Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
This Forum is Read Only

The Definitive "Why did my system bomb the benchmark?" PostFollow

#1 Jul 02 2010 at 11:48 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Pre-post EDIT: by popular demand of my sanity, I want to put the tl;dr at the top of this post for easy access.

Video: If it doesn't say "GeForce GTX 4XX" or "Radeon 57XX/58XX/59XX", it will not provide you with a decent performance.
CPU: If it's not at least a quad core processor it will not provide you with a decent performance.
Laptops: If you are looking at a laptop and it is priced under $1000, it will almost certainly not run FFXIV at all. Consult the above two points.
Minimum Requirements: If your system barely meets these, expect to benchmark at 1000-1500. That means lots of lag, 5 FPS, minimum settings, and don't even try to set foot in a crowded area or your system will explode.
Setting a reasonable budget: Quoting someone else -
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
If you're going to go new, might as well push a bit and get something you're going to be happy with. Personally, if I just dropped $500-700 on a box of hardware to run a game and I still had to lower/disable all settings just to get 10fps in a crowded zone, I'd be *******************

[b]HAVING SAID THAT...


There are a lot of posts by a lot of people in a lot of threads by people with one of two things on their minds (or both). The main two questions that a lot of people are asking, and I've been trying to address individually as best I can, are:

1) My system bombed the benchmark. Here's a bunch of technical stuff I don't understand, someone tell me what I need to fix.

...and

2) I want to buy a new system or new parts. Will this system (copypasta lots of technical stuff) or these parts (link to other site) work?

I'm going to try to address both of these in such a way that you should be able to answer the question. Myself and other people are still usually willing to help out if you need personally tailored questions answered about your specific situation, but your question has probably been answered (and maybe other questions you haven't thought of) in one of the many threads here.

"I want to replace some parts!"

Lamnethx has started this thread with basic system building tips, and there are a lot of individual people asking about their systems, with answers within.

"I'd rather just buy one off the shelf!"

This thread started as someone trying to buy a retail system and has some examples of what to look for and what not to look for if you're adverse to "getting your hands dirty" so to speak (You don't actually get your hands dirty).

In this post, I have sorted out a bunch of benchmark scores and tied them to the CPU and GPU they were ran on. I have used this to come up with some base passmark numbers.



So let's get started. Either you want to know what you need to replace, or you want to know if a part you're looking at is "good enough". I'm going to be talking in terms of two scores, a FFXIV benchmark score (on a scale of 1500-8000; 1500 being nigh unplayable and 8000 being max) and passmark scores (a general system benchmarking tool).

If you want, you can even download passmark and run it on your own system. It's a free trial for 30 days but you should only ever need to run at once. You don't even really -have- to.

"Is my CPU good enough to run the game?"

These are average CPU scores. Locate your CPU on the list, if you can. If your CPU is not on this list, your CPU will probably need an upgrade. Run passmark on your system to confirm.

[quote=TraceKoldKut]Found this with ease for those interested in having a general sense of how your processor stacks up. It's not recommanded to scale up for the performance/cost ratio unless you're moving up at least 3 tiers.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-gaming-cpu,2599-7.html


All scores listed below assume low res (720P)

EDIT: Note that the following refers only to your CPU score, not your overall system score.

With a passmark rating under 1500, your FFXIV benchmark will likely be under 1500. (unplayable)
With a passmark rating of under 2500, your FFXIV benchmark score would probably be 2000 or lower, depending on your GPU. You might be able to manage at minimum settings. No promises.
With a passmark rating of 2500-3000, your FFXIV benchmark score will likely be around 2000-3000, depending on your GPU. You should be able to play at low settings, possibly low-medium.
With a passmark score of 3000-4000, your FFXIV benchmark score should be around 3000-4500, depending on your GPU. You should be able to play the game at medium settings.
With a passmark score of 4000-5000, your FFXIV benchmark score should be around 4500-6500, depending on your GPU. You should be able to play the game at high settings.
With a passmark score of 5000+, your FFXIV benchmark score should be at 6500+ easily, depending on your GPU. You should be able to play the game on max settings.

If you are not sure why you failed the benchmark or if you are shopping for a new computer, consult the above list regarding your processor.

"Is my Video Card good enough to run the game?"

Next, Video Card, or GPU:

I'm going to lay it on the line: While you MAY have some luck getting the game to run on low with a weaker/cheaper card, I would not recommend even trying. Consult this list for video cards. If your video card is under 1100 (or not listed), the game almost certainly will not work. A card rated 1100-1400 should be able to manage the game on minimum or even low settings. POSSIBLY medium if it's closer to 1400, but no promises. I can not in good conscience suggest any card that isn't rated AT LEAST 1500+ on that list. Cards rated 1500-1800 on that list will likely cost you between $140 and $200 and should manage the game on medium settings (lower or higher depending on your CPU). Cards rated 1800-2000 will likely start at $200 and should (coupled with an equivalent CPU) produce medium/high results. At scores of 2000+, you're easily looking at $300-500. These cards, along with a Core i7 should run the game on max, or at least very high.

If you are not sure why you failed the benchmark or if you are shopping for a new computer, consult the above list regarding your video card.

If you CBA to read that paragraph and need the tl;dr, here it is:

ATI: I would recommend the 4800 series or 5700 series for affordable average performance and the 5800/5900 series for more expensive top performance.
NVIDIA: I would recommend the GTX 400 series for very expensive, insurmountable performance.


There is a lot more than just your CPU and your GPU that go into building a good system (motherboard, power supply, etc) but the two most common questions that people seem to have, as listed above, should all be answered definitively in this post.

I hope it helps :)

EDIT - Disclaimer:
I'm not going to claim that a system below these requirements -can't- run XIV -at all- but I will say that I'm fairly certain that it if it doesn't meet these requirements, it almost certainly won't. You're welcome to try, but you will probably be disappointed; I'm just trying to save you the stress. I must also very strongly recommend that if you are upgrading, do -not- settle with parts that will result in a FFXIV benchmark under 3000. Even though 1500 is the bare minimum for the game, I can't imagine you could be happy with the massive amount of cutting back you'll have to do to get the game to play at a decent amount of FPS. If you really don't care that it looks like crap, then don't mind me, but don't say you were never warned. The object of this post is to ensure that if you're going to spend your hard-earned money on new parts or a new system, that you should know what to expect in terms of results before you buy it. For your money, you deserve to be happy with your performance, and nothing sucks like having to tune it all down because you didn't know that for a little more, you could have done better.

Edited, Jul 8th 2010 4:13am by Mikhalia

Edited, Jul 8th 2010 4:03pm 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.
#2 Jul 03 2010 at 12:34 AM Rating: Good
My compy simply hung when I tried to run it. Not too worried though, as I'm going to be upgrading. Might have to do with my video card being a not intended for sale test prototype.
____________________________
Die! Die die die. die die die die, die die. - Scarlet Briar
#3 Jul 03 2010 at 2:00 AM Rating: Good
*
136 posts
My passmark is just under 800, but I got 2200 or so on the benchmark. *Shrugs*
____________________________
FFXIV, Trabia: Neasa Vera.
FFXI, Leviathan: Aneirin (Dead), Key (Dead).
#4 Jul 03 2010 at 2:12 AM Rating: Default
Sage
*
205 posts
ahh thank you for the information! I'm actually in the market for a new computer and his has alot of great and helpful information so I can kinda know what I'm 'aiming' for.

I don't really know much (anything) about building a Computer, so I can only look for a possibly good one to buy that I can upgrade with a graphics card or something.

I see this one on sale...are these specs any good for running FFXIV?

Tech Specs
CPU
AMD Athlon II X4 630 2.8GHz Quad-Core Socket AM3 CPU w/ Hyper Transport Technology

BOARD
AMD nForce MB
1x PCI-e x16
1x PCI-e x1
2x DIMM (DDR2-800/667) slots
2x PCI
6 USB (4x rear, 2x front)
7.1 Ch Audio
GB LAN
2x SATA (RAID 0, 1) + 1x IDE + 1x FLOPPY
I/O: 2x PS2, 4x USB, 1 COM, Audio, RJ-45, VGA

RAM
4GB DDR2

HDD
500GB SATA-II 3.0Gb/s 7200 RPM HDD

VGA
NVIDIA G210 512MB PCI Express Video Card

OPTICAL DRIVE
24x DVD±R/±RW DRIVE

#5 Jul 03 2010 at 2:31 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,539 posts
SideCH wrote:
ahh thank you for the information! I'm actually in the market for a new computer and his has alot of great and helpful information so I can kinda know what I'm 'aiming' for.

I don't really know much (anything) about building a Computer, so I can only look for a possibly good one to buy that I can upgrade with a graphics card or something.

I see this one on sale...are these specs any good for running FFXIV?

Tech Specs

VGA
NVIDIA G210 512MB PCI Express Video Card


As I mentioned in the OP: Radeon 48xx/57xx/58xx/59xx or nVidia GTX 2XX or 4XX. See if the place you're buying from has a customize option and upgrade the video to one of them. a G/GT/GTS are not going to give you the performance you'll need.

Here's the G210. I was suggesting one rated at at least 1500 for decent performance. The G210 nets a 213.

Edited, Jul 3rd 2010 4:32am 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.
#6 Jul 03 2010 at 2:44 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
105 posts
Well i ran the pass mark test and only scored 1086 but yet my ffxiv benchmark score was 2800, so something is wrong lol
#7 Jul 03 2010 at 3:29 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
4,775 posts
I think my system could benchmark well enough for me once I upgrade the OEM graphic card. I have the Intel Core 2 Q6600 2.40ghz and 4GB of DD2 RAM. I'm thinking about purchasing this 480 series card. I'm hoping for 4000-4500 @720 settings. Is that realistic?




Edited, Jul 3rd 2010 4:29am by ShadowedgeFFXI
#8 Jul 03 2010 at 3:32 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
105 posts
i think your cpu will probably be a bottleneck to the 480...it would definetly improve your scores..but it'd be even better if your cpu's clock was higher, you could do some cpu overclocking...raise the speed abit
#9 Jul 03 2010 at 3:44 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,539 posts
AckersFury wrote:
Well i ran the pass mark test and only scored 1086 but yet my ffxiv benchmark score was 2800, so something is wrong lol


Make note of the individual CPU and video scores, not the overall system score.

It sounds to me like you're probably fine though.

ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
I think my system could benchmark well enough for me once I upgrade the OEM graphic card. I have the Intel Core 2 Q6600 2.40ghz and 4GB of DD2 RAM. I'm thinking about purchasing this 480 series card. I'm hoping for 4000-4500 @720 settings. Is that realistic?


Probably, although the result will be that you're using a slightly above average CPU with a top of the line card. There's nothing wrong with that, and you should definitely notice a performance increase, but you might want to consider that for the same price as the card ($500) you could get a $150-200 card and then drop the rest on a Core2 Quad 9450-9650 or even a Phenom II X6 ($199) and motherboard.

There's nothing wrong with your current processor per se, it's fine, really. Just figured I'd mention that you could consider upgrading both your processor and your video card to "Very good" as an alternative to getting one of the best video cards on the market and coupling it with an "above average" CPU. It's a perfectly good CPU that isn't in need of replacement, but just though I'd point that out to you.

On the other hand, you're always welcome to get that video card and replace the CPU with an i7. Or just leave it alone, that's fine too :)

Most of this advice is tailored at fixing what's broken with something that's workable; I don't usually tend to suggest going straight for the top of the line product, but there's nothing wrong with that if you have the cash for 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.
#10 Jul 03 2010 at 5:13 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
4,775 posts
Mikhalia wrote:

Probably, although the result will be that you're using a slightly above average CPU with a top of the line card. There's nothing wrong with that, and you should definitely notice a performance increase, but you might want to consider that for the same price as the card ($500) you could get a $150-200 card and then drop the rest on a Core2 Quad 9450-9650 or even a Phenom II X6 ($199) and motherboard.

There's nothing wrong with your current processor per se, it's fine, really. Just figured I'd mention that you could consider upgrading both your processor and your video card to "Very good" as an alternative to getting one of the best video cards on the market and coupling it with an "above average" CPU. It's a perfectly good CPU that isn't in need of replacement, but just though I'd point that out to you.

On the other hand, you're always welcome to get that video card and replace the CPU with an i7. Or just leave it alone, that's fine too :)

Most of this advice is tailored at fixing what's broken with something that's workable; I don't usually tend to suggest going straight for the top of the line product, but there's nothing wrong with that if you have the cash for it.


The problem is that a $200 card would be a 200 series. As of yet, I haven't seen a single "decent" benchmark with a Nvidia chip that wasn't a 400 series model. That's why I'm so conflicted as to what to do. It's not that I don't want to upgrade the CPU/mobo, only that I rather not do so unless it will prevent me from a 4500(at least) score. I'm aiming low because I know my other components could use a minor upgrade. I'm not familiar with Over-clocking my CPU either. Would my CPU have bottleneck issues if I ran the OC 480's card? I eventually plan to get a new CPU/mobo with DD3 after the price drops a little. As for right now, I rather just get my PC able to play FFXIV without too much of a loss in performance. I don't need high res graphics, just functional 720 graphics with most of the settings on. Honestly, I'll probably SLI the card when I upgrade the mobo/CPU after the 480 drops in price.
#11 Jul 03 2010 at 5:47 AM Rating: Good
***
2,010 posts
Call me crazy, but I think that SE is going to have to tone down the requirements just a bit, especially if they are releasing this year and ONLY releasing for the PC.

I have a GT220. It runs every other game I have including Aion, without any issues whatsoever. If FFXIV proves to be too taxing for it, I guess then I won't be playing XIV.

I just think that they are taking things to a bit of an extreme as far as requirements, and they are already looking at a hard launch.
#12 Jul 03 2010 at 6:15 AM Rating: Good
*
133 posts
Here's a not-so-typical question that I'm struggling with. I built my PC about about 2 years ago - got a 2500 or so on the benchmark in the higher resolution so I'm fine with that. Now, my fiancee has expressed an interest in trying XIV, which could prove to be crucial to the long term sustainability of our relationship. I was considering getting a laptop for rl reasons and to login for days I couldn't be bothered to get locked in on the desktop anyway so now I'm hoping to have something for that or for her to login with. I don't want something to pwn the game; ideally, i could spend less than $700 and have an acceptable score on low settings in the benchmark. Could anyone recommend an affordable laptop that would run on low settings without being too choppy?

Edited, Jul 3rd 2010 8:15am by Callipho
#13 Jul 03 2010 at 10:57 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
178 posts
Callipho,

Not to go off on too much of a tangent, but if your relationship is going to be decided by whether or not your fiance is willing to play FFXIV.... you may want to rethink your priorities...

That said, I wish my wife would show any interest whatsoever in trying out FFXIV with me, so I wish you the best of luck :)
____________________________

#14 Jul 03 2010 at 1:21 PM Rating: Decent
**
886 posts
Newegg.com has a weekend sale on an ASUS Radeon HD 4870 which scored a 1,743 on the list the OP provided. It is only $135.00 with a 20 dollar mail in rebate so it comes to $115.00. Great deal for those of you looking to buy a video card.
____________________________
Scud
Black Mage for life
75 Warrior 75 Dragoon
Henry Miller wrote:
Chaos is the score upon which reality is written.
#15 Jul 03 2010 at 2:03 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
743 posts
TaruScud wrote:
Newegg.com has a weekend sale on an ASUS Radeon HD 4870 which scored a 1,743 on the list the OP provided. It is only $135.00 with a 20 dollar mail in rebate so it comes to $115.00. Great deal for those of you looking to buy a video card.


If you camp Newegg like an NM, you can find some really good deals. Yesterday, I ordered an MSI HD5750 w/1 GB ram. After rebate it'll be $100.
____________________________
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)
#16 Jul 03 2010 at 3:20 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,539 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
The problem is that a $200 card would be a 200 series. As of yet, I haven't seen a single "decent" benchmark with a Nvidia chip that wasn't a 400 series model. That's why I'm so conflicted as to what to do. It's not that I don't want to upgrade the CPU/mobo, only that I rather not do so unless it will prevent me from a 4500(at least) score. I'm aiming low because I know my other components could use a minor upgrade. I'm not familiar with Over-clocking my CPU either. Would my CPU have bottleneck issues if I ran the OC 480's card? I eventually plan to get a new CPU/mobo with DD3 after the price drops a little. As for right now, I rather just get my PC able to play FFXIV without too much of a loss in performance. I don't need high res graphics, just functional 720 graphics with most of the settings on. Honestly, I'll probably SLI the card when I upgrade the mobo/CPU after the 480 drops in price.


I can guess, but I can't predict. My guess would be that this CPU (which would definitely be a bit of a bottleneck, I'll be honest) should be -okay-, until you can afford to upgrade it. I don't want to promise anything since, as I said, I can't totally predict the results when one part is significantly better than another part. Your plan sounds like it -should- work though.

Torrence wrote:
Call me crazy, but I think that SE is going to have to tone down the requirements just a bit, especially if they are releasing this year and ONLY releasing for the PC.

I have a GT220. It runs every other game I have including Aion, without any issues whatsoever. If FFXIV proves to be too taxing for it, I guess then I won't be playing XIV.

I just think that they are taking things to a bit of an extreme as far as requirements, and they are already looking at a hard launch.


I know you don't want to hear this, but the GT 220 passmark score is about half of the 9600, which SE says is the minimum required just to install and play the game on the lowest settings with a horrible framerate. I'm not going to say that you absolutely can't play it, but I'm pretty sure that you probably can't, and if it works at all, you're going to have to play the game with EVERYTHING turned down to minimum and you'd still be extremely lucky to get 10-20 FPS.

They never minced words about saying that the game would be demanding, we just took what they said with a grain of salt and now we're finding out they were serious.

FFXIV is probably going to be -the- most demanding PC game for a while; it's turning out to be Crysis v2. I, too, have a system that can run anything I throw at it at max and I -still- only got about a 4000 on the low benchmark. If you haven't run the benchmark on your system, give it a shot.
____________________________
[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 03 2010 at 3:23 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,539 posts
Callipho wrote:
Here's a not-so-typical question that I'm struggling with. I built my PC about about 2 years ago - got a 2500 or so on the benchmark in the higher resolution so I'm fine with that. Now, my fiancee has expressed an interest in trying XIV, which could prove to be crucial to the long term sustainability of our relationship. I was considering getting a laptop for rl reasons and to login for days I couldn't be bothered to get locked in on the desktop anyway so now I'm hoping to have something for that or for her to login with. I don't want something to pwn the game; ideally, i could spend less than $700 and have an acceptable score on low settings in the benchmark. Could anyone recommend an affordable laptop that would run on low settings without being too choppy?

Edited, Jul 3rd 2010 8:15am by Callipho


I am about 95% sure you will not find a new laptop for $998 or less that will run FFXIV on anything higher than the worst settings and still be choppy. I'm probably about 60% sure you won't find anything new in the $999-1199 price range either, but I can't claim to know everything that's out there.

If you can find a new $700 laptop that scores over 2000 on the benchmark, go buy yourself a lottery ticket.

Used laptops, on the other hand MIGHT be an option if you can find someone selling an old alienware or XPS or something inexpensively. Try ebay or craigslist possibly.

TaruScud wrote:
Newegg.com has a weekend sale on an ASUS Radeon HD 4870 which scored a 1,743 on the list the OP provided. It is only $135.00 with a 20 dollar mail in rebate so it comes to $115.00. Great deal for those of you looking to buy a video card.


That -does- sound like a great deal. He's right though, Newegg has sales all the time; keep an eye on a number of different products and buy stuff on sale to cut off 20-50 bucks per part.
____________________________
[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 Jul 03 2010 at 3:44 PM Rating: Decent
15 posts
Something important to take into account is that not everybody is gaming at 1900x1080 or higher.
Personally, I'll be playing at 1280x1024, which I can guarantee my low scoring 4670 will be able to do on medium at least. At this resolution, I can play Crysis on very high with lag only during intense moments of several explosions etc.
If I were at a higher resolution, then yeah, it would be lucky if I could play on low, but I haven't come across a game I can't run at high yet.
My 4670 is paired with an E8400, at stock clock speed, by the way.

If you do have a fairly high res monitor, then the info in here will be pretty accurate for you, but if you're still on a small resolution like I am, then you can get by with a weaker system then is being recommended in here.
#19 Jul 03 2010 at 4:38 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,539 posts
Loaffy wrote:
Something important to take into account is that not everybody is gaming at 1900x1080 or higher.
Personally, I'll be playing at 1280x1024, which I can guarantee my low scoring 4670 will be able to do on medium at least. At this resolution, I can play Crysis on very high with lag only during intense moments of several explosions etc.
If I were at a higher resolution, then yeah, it would be lucky if I could play on low, but I haven't come across a game I can't run at high yet.
My 4670 is paired with an E8400, at stock clock speed, by the way.

If you do have a fairly high res monitor, then the info in here will be pretty accurate for you, but if you're still on a small resolution like I am, then you can get by with a weaker system then is being recommended in here.


If I recall, I believe that the low resolution is 1280x720. So if you're going to play on 1280x1024 (I am too) then that's pretty accurate. The 1900x1080 is the high res version.
____________________________
[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 03 2010 at 5:10 PM Rating: Good
In all of the conversation I've seen on this, I've not seen Front Side Bus speed mentioned at all. Or if it was mentioned, I didn't spot it.
My setup, Win732bit, Core2Duo E4800 @3.0Ghz, and 2 GB of RAM, and my Gigiabyte motherboard were specifically chosen A) because they were a a perfect match for a FBS of 800MHz, and B) lots of scope to clock up to 1333, which would bring the processor up to a max of 3.6GHz. My GPU is a ATI Radeon 4870, and my benchmark puts me on 2280 on High. Using my current cooling system, I can safely get the cores up to 3.33 before i get icky death screens.

My understanding is that the most common bottleneck in any system is the speed at which processor and memory speak to each other. We already have evidence of the highly processor intensive nature of the benchmark, and it wouldn't suprise me if a lot of people with some of the "odd" results (ie, excellent kit, but a strangely poor results), are suffering from a low communication speed between RAM and CPU.

My other reason for mentioning this is that one unsuitable component in the chain could be all that is messing up some people's scores. Maybe a lower end CPU, or cheap RAM that can only handle data half as fast as the CPU is demanding updates. Just thought it would be useful to widen the scope of this discussion.
____________________________

Mieck of Siren // Mieck Corcoczeck of Lindblum

#21 Jul 03 2010 at 5:53 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
Mikhalia wrote:
I know you don't want to hear this, but the GT 220 passmark score is about half of the 9600, which SE says is the minimum required just to install and play the game on the lowest settings with a horrible framerate. I'm not going to say that you absolutely can't play it, but I'm pretty sure that you probably can't, and if it works at all, you're going to have to play the game with EVERYTHING turned down to minimum and you'd still be extremely lucky to get 10-20 FPS.

They never minced words about saying that the game would be demanding, we just took what they said with a grain of salt and now we're finding out they were serious.


Mik, it's not that *I don't want to hear it* - it's that what I have is a reasonably powerful box and runs many modern games very well. It scored a 1257 on that benchmark on low settings. That's a huge breakaway from what other folks are out there doing and it just reeks of more coding sloppiness on SE's part.

Since there will not be a Ps3 release this year - seems like this will be the dealbreaker, at least for me. Would I like to play the game at release? Sure. Enough to go out and spend another 500 bucks on my rig? Nah. There's still XI and will be for the foreseeable future, not to mention Cata, Fable III, Fallout New Vegas - and a slew of other titles to keep me busy. I'll bet I'm not going to be the only one with that attitude, either.

There is no reason that a PhenomII x4 with 6 GB RAM and the GT 220 isn't enough to run a game. SE is going to shoot themselves in the foot by limiting the release to the PC this year, and also pretty much making it so anyone who wants to play it needs to upgrade with 400-500 dollar parts. To be quite frank, the game doesn't have that strong a following for them to do that. I don't know what they are thinking. Everything is extremes with SE.

I know that a lot of YOU don't want to hear THIS - but this is the one thing that will cause this game to crash and burn. It's no more detailed than Aion, and somehow, those folks managed to make it work on mid tier hardware.

So, I guess that if they stick with this and there are no reports of my class of hardware being able to run it at the end of beta - Then that's it. I'll see you guys at Ps3 launch, that is, if I'm even still interested in the game by that point.

Bummer, but I can't say that it's all that surprising.

Just a question - have any of the admins or beta folks suggested to SE that they might be shooting just a tad high with this one?
#22 Jul 03 2010 at 6:02 PM Rating: Decent
*
136 posts
I think some believe getting a "low" score means they can't, or shouldn't play.
I originally played FFXI for years on a system that had a rather laughable benchmark score (Barely passing). As is, I could turn most of the things back up to a moderate/high level when I wasn't in the Lower Jeuno of old.

I might just get it for PS3 as well when the time comes, but I have very little doubt I'll be fine with a 2200 or so score.
____________________________
FFXIV, Trabia: Neasa Vera.
FFXI, Leviathan: Aneirin (Dead), Key (Dead).
#23 Jul 03 2010 at 7:33 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,539 posts
Mieck, Pie Eating Champion wrote:
In all of the conversation I've seen on this, I've not seen Front Side Bus speed mentioned at all. Or if it was mentioned, I didn't spot it.
My setup, Win732bit, Core2Duo E4800 @3.0Ghz, and 2 GB of RAM, and my Gigiabyte motherboard were specifically chosen A) because they were a a perfect match for a FBS of 800MHz, and B) lots of scope to clock up to 1333, which would bring the processor up to a max of 3.6GHz. My GPU is a ATI Radeon 4870, and my benchmark puts me on 2280 on High. Using my current cooling system, I can safely get the cores up to 3.33 before i get icky death screens.

My understanding is that the most common bottleneck in any system is the speed at which processor and memory speak to each other. We already have evidence of the highly processor intensive nature of the benchmark, and it wouldn't suprise me if a lot of people with some of the "odd" results (ie, excellent kit, but a strangely poor results), are suffering from a low communication speed between RAM and CPU.

My other reason for mentioning this is that one unsuitable component in the chain could be all that is messing up some people's scores. Maybe a lower end CPU, or cheap RAM that can only handle data half as fast as the CPU is demanding updates. Just thought it would be useful to widen the scope of this discussion.


I'd like to say it should go without saying, but you're right that it should be said, that the motherboard is almost as important as the processor; cheaping out and getting a $40 motherboard with a $150-200 processor would definitely be ill-advised.

There are certainly A LOT more factors that go into performance (RAM latency and timing, bus speed as you said, HD RPMs, etc).
____________________________
[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.
#24 Jul 03 2010 at 7:33 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,539 posts
Torrence wrote:
Mik, it's not that *I don't want to hear it* - it's that what I have is a reasonably powerful box and runs many modern games very well. It scored a 1257 on that benchmark on low settings. That's a huge breakaway from what other folks are out there doing and it just reeks of more coding sloppiness on SE's part.

Since there will not be a Ps3 release this year - seems like this will be the dealbreaker, at least for me. Would I like to play the game at release? Sure. Enough to go out and spend another 500 bucks on my rig? Nah. There's still XI and will be for the foreseeable future, not to mention Cata, Fable III, Fallout New Vegas - and a slew of other titles to keep me busy. I'll bet I'm not going to be the only one with that attitude, either.

There is no reason that a PhenomII x4 with 6 GB RAM and the GT 220 isn't enough to run a game. SE is going to shoot themselves in the foot by limiting the release to the PC this year, and also pretty much making it so anyone who wants to play it needs to upgrade with 400-500 dollar parts. To be quite frank, the game doesn't have that strong a following for them to do that. I don't know what they are thinking. Everything is extremes with SE.

I know that a lot of YOU don't want to hear THIS - but this is the one thing that will cause this game to crash and burn. It's no more detailed than Aion, and somehow, those folks managed to make it work on mid tier hardware.

So, I guess that if they stick with this and there are no reports of my class of hardware being able to run it at the end of beta - Then that's it. I'll see you guys at Ps3 launch, that is, if I'm even still interested in the game by that point.

Bummer, but I can't say that it's all that surprising.

Just a question - have any of the admins or beta folks suggested to SE that they might be shooting just a tad high with this one?


You're right that you do have a reasonably powered system. If I were in such a position, I'd almost certainly be irked that an otherwise good system that can play nearly any game would come back with a 1300 on the FFXI benchmark.

I'm certainly inclined to agree that, while I do understand the desire and need to "future proof" a game, that maybe they did go a little overboard. I trust that they had good intentions behind what they were trying to do, but at the same time I don't disagree with your sentiments either.

For what it's worth, if you're interested, I think that with a Phenom II X4, if you upgraded your GT 220 to a Radeon 5770 1 GB ($140-180ish), you should be able to benchmark a lot higher. I can still understand if you still don't want to do so on principle, but just wanted to mention that it won't cost -you- personally $500.

As for lowering the requirements, if they decided today that they wanted to tone it down so that the game could run on decent settings on a rig with older parts, I don't see how they'd be able to manage to make such drastic changes to the game at this point without setting all platforms back another 6-12 months. Granted, this is just unprovable speculation, but I would imagine that even if they did decide they aimed too high, the bowstring has been released and the arrow is in flight; it's too late for them to do anything about it at this point.... maybe add an 800x600/800x450 resolution option? I don't know.
____________________________
[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.
#25 Jul 03 2010 at 7:37 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,539 posts
Sefalicious wrote:
I think some believe getting a "low" score means they can't, or shouldn't play.
I originally played FFXI for years on a system that had a rather laughable benchmark score (Barely passing). As is, I could turn most of the things back up to a moderate/high level when I wasn't in the Lower Jeuno of old.

I might just get it for PS3 as well when the time comes, but I have very little doubt I'll be fine with a 2200 or so score.


You probably will. If your benchmark score is 2000-2500 and you're fine with that then there's no -need- to upgrade. My main concern is people who benchmark 700-1400 and want to spend the bare minimum on the cheapest part(s) to get over the 1500 hump. Because the end result is that if they spend as little as possible and end up in the 1600-1800 area and get the game running on the lowest quality, the first thing they're going to think is "Why the gently caress did I buy this lovely piece of poo poo hardware and the game still looks like a flaming dog **** on a stick?"

If you're going to upgrade anything, I usually advise trying to put yourself in the 3000-4000 range so you'll be happy with your purchase.

There's nothing wrong with low settings if they don't bother you; I just don't want to see someone buy the cheapest parts they can find, just barely meeting the minimum specs, expecting to receive a benchmark of 6000-8000, and then become dumbstruck when they can't get over 2000.
____________________________
[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.
#26 Jul 04 2010 at 3:54 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,457 posts
Quote:
I think some believe getting a "low" score means they can't, or shouldn't play.
I originally played FFXI for years on a system that had a rather laughable benchmark score (Barely passing). As is, I could turn most of the things back up to a moderate/high level when I wasn't in the Lower Jeuno of old.


I got to 75 on a PIII with 512mb ram and an ati x800 all in wonder lol.
____________________________
Hunter Avril
Rogue Ultra
Paladin Awhellnah
Mage Shantotto
Shaman Lakshmi
Faith (Valefor)

#27 Jul 04 2010 at 4:23 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,539 posts
GuardianFaith wrote:
Quote:
I think some believe getting a "low" score means they can't, or shouldn't play.
I originally played FFXI for years on a system that had a rather laughable benchmark score (Barely passing). As is, I could turn most of the things back up to a moderate/high level when I wasn't in the Lower Jeuno of old.


I got to 75 on a PIII with 512mb ram and an ati x800 all in wonder lol.


For what it's worth, the minimum requirements for XI (according to my 2003 box) are P3 800 MHz, 128 MB RAM, 32 MB VRAM. Recommended specs are P4, 256 MB RAM, 64 MB VRAM. WotG, several years later, pretty much has the exact same requirements (except it changes CD ROM drive to DVD ROM)

So you were still technically above 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.
#28 Jul 04 2010 at 6:29 AM Rating: Decent
I scored an 1107.6 on passmark (overall score) and a 2100 on FFXIV benchmark.

passmark rating : 1107.6
CPU mark : 1845.0
2D graphics mark: 311.7
3D graphics mark: 1417.0
memory mark: 733.1
disk mark: 771.9
cd mark: 349

I put up the scores for reference data.
#29 Jul 04 2010 at 7:00 AM Rating: Good
***
2,010 posts
Mikhalia wrote:

For what it's worth, the minimum requirements for XI (according to my 2003 box) are P3 800 MHz, 128 MB RAM, 32 MB VRAM. Recommended specs are P4, 256 MB RAM, 64 MB VRAM. WotG, several years later, pretty much has the exact same requirements (except it changes CD ROM drive to DVD ROM)

So you were still technically above the minimum.


XI wasn't really ported all that well to the PC. It used more CPU power than GPU power - I could run it beautifully on an IBM T42 that had a Radeon 7500 in it. Talk about modest hardware.

Going from that, to requiring more than my quad box - that's a bit much to swallow. Mik, thanks for the info on that video card, but you are right that I'm going to stand on principle with this one. I'm not replacing a perfectly good Nvidia card that runs everything else just so I can give SE more of my money every month. I already bought one piece of hardware specifically for this game - the Ps3. I hadn't really *planned* on playing the PC version at all.

Does anyone know *why* the Ps3 version needs to be delayed? If anything, I would think they'd delay the PC version before that one. Don't most of the JP prefer the Playstation platform?
#30 Jul 04 2010 at 8:50 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,539 posts
Tenfooterten wrote:
I scored an 1107.6 on passmark (overall score) and a 2100 on FFXIV benchmark.

CPU mark : 1845.0
3D graphics mark: 1417.0

I put up the scores for reference data.


Sounds like you should be able to manage, and the scores seem to line up with about what I'd have expected.

Torrence wrote:
Mikhalia wrote:

For what it's worth, the minimum requirements for XI (according to my 2003 box) are P3 800 MHz, 128 MB RAM, 32 MB VRAM. Recommended specs are P4, 256 MB RAM, 64 MB VRAM. WotG, several years later, pretty much has the exact same requirements (except it changes CD ROM drive to DVD ROM)

So you were still technically above the minimum.


XI wasn't really ported all that well to the PC. It used more CPU power than GPU power - I could run it beautifully on an IBM T42 that had a Radeon 7500 in it. Talk about modest hardware.

Going from that, to requiring more than my quad box - that's a bit much to swallow. Mik, thanks for the info on that video card, but you are right that I'm going to stand on principle with this one. I'm not replacing a perfectly good Nvidia card that runs everything else just so I can give SE more of my money every month. I already bought one piece of hardware specifically for this game - the Ps3. I hadn't really *planned* on playing the PC version at all.

Does anyone know *why* the Ps3 version needs to be delayed? If anything, I would think they'd delay the PC version before that one. Don't most of the JP prefer the Playstation platform?


A lot of people are asking both parts of that last question; "Why was it delayed?" and "Don't a lot of the JP play PS3 instead of PC?" I could give you just as many theories as anyone else to both of those questions, but unless we drug an SE employee in here and held a gun to their head, I don't think we'll ever know the answer to either.

At any rate, glad I could provide the info, even if it wasn't necessarily info you'd consider "reasonable", considering. As to why the massive jump from releasing a PS2 ported game to releasing a game that has higher requirements than any game on the market (and quite possibly any game to come in the next 2-3 years)... couldn't tell you that either.

Sorry, I do what I can :/
____________________________
[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.
#31 Jul 04 2010 at 10:17 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
30 posts
I have a question I haven't seen asked yet about the benchmark. I have a Dell XPS MT 935 (yeah, I know, but I can buy Dell fairly cheap through work) with an Intel i7 920 @ 2.67, 4GB of DDR3 RAM, Radeon HD 4850. Have Vista 64 bit with SP2, most current DirectX. First time I did benchmark with older video card drivers I got a low res score of 3250 and high res of about 13xx. It ran well and I could hear sound, but I couldn't hear the dialogue. So I updated to newest drivers, my scores were low res 3550 and high res 14xx, but I still could not hear dialogue. There is audible dialogue to this Benchmark, yes? I have RealTek audio HD sound, and have never had any problems running a PC game I want to play, either with frame rates or sound. Can someone give me some idea of what may be wrong here? I would appreciate it, Thanks.
____________________________
FFXI - Quit long time ago...
Server: Hades
#32 Jul 04 2010 at 11:51 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
4,775 posts
I'm considering buying a new PC from Ballistic as they offer customization, good prices, and a 3 year warranty. So far, the PC I built online seems to fluctuate around $1500-2000. I'm conflicted though. My current PC needs a new mobo, Windows 7, 480 GPU, CPU, DD3 ram(to go along with new mobo), PSU, and probably a new HDD. That's easily over $1200 on new parts alone. Anyone here have good experience with Ballistic gaming?
#33 Jul 04 2010 at 12:10 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,539 posts
Pheblobond wrote:
I have a question I haven't seen asked yet about the benchmark. I have a Dell XPS MT 935 (yeah, I know, but I can buy Dell fairly cheap through work) with an Intel i7 920 @ 2.67, 4GB of DDR3 RAM, Radeon HD 4850. Have Vista 64 bit with SP2, most current DirectX. First time I did benchmark with older video card drivers I got a low res score of 3250 and high res of about 13xx. It ran well and I could hear sound, but I couldn't hear the dialogue. So I updated to newest drivers, my scores were low res 3550 and high res 14xx, but I still could not hear dialogue. There is audible dialogue to this Benchmark, yes? I have RealTek audio HD sound, and have never had any problems running a PC game I want to play, either with frame rates or sound. Can someone give me some idea of what may be wrong here? I would appreciate it, Thanks.


There is indeed dialogue in addition to the audio. There is a disembodied voice speaking to the character as they open their eyes in the pub, the Mi'qote and Roegadyn (sp) on the ship talk to you, among others, and the Lalafell and Hyur on the ship speak as you are pulling into Limsa Lominsa.

That's... a very peculiar issue. I could venture a few suggestions (maybe the benchmark data is corrupted and it needs to be redownloaded? Did you try running it as Administrator?) but I'm wouldn't know what else to try beyond that.

ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
I'm considering buying a new PC from Ballistic as they offer customization, good prices, and a 3 year warranty. So far, the PC I built online seems to fluctuate around $1500-2000. I'm conflicted though. My current PC needs a new mobo, Windows 7, 480 GPU, CPU, DD3 ram(to go along with new mobo), PSU, and probably a new HDD. That's easily over $1200 on new parts alone. Anyone here have good experience with Ballistic gaming?


I have no experience with this particular company. I will say that buying the parts is always cheaper than buying a new system once you get past the $800-900ish pricepoint for retail, but if you'd rather a prebuilt than doing it yourself and don't mind paying the extra, then that's fine.
____________________________
[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.
#34 Jul 04 2010 at 4:18 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
787 posts
Well I went out and picked up a Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 to replace my Intel Core 2 Duo E8500. After re-running the benchmarker, I found my score to be almost identical to the old processor.

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550
NVIDIA GTX-295
4GB Memory
Windows 7 64-bit


PassMark Results
==================
CPU Mark: 4482.2
3D Graphics Mark: 1555.5


FFXIV Benchmarker
=================
Low: 3422 (1280 x 720)
High: 2450 (1920 x 1080)

I already tried several different NVIDIA drivers including a few beta. I started searching other benchmark forums and others are finding weird results with similar hardware to mine.
#35 Jul 04 2010 at 4:31 PM Rating: Good
rubina wrote:
Well I went out and picked up a Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 to replace my Intel Core 2 Duo E8500. After re-running the benchmarker, I found my score to be almost identical to the old processor.

I already tried several different NVIDIA drivers including a few beta. I started searching other benchmark forums and others are finding weird results with similar hardware to mine.


If you changed nothing else you've probably hit a bottle neck in your setup. Be it front side bus, RAM latency or something else, we'd need more data about your system - particularly motherboard specs. It could well be that your old benchmark was about as good as you could expect without replacing most of it.
____________________________

Mieck of Siren // Mieck Corcoczeck of Lindblum

#36 Jul 04 2010 at 4:36 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
44 posts
rubina wrote:
Well I went out and picked up a Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 to replace my Intel Core 2 Duo E8500. After re-running the benchmarker, I found my score to be almost identical to the old processor.

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550
NVIDIA GTX-295
4GB Memory
Windows 7 64-bit


PassMark Results
==================
CPU Mark: 4482.2
3D Graphics Mark: 1555.5


FFXIV Benchmarker
=================
Low: 3422 (1280 x 720)
High: 2450 (1920 x 1080)

I already tried several different NVIDIA drivers including a few beta. I started searching other benchmark forums and others are finding weird results with similar hardware to mine.


Your computer is fine. Disregard those benchmark results because you have a GTX 295 which is a dual GPU card. When drivers/supports comes out for FFXIV for dual video cards and SLI you will be able to max this game out, easy.
#37 Jul 04 2010 at 5:31 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
787 posts
Quote:
If you changed nothing else you've probably hit a bottle neck in your setup. Be it front side bus, RAM latency or something else, we'd need more data about your system - particularly motherboard specs. It could well be that your old benchmark was about as good as you could expect without replacing most of it.


ASUS P5N-D
Name Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550
Specification Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9550 @ 2.83GHz
Package (platform ID) Socket 775 LGA (0x4)
Rated Bus speed 1333.2 MHz
Northbridge NVIDIA nForce 750i SLI SPP rev. A2
Southbridge NVIDIA nForce 750i SLI MCP rev. A3
Graphic Interface PCI-Express
PCI-E Link Width x16
PCI-E Max Link Width x16
Memory Type DDR2
Memory Size 4096 MBytes
Channels Dual
Memory Frequency 400.0 MHz (5:6)
CAS# latency (CL) 6.0
RAS# to CAS# delay (tRCD) 6
RAS# Precharge (tRP) 6
Cycle Time (tRAS) 31
Bank Cycle Time (tRC) 24
Command Rate (CR) 2T

Memory
======
DIMM # 1 & 2
SMBus address 0x50
Memory type DDR2
Module format Regular UDIMM
Manufacturer (ID) Elpida (7F7FFE0000000000)
Size 2048 MBytes
Max bandwidth PC2-6400 (400 MHz)
Part number EBE21UE8ACWA-8G-E


I'll probably have to sit tight and wait.

#38 Jul 04 2010 at 8:44 PM Rating: Decent
I have a Sony Vaio CW, a laptop that actually has more power then I thought it did when it ran pretty much everything I asked it to do with no slowdown.

Was feeling pretty confident, till it ran this and scored a 500....

Is it just going to fail on the Vaio? I know laptops are supposed to be lower end for gaming, but when you can play everything else it makes me angry that SE is making a game that we can't even play without alot of money elsewhere.

Anything I can do tech guys?
____________________________

~Drag on Dragoon~


#39 Jul 04 2010 at 8:57 PM Rating: Decent
rubina wrote:
Well I went out and picked up a Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 to replace my Intel Core 2 Duo E8500. After re-running the benchmarker, I found my score to be almost identical to the old processor.

Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550
NVIDIA GTX-295
4GB Memory
Windows 7 64-bit


PassMark Results
==================
CPU Mark: 4482.2
3D Graphics Mark: 1555.5


FFXIV Benchmarker
=================
Low: 3422 (1280 x 720)
High: 2450 (1920 x 1080)

I already tried several different NVIDIA drivers including a few beta. I started searching other benchmark forums and others are finding weird results with similar hardware to mine.
Your components look like they will play FFXIV np. There must be something else holding back your score.


Edited, Jul 4th 2010 11:07pm by Tenfooterten
#40 Jul 04 2010 at 10:12 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
787 posts
I followed some other posts and renamed /FFXIVBenchmark/data/FFXIVBenchmark.exe to /FFXIVBenchmark/data/Crysis.exe and ran the benchmark program again. This time I see both GPUs being used instead of just one.

High: 3580
Low: 3676

I saw a +1130 in score on the high test. The original round of tests only showed one GPU running at 98% usage. With the name change, the average usage for each GPU was only 48% with occasional spikes to 60%. So I guess I'll have to sit and wait and see what drivers will look like at game release.

Just a note about changing the name above. If you run that executable from that folder, it'll run in High mode. If you want to run the Low mode test, edit the config file at /FFXIVBenchmark/data/config.ini. Change the setting "Resolution=1" for the Low mode test.
#41 Jul 04 2010 at 10:19 PM Rating: Decent
**
322 posts
What malcomtn said about GTX295 is true, goes for pretty much all the dual GPU/sli'd/etc cards.

I also use a GTX295 on my rig, and I am not worried about FFXIV, will play it max (or close to max) settings np.

Edited, Jul 5th 2010 12:19am by xthunderblazex
#42 Jul 04 2010 at 10:43 PM Rating: Decent
Pheblobond wrote:
I have a question I haven't seen asked yet about the benchmark. I have a Dell XPS MT 935 (yeah, I know, but I can buy Dell fairly cheap through work) with an Intel i7 920 @ 2.67, 4GB of DDR3 RAM, Radeon HD 4850. Have Vista 64 bit with SP2, most current DirectX. First time I did benchmark with older video card drivers I got a low res score of 3250 and high res of about 13xx. It ran well and I could hear sound, but I couldn't hear the dialogue. So I updated to newest drivers, my scores were low res 3550 and high res 14xx, but I still could not hear dialogue. There is audible dialogue to this Benchmark, yes? I have RealTek audio HD sound, and have never had any problems running a PC game I want to play, either with frame rates or sound. Can someone give me some idea of what may be wrong here? I would appreciate it, Thanks.


Update your audio drivers. I'm using onboard audio on my rig right now (also RealTek) and had the same issue as you when I first ran the benchmark. Updated to the newest drivers and it worked fine.
#43 Jul 05 2010 at 7:27 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
30 posts
Do you know where I can find these drivers, by chance? I've seen a view different choices for drivers for RealTek, wanna be sure I get the right ones, Thanks.
____________________________
FFXI - Quit long time ago...
Server: Hades
#44 Jul 05 2010 at 9:28 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
261 posts
Howdy everyone,

Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU T7400 @ 2.16GHz 2.16 GHz
3.00 GB
32-bit Operating System

NVIDA GeForce 8700 GT

Running on low gets me 807
Running on high gets me 274

I belive the video card is what's holding me up, but can I get a second opinion please?
____________________________
Beamer
Carbuncle
DRK 63, Thf 75, Rng 51,
War 37, Nin 37, Cor 35, Smn 35,
Sam 27, Bst 71, Sch 32, Dnc 60
CoP:O
Linkshell: Yoooooo
#45 Jul 05 2010 at 10:46 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
117 posts
Mikhalia

I'm going to be building a new rig for a friend and he is on a tight budget of $700, not a penny more. I priced out all of the parts and came in at $658, so I have a little more room to play with concerning a GPU. Currently, I have him set with a XFX 5650 (I know the 5600 series isnt great, but as I said he is on a tight budget) for 139.00. I have dual 5770's and he really liked the performance of mine but he is unable to come up with the extra funds for crossfire. That being said, I have been reading a lot about Hybrid crossfire, which runs the onboard 4200 graphics in crossfire with the GPU. Do you think a 5770 (his hd5770 150 from newegg) running in hybrid crossfire will perform well with FFXIV? If this helps, he will be using an AMD Phenom II X3 720 BE which I will be attempting to unlock and OC, and 4gb of DDR2 1066 which I will attempt to bump to the max that the board can handle.
#46 Jul 05 2010 at 11:05 AM Rating: Excellent
@Pheblobond

I'm on Vista and this is how I update my driver: go into control panel, click on hardware and sound, click on device manager, double click on sound, video game controllers, double click on realtech high definition audio(or whatever your sound card is), look at the tabs and click on driver, click on update driver and select search for driver online. done!

*edit* mods, your search is over... this should be the sticky, it's the most complete thread with links and the correct title for why people have questions... I'm pming a few mods with a request to sticky.

Sticky please

Edited, Jul 5th 2010 10:09am by grindahll
____________________________
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/profile.xml?140477
[ffxisig]140477[/ffxisig]

#47 Jul 05 2010 at 11:11 AM Rating: Decent
Pheblobond wrote:
Do you know where I can find these drivers, by chance? I've seen a view different choices for drivers for RealTek, wanna be sure I get the right ones, Thanks.


I got mine from EVGA's website because I have an EVGA motherboard. If you know who made your motherboard, you can go to their site and get the drivers. I don't trust the built-in Windows driver update utilities because, if I'm not mistaken, it just downloads from a driver depository on a Microsoft server somewhere and may or may not be current. I'm starting to wonder if that's not why so many people are saying they can't get the benchmark to run even though they updated their drivers.
#48 Jul 05 2010 at 11:21 AM Rating: Default
**
322 posts
You can play the game Beamerb, assuming that graphics card is 512mb, which I believe it is. You just have to play on the lowest settings bro.
#49 Jul 05 2010 at 11:35 AM Rating: Good
xthunderblazex wrote:
You can play the game Beamerb, assuming that graphics card is 512mb, which I believe it is. You just have to play on the lowest settings bro.


When the benchmark scale says a score of less than 1500 means the game will be unplayable, a low res score below 1000 isn't going to cut it. The game will be unplayable. The only thing you'll be able to do to prevent horrible, unplayable lag is to click the red 'X' in the top right corner of the game window.
#50 Jul 05 2010 at 11:42 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
261 posts
So swapping the vid card for one more suitable should, in theory, get me over 9000...I mean 1500, correct?
____________________________
Beamer
Carbuncle
DRK 63, Thf 75, Rng 51,
War 37, Nin 37, Cor 35, Smn 35,
Sam 27, Bst 71, Sch 32, Dnc 60
CoP:O
Linkshell: Yoooooo
#51 Jul 05 2010 at 11:45 AM Rating: Decent
BeamerB wrote:
So swapping the vid card for one more suitable should, in theory, get me over 9000...I mean 1500, correct?


I would say probably not. It's possible, but it would be like putting a giant carburator on a lawnmower engine. There's only so much you can do with what you've got.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 19 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (19)