Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

Ancient Desktops: Any Hope For Us? Maybe.Follow

#1 Jul 09 2010 at 6:06 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
602 posts
Computer Setup:

No Overclocking. GPU can be overclocked decently though, might do that at a later time.
Pentium 4 3.0 GHz HT
4 GB DDR2 533MHz Dual-Interleave Memory
1 TB WD Caviar HD 7200rpm 32mb Cache
MSi Hawk ATI 5770 1GB GDDR5 128-bit
Windows 7 Ultimate x64

Okay I ran the benchmark. Low and High I ended up with 900-1000. But my system is obviously very limited since it is old. Now for the good news. No lag whatsoever during rendering of the 720p/1080p cut scenes. The main problem for me was the time it took to load the cut scenes. Also the FPS was about 17-25 in the benchmark as well (while running FRAPs)

It took about 13 seconds for each new cut scene in the benchmark to pop up. Basically the cut scenes are being loaded to system memory on my computer setup. Therefore a lot of stuff limits the speed. I personally don't mind the apparent cut scene lag. I have not played Alpha/Beta client for a game play benchmark. But I believe my minimal system will run FFXIV just fine.

I actually just installed Windows XP Professional and will have numbers posted in about an hour or two. If the benchmark uses DirectX 9 only then I probably won't see much of a difference. I still remain by my statement that this minimal setup would run 720p 1280x720 really well albeit 30FPS and most likely not 60FPS.

Total investment: $170.00 in the video card. The ATI 5770 only requires 1 6-pin Power Connector. Most old systems have at least 1 connector. Prefab wise as my compute is an old Dimension 9100. If you want to put in a 5830 you will need more power connectors.

Edited, Jul 9th 2010 8:13pm by Excenmille
#2 Jul 09 2010 at 6:14 PM Rating: Good
**
602 posts
you might be able to run it at the minimal requirements. i would barly get above 1k and i know i meet all the requirements. i'll run on my pc till the ps3 version comes out
____________________________
BANNED

#3 Jul 09 2010 at 6:16 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Giving yourself a pep talk? Problem is telling yourself your computer will run the game wont help any. Your CPU and motherboard are 7 years old...don't count on playing it. You would get away with it most likely if your motherboard had a pci-e 2.0 but it doesn't so the graphics card is running at half the speed it should be.
#4 Jul 09 2010 at 6:29 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
602 posts

While this is true there's no way of knowing unless I get in Beta. But yeah the PCI-E 1.0 certainly does not help as 2.0 is about twice as fast. This board is a prefab and modified just for the Dell Dimension 9100 so I couldn't replace it even if I wanted to. More than likely I would replace the system at some point. But if there is no lag in the game and only that small wait for cut scenes playing with 1280x720 then I may pour more money into other things. Obviously I won't be playing 30FPS in Windows 7 with DirectX 10/11 additions to the game. The computer would die.

My next system will be the Phenom II x6, ATI 5800 series so not too worried. Maybe I am just trying to murder my computer :-P Thanks for the replies.
#5 Jul 09 2010 at 6:38 PM Rating: Default
*****
11,539 posts
Movies, for the most part, do not lag like actual rendering does.

The problem with the benchmark is that it is a movie, not a true rendering.
(EDIT: Scratch that, disproven)

So the fact that the movie doesn't lag is not an indicator that the game won't.

You'll have to install and try to run it to find out.

Edited, Jul 10th 2010 1:20am 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 09 2010 at 6:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Mikhalia wrote:
Movies, for the most part, do not lag like actual rendering does.

The problem with the benchmark is that it is a movie, not a true rendering.

So the fact that the movie doesn't lag is not an indicator that the game won't.

You'll have to install and try to run it to find out.


The benchmark is rendered real-time. I had at one point thought that the scene with Leviathan leaping over the ship was a pre-rendered scene but it was demonstrated that it, too is rendered real-time. The difference between the benchmark and the actual game is that the benchmark has little/no distant landscape to render. It's a very safe bet that the processing and RAM requirements for the actual game will be on par with or higher than the benchmark based on the footage we've seen of the landscapes.
#7 Jul 09 2010 at 6:56 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
Mikhalia wrote:
Movies, for the most part, do not lag like actual rendering does.

The problem with the benchmark is that it is a movie, not a true rendering.

So the fact that the movie doesn't lag is not an indicator that the game won't.

You'll have to install and try to run it to find out.


The benchmark is rendered real-time. I had at one point thought that the scene with Leviathan leaping over the ship was a pre-rendered scene but it was demonstrated that it, too is rendered real-time. The difference between the benchmark and the actual game is that the benchmark has little/no distant landscape to render. It's a very safe bet that the processing and RAM requirements for the actual game will be on par with or higher than the benchmark based on the footage we've seen of the landscapes.


Not saying you're right or wrong, but how do you know that it's fully rendered?
____________________________
[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.
#8 Jul 09 2010 at 7:02 PM Rating: Good
*
242 posts
There were pictures that showed it, I'm sure they're buried now. *EDIT* http://ffxiv.zam.com/forum.html?game=268&mid=1276801573134825009&page=1 look for Unaisis post.

I have roughly the same processor setup as OP but with a much poorer video card (9800 GT) and only 2 GB or RAM, and I benched about 1100. With zero control over draw distances and texture detail it still ran as though it were "playable." Crappy experience, but I think I can stomach it for a few months if it means saving $700 for a new PC.

God willing, they'll let you dial down the settings far enough. With a game designed to be graphically competitive for a long time, it makes good sense to allow dialing back of video options for those of us who adopt the software early but not the hardware.

Edited, Jul 9th 2010 9:09pm by JayRams
____________________________


#9 Jul 09 2010 at 7:19 PM Rating: Good
**
923 posts
Mikhalia wrote:
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
Mikhalia wrote:
Movies, for the most part, do not lag like actual rendering does.

The problem with the benchmark is that it is a movie, not a true rendering.

So the fact that the movie doesn't lag is not an indicator that the game won't.

You'll have to install and try to run it to find out.


The benchmark is rendered real-time. I had at one point thought that the scene with Leviathan leaping over the ship was a pre-rendered scene but it was demonstrated that it, too is rendered real-time. The difference between the benchmark and the actual game is that the benchmark has little/no distant landscape to render. It's a very safe bet that the processing and RAM requirements for the actual game will be on par with or higher than the benchmark based on the footage we've seen of the landscapes.


Not saying you're right or wrong, but how do you know that it's fully rendered?


I think it's also pretty clear when you run it that it's in engine, people have also been able to swap DAT files from Alpha as a sort of pseudo model viewer. Someone also rendered the Leviathan and Ship if memory serves..
#10 Jul 09 2010 at 7:30 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Monsieur samosamo wrote:
Mikhalia wrote:
The One and Only Aurelius wrote:
Mikhalia wrote:
Movies, for the most part, do not lag like actual rendering does.

The problem with the benchmark is that it is a movie, not a true rendering.

So the fact that the movie doesn't lag is not an indicator that the game won't.

You'll have to install and try to run it to find out.


The benchmark is rendered real-time. I had at one point thought that the scene with Leviathan leaping over the ship was a pre-rendered scene but it was demonstrated that it, too is rendered real-time. The difference between the benchmark and the actual game is that the benchmark has little/no distant landscape to render. It's a very safe bet that the processing and RAM requirements for the actual game will be on par with or higher than the benchmark based on the footage we've seen of the landscapes.


Not saying you're right or wrong, but how do you know that it's fully rendered?


I think it's also pretty clear when you run it that it's in engine, people have also been able to swap DAT files from Alpha as a sort of pseudo model viewer. Someone also rendered the Leviathan and Ship if memory serves..


Ah, well then I stand corrected then. I assumed it had been pre-rendered, but if you can .dat swap it, then that pretty much proves 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.
#11 Jul 09 2010 at 7:32 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
602 posts
Yeah, got the same FPS/score on XP SP3 as well so it's definitely the PCI-E 1.0 and Motherboard bus. I mean I am not ignorant that it's not the processor as well etc. Might try my hand at the various pawn shops around my house for a computer that was sold to them to get crack. Figure I should get a decent deal for $50.00 or so. I still want to see how good my current would run the game. Regardless, tomorrow is Closed Beta day one. Keep your eyes glued to ustream and justin.tv I know I will. Hopefully some benchmarks/fps of the Beta hit BG as well. I still run MW2, BFBC2, Metro on High granted it's forced DirectX9 and 1280x720. So there's some hope.

And if that is in-game graphics then I can pretty much run it without any slowdown. However, load times for cut scenes and changing zones... lol. Won't touch that one.

Edited, Jul 9th 2010 9:33pm by Excenmille
#12 Jul 09 2010 at 7:43 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
Mikhalia wrote:
Not saying you're right or wrong, but how do you know that it's fully rendered?

Aside from actual evidence pointing to it being fully rendered, it wouldn't have any value as a benchmark if it wasn't.
#13 Jul 09 2010 at 7:48 PM Rating: Good
**
923 posts
Majivo wrote:
Mikhalia wrote:
Not saying you're right or wrong, but how do you know that it's fully rendered?

Aside from actual evidence pointing to it being fully rendered, it wouldn't have any value as a benchmark if it wasn't.


**** fine point sir or madam
#14 Jul 09 2010 at 11:19 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Majivo wrote:
Mikhalia wrote:
Not saying you're right or wrong, but how do you know that it's fully rendered?

Aside from actual evidence pointing to it being fully rendered, it wouldn't have any value as a benchmark if it wasn't.


Actually, that -was- my point. I never said he was wrong, I was just asking for the evidence. You said yourself that its value is stifled if it isn't. I was just asking for evidence that it is, because some people had claimed it wasn't in the past. Even Aurelius admitted he was formerly under the impression that it wasn't fully rendered when saying that it was.

I was just asking for definitive proof that it was fully rendered, and I got 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.
#15 Jul 10 2010 at 12:03 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
Mikhalia wrote:
Actually, that -was- my point. I never said he was wrong, I was just asking for the evidence. You said yourself that its value is stifled if it isn't. I was just asking for evidence that it is, because some people had claimed it wasn't in the past. Even Aurelius admitted he was formerly under the impression that it wasn't fully rendered when saying that it was.

I was just asking for definitive proof that it was fully rendered, and I got it.

Smiley: dubious Considering you originally claimed that the benchmark was all pre-rendered, this is an awfully defensive response to a basic logical conclusion.
#16 Jul 10 2010 at 12:59 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,457 posts
I feel for you excenmille.. I really hope you can at least run it on low settings but I don't think it will. Buy some scratchers? My buddy randomly bought one at the bar the other day and won $800 :/ I was jealous because we both bought a few and I only got a free ticket lol. Good luck man I hope you can get a new computer eventually, since you can't really upgrade with that mobo. Look on craigslist dude. I live in the SF bay area so there's a lot of tech junk that people practically give away. I found a core2duo + mobo and 4gigs ddr2 ram for like $120. Not super fancy but better than my dual core (which scored a 2300).
____________________________
Hunter Avril
Rogue Ultra
Paladin Awhellnah
Mage Shantotto
Shaman Lakshmi
Faith (Valefor)

#17 Jul 10 2010 at 3:52 AM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Majivo wrote:
Mikhalia wrote:
Actually, that -was- my point. I never said he was wrong, I was just asking for the evidence. You said yourself that its value is stifled if it isn't. I was just asking for evidence that it is, because some people had claimed it wasn't in the past. Even Aurelius admitted he was formerly under the impression that it wasn't fully rendered when saying that it was.

I was just asking for definitive proof that it was fully rendered, and I got it.

Smiley: dubious Considering you originally claimed that the benchmark was all pre-rendered, this is an awfully defensive response to a basic logical conclusion.


And then after Aurelius said it wasn't, I said:

"Not saying you're right or wrong, but how do you know that it's fully rendered?"

I didn't call him incorrect or insist that I was correct, I asked for evidence to support what he said. After provided with that evidence, I went back and edited my initial post after being disproven and admitted I was wrong in the post after it.

I'm not sure why you're saying that's an "awfully defensive response" in light of that, unless you're just trying to start an argument over something I've already admitted I was wrong on after being disproven?

Evidence was provided. I was wrong. I'm not getting defensive; I conceded.

I get that people, myself included, don't care for others providing wrong information.

What I don't get, is the need to get snippy with said person after they admit they were mistaken. What exactly do you want?

Edited, Jul 10th 2010 5:54am 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.
#18 Jul 10 2010 at 6:24 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
****
4,148 posts
Before panic-ing about low benchmark scores and possibly spending money you don't want or possibly need to, I'd wait it out and see how it runs on the actual game.

There will likely be all sorts of options to enable / disable to get it running acceptably on pretty much whatever as long as its DX9 capable.

Side note, I really doubt a pci-e 1.0 interface would be holding back a 5770.

Of course if you know you want a pretty visual experience you will almost definately have to step up the parts
____________________________
Mishana: DRG | THF | RDM | NIN
#19 Jul 10 2010 at 7:54 AM Rating: Good
*
242 posts
Note: graphics can most definitely be scaled down. I've heard reports of systems in the AMD 3800+ / 9800+ ballpark being able to run the game tuned down.
____________________________


#20 Jul 10 2010 at 8:26 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
30 posts
Yeah, I have a new Laptop, well about 6 or 8 month old. It has a Core 2 quad core @ 2ghz. 6gigs of ddr3, and a... ATI Mobility Radeon 4650...

Sore was about 1300 on low. Looking at the forums, it is the Radeon that is toasting me. And since upgrading a video card on a laptop isn't possible (from what I read), I guess I'll have to wait for the PS3 to roll out. Not happy about the 720p since i'm use to 1080p - but better than nothing...

I understands S.E.'s objective, to have a setup that will age well, but wow - FXIV is system hungry.

I'm still holding out for some optimization. Particularly since I've read that the benchmark only recognizes one processor or something like that.

Oh well...

I was looking forward to returning to the world of FFmmo since I left FFXI nearly 3 or 4 years ago with three lvl 75's. Even looking back at youtube, I have that since of loss..

B
#22 Jul 10 2010 at 9:41 AM Rating: Good
*
242 posts
Cranked down on the settings, yeah, probably.

I really think that, based on what I've seen, you'll be able to take the settings down pretty hard. If you dial down to 1280 x 720, turn down texture quality and eliminate all the graphical details that they allow you to, you will at least be able to walk around and kill bees.
____________________________


#23 Jul 10 2010 at 9:46 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
Mikhalia wrote:
What I don't get, is the need to get snippy with said person after they admit they were mistaken. What exactly do you want?

I wasn't being snippy. I made an innocent comment which you felt the need to argue against as though I'm persecuting you somehow.
#24 Jul 10 2010 at 11:34 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,001 posts
Quote:
AMD Athlon(tm) X2 Dual Core Processor BE-2350
2.27 GHz Performance Rated at: 3.632 GHz
1.9 GB RAM
GeForce 6150SE nForce 430


You absolutely will need more RAM and a new video card in order to even try to play this.
____________________________
FFXIV: Lord Atomsk - Lalafell on Lindblum
FFXI: Nyu 75 SAM (retired)
------------------------------------
#26 Jul 10 2010 at 3:02 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,457 posts
Quote:
s the processor okay to play it though?


It will run, but you need more ram and a better video card. Still won't run very well though, X2s are pretty old.
____________________________
Hunter Avril
Rogue Ultra
Paladin Awhellnah
Mage Shantotto
Shaman Lakshmi
Faith (Valefor)

#27 Jul 10 2010 at 3:13 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
602 posts

Went around my local city's pawn shops around here. Some had some core 2 duo's but they were like $250.00 which to me is asking too much considering they were older desktop systems without monitor of course. I will try out cragislist later on and see if I can find something for about $50.00 to $100.00. I still think my old system has a chance at running the game with all settings turned up at 1280x720 but that could be a pipe dream. I got two months til I find out unless I find another system for $100.00. And the PCI-Express 1.0 slot does slow the card down. PCI-Express 2.0 is two times as fast for the data transfer. Sucks but that's how it is. Can't complain though. System of 7 years and still runs other games quite well.
#28 Jul 10 2010 at 5:08 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
GuardianFaith wrote:
Quote:
s the processor okay to play it though?


It will run, but you need more ram and a better video card. Still won't run very well though, X2s are pretty old.


I'd upgrade the whole nine yards; CPU/video/RAM/motherbord/PSU
____________________________
[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.
#30 Jul 11 2010 at 12:19 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Zelduh wrote:
Might as well make a new computer then rather than disembowel an old computer and just use its lifeless shell :P


Depends. If you still have a perfectly good case, DVD-RW/ROM, and HD that you're happy with, then there's no reason to replace any of those; will save you about $100-200 bucks

I replaced my Video/CPU/PSU/RAM/MB/OS about 2 1/2 months ago; $600 on parts and $140 on OS. No reason to replace the rest.
____________________________
[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.
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 16 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (16)