Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
This Forum is Read Only

Just How ACCURATE Is This BenchmarkFollow

#52 Jul 08 2010 at 7:14 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
413 posts
Raiziell wrote:
See what you guys did now? You woke up mommy and daddy... Now we're all going to get grounded for a week! :)


In all my years on FFXI and being on Allah, I've never asked a question on the forums that got this many replies... and I never expected one of them to reach the brink of being "locked" lol. Hope it doesn't but aw well... lol
____________________________
FFXI:
Trazier-Lakshimi(Garuda) Server:
Tarutaru BLM75/DRG75/SMN60/RDM48/WHM45

Theonehio wrote:
PsylockePhoenix wrote:
I apoligize if it came off wrong, in my head it didnt sound argumentive.


You're on Allah, just posting can be turned into an argument.
#53 Jul 08 2010 at 7:24 PM Rating: Decent
*
139 posts
Aurelius I would say that most people on here find your post aggressive most of the time. I myself find it hard to read 90% of your post for the simple fact that you seem to aways be talking down to others.

But the other 10% of the post you have are aways full of great information it seems.
I guess the only other thing that drives me nuts about you is that you aways seem to have something to say about something good, bad, ****** everytime I scroll down the page I see you posting something.

Take a freaking break dude. I'm sure that if you didn't feel the need to attack every person attacking you on here people would respect what you had to say when you said it.

That is all.

#54 Jul 08 2010 at 7:27 PM Rating: Decent
Bezmir wrote:
Aurelius I would say that most people on here find your post aggressive most of the time. I myself find it hard to read 90% of your post for the simple fact that you seem to aways be talking down to others.

But the other 10% of the post you have are aways full of great information it seems.
I guess the only other thing that drives me nuts about you is that you aways seem to have something to say about something good, bad, ****** everytime I scroll down the page I see you posting something.

Take a freaking break dude. I'm sure that if you didn't feel the need to attack every person attacking you on here people would respect what you had to say when you said it.

That is all.



That's neat. Who are you?
#55 Jul 08 2010 at 7:30 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
4,775 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:


I seriously don't understand why it's okay for you to troll me and then avoid your part in it.

Pwyff says hi, in case you missed it.


Because I'm not trying to troll you, that's not my objective. All I'm asking from you to be more tolerant of posters who are asking already answered tech questions or complaining about the PS3 delay. Seriously how hard it is to ignore these people instead of ranting about it in every single thread. Some posters like runaway might deserve it, but that doesn't mean everyone does.
#56 Jul 08 2010 at 7:31 PM Rating: Decent
*
139 posts
No one special. I read alot in my free time at and that's all.
#57 Jul 08 2010 at 7:52 PM Rating: Decent
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:


I seriously don't understand why it's okay for you to troll me and then avoid your part in it.

Pwyff says hi, in case you missed it.


Because I'm not trying to troll you, that's not my objective. All I'm asking from you to be more tolerant of posters who are asking already answered tech questions or complaining about the PS3 delay. Seriously how hard it is to ignore these people instead of ranting about it in every single thread. Some posters like runaway might deserve it, but that doesn't mean everyone does.


When their threads are taking up half the front page? Pretty **** hard to ignore. This isn't the ZAM tech support forums. It's not =10, either. Not every ZAM community supports people ******** up the boards with repetitive questions. If the answer is to be found on the first page (much less dozens of times on the first page), the expectation is that people spend some time reading and not barfing out new threads every day asking the same question. It's about teaching how to be contributors and not leeches. I haven't been ranting about it "in every single thread" (your propensity for exaggeration is ludicrous, btw).
#58 Jul 08 2010 at 7:53 PM Rating: Decent
Bezmir wrote:
No one special. I read alot in my free time at and that's all.


Cool. I post a lot in my free time, and my personality is my personality.
#59 Jul 08 2010 at 8:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,911 posts
Apperently there is a problem here. The report thread button indicates there is a problem here, so there must be one. Aurelius, ShadowedgeFFXI, both of you knock it off or i'm going to start banning people until there isn't a problem anymore.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#60 Jul 08 2010 at 8:32 PM Rating: Decent
*
139 posts
Outstanding man. If your happy I'm happy.

The only reason I posted anything at all was because again I like to read on here and I see the same old fighting on a ton of pages about the same stuff over and over.

And yeah you see the same old questions being posted all the time it seems taking up space. But there really isn't any reason for you or anyone else to be freaking out about it.

Why would you all spend so much time fighting is beyond me why not just answer the qustion/questions be asking and move on? This thread could have be done and over with 15 post ago.

I'm not trying to pick typing fight with you or anyone else but come on not only you but about 3 other people could have just reposted a link to an old thread and moved on.

Have a good weekend all.
#61 Jul 08 2010 at 9:04 PM Rating: Decent
*
215 posts
I got 1400 on my 280M geforce laptop graphics card = / its too bad, its still ranked 13 in performance for laptops.
#62 Jul 09 2010 at 12:00 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,842 posts
Sadly I have a laptop, mainly because I was in and out of hospitals the past year or so. Got it mainly for the blu-ray player (wasn't very common when I got it). I get a score of about 1200 give or take wtih some options changes but meet the min requirements so I'm just going to take a gamble and see what happens. If anything else I suppose I can craft for the first 6 months till PS3 comes out.
____________________________
FFXIV Dyvid (Awaiting 2.0)
FFXI Dyvid ~ Pandemonium (Retired)
SWTOR Dy'vid Legacy - Canderous Ordo
#63 Jul 09 2010 at 4:34 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
27 posts
I don't trust the benchmark also. You need to understand, there are only 2 available resolutions and no full screen for the benchmark, meaning if you are scoring low on the benchmark now, maybe your system will be fine at 800x600 or even 640x480, which hardcore gaming nerds will say ******* awful resolutions. I'm one of those people that do not see much of a difference between my analog tv vs. hdtv. Boohoo, it's clearer, but is it any funner? It's like people who watch awful 3d movies for the 3d and special effects rather than having a good story. I care more about gameplay than graphics.

Nobody really knows until the game's release, so please hold on trying to upgrade your system to try to perform to max settings at 2560x1080 until then. You will save a lot of money by waiting just a few months. I would really love to be able to use my laptop which has a GeForce 6150 graphics, which I used for WoW and FFXI. There are a lot of people whose systems come with 6150, especially those using atom processor systems. While it may sound absolutely horrible for hardcore game nerds with their 5870s, every now and then, I like to use my laptop at school or work to take a sneak peek at what is going on in the game, like taking linkshell message on ToDs or auction house or send something to somebody, and yes, I don't mind going 640x480 resolution doing that or even a slight choppiness. When I'm home, I can get on the desktop.

For those on a budget, I recommend you get a 9800 gtx or gts 250, which would be a $100 or less upgrade. They should go down a little bit more by September-December, or get them on ebay used or even new. Wait about a year, and those gtx 470s will have the price cut in half. If you bought your computer a few years ago, chances are, you only need to put in $40-100 upgrade for a videocard.
#64 Jul 09 2010 at 6:25 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
*
105 posts
i think 1024x768 is the lowest resolution you can choose
#65 Jul 09 2010 at 7:11 AM Rating: Decent
3 posts
I don't trust the accuracy of this benchmark either to be honest. I got a pretty horrible benchmark score as well yet watching it play it seemed to move along quite smoothly with no lag or slowdown. I realize SE want this to be possibly the best looking MMO for years to come but they'd be silly not to include some customization options for the graphics where people with lower spec PC's are able to run the game somewhat as well. I estimate I'll probably be able to run the game at a decent level of graphical quality although not perhaps at Mega Ultra Super setting.

Either way if it turns out after all come release time the game performs horribly on my PC I'll just have to find the bottleneck and upgrade it :)
#66 Jul 09 2010 at 8:47 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
5,587 posts
Dodoy wrote:
It's like people who watch awful 3d movies for the 3d and special effects rather than having a good story.
Kind of like The Last Airbender. My kids talked me into taking them because they like the cartoon and it was the absolute worst movie I've seen in years. Yet that movie pulled in a pretty decent haul already. My 9 year old fell asleep half way through.
____________________________
Harri
80BLU/80BST/76RNG/75THF/75WHM/60SCH
100+3 Bonecraft
#67 Jul 10 2010 at 6:39 PM Rating: Decent
*
126 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:


That's neat. Who are you?


So now if we don't have a huge post count our opinions are invalid? Good to know.

You truly are a "one and only" *insert :P here*
____________________________
Carbuncle
75 Pld/Bst
#68 Aug 24 2010 at 7:59 PM Rating: Decent
first time poster to these forums but long time reader, ok so i was wondering wtf is up there is definitely a contradiction between the benchmark and the required specs. the minnimum system requirements say that
vista 32
intel core duo 2.0ghz
2gb of ram
nvidia 9600
will run this game. i just so happened to have exactly those specs even the sound card and screen resoloution and the benchmark gave me 600. So i thought, hmmm i better upgrade regardless of the "minimum system requirements", i got a quad processor 2.5ghz, an nvidia 9800gt, windows 7 (64 bit) and 4gb ram. i now make it to 1200 on low res. so after i dumped a load of cash on upgrading my system past the "minimum requirements" the benchmark still give me a score which says i dont make the "minimum requiremnts" im going to get an msi gtx460 but thats another 200 pound. so which is to be believed the benchmark or the "minimum requirements", either way we have been lied to by SE
#69 Aug 24 2010 at 8:44 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
163 posts
ok first I'd like to say that Aurelius isn't as bad as people make him out to be. He's just bluntly honest. Which is a welcome sight on the internet.
Now back to the topic; I believe the benchmark is within reasonable accuracy. I feel it could be slightly off but not to the point were people scoring 1500 or less are going to be score 2500+ when the new benchmark comes out.
I know there are people playing on the beta that scored below average on the benchmark and are like "see, i told you the benchmark was broken, I play the game just fine". ofcourse you play the game fine when there isn't thousands of people on it. I have a feeling that all these people are going to be in for a huge surprise when they go to get on at the release of it and their system dies out due to there character spawning in a sea of 2,000+ people.
____________________________
So I rated you up for no good reason, big deal. Wanna fight about it?
#70 Aug 24 2010 at 8:48 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
163 posts
pugsleyofhades wrote:
first time poster to these forums but long time reader, ok so i was wondering wtf is up there is definitely a contradiction between the benchmark and the required specs. the minnimum system requirements say that
vista 32
intel core duo 2.0ghz
2gb of ram
nvidia 9600
will run this game. i just so happened to have exactly those specs even the sound card and screen resoloution and the benchmark gave me 600. So i thought, hmmm i better upgrade regardless of the "minimum system requirements", i got a quad processor 2.5ghz, an nvidia 9800gt, windows 7 (64 bit) and 4gb ram. i now make it to 1200 on low res. so after i dumped a load of cash on upgrading my system past the "minimum requirements" the benchmark still give me a score which says i dont make the "minimum requiremnts" im going to get an msi gtx460 but thats another 200 pound. so which is to be believed the benchmark or the "minimum requirements", either way we have been lied to by SE


Well, not really. with a benchmark of 1200 you can still play the game as there are beta testers playing it that scored that low. BUT it will be a different story when the floodgates open in september. Not trying to sound rude or anything, just letting you know what to expect.
____________________________
So I rated you up for no good reason, big deal. Wanna fight about it?
#71 Aug 24 2010 at 8:57 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
1,416 posts
wow, this is like that movie Almost Famous, bit it's Almost Necro lol.
____________________________

#72 Aug 25 2010 at 5:12 AM Rating: Decent
nah, it didnt sound rude don't worry :)
well seeing as i've ordered the game i will get a better graphics card, its going to be more money but better safe than sorry. i used the graph on gpubench and i can improve my score to 2200 with a gtx 460 and also tried the dll that enables the benchmark to use multiple processors and ended up getting 1300 on high res although it was quiet choppy. i feel like im in over my head here a month ago i didnt know how to even install a graphics card and ive learned so much from these forums, so i feel i need to say thanks to everyone :)
#73 Aug 25 2010 at 5:26 AM Rating: Decent
**
863 posts
I feel like I should get a worse score than I'm getting considering my specs.

Windows Vista Home 32-bit
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo Cpu E8500 @3.16ghz
4 GB RAM(800mhz)
Nvidia Geforce 240(512)

With this I scored 2974 on low, and I am quite happy with that. I am not sure why you would only get 2200 with a quadcore and gtx460 etc. My brother has a duo cpu @2.6 ghz and I just bought him a gtx460 and with 2GB RAM(800mhz) he scored 2743.
#74 Aug 25 2010 at 5:52 AM Rating: Default
**
749 posts
Quote:
But because technologies evolve so quickly, you will be, in the very close future capable of attaining a high score with a medium powered computer.


Paraphrased translation:

We used 8 year old code and emulation, and right now our graphics system has the same fuel requirements as a a street-rod 56 Chevy with a big block. In the very close future we may actually rewrite efficient code, thereby allowing the game to run on medium powered machines the same way they currently only run on $2000+ crossfire/SLI rigs.

[hey, my guess is as good as anyone elses :P ]

Edited, Aug 25th 2010 7:52am by seneleron
____________________________
http://www.rantmedia.ca/newsreal/
http://www.piratepartyradio.com


The Truth is a virus
#75 Aug 25 2010 at 9:06 AM Rating: Good
*
87 posts
Quote:
ok first I'd like to say that Aurelius isn't as bad as people make him out to be. He's just bluntly honest. Which is a welcome sight on the internet.
Now back to the topic; I believe the benchmark is within reasonable accuracy. I feel it could be slightly off but not to the point were people scoring 1500 or less are going to be score 2500+ when the new benchmark comes out.
I know there are people playing on the beta that scored below average on the benchmark and are like "see, i told you the benchmark was broken, I play the game just fine". ofcourse you play the game fine when there isn't thousands of people on it. I have a feeling that all these people are going to be in for a huge surprise when they go to get on at the release of it and their system dies out due to there character spawning in a sea of 2,000+ people.


Blunt honesty on the internet is new to you?

Many like to refer to those sort of people as keyboard warriors.

Edited, Aug 25th 2010 11:10am by AuryanofAsura
____________________________
Auryann (Retired)
Asura Server
Elvaan: Warrior75, Bst74, Rdm64, Pld45, Whm42, Nin37, Thf37, Mnk37, Blm37, Drg32, Dnc32, Rng5
Rank 10
Linkshell: LuckyCharms

#76 Aug 25 2010 at 10:36 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
77 posts
I Believe that the "OFFICIAL BENCHMARK" was made for a reason.
To show customers how tough this game is.
Its a benchmark people, its there to give you an idea of how your computer can match up to the game. If your scores crap, you'll run the game crap. If your scores good....
Even on the compare your score section it states under most scored, either to lower res or states you could do with some higher settings.

Take that as it is.

I can see where Aurelius is coming from,
I've only joined this site for close to over a week. and already am i sick of seeing posts talking about [Will my comp run this game.... Benchmark scores.... NEW RIG....] again and again.
Any person who has ever run a forum before would know how annoying it is to constantly get repeated Threads covering the same thing.
Thats why on here the staff of the forum have created a STICKY THREAD!!!
RIGHT AT THE TOP for petes sake, to talk about all tech related/benchmark related issues, yet still idiotic/lazy people come in and start a new thread right away without even looking over the current thread/posts.
And no offence to ShadowedgeFFXI, but at least Aurelius post was constructive and on topic.
If people take offence to things he posts then really you need to either; get out in the real world more or; surf the net more often, there are millions of people out there far worse.

Back on topic thou,
The game is a new fresh out of the packet one. Rigs that are of age and collecting cobwebs will indeed suffer here. The benchmark is an official one. Take what you will from that.
____________________________
Green Arrow if this helps :P
#77 Sep 19 2010 at 6:06 PM Rating: Decent
5 posts
ok im seriously confused about this benchmark... i can't see that it is accurate, from what i read and what i've seen.

specs

OS: Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit
Model: Dell Studio XPS 435T
Processor: Intel Core i7 920 CPU (4 core) @ 2.67Ghz
RAM: 8GB DDR3
GPU: nVidia GeForce GT 220 1GB (i know not the greatest but should still be sufficient)

im only scoring ~1200, which is odd because thats what my laptop is scoring and its a i7 Q720 @1.60GHZ with 4GB RAM on Win7 64bit...

my buddy got a 3k benchmark and his pc is worse than mine...about the same as my laptop.

do you guys think im seriously going to have trouble with this game?




Edited, Sep 21st 2010 9:29am by Godcipher
____________________________
"Stupidity is a Terminal Disease." - Some Anonymus Dead Guy
#78 Sep 19 2010 at 6:31 PM Rating: Decent
*
90 posts
I was able to run the beta just fine.... unless im missing something id say that would be a better benchmark then the benchmark no?
#79 Sep 19 2010 at 8:15 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
298 posts
I scored a 800 on High, 1400 on low.

In OB I ran ffxiv 15-25 fps in town, 30-40fps outside. This is in Full screen, 1920x1080 with only shadows and all ingame options down. Game still looked better than any MMO out.

Windows XP
Geforce 8800gs
Intel dual core e8400
3gigs of ram
____________________________
Rahal Kaminari Gladiator leader of The Sentinels FFXIV division
www.the-sentinels.net A multi gaming community.

Maximillion
Currently 75 Warrior - 71 Monk - 75 Dragoon
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/profile.xml?1278
1 2 Next »
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 18 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (18)