Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

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

#202 Aug 30 2010 at 10:13 AM Rating: Default
47 posts
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 P


Yah i kind of found it odd SE did not add an option for extremely low res. That way people with hot shot computers would be happy, and people with ffxi level computers could at least get on the game. Would increase they're profits having more players playing too.
#203 Aug 31 2010 at 10:30 AM Rating: Default
*
55 posts
just need to clarify something on my end.
now my pc has the intended default system requirements that you/and SE listed on the front page/their page (4 core cpu 3.2ghz, 4 gb ram, windows 7, etc etc.) but lacks in graphics card power.

according to the video card list you have in the OP, my card is rated as a 1248 (ati redeon HD 4770), which you would not recommend.
now my question is y didn't my system bomb the benchmark?
infact according to it, my system can run the game on default to mid high settings (32xx i believe is what i was averaging out).

just making sure if i infact need to upgrade my card, or is it fine the way it is. would be very disappointed if all of a sudden the benchmark "lied" so to speak to me and my pc can't run FFXIV.

better now then when it comes out and i got it in my hands.

sub-default? guess thats what i get for posting in a surplus thread.....

Edited, Aug 31st 2010 12:33pm by nirtsbro
#204 Aug 31 2010 at 11:24 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,131 posts
markdunn1989 wrote:
Yah i kind of found it odd SE did not add an option for extremely low res. That way people with hot shot computers would be happy, and people with ffxi level computers could at least get on the game. Would increase they're profits having more players playing too.


Annoying thing for me is one of the computers will be hooked up to our RPTV, and to account for overscan at 720p, I have to have the resolution set to 1152x648, which I confirmed via the beta config app won't show up at all (since the minimum is 720 vertical). So even though I'd be trying to play at effectively 720p, the resolution isn't accepted. Not sure why they've got the 1280x720 minimum, but presumably there's some reasoning behind it.


nirtsbro wrote:
just making sure if i infact need to upgrade my card, or is it fine the way it is. would be very disappointed if all of a sudden the benchmark "lied" so to speak to me and my pc can't run FFXIV.


If you can run the benchmark reasonably, then you should be fine on the game itself. Generally it sounds like the game itself performs better than the benchmark (older settings on benchmark, not always a lot of effects going on, etc.), though you may run into issues with "Lower Jeuno" sorts of conditions (lots of players, etc.). But if you're getting 3200 on low in the benchmark then that's really good and you should be fine. :)
____________________________
FFXI: Triane [Caitsith], Retired
DRK75, THF75, RDM71

FFXIV: Triane Rhiga [Besaid]
Pugilist, Marauder, Fisher
#205 Sep 15 2010 at 11:17 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
49 posts
Are the prices on the graphic cards a REALLY rough estimate. When I do save up enough, I think I can only afford spending close to $200 but probably a bit less just for the card yet according to the prices I see that would be a card near the 1000 ranking, not even 1500. Should I wait for some good end of the year sales?

Edited, Sep 16th 2010 1:23am by Icare
#206 Sep 15 2010 at 11:20 PM Rating: Default
20 posts
test
#207 Sep 15 2010 at 11:29 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
270 posts
just want to throw in my two pence....

its realy not needed to go for the 400 series nvidia cards. I have a 250 with 1gig and it does everything it needs to it achieves a 3400 benchmark score, or I can push it to 1080 full screen and get a 2600 score. Either way the beta has been running perfect on high settings and the only lag i've had is because of server issues.

nvidia cards that are cheaper than the 400 series and will run FFXIV : 240 250 275 285(questionable price) 295 and many in between.
____________________________
Refreshed ¦ Reborn
Shori Ohrensztein ¦ Ragnarok ¦ ACN
Reebie Baramnesra ¦ Midgardsomr ¦ MRD
#208 Sep 16 2010 at 6:04 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*
208 posts
When i first downloaded the benchmark program the best numbers my system could pull was 1500 on low res. My video card however was an old geforce 8800 but other than that, every other spec on my PC surpases the minimum requirements posted on the official site. I am running windows 7 64 bit, i have 8bg ram, and an AMD Phenom 64 quad core proccessor @ 2.3ghz (dont know how to overclock >< ). I figured upgrading my video card would be the big solution to get a decent benchmark score. I bought a geforce gts250 with 1gb GDDR3 ram in it, had the shop install it to insure no ***** ups and went home licking my chops to see the new score! ...... 1600 :( and keep in my this is on LOW res i dont understand what more i need to do to make the game run better... any ideas or do i need to post more info?? pleeeease help ive already preordered CE ages ago and cant waittt to play!

**just reran the benchmark a few times, tried hi res for the first time, didnt bother inittially cause my low res score was soo low, my high res just gave me a 1541 score with a 19800 load time, and reran the low res and got a 1588 with a 18800ms load up... how is my high res scoring nearly the same as low res?? any suggetions...**

Edited, Sep 16th 2010 8:38am by demegod
#209 Sep 16 2010 at 6:17 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
84 posts
My system didn't "bomb" the benchmark, but my score was like 2500 (or thereabouts). However, having played the beta, I can't see my system having any major issues at the current settings. *shrug* I guess it all just depends.
#210 Sep 16 2010 at 11:47 PM Rating: Default
18 posts
This is rubbish.
1st There are no game available that use more than 2 cores. None, nadda, zip zilch. At most a tri core so you have that extra core for running background processes.

I personally have no problems running the game with a Triple core 2.8 mhz and a Radeon 4650 with 2 gig of ram. Its a budget gaming system, but it still works.
#211 Sep 17 2010 at 9:09 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
418 posts
Quote:
This is rubbish.
1st There are no game available that use more than 2 cores. None, nadda, zip zilch. At most a tri core so you have that extra core for running background processes.


Though I mostly agree, the OP's statement is very generalized. Though some of the info is correct, the assumptions are very bad.

My C2D laptop with an ATi HD4330 ($600 laptop) plays the game at average 15 FPS, so it's playable. I have no problem playing the game on the laptop.

My C2Q Q8300, cheap board, 2gb DDR3 1066 OCZ, ATi HD4850 runs the game average 30-32 FPS on HIGH 1280x720. Definitely playable.

Also, on the quad-core.. all of my cores are being used, 3rd core more then the others. Need a screen shot? I don't mind taking one to show you.


edit: laptop scored a 510 average low-res
desktop scored a 3200 average

Edited, Sep 17th 2010 11:10pm by Jiruu
____________________________
FFXIV (Wutai - Archer): Andarou Shun

FFXI (Carbuncle/Bahamut) + Various MMOs: Jiruu

www.jiveturkeyco.info --- z7.invisionfree.com/FFXI_Prophecy --- www.myspace.com/x_dazed
#212 Sep 24 2010 at 2:26 PM Rating: Decent
26 posts
hey all, i'm wondering on what is more important to buy with me build. I want to slowly start to upgrade, but with money being tight, need to start out slow. Here are my specs, any help would be great on what to acquire first.

Operating System: Windows Vista™ Home Premium
Processor: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5600+ (2 CPUs), ~2.8GHz
Card name: NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GTS
Ram: 4gigs

I am assuming I should start with my card since it doesn't meet the min. requirements. But, I wanted to ask first before I made any actual purchases.
#213 Sep 24 2010 at 2:33 PM Rating: Good
**
711 posts
Balfrea wrote:
hey all, i'm wondering on what is more important to buy with me build. I want to slowly start to upgrade, but with money being tight, need to start out slow. Here are my specs, any help would be great on what to acquire first.

Operating System: Windows Vista™ Home Premium
Processor: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5600+ (2 CPUs), ~2.8GHz
Card name: NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GTS
Ram: 4gigs

I am assuming I should start with my card since it doesn't meet the min. requirements. But, I wanted to ask first before I made any actual purchases.


If you ask me, I will say the first thing to go is lolvista :P As far as hardware goes, that 8600GTS probably won't even play the game. You can at less OC the cpu and it will do the job. If you are choosing a GeForce card, you will need at less the GTX range card *cough*get at less GTX460*cough*. Some say 9800 can play the game, but what's the point of playing a pretty game with the lowest setting? :D
____________________________
春天不是讀書天,
夏日炎炎正好眠,
等到秋來冬又至,
收拾書包好過年。

#214 Sep 24 2010 at 2:39 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,539 posts
Jiruu wrote:
My C2D laptop with an ATi HD4330 ($600 laptop) plays the game at average 15 FPS, so it's playable. I have no problem playing the game on the laptop.

My C2Q Q8300, cheap board, 2gb DDR3 1066 OCZ, ATi HD4850 runs the game average 30-32 FPS on HIGH 1280x720. Definitely playable.

Also, on the quad-core.. all of my cores are being used, 3rd core more then the others. Need a screen shot? I don't mind taking one to show you.


edit: laptop scored a 510 average low-res
desktop scored a 3200 average

Edited, Sep 17th 2010 11:10pm by Jiruu


I wouldn't even begin to consider 15 FPS to be "playable", except in the same respect that a car that overheats and spews smoke is still TECHNICALLY "drivable". My recommendations in the OP are based on the notion that you want good performance without needing to turn everything way down. I would consider 15 FPS to be nigh unbearable, but if you can live with it, that's fine.

The 4850 is a good card, comparable to the 5770. IF you're buying new, I don't usually recommend buying older ones. but radeon series are sold as follows:

XYZ0 - where X is the series, Y is the major version and Z is the minor version. The Y is the most important number and the Z is the second most important one. 4850-4890 should still run the game fine, but I would suggest someone purchasing a new one look into a 5770 or higher.

Also, the Core 2 Quad Q8300 is a good processor as well.
____________________________
[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.
#215 Sep 24 2010 at 2:39 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
11,539 posts
OneFatAngel wrote:
Balfrea wrote:
hey all, i'm wondering on what is more important to buy with me build. I want to slowly start to upgrade, but with money being tight, need to start out slow. Here are my specs, any help would be great on what to acquire first.

Operating System: Windows Vista™ Home Premium
Processor: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5600+ (2 CPUs), ~2.8GHz
Card name: NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GTS
Ram: 4gigs

I am assuming I should start with my card since it doesn't meet the min. requirements. But, I wanted to ask first before I made any actual purchases.


If you ask me, I will say the first thing to go is lolvista :P As far as hardware goes, that 8600GTS probably won't even play the game. You can at less OC the cpu and it will do the job. If you are choosing a GeForce card, you will need at less the GTX range card *cough*get at less GTX460*cough*. Some say 9800 can play the game, but what's the point of playing a pretty game with the lowest setting? :D


Yeah, I'd replace the processor and the GPU.
____________________________
[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.
#216 Sep 24 2010 at 3:31 PM Rating: Decent
26 posts
haha, thanks for the help! It's playin' on standard settings pretty well, but obviously I don't want pretty well, I want fantastic lol.
#217 Sep 28 2010 at 2:52 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
225 posts
There is a problem with crossfire x and window mode, it doesn't work. Crossfire X only works in full screen. So a loss of 40-60% performance will happen with the ffxiv benchmark test. Ive played the beta with no trouble, I have a 3870 HD X2, but you have to play it in full screen.
____________________________


#218 Oct 01 2010 at 11:31 AM Rating: Decent
26 posts
Hey all

I posted a few days ago about upgrading my system, but didn't really give as much info as I should have. Now, I am getting the much needed $ to upgrade the system, and wanted to get an opinion on what is best for me. Here are my specs!

Motherboard: Alienware® Approved NVIDIA nForce 590 SLI Motherboard
RAM:4gigs
Graphics Processor: Single Graphics Processors - 256MB NVIDIA® GeForce™ 8600 GTS
Processor: AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 5600+ Processor w/ HyperTransport and Dual Core Technology
Operating System (Office software not included): Genuine Windows Vista™ Home Premium

My main worry is that new processors, at least from the comp. building guide won't work with my motherboard. I figure, people here might know more than I about what I could get with the Motherboard I have, or if it would be necessary to buy a new MB. I am trying to do this well under $1000 so, the best I can do with that would be very helpful!

#219 Nov 21 2010 at 3:32 PM Rating: Good
*
181 posts
I was about to try running a DIY ViDock setup on my ultraportable thinkpad X201i with i3-330M (2.13Ghz) processor and GTX 460, but after reading through this thread the less than $300 PS3 option sounds much better. The vidock option is really cool; you basically hook up a desktop graphics card and external power supply to an expresscard x1 port and run on the laptop's other parts.

It would make things barely playable for ~$300, but for that kind of money I'd want to be able to play at better settings than low. $500+ budget gaming PC is not portable enough, and a $1000+ gaming laptop is too **** expensive. So a (more or less portable) PS3 is the most sane option. By then the updates should have many problems worked out anyway.

Edited, Nov 21st 2010 1:43pm by fatpolomanjr
____________________________
Wiggums: "Lou! Lou are you alright!?"
Lou: The electric yellow has got me by the brain banana.
Hunter Gathers (Goblin)
Necro Warning: This post occurred more than thirty days after the prior, and may be a necropost.
#220 Nov 23 2010 at 11:42 AM Rating: Default
5 posts

hi everyone , i gotta laugh - why ? coz i play ffxiv , badly but i play.

why does this make me laugh , because i have a ffxiv benchmark score of 549 , on low.

i built my own pc , it's a 2.4 gig dual core e3200 , nvidia geforce 9400 gt. the benchmark put my load at 18439 ms

advice for those with rubbish systems and bad benchmark scores , i can play , though i get a lot of lag . if you want to be a crafter , you can . just don't try gathering stuff , you will fail. epic fail! . you can fight as DoW just know that you will get lag and lag spikes, so be conservative. i want to upgrade my system , however like many things it is dependant on money. it is possable to play with a bad score. but it would play better with a better score.

thank you all for listening , and good luck to all the kracken club !
#221 Nov 23 2010 at 12:37 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
*
196 posts
This is a very nice build that can play FFXIV flawlessly if you have 1000 dollars to spare!!

Intel Core i7 950 Processor BX80601950 - 3.06GHz
199.99

Cooler Master HAF 932 Full Tower Black Case
100.00

Sabertooth X58 LGA 1366 X58 ATX Motherboard
199.99

Spinpoint F3 HD103SJ 1TB 7,200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive - OEM
59.99

G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800)
67.99

CORSAIR CMPSU-750TX 750W ATX12V / EPS12V SLI Ready CrossFire Ready 80 PLUS Certified Active PFC
109.99

VCGGTX4601XPB-O GeForce GTX 460 1024MB GDDR5 PCIe 2.0 x16 Overclocked Video Card
199.99

Prolimatech Megahalems Rev.B CPU Cooler
62.00
____________________________
WoW: we want to give players a more fun time with less grinding and generic quests
GW2: we want the player to feel like they are leveling while doing something fun
Final Fantasy XIV: we want less fun and more grinding
#222 Nov 23 2010 at 12:45 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
225 posts
I have an Intel 2 Quad core Q9000 2.0, and an ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3870 X2, plays the game fine at medium settings. My only issue I have with it is the same issue I had playing WoW, the lousy driver support from both ATI and Alienware.

I do plan an upgrade in a couple months to this:

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=6701575&csid=ITD&recordsPerPage=10&body=REVIEWS#tabs


Edited, Nov 23rd 2010 1:51pm by Spyrit178
____________________________


#223 Nov 30 2010 at 6:03 AM Rating: Default
7 posts
i have no problems playing the game at all on my system on high settings apart from the "Jeuno Effect" occasionally, altho wasnt the case when i bought it as a gaming pc "that would play all the latest games!" altogether cost me about £600 to build, including original pc setup, but im sure many of you could have built it much cheaper.

Motherboard: AsRock N68C-S UCC
PSU: XFX XXX Edition 650W
CPU: AMD Athlon X2 250 Regor 3.0Ghz - OCed to 3.6Ghz
RAM: 2x 2Gb Sumvision DDR3
GPU: MSI Hawk GTX460 1Gb DDR5 - OCed to 900Mhz Core/1800Mhz Shader/4000Mhz Memory

Edit: and my highest benchmark is 2535 so as far as im concerned its BS

Edited, Nov 30th 2010 7:22am by Tiyamel
____________________________
FFXI: Yofunenushi, Persecutor, Tiyamel, Necronimous (All retired)

FFXIV: Tiyamel Yofunenushi (Saronia)

You really dont know what you just got yourself into.........

#224 Nov 30 2010 at 6:18 AM Rating: Default
38 posts
the original post is so vague and misleading
my e8400 @3.9ghz, 4gb 1066 ram (3.25 usable) and 9600 gt plays the game well above recommended settings at 1280x1024 (max monitor res), by that mean i get consistant high 20s framerate wise whcih is acceptable although not ideal, i can drop lots of settings down even more and improve things a lo

I know its not ideal but it works, planned upgrades to be a gt* 4** of some sort
#225 Nov 30 2010 at 6:24 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
***
2,536 posts

You do realize that the game is more optimized and stable now than it was back in beta when this post was created?
____________________________
FF11 Server: Caitsith
Kalyna (retired, 2008)
100 Goldsmith
75 Rng, Brd
Main/Acc
Exp/Hybrid
Str/Attk
Spam/Others
#226 Nov 30 2010 at 6:34 AM Rating: Default
38 posts
true, although the benchmark still says my system isnt even useful :P
#227 Nov 30 2010 at 7:39 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
22 posts
I did not see my video card (Nvidia GeForce 8800 GT) or my Processor (AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core processor 5000+) on the lists. :(

The game runs fine other than every so often it crashes giving me a message saying "Cannot detect the directx device." Could the video card be the reason I keep getting these crashes? On a side note, my drivers are all up to date.

Edited, Nov 30th 2010 8:40am by Publius85
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI
Publius of Odin server (Retired)
75THF/37NIN/37WAR
Various quests O / Various quests X

#228 Nov 30 2010 at 8:45 AM Rating: Default
*
116 posts
In my personal, admittedly untested observations the scores from the Benchmark are totally moot at this point now that everyone is playing the updated retail version.

For example, my girl's computer is configured as follows:
2.8ghz Athlon X4, 4gigs DDR3, 7200rpm HDD, and (you might want to sit down) a NVidia 9600GT 1gig.

When she ran the benchmark this system scored around 2600 on low if I recall correctly. At the time I was more than a little worried that I'd have to sink more money into this machine in order for her to really enjoy the game, but I decided to wait and see how the retail version ran.

To my astonishment, it runs wonderfully smooth especially since SE's sever load fixes. The textures in her config are set to High/Highest, the new draw qualities are set as default, and all the in-game options are turned on (physics, dust, shadows, etc). Granted AO and DoF are left unchecked, but as I stated earlier, the game is running fantastically even at 1600x900 (native). I still can't believe it.

That little 9600GT config even trumps my system: 2.86ghz (oc'd) AMD dual core, 8gigs DDR2, 7200rpm HDD, ATi 5770 1gig which also scored ~2600 in the benchmark.

The moral of the story is.. don't put all your eggs in the benchmark's basket. The actual game seems to be far less system intensive.
____________________________
FFXIV :: Valdai Devarda \ Lindblum Sargatanas "The Thread Closer"
.............................................................................................................
#229 Nov 30 2010 at 9:16 AM Rating: Decent
*
175 posts
They need a new benchmark program.

This is still for Alpha testers.

Since the updates and patches the game is MUCH smoother. I had a score of 600 when I was beta testing and it was bad but playable. I upgraded and not about 1800 and the game is fine for me on low graphic settings... other games on my computer can run at highest textures.

So it seems the complaints have caused SE them re-think such a graphic heavy on-line game.

hopefully there will be a new benchmark that reflects how the game runs now.
____________________________

Skills & Levels: lodestone.finalfantasyxiv.com/rc/character/status?cicuid=1355392
Bazaar: ffxiv.yg.com/bazaar?fl&mn=Shounin&srv=17
100 local levequests completed!
100 regional levequests completed!
2000 enemies defeated!
#230 Dec 09 2010 at 1:16 AM Rating: Default
*
141 posts
Mikhalia wrote:
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.

That's a nice piece of BS your saying here... 5fps? did you ever tried run on a system bellow rec. specs cuss i assume no...

Normal populated areas outside of towns, from 20 till 30 FPS. Cities 15-22 sometimes 25 depending on which city (cuss in ul'dah it's around 22-28) but we all know that Gridania is the most heaviest enviorement, ul'dah is the lowest, and Limsa is somewhere between. Sometimes in gridania forest i even see constant 30 fps...

Last time I've checked my benchmark was saying something around 1152 on low. And I'm not running it on lowest settings, cuss changing settings from low to mid-high doesn't even do anything to my FPS. Everything looks better, and game have the same speed. Of cores don't turn On Ambient Occlusion, Depth and Multi-sampling cuss that's a suicide ;) But you can surely turn On those settings:

Video Settings tab
Display Mode: Windowed (this game runs much more faster, with higher FPS and less chopiness in Window mode... i dunno how they made it cuss usually games ware running faster in Fullscreen and slower in Window Mode...)

Multisampling: No AA
General Drawing Quality: 8 (Standard)
Background Drawing Quality: 5 (High) (if you lower this you will see a bit more FPS gain of cores but sometimes more chopiness will come into action if you lower :/ )
Shadow Detail: Standard

Graphics Tab
Ambient Occlusion: Off
Depth of Field: Off
Disable Cutscene Effects: On
Enable Hardware Mouse Cursor: On
Texture Quality: High
Texture Filtering: High (tried with highest and it's the same but i decided for the sake of good turn it to high)

Back to Video S. Tab.
Windows Size: ... here is obvious the smaller the better, the more FPS i can run this game fine on 1152x864, 1280x720 and probably 1280x800 but the last one need's more testing... but I'm sticking with 1152x864 cuss i more like the perspective and i have normal 5:4 LCD display... (which btw. can display crystal clear screen the same as on native resolution which is 1280x1024 - don't ask how... i dunno either... one day he switched with this and now display crystal clear image on that resolution xD)

PS: Sorry for refreshing the old topic, i just needed to write that when i saw
Quote:
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.

Cuss my blood started to boiling really hot in my body from hearing BS like that...

gennji wrote:
They need a new benchmark program.

This is still for Alpha testers.

Since the updates and patches the game is MUCH smoother. I had a score of 600 when I was beta testing and it was bad but playable. I upgraded and not about 1800 and the game is fine for me on low graphic settings... other games on my computer can run at highest textures.

So it seems the complaints have caused SE them re-think such a graphic heavy on-line game.

hopefully there will be a new benchmark that reflects how the game runs now.

Second That!

Edited, Dec 9th 2010 2:19am by EmiyaShirou
#231 Dec 09 2010 at 2:00 AM Rating: Good
My laptop scored like 250 and it plays the game fine at standard settings with 720p and all checkboxes unchecked with shadows off it has a 230m

also id like to note
Quote:

3039 1877 Core 2 Quad Q6600 – 2.4 ATI 4870


my pc is a Q6600 i built myself with an ati 4870

my scores are much higher then the "low high" you noted i get 4k+ low and 2500-2700 high

but then again i OC'd my Q6600 to 3.2ghz so maybe thats why

2 am i have insomnia lol sorry for bad grammar too tired to correct spelling and punctuation.
____________________________

Osarion = Red Mage
Mikhalia = Black Mage Evilwizardington
FinalFanXIV = Fighter McWarrior
All we are missing is Thief, Clan Khee'Bler and we will have the full Light Warriors party.
#232 Dec 09 2010 at 10:06 AM Rating: Decent
*
62 posts
I myself scored a 680(low) but the game runs like a dream. The only problem I have ever is teleporting into a very busy camp, I have to wait for people to load. The graphics are still amazing and I didn't have to turn anything down at all
____________________________

Sukasa of Carbuncle:
Tarutaru Rank 9
62BRD 62RDM 52BLM 43BST
Cooking: Veteran: 100+8

(Xeons mah secksy bish 4 life!)[/sm]
Myspace: www.myspace.com/mydarktower
#233 Aug 11 2011 at 2:03 PM Rating: Default
4 posts
Forgive me if somebody's already said this, but the graphics card minimum requirement is a 512MB NVidia GeForce 9600, or a 512MB Radeon HD 2900, of which the lowest scores 707, but you say this won't run the game. I'm currently looking for a new laptop anyway, I'd seen one with a Radeon 4250, which to me sounds better than a 2900 (though I know next to nothing about graphics cards etc.). Will this run the game or not?

Thanks for all the help here, it's been very useful for me :D
Necro Warning: This post occurred more than thirty days after the prior, and may be a necropost.
#234 Aug 11 2011 at 5:04 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
513 posts
RathAltkain wrote:
Forgive me if somebody's already said this, but the graphics card minimum requirement is a 512MB NVidia GeForce 9600, or a 512MB Radeon HD 2900, of which the lowest scores 707, but you say this won't run the game. I'm currently looking for a new laptop anyway, I'd seen one with a Radeon 4250, which to me sounds better than a 2900 (though I know next to nothing about graphics cards etc.). Will this run the game or not?

Thanks for all the help here, it's been very useful for me :D

You necroed a super old thread but I guess the question is relevant, at least.

In ATI's naming convention the first number is the generation of the card (higher is newer) while the following three are the model number (higher is faster). A card being a generation higher doesn't necessarily mean it's always faster. For example, a HD 4870 is faster than a HD 5670, and so on.

In any case, every time someone asks about laptops and FFXIV, the answer is always the same: High end or don't even bother. Like most laptop GPUs on the market, the 4250 is garbage and will likely give you bad performance even if you lower the graphical settings to the point where the game looks horrible (assuming it runs at all).

I do not recommend laptops for gaming unless excess money is burning a hole in your pocket. Desktops are always the way to go if you want an acceptable price/performance ratio and you should only buy a gaming laptop if mobility is really necessary.


Edited, Aug 11th 2011 7:06pm by Omena
____________________________
#235 Aug 12 2011 at 3:22 AM Rating: Decent
4 posts
Omena wrote:

You necroed a super old thread but I guess the question is relevant, at least.

In ATI's naming convention the first number is the generation of the card (higher is newer) while the following three are the model number (higher is faster). A card being a generation higher doesn't necessarily mean it's always faster. For example, a HD 4870 is faster than a HD 5670, and so on.

In any case, every time someone asks about laptops and FFXIV, the answer is always the same: High end or don't even bother. Like most laptop GPUs on the market, the 4250 is garbage and will likely give you bad performance even if you lower the graphical settings to the point where the game looks horrible (assuming it runs at all).

I do not recommend laptops for gaming unless excess money is burning a hole in your pocket. Desktops are always the way to go if you want an acceptable price/performance ratio and you should only buy a gaming laptop if mobility is really necessary.


Ah, thanks for that. Would it run it with all the settings on low? I find it hard to believe that it wouldn't, as my old laptop could run XI fine, and that had a far worse integrated graphics card. Though the difference between the two games is noticeable, I struggle to believe that XIV needs such a high-end graphics card (if it really does, **** you Square-Enix!)

I don't have enough money for a desktop, so I suppose I'll have to settle for upgrading the card inside a laptop, if that's possible at all?
#236 Aug 12 2011 at 5:08 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
513 posts
RathAltkain wrote:

Ah, thanks for that. Would it run it with all the settings on low? I find it hard to believe that it wouldn't, as my old laptop could run XI fine, and that had a far worse integrated graphics card. Though the difference between the two games is noticeable, I struggle to believe that XIV needs such a high-end graphics card (if it really does, **** you Square-Enix!)

I don't have enough money for a desktop, so I suppose I'll have to settle for upgrading the card inside a laptop, if that's possible at all?

FFXI is more than a decade old game that didn't use cutting edge technology even when it was released (PS2 limitations). You should not even think about how well a system runs FFXI when considering how well it could run FFXIV. It's like asking if your racing car from 1922 could compete in a modern rally car competition.

Also, a desktop is much cheaper than a laptop. If you can't afford a desktop that can run FFXIV adequately, you most definitely cannot afford a laptop that can handle it.

As far as changing the graphics card in a laptop goes, it's a lot trickier than doing it with a desktop. I have no personal experience trying but I'd imagine space and layout can easily be limiting factors. Also, remember that the GPU is not the only thing running your games, so if the rest of your hardware is too ancient or just plain bad, a new GPU isn't going to help you.

Edited, Aug 12th 2011 7:12am by Omena
____________________________
#237 Aug 12 2011 at 8:29 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
**
785 posts
Omena wrote:
RathAltkain wrote:

Ah, thanks for that. Would it run it with all the settings on low? I find it hard to believe that it wouldn't, as my old laptop could run XI fine, and that had a far worse integrated graphics card. Though the difference between the two games is noticeable, I struggle to believe that XIV needs such a high-end graphics card (if it really does, **** you Square-Enix!)

I don't have enough money for a desktop, so I suppose I'll have to settle for upgrading the card inside a laptop, if that's possible at all?

FFXI is more than a decade old game that didn't use cutting edge technology even when it was released (PS2 limitations). You should not even think about how well a system runs FFXI when considering how well it could run FFXIV. It's like asking if your racing car from 1922 could compete in a modern rally car competition.

Also, a desktop is much cheaper than a laptop. If you can't afford a desktop that can run FFXIV adequately, you most definitely cannot afford a laptop that can handle it.

As far as changing the graphics card in a laptop goes, it's a lot trickier than doing it with a desktop. I have no personal experience trying but I'd imagine space and layout can easily be limiting factors. Also, remember that the GPU is not the only thing running your games, so if the rest of your hardware is too ancient or just plain bad, a new GPU isn't going to help you.

Edited, Aug 12th 2011 7:12am by Omena
the hardest part about changing the GPU in a laptop is finding a place to buy a replacement...

either way its never worth it, higher end GPUs generate more heat than the laptop was built to handle which could cause major issues

stay away from laptop gaming unless absolutely necessary, and if it is that necessary, get an Asus republic of gamers line
#238 Aug 12 2011 at 8:40 AM Rating: Good
*
116 posts
Quote:
I struggle to believe that XIV needs such a high-end graphics card...

Believe it. Some of us have spent thousands over several upgrades in preparation for this game.

I built a $1000 desktop system pre-benchmark only to find it just about failed.
Proceeded to spend another ~$300 on upgrades to find the open beta ran craptastically.
Spent another ~$200 just after installing the retail version and got the game to run semi-acceptably.
3 months ago, I spent another ~$300 upgrading the CPU and Motherboard to finally get it to run smooth at medium settings.

Throw away any comparisons in regards to "I can run A, B and C games fine I should be able to run FFXIV without a problem..." these arguments will not apply.
XIV is a totally different beast compared to just about everything else.
____________________________
FFXIV :: Valdai Devarda \ Lindblum Sargatanas "The Thread Closer"
.............................................................................................................
#239 Aug 12 2011 at 10:15 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
513 posts
Validai wrote:

I built a $1000 desktop system pre-benchmark only to find it just about failed.
Proceeded to spend another ~$300 on upgrades to find the open beta ran craptastically.
Spent another ~$200 just after installing the retail version and got the game to run semi-acceptably.
3 months ago, I spent another ~$300 upgrading the CPU and Motherboard to finally get it to run smooth at medium settings.

Throw away any comparisons in regards to "I can run A, B and C games fine I should be able to run FFXIV without a problem..." these arguments will not apply.
XIV is a totally different beast compared to just about everything else.

I can't help but think you got ripped off somewhere in that sequence. My current hardware is nowhere near $1000 today and it runs the game fine on semi-high settings.
____________________________
#240 Aug 12 2011 at 10:57 AM Rating: Good
****
4,144 posts
Omena wrote:
I can't help but think you got ripped off somewhere in that sequence. My current hardware is nowhere near $1000 today and it runs the game fine on semi-high settings.

Depends on what you definition of 'smooth' is. I like my games to run at 60+ FPS so trying to accomplish that at medium settings in XIV will probably cost you around $1500; not because of the cutting-edge, high definition graphics engine, but due to the poor coding of this game.

Not only does XIV require a solid GPU, but this game is very CPU dependent as well. Achieving great performance even at medium settings requires as much or more than other games need to run at high settings.
____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#241 Aug 12 2011 at 11:52 AM Rating: Good
*
116 posts
Omena wrote:
I can't help but think you got ripped off somewhere in that sequence. My current hardware is nowhere near $1000 today and it runs the game fine on semi-high settings.

Well at that time, $1000 built me an Athlon X2 2.0, an aftermarket CPU Cooler, 6gigs of DDR2, 360gig 7200rpm HDD, a USB2.0 Motherboard, a Nvidia 9600GT 1gig (PCIe) GPU, a Lightscribe DVD burner, a fancy case, 2 additional case fans, a legit copy of XP 32bit, and a wireless mouse/keyboard combo.

This was all before the system specs for XIV were even released, so at that time this was briefly considered a mid-high end machine.

I admit now that I jumped the gun a bit building the machine so early and made some incorrect assumptions on what would be enough power to run XIV. Such is life though.. I learned a lot about building PCs and had some fun doing it.


Edited, Aug 12th 2011 1:53pm by Validai
____________________________
FFXIV :: Valdai Devarda \ Lindblum Sargatanas "The Thread Closer"
.............................................................................................................
#242 Aug 12 2011 at 12:18 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
*
117 posts
FilthMcNasty wrote:
Omena wrote:
I can't help but think you got ripped off somewhere in that sequence. My current hardware is nowhere near $1000 today and it runs the game fine on semi-high settings.

Depends on what you definition of 'smooth' is. I like my games to run at 60+ FPS so trying to accomplish that at medium settings in XIV will probably cost you around $1500; not because of the cutting-edge, high definition graphics engine, but due to the poor coding of this game.

Not only does XIV require a solid GPU, but this game is very CPU dependent as well. Achieving great performance even at medium settings requires as much or more than other games need to run at high settings.



I bought a newegg pre-assembled tower for 500 bucks and upgraded my GPU and run the game at 60 FPS constant (cept in cities I get around 30fps) and upgraded to a GTX470 for 250 bucks when FFXIV came out. This was over a year ago my system is dual core and still runs the game very well and only costs 750 total. Granted you said you bought mouse / keyboard / extra fans and all that.. I guess If i included my mouse keyboard and headphones i'd be over 1100 :)
#243 Aug 12 2011 at 7:09 PM Rating: Good
****
4,144 posts
RemVye wrote:
I bought a newegg pre-assembled tower for 500 bucks and upgraded my GPU and run the game at 60 FPS constant (cept in cities I get around 30fps) and upgraded to a GTX470 for 250 bucks when FFXIV came out.

If you aren't getting 60 FPS everywhere, then it isn't constant. Also, considering a good deal of time is spent in cities or other areas where a high concentration of players are equates to a hit for half your frame rate, something is wrong. Spending more than 1500 bucks should afford you full eye candy mode for anything you would want to run at high settings.
____________________________
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream

HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free

cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
#244 Aug 12 2011 at 7:23 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
513 posts
FilthMcNasty wrote:
RemVye wrote:
I bought a newegg pre-assembled tower for 500 bucks and upgraded my GPU and run the game at 60 FPS constant (cept in cities I get around 30fps) and upgraded to a GTX470 for 250 bucks when FFXIV came out.

If you aren't getting 60 FPS everywhere, then it isn't constant. Also, considering a good deal of time is spent in cities or other areas where a high concentration of players are equates to a hit for half your frame rate, something is wrong. Spending more than 1500 bucks should afford you full eye candy mode for anything you would want to run at high settings.

There is something seriously fishy about cities, though. I run at almost constant 60 FPS everywhere but in cities where I also drop to ~30 regardless of how many people are around. I also get under 50% GPU usage there while outside cities I can easily go up to 100% depending on settings and location.
____________________________
#245 Aug 13 2011 at 7:10 AM Rating: Decent
*
249 posts
i notice this too. i recently upgraded more on my pc. such as a 6970 to replace my hd 4870. 8 gigs ddr3 1600 ram to replace my 4 gigs ddr3 1066, core i7 2600k and a h61 mobo, not all at the same time of course..

and my old setup of q660 oc'd to 3.4 ghz with my 4870 and 4 gb ddr3 1066 i get the same results on high that i do with my $1500 in upgrades. i honestly cant tell a diffrence at all kinda feel cheated.

but entering limsa on rabanastre the game starts to lag and stutter aka split second freeze and i jump ahead cause i have autorun on or spring back aka when your running and the game like resets you back a step or two out of nowhere. same problems i had pre upgrade

my old setup scored about 3k on benchmark. new setup scores 6300ish but still on same settings game looks exactly the same to me still get 60 fps outside the city still get major drop in fps inside even deserted cities..

im thinking it might have something to do with retainers. even with no players around the retainer bells and market wards nearby may be the cause of the city lag as everyone can access all their retainers in any city and summon them to any market ward.

but thats just my guess
____________________________

Osarion = Red Mage
Mikhalia = Black Mage Evilwizardington
FinalFanXIV = Fighter McWarrior
All we are missing is Thief, Clan Khee'Bler and we will have the full Light Warriors party.
#246 Aug 13 2011 at 9:16 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
35 posts
Hi-

@ Rathalkain

I don't have enough money for a desktop, so I suppose I'll have to settle for upgrading the card inside a laptop, if that's possible at all?

I can definitely say that 'upgrading' a laptop graphics card is not a 'cheap' option. Most laptop graphic cards are custom made to fit that particular laptop case/motherboard configuration. If you burn out a laptop video card, the replacement cost is almost prohibitive; cheaper to buy a new laptop than replace the card.

From my own experience.
A 2005 Dell XPS laptop with a 2.26 gz cpu, a nvidia 7800GTX-go graphics card, 2 gigs of ram. This was a very expensive laptop at the time. I bought a 4 year extended warranty that covered everything. I used this mainly for FFXI; it ran that buttery smooth.

Anyway

30 days after the warranty expired, the graphics card went out. Called Dell. Dell says too bad. Says buy an expired extended warranty extension for $500 and we'll fix the laptop. I did, they did, laptop worked fine again... til 45 days after they expired extended warranty extension expired again the laptop expired again. bleh.

I knew what was wrong with it: graphics card overheated and burned up again. Had to try and find a replacement. Called, googled, ebay-ed, and the cheapest used card I could find, with no guarantee, was over US$400. I could 'buy' a 'new' one from Dell for US 1100. For a grahpic card. $1100 because those cards are proprietary. wow. That's a lot of money.

So, In my case, replacing - upgrading a laptop video card is so not worth it.

I just bought a new laptop from Sager for 1100.


Dont waste your money on trying to upgrade the graphics card on your old laptop; just save the money and buy a brand new laptop. If you do have the option to play FFXIV on a desktop, I would encourage you to spend your money on a desktop. Those CAN be upgraded.
#247 Aug 14 2011 at 2:33 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
RathAltkain wrote:
Forgive me if somebody's already said this, but the graphics card minimum requirement is a 512MB NVidia GeForce 9600, or a 512MB Radeon HD 2900, of which the lowest scores 707, but you say this won't run the game. I'm currently looking for a new laptop anyway, I'd seen one with a Radeon 4250, which to me sounds better than a 2900 (though I know next to nothing about graphics cards etc.). Will this run the game or not?

Thanks for all the help here, it's been very useful for me :D
A higher number doesn't necessarily mean a better card. The numbering system is more like the numbers on hotel rooms. Room 210 doesn't mean the 210th room, it's room 10 on floor 2. Same goes for graphics cards. The Radeon HD 2900 is the 2xxx generation and 900 series card, the 4250 may be the 4xxx generation, but it's only a 250 series card (much weaker).

Edited, Aug 14th 2011 3:33pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#248 Oct 04 2011 at 1:11 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
19 posts
Hello all, new member here. I recently had an itch to get back into FFXI and saw that FFXIV was doing rather well, and I was recently given a new laptop as a gift so I thought I'd snoop aroundfor info on running this game.
My laptop is an Asus G74sx with an intel i7 2630, 12gig of ram with an nvdia Geforce GTX 560m 3gb. was hoping this was enough but to be sure downloaded the benchmark, checked out the cpu and gpu scores aswell as the performance test. According to the orignal post, if I understood it correctly, I should have been able to ace(more or less) the benchmark. However my benchmark scores on high averaged around 2,050 on high and 3,150 on low. I'm new to computers and especially PC gaming ^^; any help understanding would be greatly appreciated. Also of note, this laptop was not formatted upon arrival, but I did manualy upgrade every driver I could find.
Necro Warning: This post occurred more than thirty days after the prior, and may be a necropost.
#249 Oct 04 2011 at 1:47 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,825 posts
Unfortunately, as helpful as this thread was in the past... it is no longer relevant. The benchmark was barely useful at release, let alone today. However with your scores you shouldn't have any problem playing on medium/low settings with maybe select eye candy turned up.
____________________________
FFXI:Sylph - Perrin 75 Hume THF; Retired (At least from my use any way)
EVE Online:ScraperX; Retired
WAR:IronClaw- Peryn SW;SkullThrone- Grymloc BO; Retired


#250 Oct 04 2011 at 2:39 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
19 posts
Oh I see. :) well thank you for a responce then, its nice to have some assurance
#251 Aug 22 2013 at 4:47 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
*
104 posts
my passmark was 886 but I got a 3k on benchmark? and I was playing the beta just fine
____________________________
gametime!!
Necro Warning: This post occurred more than thirty days after the prior, and may be a necropost.
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 12 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (12)