Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

Recommended specs, wtf?Follow

#1 Jul 01 2010 at 12:17 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
4,775 posts
Windows XP/Vista/7, Intel Core 2 Duo 2GHz or AMD Athlon X2 2GHz, 2GB of RAM, 15GB HDD space, NVIDIA GeForce 9600 512MB or ATI Radeon HD 2900 512MB and DirectX 9

I'm not an computer expert so can someone please explain how the PC Benchmark raped my computer yet the recommended specs seem so below par. So far, all my PC savvy friends tell me that the Benchmark was flawed. I realize these are the minimum specs but seriously, you gotta be kidding me. A 512MB, not even a 1GB card!
#2 Jul 01 2010 at 12:27 AM Rating: Decent
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
Windows XP/Vista/7, Intel Core 2 Duo 2GHz or AMD Athlon X2 2GHz, 2GB of RAM, 15GB HDD space, NVIDIA GeForce 9600 512MB or ATI Radeon HD 2900 512MB and DirectX 9

I'm not an computer expert so can someone please explain how the PC Benchmark raped my computer yet the recommended specs seem so below par. So far, all my PC savvy friends tell me that the Benchmark was flawed. I realize these are the minimum specs but seriously, you gotta be kidding me. A 512MB, not even a 1GB card!


I don't see why not. It's not difficult to have the game downsample all the textures to a lower resolution for video cards with 512MB.
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.


I thought of it first:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
#3 Jul 01 2010 at 12:28 AM Rating: Good
**
257 posts
I believe those are the minimum requirements as stated on the official website, not the recommended requirements. They are also the "Beta Test System Requirements" so I'm sure by the time the game releases, it'll be optimized to run better. I'd imagine they'll release a 2nd benchmark for when the official game launches to more accurately reflect how your system will run. They'll probably say recommended specs would be something like... 3gb ram, 2.6 dual core/2.0 quad core, 4850/260, etc.
____________________________
FFXI(retired 04/2006): Epedemicoptikz, Phoenix Server, 75 SAM/NIN/WAR

#4 Jul 01 2010 at 12:40 AM Rating: Decent
*
225 posts
Hey not really so good at computers either I know I meet all of those requirements but the only thing I'm not sure about is processors. I have pentium 4, will I still be able to run this? I have a ps3 but really don't want to wait
____________________________

WoW Rhyste BE Pally 80 Gul'dan

FFXI Rhyste 75WHM/75 BRD Retired
Opo-Opo Crown Obtained 6/22/07 @ 1:07 AM
E-PIN Obtained 11/21/07 @ 1:30 AM

2011:living in vanadiel once again.
FFXI Plastik Asura
Main: Rdm, Thf
#5 Jul 01 2010 at 2:26 AM Rating: Good
***
1,112 posts
My PC is a Q6600, 4gb RAM and an ATI 5770, so is a little above spec but not massively. Anyway, unfortunately I cant get the XIVBenchMark to work as it always blue screens my PC and I am far too lazy to fix it, but I can say it plays... games... at about 25-30 FPS. On average of course!

Not the best when it dips, but its not unplayable.
____________________________
To endanger the soul endangers all,
when the soul is endangered it must become a Warrior.
#6 Jul 01 2010 at 6:06 AM Rating: Decent
Does this mean I could run the game with my Nvidia 9500GT 1gb, without upgrading it or not?
#7 Jul 01 2010 at 6:47 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
174 posts
Back in the days, when a game had "recommended specs" on the box, I was always joking about us needing to double everything except for HDD space required so you could run the game correctly, but it was usually the right thing to do.


So, if we try to repeat the same process

-Quad core 2Ghz (Might even try to up it to 4GHz to respect the double ratio)
-4GB RAM
-One of the most recent Video Card, since it's hard to "double" on this now with each specific specs, unless you cross-fire those mentionned, but I doubt it would work that simple

Again, it's been ages since I kept myself up-to-date on the very latest released PC products, so this might have changed in some areas, but I know that 2-3 years ago, the doube-ratio still worked.

BTW, I managed to get a score of 2158 on low res with my PC, which is surprising because it's getting old and didn't cost me that much.

Here are my specs:
-Intel Core duo 2.33GHZ
-4GB DDR2
-ATI Radeon HD 3750 512MB
- Windows XP Pro 32bit

Edited, Jul 1st 2010 8:51am by goudaba
____________________________
As long as Guu is having fun, everything is Ok.

FFXI : Goudaba @Valefor
FFXIV : Goudaba Wynarv @Kashuan

#8 Jul 01 2010 at 6:56 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,707 posts
Pentium 4 is pretty old and below even the listed specs. Doing a quick google search I found this quick comparison:

they say that a 2.8Ghz P4 520 does their lame test in 5:05, the Core 2 Duo @ 2.13Ghz does the same test in 3:10, the P4 got 834 in 3DMark 06 while the Core 2 Duo got 1892, and for PCMark 05/CPU the P4 got 3522 while the Core 2 Duo got 5489

so doing the math on those numbers would say that the Core 2 Duo @ 2.13Ghz is 1.8 times faster then a P4 @ 2.8Ghz, and that's with the slowest Core 2 Duo, its not a Conroe


Keep in mind that the first Core 2 Duo is pretty **** old as well (released in 2006).

The bad thing is that when you upgrade from such an outdated system you need pretty much all new everything expect case and drives.

I'm wrestling with a Core 2 Duo system myself. I just ordered a 5770 but was hoping to delay the CPU, Mobo, and RAM until later in the year. I do have 4 GB RAM but might need to start overclocking some things to eek out enough FPS to enjoy this game for a few months until I can upgrade.
#9 Jul 01 2010 at 7:10 AM Rating: Decent
Guys these are the spec I have at the moment,


Motherboard = Gigabyte G31M-ES2L
Processor = Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9550 @ 2.83Ghz
RAM = 4GB
Graphics Card = nVidia GeForce 9500GT
Hardrive = 1.5TB SATA
OS = Windows 7 64 Bit

Im looking to upgrade my graphics card I know the 9500GT isnt too good, I was looking up this one,
http://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Components/Graphics+Cards/ATI+5700+Series/VTX+ATI+Radeon+HD+5770+1024MB+GDDR5+PCI-Express+Graphics+Card+?productId=38291

would this card be good for ffxiv?
#10 Jul 01 2010 at 7:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
2,448 posts
Pinkfyre wrote:

Im looking to upgrade my graphics card I know the 9500GT isnt too good, I was looking up this one,
http://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Components/Graphics+Cards/ATI+5700+Series/VTX+ATI+Radeon+HD+5770+1024MB+GDDR5+PCI-Express+Graphics+Card+?productId=38291

would this card be good for ffxiv?


The 5770 is a mid-range performance card and at it's current price it's probably the best option for 7/10 people looking to upgrade their PC for FFXIV.

As a fellow consumer with a little bit extra knowledge, be aware that rumors abound peg ATI 6000 series before the end of the year. This means anything 5xxx(current, newest line) will drop in price by then. If you can, wait as long as possible to upgrade your PC. But this fact has always been true for any piece of computer tech. Most things that go into a PC have new tech releases or newer optimized versions of older tech every 6 months. Which means price changes every 6 months(or less based on competition.)
____________________________
Currently Playing: FFXIV:ARR
Lacaan Vasiim:Cactuar
Free Company:Cactuar Corp<CCorp>
catwho wrote:
If you need a bard to get "good exp" in a merit party, you're the weakest link.
#11 Jul 01 2010 at 7:47 AM Rating: Decent
Thanks Fenrir, Just the info I needed, Imma buy it now otherwise later on at the end of the year I might not have the money handy, Thanks.
#12 Jul 01 2010 at 8:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Sage
****
5,587 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
Windows XP/Vista/7, Intel Core 2 Duo 2GHz or AMD Athlon X2 2GHz, 2GB of RAM, 15GB HDD space, NVIDIA GeForce 9600 512MB or ATI Radeon HD 2900 512MB and DirectX 9

I'm not an computer expert so can someone please explain how the PC Benchmark raped my computer yet the recommended specs seem so below par. So far, all my PC savvy friends tell me that the Benchmark was flawed. I realize these are the minimum specs but seriously, you gotta be kidding me. A 512MB, not even a 1GB card!
Those aren't the recommended specs. Those are the minimum specs in order to play the Beta. They may change once the finished game is released. This is according to their official site anyway.

Edited, Jul 1st 2010 9:05am by Harri
____________________________
Harri
80BLU/80BST/76RNG/75THF/75WHM/60SCH
100+3 Bonecraft
#13 Jul 01 2010 at 8:39 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
787 posts
If I read the comments in these forums correctly about the benchmarker, why in the world would they put out a benchmarker which doesn't take full advantage of video cards?

Edited, Jul 1st 2010 10:40am by rubina
#14 Jul 01 2010 at 8:40 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
*
239 posts
This was my main gaming rig when AoC came out 2 years ago. I upgraded from 2x 9600gt to 2x 9800gtx+ after a year. I then sold the rig to my work a year later when the main computer went down, and I bought a PS3. I also sold the other 9800gtx+ on craigslist, so the current rig only has 1 9800gtx+ with SLI disabled by default. Current specs.

Asus P5NE-SLI MOBO
Intel Core2 Quad - Q6700 2.66ghz (Stock Speeds)
Freezer Pro 7 Heatsink and fan
(1) XFX Nvidia 9800gtx+ (Latest Drivers)
Acer Monitor (1366 X 768 resolution)
Generic case
Corsair 1000HX PS - 1000W (Modular)
Western Digital SATA 500 GB Caviar HD
4GB PC6400 (800mhz) Patriot Ram - PDC22G6400ELK
Sony DVD Writer
Windows XP 32bit (Yes I know)
Standard KB and Mouse
Onboard LAN and Sound

I had all the standard crap running in background. Firewall, Anti-Virus, Job server, etc...


Scores on low setting = 3750 / Load Time = 58220 ms
Hope this helps?
____________________________
Palermo / Asura Server - [FFXI] (Elvaan) - PLD 60 [MAIN], WAR 47, SAM 50, MNK 57, THF 20


#15 Jul 01 2010 at 11:46 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
237 posts
Hey everyone due to the Ps3 now being released 6 months after the PC release, I was wondering if anyone could please tell if my computer would be able to handle this game. The help would be great since I am very computer illiterate. So here it goes for coping the system information on this.

Processor: AMD Turion 64 X2 mobile TL64, Speed: 2.2 GHz
Memory (RAM): 3.84 GB
Graphics: NVIDIA Geforce 8400M GS

I'm not to sure what eles there is to put lol other than I'm vista 64bit, and it says my hard drive is 298.09GB.

Also I apologize if this isn't enough information... I tried lol.

#16 Jul 02 2010 at 12:02 AM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Yeah, the specs they post are bare minimum, I'd imagine a system with the specs posted would probably be lucky to pull off a 1500 on the benchmark with nothing (antivirus included) running in the background.

People planning to buy based on the specs given need to remember that they are MINIMIM, and not reccommended (as the title would imply)

Recommended would probably be a quad core processor, a 47xx/57xx or higher/GeForce GTX 260 or higher, and 4 GB RAM.

Edited, Jul 2nd 2010 2:02am by Mikhalia
____________________________
[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.
#17 Jul 02 2010 at 12:08 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
237 posts
Awesome thank you so much for the quick replies guess I got some updating todo :)
#18 Jul 02 2010 at 12:10 AM Rating: Decent
"Minimum specs" means "it'll run, but you won't be happy with it." The first PC I played XI on was good for its time and I still had to leave weather effects turned off most of the time, crowded camps caused very noticable stutter, and large group content was marred by hardware limitations.

Imma get in trouble for saying this, but this stuff is getting old. For months it has been talked about here. MONTHS. And people are still acting like it was never brought up, this is all new news, and zomfgwtfbbq this is craaaaazy!!

It's not. It's common knowledge for games on PC. If you're buying a game barely able to meet minimum recommendations, you're going to notice. You're going to be running with visual settings set to minimum values or disabled altogether and you're still going to encounter situations where the overall experience is affected by a machine that can't handle everything the game throws at it. Just wrap your head around it. Accept it. It's not complicated, and it certainly doesn't warrant a new thread every other day to kvetch about it.
#19 Jul 02 2010 at 12:20 AM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
"Minimum specs" means "it'll run, but you won't be happy with it." The first PC I played XI on was good for its time and I still had to leave weather effects turned off most of the time, crowded camps caused very noticable stutter, and large group content was marred by hardware limitations.

Imma get in trouble for saying this, but this stuff is getting old. For months it has been talked about here. MONTHS. And people are still acting like it was never brought up, this is all new news, and zomfgwtfbbq this is craaaaazy!!

It's not. It's common knowledge for games on PC. If you're buying a game barely able to meet minimum recommendations, you're going to notice. You're going to be running with visual settings set to minimum values or disabled altogether and you're still going to encounter situations where the overall experience is affected by a machine that can't handle everything the game throws at it. Just wrap your head around it. Accept it. It's not complicated, and it certainly doesn't warrant a new thread every other day to kvetch about it.


Exactly. If you shoot for buying a system as close to the minimum requirements as possible, you're going to find yourself turning EVERYTHING down to the lowest setting (AA off, water reflections off, draw distance minimal, textures minimum, etc) and you WILL notice the difference, and you WILL be very angry at the money you paid giving you the minimum performance (which is exactly what you paid for).

Not trying to pee in anyone's cheerios, but "minimum requirements" means just that, in the same way that if you work 20 miles away, your "minimum requirements" to get to work would be a bicycle, or on foot. You won't like it, but that's the minimum.
____________________________
[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.
#20 Jul 02 2010 at 12:21 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
4,775 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:


It's not. It's common knowledge for games on PC. If you're buying a game barely able to meet minimum recommendations, you're going to notice. You're going to be running with visual settings set to minimum values or disabled altogether and you're still going to encounter situations where the overall experience is affected by a machine that can't handle everything the game throws at it. Just wrap your head around it. Accept it. It's not complicated, and it certainly doesn't warrant a new thread every other day to kvetch about it.


I think what you don't understand is that many of us don't have a lot of experience with PC games in general. I think for myself the greatest hurdle in accepting these minimum specs is the how demanding FFXIV is if you want maxed settings. I know lots of people that build/fix/customize pc's for a living and none of them agree with the Benchmark. It's like a sick joke or something. But seriously, if these are the legit minimum specs(not just for Beta), can you please estimate specs that would put us to around the middle of the bar. Forget the benchmark, just in general. Is Crossfire/SLI really required? Overclocking really necessary etc? I'm at the crossroads where I can't decide if I should upgrade my rig or just start over and I bet I'm not the only one who feels that way.

Edited, Jul 2nd 2010 1:23am by ShadowedgeFFXI
#21 Jul 02 2010 at 12:44 AM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:


It's not. It's common knowledge for games on PC. If you're buying a game barely able to meet minimum recommendations, you're going to notice. You're going to be running with visual settings set to minimum values or disabled altogether and you're still going to encounter situations where the overall experience is affected by a machine that can't handle everything the game throws at it. Just wrap your head around it. Accept it. It's not complicated, and it certainly doesn't warrant a new thread every other day to kvetch about it.


I think what you don't understand is that many of us don't have a lot of experience with PC games in general. I think for myself the greatest hurdle in accepting these minimum specs is the how demanding FFXIV is if you want maxed settings. I know lots of people that build/fix/customize pc's for a living and none of them agree with the Benchmark. It's like a sick joke or something. But seriously, if these are the legit minimum specs(not just for Beta), can you please estimate specs that would put us to around the middle of the bar. Forget the benchmark, just in general. Is Crossfire/SLI really required? Overclocking really necessary etc? I'm at the crossroads where I can't decide if I should upgrade my rig or just start over and I bet I'm not the only one who feels that way.

Edited, Jul 2nd 2010 1:23am by ShadowedgeFFXI


I'm just going to repost this for you:

Mikhalia wrote:
Mikhalia wrote:


4000 low, 2600 high. $600. Does not include HD, DVD-ROM, OS, Case. If you already own a computer and have the OS/HD/DVD/Case, then you can buy my system at that price. If you're trying to build one from scratch, HD is about $55-60, DVD-ROM is $20-30, OS is about $130 if you buy OEM, Case is $30-100 or more (an average one will run about $50-60ish; I paid $90 for mine).

Intel rigs (Core i5/i7) will set you back a little more, and the i7 will provide much higher performance than the Phenom II x4. The Ph II x6 will be better as well, but it is more expensive. Similarly, an nVidia GTX Fermi or a Radeon 58xx will also cost more and provide better performance.

Don't misunderstand: There is no such thing as an inexpensive, top of the line rig. You're either cutting down on performance to save money or you're spending money to get performance. I believe that for $550-850, you can make smart buying choices to get a GOOD system for a GOOD price, but always bear in mind that spending more means getting more and spending less means getting less.

If you can't build it yourself, expect to pay more money for the same thing. A $1500 retail system would cost around $900-1200 in parts to build the same or better. A $1000 retail system could probably be built (again, either comparable or better) for $750ish. And as mentioned, if you already have some basic parts (HD, optical drive, OS, case) to work with, then you need to upgrade your GPU/CPU/MB/PSU/RAM. The less you have to buy, the more you can spend on it.


I'm not saying this is the only solution, but if you're looking for an affordable solution that will get you middle of the road (I think 4000 low is middle of the road) then you're welcome to mimic my machine.

If you want to get 6000+ or even 8000 on the benchmark, you're looking at $1500-2500. An overall budget of "under $1000" can get you 4000, but if your budget is too low ($500-600 total for the entire system) then you probably won't benchmark over 2500-3000.

If you already have the extra stuff (OS, HD, case, OS) then the main thing you need is the guts (MB, CPU, GPU, RAM, PSU) and I've detailed mine, which should set you back about $600.

Hope that helps.

Edited, Jul 2nd 2010 2:44am by Mikhalia
____________________________
[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.
#22 Jul 02 2010 at 1:36 AM Rating: Decent
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:


It's not. It's common knowledge for games on PC. If you're buying a game barely able to meet minimum recommendations, you're going to notice. You're going to be running with visual settings set to minimum values or disabled altogether and you're still going to encounter situations where the overall experience is affected by a machine that can't handle everything the game throws at it. Just wrap your head around it. Accept it. It's not complicated, and it certainly doesn't warrant a new thread every other day to kvetch about it.


I think what you don't understand is that many of us don't have a lot of experience with PC games in general. I think for myself the greatest hurdle in accepting these minimum specs is the how demanding FFXIV is if you want maxed settings. I know lots of people that build/fix/customize pc's for a living and none of them agree with the Benchmark. It's like a sick joke or something. But seriously, if these are the legit minimum specs(not just for Beta), can you please estimate specs that would put us to around the middle of the bar. Forget the benchmark, just in general. Is Crossfire/SLI really required? Overclocking really necessary etc? I'm at the crossroads where I can't decide if I should upgrade my rig or just start over and I bet I'm not the only one who feels that way.


People need to stop with the denial. Your friends who do all this stuff with computers obviously aren't thinking what happens in terms of performance in crowded hub areas when your rig is called upon to render potentially dozens of character models in addition to vast, sprawling landscapes, spell effects, weather effects, etc. It's not hard to figure out and if you are having a hard time, you just have to read what has been written about it since the benchmark came out. SE told us a year ago it would be extremely demanding. Accept it.

Yes, if you want "middle of the bar" right now, you need a high end system. My rig runs "middle of the bar" on high res. People with top end systems (and I mean top of top end) are posting high res scores above 8000. My computer (excluding water cooling components) cost about $2500. The benchmark is what it is. Your best bet is to accept it at face value, decide specifically what acceptable performance is for you, and then decide whether or not you can afford it. All of this denial is just a waste of time.
#23 Jul 02 2010 at 2:26 AM Rating: Good
*
209 posts
Quote:
then decide whether or not you can afford it.
All I have to say to that is PS3 in March. I am willing to bet that there is going to be way more PS3 players then PC players.
#24 Jul 02 2010 at 3:21 AM Rating: Good
***
2,535 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
People need to stop with the denial. Your friends who do all this stuff with computers obviously aren't thinking what happens in terms of performance in crowded hub areas when your rig is called upon to render potentially dozens of character models in addition to vast, sprawling landscapes, spell effects, weather effects, etc. It's not hard to figure out and if you are having a hard time, you just have to read what has been written about it since the benchmark came out. SE told us a year ago it would be extremely demanding. Accept it.


I think people are misunderstanding the OP. It didn't seem to me that he was complaining (or at least was, initially) about the minimum spec being too high; it seemed more to me like he couldn't believe the minimum spec was that LOW for how poorly the benchmark runs on his system.



I on the other hand think the stated minimum requirement might actually be too high, but not in the sense that many other people seem to mean it. Yes, my minimum-spec CPU and below-minimum GPU (Radeon HD 4350) only get about 550 on the benchmark (which according to the guide they posted puts it in the "don't even try to play this game on that hunk of junk" category), but the frame rate in the benchmark was playable, and if it is possible in the release version to disable the more computationally- or fill-rate-expensive effects (like weather, depth-of-field, SE's almost trademark but visually unconvincing motion blur, and especially the shadows), it would run fairly well.

Wishful thinking maybe, but on the other hand, my PC also ran the APB beta pretty well, and my comp's below spec for that game too. (Except on a different front; my comp is below spec on CPU, not GPU, for that game.)



Though I do have to say, it looks like SE still has some things to learn on the PC optimization front - like they still haven't learned "lots of small files = bad; a handful of large files with internal virtual file systems = good"...
#25 Jul 02 2010 at 11:03 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
4,775 posts
BastokFL wrote:


I think people are misunderstanding the OP. It didn't seem to me that he was complaining (or at least was, initially) about the minimum spec being too high; it seemed more to me like he couldn't believe the minimum spec was that LOW for how poorly the benchmark runs on his system.


That's exactly what I was saying when I posted this. I assumed the minimum specs required to play FFXIV would surpass Aion by a large margin. That doesn't seem to be the case. Considering how the Benchmark killed most PC's, it makes one scratch their head how the math works out. I'm not an expert(yet) so I wasn't implying that something was wrong per se, only that I(the novice) was very shocked to see the low specs. I'd assume that using FFXI as a model, a low spec system will lag as bad as Dynamis/Besieged on my PS2. If that's what the "experts" are saying, that's fine. Right now a friend of mine who works on PC's for a living posted these specs on a rig he tested. I have the exact same CPU as the one listed in the test below. My problem is the graphics card. I was thinking a Nvidia 400 series GPU would rank me somewhere around 4500-5000. Is that realistic based on these specs below or should I expect higher? I plan on purchasing the 480 GPU if it would benchmark me near the 6000(720) score. Oh and yeah, I wasn't complaining about it Aurelius, I'm just ill-equipped to figure out what parts I need personally.


3701 on 1280x720(low)
2456 on 1920x1080

Motherboard: Foxconn 965X7AB
Processor___: Intel® Core™2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz
Memory_____: 8.00 GB DDR2 SDRAM 800 (PC2 6400)
Graphics ____: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 896MB 448-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16
Sound_______: Creative SB X-Fi Extreme Gamer ED
OS__________: Windows 7 Ultimate x64
#26 Jul 02 2010 at 11:07 AM Rating: Good
***
1,218 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
Windows XP/Vista/7, Intel Core 2 Duo 2GHz or AMD Athlon X2 2GHz, 2GB of RAM, 15GB HDD space, NVIDIA GeForce 9600 512MB or ATI Radeon HD 2900 512MB and DirectX 9

I'm not an computer expert so can someone please explain how the PC Benchmark raped my computer yet the recommended specs seem so below par. So far, all my PC savvy friends tell me that the Benchmark was flawed. I realize these are the minimum specs but seriously, you gotta be kidding me. A 512MB, not even a 1GB card!


I don't really see the contradiction. The benchmark program was meant to give you an idea of how well the game will run at medium or high settings, and the recommended (should really say "minimum") specs are for running the game at low resolution or detail.
#27 Jul 02 2010 at 11:16 AM Rating: Good
**
592 posts
Quote:
I don't really see the contradiction. The benchmark program was meant to give you an idea of how well the game will run at medium or high settings, and the recommended (should really say "minimum") specs are for running the game at low resolution or detail.


No, it wasn't. SE broke down score ranges on the benchmark and told us that 1500 was the bare minimum needed to play the game with all eye candy off and at low resolution. The system specs they posted should score between 1000-2000, a little lower than what they told us were the minimum requirements. Compare that to some people who are running technically superior rigs and only getting 2000.

However, they may still have many of the graphical effects dumbed down for the beta. They need people to be able to play the beta to get beta testing done, so the minimum specs with this build may be lower than what they plan for release.
____________________________
Inralkil-Seraph 75NIN/75SAM/68BST

Retired: Inra-Dark Crag 40/40 Witch Elf
Retired: Hollow-Thunderlord 70 Warlock S1/S3 T4 SL/SL
Retired: Horknee-Thunderlord 70 Druid T4/T5 Feral
#28 Jul 02 2010 at 11:26 AM Rating: Decent
*
134 posts
All the minimum specs list is saying is that if your hardware is at least this good you will be able to install and launch the game. It doesn't mean it will even be playable on the lowest possible settings.
#29 Jul 02 2010 at 11:45 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
190 posts
xXMalevolenceXx wrote:
All the minimum specs list is saying is that if your hardware is at least this good you will be able to install and launch the game. It doesn't mean it will even be playable on the lowest possible settings.


That can't be right, because if it is?

It has to be the most Dilbert-esque requirement ever.

Get at least these specs to launch the game?
____________________________
Pikko wrote:
I'm here with the Sticky Wand of Doom!!

Osanshouo wrote:
What makes an unbeatable game fun?
Your friends.


Crysania Majere 50WHM, 50SCH, 50SMN
Kraken Club - Ultros
#30 Jul 02 2010 at 12:56 PM Rating: Decent
DrymChaser wrote:
xXMalevolenceXx wrote:
All the minimum specs list is saying is that if your hardware is at least this good you will be able to install and launch the game. It doesn't mean it will even be playable on the lowest possible settings.


That can't be right, because if it is?

It has to be the most Dilbert-esque requirement ever.

Get at least these specs to launch the game?


It's exactly right. There's a difference between the game launching and running and actually being "playable". Who would want to play a game that drops to 1-2 fps in a crowded hub or any time there are more than a half dozen players and mobs on the screen at a time? For most people, "playable" means 20-30fps minimum. Some people will turn down resolution and graphics settings to up their frame rates and be content, but if you've already lowered everything as far as it can go and disabled everything that can be disabled and you're still sitting at low frames, you're not going to enjoy the experience.
#31 Jul 02 2010 at 1:14 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
190 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
DrymChaser wrote:
xXMalevolenceXx wrote:
All the minimum specs list is saying is that if your hardware is at least this good you will be able to install and launch the game. It doesn't mean it will even be playable on the lowest possible settings.


That can't be right, because if it is?

It has to be the most Dilbert-esque requirement ever.

Get at least these specs to launch the game?


It's exactly right. There's a difference between the game launching and running and actually being "playable". Who would want to play a game that drops to 1-2 fps in a crowded hub or any time there are more than a half dozen players and mobs on the screen at a time? For most people, "playable" means 20-30fps minimum. Some people will turn down resolution and graphics settings to up their frame rates and be content, but if you've already lowered everything as far as it can go and disabled everything that can be disabled and you're still sitting at low frames, you're not going to enjoy the experience.


So basically with these specs you get to buy a fancy box.

That may be correct, but it isn't 'right'

Minimum specs should get a player in the game. I mean a Kia may not be as enjoyable as the latest high performance Benz, but they both can drive on the highway.
____________________________
Pikko wrote:
I'm here with the Sticky Wand of Doom!!

Osanshouo wrote:
What makes an unbeatable game fun?
Your friends.


Crysania Majere 50WHM, 50SCH, 50SMN
Kraken Club - Ultros
#32 Jul 02 2010 at 1:23 PM Rating: Decent
DrymChaser wrote:
So basically with these specs you get to buy a fancy box.

That may be correct, but it isn't 'right'

Minimum specs should get a player in the game. I mean a Kia may not be as enjoyable as the latest high performance Benz, but they both can drive on the highway.


There's no "right" or "wrong" about it. It is what it is. People need to accept that playing cutting edge games on PC is an expensive hobby. Always has been. Always will be. There are more expensive hobbies, but the "cost" goes well beyond the $60 you pay for a retail box when a new game comes out.
#33 Jul 02 2010 at 2:29 PM Rating: Decent
*
134 posts
It tells you exactly what it is. It is the "minimum specifications" required to install and run the game. If you want to ensure you have decent playable frame rates, shoot for at least the recommended specs, but even that will be a little disappointing most likely.
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 24 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (24)