Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
This Forum is Read Only

What's a "good" benchmark score?Follow

#1 Jun 23 2010 at 10:15 PM Rating: Decent
*
214 posts
I've got the newish alienware m11x laptop and scored 1200 on low (OC the two processors from 1.3 to 1.7 >_<). The high resolution made the window much too big for small screen that the laptop has.

I know that it's still too early and impossible to know what kind of machines will be able to run the game, but what do you guys think? The video in the benchmark played perfectly fine and smooth. Does that mean that the game will also run smoothly?

I also do realize this will still only be speculation.
____________________________

#2 Jun 23 2010 at 10:17 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
http://www.finalfantasyxiv.com/media/benchmark/na/index.html

scroll down.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#3 Jun 23 2010 at 10:17 PM Rating: Good
*
198 posts
Quote:
[8000 and over] Extremely High Performance
Easily capable of running the game on the highest settings.

[5500–7999] Very High Performance
Easily capable of running the game. Should perform exceptionally well, even at higher resolutions.

[4500-5499] High Performance
Easily capable of running the game. Should perform well, even at higher resolutions.

[3000-4499] Fairly High Performance
Capable of running the game on default settings. Consider switching to a higher resolution depending on performance.

[2500-2999] Standard Performance
Capable of running the game on default settings.

[2000-2499] Slightly Low Performance
Capable of running the game, but may experience some slowdown. Adjust settings to improve performance.

[1500-1999] Low Performance
Capable of running the game, but will experience considerable slowdown. Adjusting settings is unlikely to improve performance.

[Under 1500] Insufficient Performance
Does not meet specifications for running the game.


So no you laptop wont be able to run it.
#4 Jun 23 2010 at 10:50 PM Rating: Good
**
557 posts
On this benchmark I scored a 3700 on Low and a 2300 on High with my laptop and I am pretty confident I will not have much trouble with the retail version of the game. I don't expect to run with maxed out settings or anything like that but I don't think I will have an issue running at my native resolution (1920x1080) with standard settings and minor slowdown under normal conditions.

Shoot I just ran the old FFXI Benchmark and scored a 8999 on low and a 7000 on high and the game runs great at 3840x2160.
____________________________
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

#5 Jun 24 2010 at 12:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Mistress of Gardening
Avatar
*****
14,661 posts
I need a video card in the worst way. I scored a 603, hahaha!
#6 Jun 24 2010 at 4:40 AM Rating: Decent
Pikko wrote:
I need a video card in the worst way. I scored a 603, hahaha!


I scored a 540 on low lol. Don't feel bad. :P
#7 Jun 24 2010 at 7:57 AM Rating: Decent
*
214 posts
I need better processors... I've got 1 gig of video memory, 4 gigs of ram, and two wimpy 1.3 GHz processors.

Even though SE claims that a score of under 1500 wont be able to run the game, I've got to try anyways!


Quote:
On this benchmark I scored a 3700 on Low and a 2300 on High with my laptop


What kind of laptop do you have?

Edited, Jun 24th 2010 9:58am by ShockTopMagic
____________________________

#8 Jun 24 2010 at 8:21 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
4,100 posts
I've got to be honest, both my wife's and I's PC's scored in the 1200-1500 range and both played through the benchmark pretty smoothly. I little laggy visually, primarily in the rain sequence on the boat where there was a lot of atmospheric effects...but otherwise, they ran about where I expected they would visually.

Score-wise, I personally think SE's scoring table is a bit absurd. I have friends with beefy rigs sporting dual 5850's or GTX 2XX series in SLI that are sitting in the 2,500-4,500 range. Yet their systems play through the benchmark at 60+ FPS...which, IMHO, if your system is pushing through the benchmark at 60+ FPS you shouldn't be rated as just barely clawing out of the "low performance" category. I'm all for high framerates, but anything at 30+ is absolutely playable. And really, I can't imagine building a game that only rates as performing well on machines that require in the range of $800-$1000 USD in upgrades/equipment to run at what's considered "default" settings. That's a bit of a stretch, IMO.

Both my PC's are running 9500 GT's, ancient for the most part...I've had no reason to upgrade them. I'll likely move to a 1GB GTS 250 or equivalent. Both systems have 2.8 Ghz AMD's and 2 GB's memory...which I'll probably update to 4 GB per machine with the video cards. But short of that, that's all the upgrading I would imagine necessary. Anything above that, and I'm just going to buy a second PS3 and be done with it.

Edited, Jun 24th 2010 10:22am by Ryneguy
____________________________
Common sense is not so common -Voltaire
Wyne Aeros - Hyperion Server
ARRFishing.com

#9 Jun 24 2010 at 8:42 AM Rating: Decent
Ryneguy wrote:
I've got to be honest, both my wife's and I's PC's scored in the 1200-1500 range and both played through the benchmark pretty smoothly. I little laggy visually, primarily in the rain sequence on the boat where there was a lot of atmospheric effects...but otherwise, they ran about where I expected they would visually.

Score-wise, I personally think SE's scoring table is a bit absurd. I have friends with beefy rigs sporting dual 5850's or GTX 2XX series in SLI that are sitting in the 2,500-4,500 range. Yet their systems play through the benchmark at 60+ FPS...which, IMHO, if your system is pushing through the benchmark at 60+ FPS you shouldn't be rated as just barely clawing out of the "low performance" category. I'm all for high framerates, but anything at 30+ is absolutely playable. And really, I can't imagine building a game that only rates as performing well on machines that require in the range of $800-$1000 USD in upgrades/equipment to run at what's considered "default" settings. That's a bit of a stretch, IMO.

Both my PC's are running 9500 GT's, ancient for the most part...I've had no reason to upgrade them. I'll likely move to a 1GB GTS 250 or equivalent. Both systems have 2.8 Ghz AMD's and 2 GB's memory...which I'll probably update to 4 GB per machine with the video cards. But short of that, that's all the upgrading I would imagine necessary. Anything above that, and I'm just going to buy a second PS3 and be done with it.


You have to remember that the benchmark omits certain key aspects that will have a dramatic impact on how the game will perform at release. Specifically, prior to the final scene approaching Limsa Lominsa, there is approximately jack in terms of distance objects for the benchmark to render. Below decks is...below decks. Above decks, the only thing in the distance is water. And even the scene approaching Limsa Lominsa is not what I would call a detail-rich distance setting. Also, as hectic as it seems above decks, there will be a lot more models displayed in cities and crowded zones. Second guessing the benchmark scores and trying to come up with some rationalization for why they're not accurate isn't helpful. What is helpful is accepting the benchmark scores unless/until they're directly proven to be inaccurate.

Edited, Jun 24th 2010 8:22am by Aurelius
#10 Jun 24 2010 at 8:53 AM Rating: Decent
*
214 posts
Quote:
. Second guessing the benchmark scores and trying to come up with some rationalization for why they're not accurate isn't helpful.


I do agree. I'm probably just going to wait for the open beta (if they still plan on doing this) and test my laptop with that before attempting to build a PC or buy a PS3.
____________________________

#11 Jun 24 2010 at 9:38 AM Rating: Decent
31 posts
Yea the scores do seem a bit low. I have a 2.8ghz Athalon 7850, 4gb of ram, and a Ati 4870 and it gives me a 2800 rating???
#12 Jun 24 2010 at 11:38 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
764 posts
Thats odd Magis because I'm running the same thing but with 8 gig of ram and scored 2600 instead, which is marked as slightly slow, yet I didn't see a spec of lag/slowdown/anything bad

Edited, Jun 24th 2010 1:38pm by Silverwyrm
____________________________


#13 Jun 24 2010 at 1:34 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
4,100 posts
Aurelius wrote:
You have to remember that the benchmark omits certain key aspects that will have a dramatic impact on how the game will perform at release. Specifically, prior to the final scene approaching Limsa Lominsa, there is approximately jack in terms of distance objects for the benchmark to render. Below decks is...below decks. Above decks, the only thing in the distance is water. And even the scene approaching Limsa Lominsa is not what I would call a detail-rich distance setting. Also, as hectic as it seems above decks, there will be a lot more models displayed in cities and crowded zones. Second guessing the benchmark scores and trying to come up with some rationalization for why they're not accurate isn't helpful. What is helpful is accepting the benchmark scores unless/until they're directly proven to be inaccurate.


I agree entirely with what you're proposing. The benchmark also doesn't take into account user adjusted settings, which is a near requirement with current-gen games being released on any platform or in any genre. I simply see a lot of people basing the need to upgrade on the benchmark itself, and feel it's a premature way of looking at it. I think putting your current system through playing the game at release will be the only 100% sure fire way to determine if your system can handle the game. Depending on the cost of upgrading, it might be more financially logical to purchase a PS3, and heck, a medium sized HDTV while you're at it. Smiley: lol

Based on what the benchmark is displaying, I feel SE's table is a little misleading. If the benchmark provided more control over what it was testing (ie. Distance Rendering, Anti-Aliasing, etc.), it might be a more accurate tool. My comment was more in regards to how people perceive the results in relation to their current rigs. But you bring a very good point, one that I disregarded in my original response.
____________________________
Common sense is not so common -Voltaire
Wyne Aeros - Hyperion Server
ARRFishing.com

#14 Jun 24 2010 at 1:51 PM Rating: Default
***
2,010 posts
You know, if an M11x is not considered good enough to run this game (according to that benchmark table) then SE needs to get a little more realistic.

I imagine you won't have any issues. They are already going to have a **** of a time overcoming the stigma of FFXI. They won't want to add to that by making the game unplayable on all but the most elite of machines.

Right?

yea..... I know.
#15 Jun 24 2010 at 2:03 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Ryneguy wrote:
Aurelius wrote:
You have to remember that the benchmark omits certain key aspects that will have a dramatic impact on how the game will perform at release. Specifically, prior to the final scene approaching Limsa Lominsa, there is approximately jack in terms of distance objects for the benchmark to render. Below decks is...below decks. Above decks, the only thing in the distance is water. And even the scene approaching Limsa Lominsa is not what I would call a detail-rich distance setting. Also, as hectic as it seems above decks, there will be a lot more models displayed in cities and crowded zones. Second guessing the benchmark scores and trying to come up with some rationalization for why they're not accurate isn't helpful. What is helpful is accepting the benchmark scores unless/until they're directly proven to be inaccurate.


I agree entirely with what you're proposing. The benchmark also doesn't take into account user adjusted settings, which is a near requirement with current-gen games being released on any platform or in any genre. I simply see a lot of people basing the need to upgrade on the benchmark itself, and feel it's a premature way of looking at it. I think putting your current system through playing the game at release will be the only 100% sure fire way to determine if your system can handle the game. Depending on the cost of upgrading, it might be more financially logical to purchase a PS3, and heck, a medium sized HDTV while you're at it. Smiley: lol

Based on what the benchmark is displaying, I feel SE's table is a little misleading. If the benchmark provided more control over what it was testing (ie. Distance Rendering, Anti-Aliasing, etc.), it might be a more accurate tool. My comment was more in regards to how people perceive the results in relation to their current rigs. But you bring a very good point, one that I disregarded in my original response.


I'm pretty sure he's saying the opposite of what you understood it as. That is to say, if you get a low benchmark score, you should assume you need to upgrade, not "try it anyway when the game comes out because it could be wrong".

You could still do that if you wanted, and I anticipate people will.

I anticipate that people who scored under 1.5K on the benchmark -will- buy the game, install it, it won't work (or will run abysmally), and will then come here and complain about how they have (what they think is) a great system that should run the game, the benchmark lied, and it's SE's fault the game isn't working and they can't return it.
____________________________
[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.
#16 Jun 24 2010 at 6:57 PM Rating: Default
*
214 posts
Quote:
I anticipate that people who scored under 1.5K on the benchmark -will- buy the game, install it, it won't work (or will run abysmally), and will then come here and complain about how they have (what they think is) a great system that should run the game, the benchmark lied, and it's SE's fault the game isn't working and they can't return it.


no, instead I will download the open beta, try it, probably wont be able to run it, spend an evenning or two just cursing at things, then suck it up and buy a better machine ready for the official launch.

Don't generalize plz
____________________________

#17 Jun 24 2010 at 8:07 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
ShockTopMagic wrote:
Quote:
I anticipate that people who scored under 1.5K on the benchmark -will- buy the game, install it, it won't work (or will run abysmally), and will then come here and complain about how they have (what they think is) a great system that should run the game, the benchmark lied, and it's SE's fault the game isn't working and they can't return it.


no, instead I will download the open beta, try it, probably wont be able to run it, spend an evenning or two just cursing at things, then suck it up and buy a better machine ready for the official launch.

Don't generalize plz


Okay, so you're an exception. That doesn't mean that people still won't do it.
____________________________
[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.
#18 Jun 24 2010 at 8:12 PM Rating: Good
*
63 posts
Yea there is no doubt that there will be a good number of people that do that and go complain on whatever forum they discuss FFXIV on. It is inevitable.
____________________________
When life gives you lemons......BAM!!!! Ninjas everywhere!! Thousands of them!!!
#19 Jun 24 2010 at 11:51 PM Rating: Decent
**
886 posts
I actually have a two year old laptop and it scored extremely bad. I think it was about a 240. So looks like either a PS3 or a new machine for me >.>
____________________________
Scud
Black Mage for life
75 Warrior 75 Dragoon
Henry Miller wrote:
Chaos is the score upon which reality is written.
#20 Jun 25 2010 at 3:16 AM Rating: Good
**
557 posts
ShockTopMagic wrote:
DukeVedamDren wrote:

On this benchmark I scored a 3700 on Low and a 2300 on High with my laptop



What kind of laptop do you have?


Sorry for the late reply but I have an ASUS G73JH-A2.

Importans specs:
Laptop: ASUS G73JH-A2
OS: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
CPU: Intel i7-Q720 1.6GHZ
GPU: ATI Mobility Radeon 5870M
Ram: 8GB DDR3
Hard Drive: 1TB 7200RPM
____________________________
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

#21 Jul 11 2010 at 7:10 PM Rating: Decent
19 posts
Operating System: Windows XP/Vista/7
Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo 2GHz or AMD Athlon X2 2GHz
Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce 9600 512MB or ATI Radeon HD 2900 512MB and DirectX 9
Memory: 2GB of RAM
Disk Space: 15GB

This is stated as the minimum requirement. At least from what I can find. A system, with these specs, can hardly even push 1500. So, either they are full of crap with their marketing. Or, they are honest with their benchmark. Or, both.

I'm guessing they are just like every other company that will list minimum specs so people will buy the game, only to find out they cannot run it.

Typical money talks, bs walks.
#22 Jul 11 2010 at 7:18 PM Rating: Decent
19 posts
Quote:
Sorry for the late reply but I have an ASUS G73JH-A2.

Importans specs:
Laptop: ASUS G73JH-A2
OS: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
CPU: Intel i7-Q720 1.6GHZ
GPU: ATI Mobility Radeon 5870M
Ram: 8GB DDR3
Hard Drive: 1TB 7200RPM
----------------------------
Laptop: ASUS G73JH-A2
Processor: Intel Core i7-Q720 @ 1.6~2.8
GPU: ATI Mobility Radeon HD5870
RAM: 8GB DDR3 @ 1066MHz
HDD: 1TB 7200RPM
OS: Windows 7 Home Premium


Core i-series is definitely a winner. I had a laptop with an i-3 that could process a file that took 50 minutes on a c2d in around 5 minutes.

Coupled with a good video card, not surprised you got such a score with that i-7. Next box will be i-7, nVidia. Nothing like 8 virtual processors...it's insane and God-like.

Edited, Jul 11th 2010 9:19pm by str0ntium
#23 Jul 12 2010 at 4:21 AM Rating: Good
***
1,146 posts
str0ntium wrote:
Core i-series is definitely a winner. I had a laptop with an i-3 that could process a file that took 50 minutes on a c2d in around 5 minutes.

Coupled with a good video card, not surprised you got such a score with that i-7. Next box will be i-7, nVidia. Nothing like 8 virtual processors...it's insane and God-like.


I can only agree. Intels newer models really offer massive performance but AMD's new Phenoms aren't bad either. At least for gaming.

On topic.
I'd believe the minimum specs more than the benchmark.
The game will recieve further performance optimizations untill release and graphic card manufacturers will improve their drivers.

Soooo...
A "good" benchmark score of 2000-3000 should let you play the game without problems but maybe with reduced settings or lower resolution.
With a score of 1000-2000 I'd say you will have problems with places of high player or npc population.
Of course that's all just my guess of how things will work out, but I'd say you'll be fine with a box of current standard hardware.

At least you can use the benchmark to check where you need to improve your system if you are getting low scores.

I'll take my system for example.
CPU: Core i7-860 @2,8GHz
GPU: Radeon 5850
RAM: 8GB DDR3
OS: Win7 64bit

When running the benchmark the CPU load is around 10%-40% on all cores but GPU is running at 97%-99% the whole time.
So my GPU is the limiting factor.
Tested with CPU-Z, GPU-Z, and CoreTemp.

That being said. I wouldn't focus too much on benchmark results as long as you meet the minimum requirements.

Would be nice if someone had a machine with the minimum specs and would run the benchmark on it to see how it performs. Then you could at least check if the 1500 score really is the minimum you got to have.
____________________________

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

#24 Jul 12 2010 at 5:00 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
2,536 posts
Can anyone with a hexacore CPU check to see if all 6 cores are utilized when running the benchmark? Anyone know if the actual game itself can utilize 6 cores?

The 6-core Phenoms are under-performing and I'd like to know if it's because only 4 cores are being used.
____________________________
FF11 Server: Caitsith
Kalyna (retired, 2008)
100 Goldsmith
75 Rng, Brd
Main/Acc
Exp/Hybrid
Str/Attk
Spam/Others
#25 Jul 12 2010 at 7:34 AM Rating: Good
**
317 posts
Highest I've managed was 3100 in XP. Windows 7 was 2600 even after my overclock. Will mess with it later, need to sleep. Have noticed Windows 7 doesn't spike as much during the benchmark as XP does. CPU was never over 15% and GPU after OC was running at about 90-95%. The benchmark is a beast though.

OS: Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit / Windows XP Pro
CPU: Intel i7-920 @ 2.67GHZ (OCd to 4.0)
GPU: Nvidia GTX 260 (OC 660 Core/1143 memory, 1GB)
Ram: 6GB ram
Hard Drive: Old, 300GB / XP has my 32GB Solid State
#26 Jul 12 2010 at 3:59 PM Rating: Good
Anterograde Amnesia
Avatar
*****
12,363 posts
Kinda bummed I didn't get higher, my system isn't even 2 years old. Still playable, and I'm sure it will look fine, but I'd need a new motherboard and processor at the very least to get higher. My motherboard was $300 when I bought it so a new one is out of the questions for now Smiley: motz

Intel Core 2 Quad, dual GTX 260's, 8gb DDR3 Ram.
____________________________
"Choosy MMO's choose Wint." - Louiscool
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist.
Keyser Soze - Ultros
Guide to Setting Up Mumble on a Raspberry Pi
#27 Jul 12 2010 at 5:01 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
*
78 posts
For people getting low scores on the benchamark, I ran the benchmark and got a 907. Now hypothetically if I could play the beta, the FPS would be just fine and everything (at least in a small-ish server population). So I wouldn't freak out about the scores just yet. That being said, I'm going to upgrade anyway when the time comes but it was a nice hypothetical surprise.

My computer specs:
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8GHz
nVidia 230GTM 512 vRAM
8 GB RAM
#28 Sep 09 2010 at 12:41 AM Rating: Decent
35 posts
I just ran the benchmark and scored 3100 on High and 3700 on Low

My spec is:
Windows 7 Ultimate
Intel Core Quad CPU Q9550 @ 2.83 GHz
Nvidia Geforce GTX 470
4 Gigs of DDR 2
500 Gig 7200 RPM Drive with 32 MEG cache

I play the beta with all specs running max and the only lag I experience is when I enter Cities and its 1-2 seconds

#29 Sep 09 2010 at 12:51 AM Rating: Decent
2 posts
You should try to get into open beta if you can, if your benchmark score is under 1.5k. So long as you meet the minimal requirements, the game will probably run in lowest settings, the only question is if it runs good enough for you. It will lag around a lot of people and take a long time to show everyone, but should run smoothly with no lag whatsoever when there's only a few(around 10) people around. I scored 700 on the benchmark, and that's how it runs for me.
#30 Sep 09 2010 at 2:23 AM Rating: Decent
*
111 posts
just let me know how to check if all 6 cores are being used and ill get the info for you,

im using x6 1090t and a 5870

scored 4495 on benchamrk and games running perfect on max settings
#31 Sep 09 2010 at 2:41 AM Rating: Decent
*
140 posts
Ignore the benchmark. You just need to tweak settings. Put everything high and work down from their. But keep Ambient Occlusion off(it does nothing really noticeable for the eye and it takes away 15-20 of your fps. Next year this time, I'll probable turn it on when graphic cards are quicker to handle this setting). Also a big one(I did this one last night and saw a huge boost) put the process priority for ffxiv bete.exe on high priority. To get it done:

-Have Task Manager up.
-Click the play button.
-If running full screen minimize it, to crash it.
-Then it should show up on the list.
-Right click on it.
-Go to Set Priority>
-Set to High.


Should see a huge boost in performance.





Edited, Sep 9th 2010 4:43am by Rustyshield
____________________________
Shaman/Asura (Retired)
75-SAM 40-WAR
37-DRG 31-BLU
30-PLD 18-NIN
37-DNC 15-THF
37-RNG 20-BST
10-WHT



#32 Sep 09 2010 at 3:14 AM Rating: Decent
This is an old thread, why was it bumped? Oh well, but since we're on the topic of the benchmark, was the improved benchmark released yet? I recall hearing after the release of open beta they were going to be adding a new version of the benchmark along with it since the old one is more or less, useless.
____________________________
FINAL FANTASY XIV Roleplayer

Sair Gammonari - Hyur Midlander Male - Conjurer (Somewhat retired.)
Mihana Zhralyia - Miqo'te Seeker of the Sun Female - Archer



#33 Sep 09 2010 at 6:59 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Rustyshield wrote:
Ignore the benchmark. You just need to tweak settings. Put everything high and work down from their. But keep Ambient Occlusion off(it does nothing really noticeable for the eye and it takes away 15-20 of your fps. Next year this time, I'll probable turn it on when graphic cards are quicker to handle this setting). Also a big one(I did this one last night and saw a huge boost) put the process priority for ffxiv bete.exe on high priority. To get it done:

-Have Task Manager up.
-Click the play button.
-If running full screen minimize it, to crash it.
-Then it should show up on the list.
-Right click on it.
-Go to Set Priority>
-Set to High.


Should see a huge boost in performance
Will automatically reset to low performance, plus, the performance difference is non-existent.

4000+ on the benchmark is a good score, but realistically, you want 30 fps for a bare minimum everywhere, including at crystals and in cities. I don't understand why but for some reason people are more than happy to call 15 fps smooth and playable. Too excited to play FFXIV that they'll dismiss every failure it throws their way?
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#34 Sep 09 2010 at 7:22 AM Rating: Decent
**
423 posts
Quote:
Ignore the benchmark.


agreed.

My computer at home score... 1,400 i think. Runs the game just fine. Granted it's on "low" and i don't get the greatest fps, but guess what i can play and i don't have to spend a small fortune on a new computer.

I played during Alpha and it was a little slower but nothing too bad. Turn off shadows(or low), turn off windows aero and there's a few other minor tweaks. I usually never drop below 5 ( which yes i agree is bad) but i am usually 15-20.

The guide they give... so misleading. Unless of course their mindset is "they must play the game with good settings or they must not play"... which oblivion tried to do before it released their 'ultra-low' graphics setting.
#35 Sep 09 2010 at 8:00 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
575 posts
bsphil wrote:

4000+ on the benchmark is a good score, but realistically, you want 30 fps for a bare minimum everywhere, including at crystals and in cities. I don't understand why but for some reason people are more than happy to call 15 fps smooth and playable.


Ok, not all of us have a couple extra thousand dollars to spend on the game to get it to run better. Are you implying we shoud just do whatever it takes (here just let me mortgage my house) to be able to run the game smoothly?
#36 Sep 09 2010 at 8:10 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Vawn43 wrote:
bsphil wrote:

4000+ on the benchmark is a good score, but realistically, you want 30 fps for a bare minimum everywhere, including at crystals and in cities. I don't understand why but for some reason people are more than happy to call 15 fps smooth and playable.


Ok, not all of us have a couple extra thousand dollars to spend on the game to get it to run better. Are you implying we shoud just do whatever it takes (here just let me mortgage my house) to be able to run the game smoothly?
Quite the opposite, I think you should vote against FFXIV with your money and not play it at all until the graphics are optimized to allow the level of graphical quality presented in FFXIV to be run smoothly by lesser components.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#37 Sep 09 2010 at 8:57 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
575 posts
Oh, ok, I just misunderstood what you were saying then. Yeah, I've been getting frustrated that the game is so taxing on my newly built PC. A game with stunning graphics in screenshots with bad FPS is not good graphics. I don't know how much is due to server lag, but right now I think FFXI looks better on my machine than FFXIV, because at least XI runs smoothly and isn't moving around like a choppy cheaply made cartoon.

FPS is probablly the most important stat for me for a game to look good. I don't care how much graphical detail a game has, if it is running at 10 FPS it looks like crap to me.
#38 Sep 09 2010 at 9:16 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
*
196 posts
My benchmark didn't launch at all.. I WIN..
____________________________
WoW: we want to give players a more fun time with less grinding and generic quests
GW2: we want the player to feel like they are leveling while doing something fun
Final Fantasy XIV: we want less fun and more grinding
#39 Sep 09 2010 at 8:39 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Vawn43 wrote:
Oh, ok, I just misunderstood what you were saying then. Yeah, I've been getting frustrated that the game is so taxing on my newly built PC. A game with stunning graphics in screenshots with bad FPS is not good graphics. I don't know how much is due to server lag, but right now I think FFXI looks better on my machine than FFXIV, because at least XI runs smoothly and isn't moving around like a choppy cheaply made cartoon.

FPS is probablly the most important stat for me for a game to look good. I don't care how much graphical detail a game has, if it is running at 10 FPS it looks like crap to me.
Framerate is completely unrelated to server lag. You can have maxed out fps but still be timing out, just as you can have an awful framerate with no lag at all.



Edited, Sep 9th 2010 9:39pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#40 Sep 22 2010 at 8:49 AM Rating: Good
1 post
Why do people reference a half million dollar house mortgage with a $200 video card? (which allows you to play every single game on the planet %100 completely maxed, an investment ever 2-3 years)

my 5850 over clocked hits 4,800/4,900.... stock is around 4,100


Thats on a 3 year old sk 775 system (xeon 3350) and my 5850 I got october 2009!!


460s are less than $180.. or will be soon?? So you would rather get 15 fps and spend $70 on a graphics card than get 70fps + and spend twice as much?

people dont seem to understand $50-70 video cards really.. honestly.. aren't for gaming. So its no surprise if you bought a low end card, 5 years ago, you get a bad score... (although people here seem to be in some serious denial when it comes to there embarrassingly slow pcs).

/troll





Edited, Sep 22nd 2010 1:49pm by homfriduslul
#41 Oct 02 2010 at 2:12 PM Rating: Excellent
2 posts
i've looked through the benchmark it's pretty much 80% graphics card based so anyone with a 2.5GHz+ dual core should be fine, GPU majority of the time sat above 90%.

Processor (CPU)never went past 50% load on 2 cores

it does not take advantage of hyperthreading but you never know they could always patch it to in the future (game not the benchmark)

9600gt graphics card will not bring you any enjoyment out of playing if the game is as demanding as this bench, id personally say 9800gt or higher and do not even attempt 1920 x 1080 resolution in the real thing because it will be outta your league, stick to 1280 x 720.

scored 6300 minimum in low mode

scored 3700 minimum in high mode

Current System:

i7 930 OC 4.11GHz

HD5850 Crossfire

1600Mhz Ram 6GB

Corsair HX850W

My advice if you don't want to put alot of money into a PC then get a PS3 but if your a Pc lover like myself then go for it

hope this helped guys

#42 Mar 05 2012 at 11:57 PM Rating: Good
1 post
I know im a bit late on this thread but i just come across if after about a month of overclocking i mannaged to hit 8084 on low ( not tryed high id expect about 6500 ) for anyone interested in the system spec its below :)


i7 930 @ 4.5ghz cooled by Noctua Nh-d14
Gtx 580 Ultra charged 3Gb version @ 930/1860/2150 Barley hits 40% usage on this benchmark
16gb Corsair vengence ram@1600mhz (stock)
Haf x tower
600W ModXtreem Psu


Edited, Mar 6th 2012 12:59am by harry5522
Necro Warning: This post occurred more than thirty days after the prior, and may be a necropost.
#43 Mar 06 2012 at 10:33 AM Rating: Default
****
4,144 posts
harry5522 wrote:
I know im a bit late on this thread but i just come across if after about a month of overclocking i mannaged to hit 8084 on low ( not tryed high id expect about 6500 )


What is that estimate based on? If you do manage to hit 6500 on high I'd love to see it. Please come back to post a screenshot of that :D
____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#44 Mar 06 2012 at 11:02 AM Rating: Default
ShockTopMagic wrote:
I've got the newish alienware m11x laptop and scored 1200 on low (OC the two processors from 1.3 to 1.7 >_<). The high resolution made the window much too big for small screen that the laptop has.

I know that it's still too early and impossible to know what kind of machines will be able to run the game, but what do you guys think? The video in the benchmark played perfectly fine and smooth. Does that mean that the game will also run smoothly?

I also do realize this will still only be speculation.


Dear OP after 2.0 you will be fine, though with such a tiny screen you may need to squint.
____________________________
Can you see what it is yet?
#45 Oct 29 2012 at 10:59 PM Rating: Default
1 post
i7 3570K @4.2GHz
8GB Ripjaws DDR3 1600 RAM
Asus 660Ti Superclock edition
GPU @ 1175 MHz
GPU RAM @ 6750 MHz

Benchmark Score: 6393

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r269/ps1001/FFXIVBenchmarkBenchmark.png

Edited, Oct 30th 2012 1:00am by throzen0303

Edited, Oct 30th 2012 1:01am by throzen0303
Necro Warning: This post occurred more than thirty days after the prior, and may be a necropost.
#46 Oct 30 2012 at 9:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
I believe that once 2.0 is released to market, they'll have a re-done benchmark that uses the new engine.

Any numbers tested today are going to be irrelevant in 2 weeks.

Interestingly, my performance improved drastically when I replaced the power supply on my system, even though my benchmark score didn't change much. I think I might have had some power fluctuations to the video card on the older supply, because it was the cheap one that came with the case. The new one, a monster 800W beast, was necessary since I got two new 1080p monitors and the old one was already struggling to feed the video card with the smaller monitors.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#47 Oct 31 2012 at 7:00 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
117 posts
I saw this post come up again and realized I never tried the benchmark on my laptop. I decided to install and run it last night just out of curiosity and it did better than I thought it would. I have played on the laptop and the game ran ok on standard settings with minor glitching in Ul'dah. Here are my specs and score:

Asus G73
i7 Q 740 @ 1.73
8GB RAM
GTX 460M
Crucial 256GB SSD

[IMG]http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/Niessaa/low.png[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/Niessaa/High.png[/IMG]

Edit: Tried getting the screen shot image to load....not sure what I did wrong. Any who, the link should display the screen shot.

Edited, Oct 31st 2012 9:03am by jhariya
#48 Oct 31 2012 at 8:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Anterograde Amnesia
Avatar
*****
12,363 posts
You would have to upload the images to your Zam account and use our image system to get images directly in the posts. Not sure if that's premium only or not, if you hover on your user name in the upper right side of the screen, is there an Images option there?
____________________________
"Choosy MMO's choose Wint." - Louiscool
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist.
Keyser Soze - Ultros
Guide to Setting Up Mumble on a Raspberry Pi
#49 Oct 31 2012 at 8:26 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
117 posts
Nope. It must be for premium members only.
#50 Nov 10 2012 at 4:26 PM Rating: Good
9 posts
My score was 3800 and i run two FFXIV on my laptop with no problems

I have a brand new Alienware M14xR2
#51 Nov 20 2012 at 6:07 PM Rating: Default
Sage
Avatar
*
131 posts
harry5522 wrote:
I know im a bit late on this thread but i just come across if after about a month of overclocking i mannaged to hit 8084 on low ( not tryed high id expect about 6500 ) for anyone interested in the system spec its below :)


i7 930 @ 4.5ghz cooled by Noctua Nh-d14
Gtx 580 Ultra charged 3Gb version @ 930/1860/2150 Barley hits 40% usage on this benchmark
16gb Corsair vengence ram@1600mhz (stock)
Haf x tower
600W ModXtreem Psu


Edited, Mar 6th 2012 12:59am by harry5522


nice score! just upgraded my computer to something similar to yours, can confirm that I got 6400 on high settings ^-^
« Previous 1 2
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 15 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (15)