jun 19 2010 at 7:52 PM Rating: Decent
geotrick wrote:
Well i did mention before when we were talking on a different post that the drivers need to be defined of course but how can you just say "shiny" features?? AA makes or breaks performance for every computer out there.. What are you talking about?

I forgot that this was a different post where i stated driver support but your making false accusations by stating "Shiny" features as though AA and other details are tiny itty bitty things that you don't need to worry about.........

I believe everyone in this world will confirm AA makes or breaks performance? along with other "shiny" little details


You're not understanding what I'm saying. Please just re-read what I've written. I'm not interested in repeating myself anymore.
#47 Jun 19 2010 at 7:59 PM Rating: Default
*
230 posts
QUOTE: It doesn't matter if the benchmark allows for testing with AA or any of the other shiny features because it doesn't need to.

Yah? that part might need a repeat. You make it seem like this benchmark is flawless and it doesnt matter if AA or whatever else is on, your score wouldn't change much. Thats what your getting at?

What im saying is that AA would dramatically change scores and im curious what the settings are on?

You claim that SE is god and they wouldnt release a benchmark that might be faulty.

Oh wait accusation there :)
#48 Jun 19 2010 at 8:00 PM Rating: Decent
geotrick wrote:
QUOTE: It doesn't matter if the benchmark allows for testing with AA or any of the other shiny features because it doesn't need to.

Yah? that part might need a repeat. You make it seem like this benchmark is flawless and it doesnt matter if AA or whatever else is on, your score wouldn't change much. Thats what your getting at?


Nope, that's not what I'm getting at. Read it again...especially the part about headroom.

Quote:
You claim that SE is god and they wouldnt release a benchmark that might be faulty.


Please don't exaggerate what I've said. It doesn't help your argument and only makes you seem desperate to cling to a failed argument.
#49 Jun 19 2010 at 8:09 PM Rating: Default
*
230 posts
Quote: It doesn't matter if the benchmark allows for testing with AA or any of the other shiny features because it doesn't need to.

That is the highlight of any person with sense out there.

you make it seem like these features are nothing to worry about since you.. yourself stated "shiny features" and belittled them.

Have you played video games before? you know that AA decreases performance 50% easily on many computeres outthere.

Therefore, wouldnt haven't AA on/off change the scores by a decent ammount?

#50 Jun 19 2010 at 8:17 PM Rating: Default
*
230 posts
I love Final fantasy till death us part..

But quit being a fanboy and making it seem like SE couldn't make that mistake.

Well this was exciting, perhaps people that understand what benchmarks are for will see whats wrong with this benchmark?

Well have a happily ever fanboy life :)

See you in Eorzea
#51 Jun 19 2010 at 8:37 PM Rating: Good
geotrick wrote:
Quote: It doesn't matter if the benchmark allows for testing with AA or any of the other shiny features because it doesn't need to.

That is the highlight of any person with sense out there.

you make it seem like these features are nothing to worry about since you.. yourself stated "shiny features" and belittled them.

Have you played video games before? you know that AA decreases performance 50% easily on many computeres outthere.

Therefore, wouldnt haven't AA on/off change the scores by a decent ammount?



Okay, so I guess you're not understanding what headroom means. If you can run the benchmark at achieve a score between 2500-3000, SE says that you can run the game at default settings. I'd post the chart again but this is already taking up too much forum space and you can find it in the benchmark thread if you need to refer to it.

So if 2500-3000 means you can run at default settings for "standard" performance and your machine is capable of posting a score of say 4000, that means you can afford to enable additional features beyond the default and still have "standard" performance. If your rig will support a score of 5k, you can enable even more. And even more at 6k, 7k, and then at 8k, according to SE, you should be able to enable all features at high resolution and experience very good performance. That would include AA. So if you had a score of 8000 and enabling AA caused a 50% drop in performance, that would put you at ~4k...still above standard performance at default settings. Of course, AA doesn't cause a 50% drop. It's a hefty drop, but not 50%. I'm just running with the 50% as an example.

And that, in a nutshell, is headroom. And it's why it's not necessary for SE to release a benchmark with all of the various shiny settings (aka things that add to the visual quality but are not necessary) in order to give people an idea of how their rig will perform. That's why they gave us the scale to refer to. It shows where you need to be scoring for "standard" performance at default settings and what scores you need to enable extra features while preserving that level of performance.

Your inability to understand what I've said is not my problem. Don't try to make it my problem.
« Previous 1 2
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 23 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (23)