Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

[Official] FFXIV Minimum/Recommended System RequirementsFollow

#52 Jul 21 2010 at 6:19 AM Rating: Default
*
230 posts
Mikhalia. when 60 fps is half of 30. therefore overlocking doesn't meet the 60fps standard. Therefore, 60 would not be 30 of half due to overclocking.
#53 Jul 21 2010 at 6:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Anterograde Amnesia
Avatar
*****
12,363 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
I'm not surprised by these specs one bit. I stated in a previous thread that anyone not benchmarking at least 4000 should either upgrade or wait for the PS3 version. It appears I was right on the money. Well on the plus side, I'll be playing with a lot of PS3 players this time around.


Do realize these specs are recommended, not minimum. Some of us don't have to have everything turned up to ZOMGMAX.

I spent a ton of money building a new gaming computer a little over a year an a half ago, and I don't plan on upgrading again just because I can't crank up the max settings.
____________________________
"Choosy MMO's choose Wint." - Louiscool
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist.
Keyser Soze - Ultros
Guide to Setting Up Mumble on a Raspberry Pi
#54 Jul 21 2010 at 7:39 AM Rating: Good
Guru
**
691 posts
Mikhalia wrote:
No hexacore for computer, system tower with 60 fps, but is it for 30 like 60 fps when you overclock be it for game, for 60 fps instead? or half is 30 for 60 fps?


Any chance you have a link to the original post of this, I used to have it on my bookmarks under folder "Epic Thread", but it disappeared a few months ago and I can't seem to find it again. I'm sorry for the derail, this has just been bothering me for weeks.
#55 Jul 21 2010 at 8:04 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,010 posts
Mikhalia wrote:

The complaints are because for the past year, SE has told us "This game will have high requirements" and everyone's thoughts were "psh, no it won't; my FFXI system should be able to run FFXIV at max."

Then a year later when SE actually gives us the numbers, people sh*t bricks because SE was actually telling them the truth, and then some.


Why do you say that like the complaints are completely unfounded? I don't necessarily want the game to run on a 286 from the 80's, but their recommendations are a little out there. Sure the game will probably run *ok* on low settings with the minimum, but we all know what will happen in a patch or two - it will slowly start to crawl because of bloat. The fact that they are looking for top tier equipment and still building it around Dx9 tells me they don't really know what they are doing. Bliz is dabbling in Dx11 support for Cataclysm, and they are still working on their original flagship game - not something entirely new from the ground up. Directx10 has been out for what, four years now? 11 almost a year. I just don't understand their frame of mind, at all.

I really, REALLY hope that they are high-balling it in hopes that things don't crash and burn around them, but these numbers alone are going to put off a good portion of their potential playerbase.

Aside from that, a lot of us are just really ****** because our rig of choice (Ps3) has been canned at least for now, and so if we want to play the game we HAVE to upgrade our pcs. That really sucks.

So yea, people are ******** bricks. People are confused, and some are angry. It's not completely unfounded, and I foresee a really lonely launch for SE because they just really don't know what they are doing.
#56 Jul 21 2010 at 8:23 AM Rating: Decent
Guru
**
691 posts
While all of the things you mentioned are understandable worries, none of it really addresses the above point; which was, SE told us point blank, right up front, literally one of the first things out of their mouths about the game, that they were going to try to push even the latest technology on release. I hope you can understand at least, that from the point of view of us gullible people who had faith that SE might keep to their word this time, we sat though a year of people posting about how SE never keeps their word, not to worry, that the system requirements wouldn't be that high. Fast forward a year, and people are acting shocked that SE made their game extremely high-spec. It's not that there aren't valid concerns about the level of power required to run the game on high settings, it's that they telegraphed this a year ago. This is like complaining about getting killed by a tornado when the National Broadcast System warned you it was coming an hour ago. Yes the tornado sucks, but it's not like no one told you about it.
#57 Jul 21 2010 at 10:01 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
2,536 posts
Borkachev wrote:
Quote:
Edit: I'm also rather annoyed that for such a high end game, they're using DX9C still. One would think that they would be using 10/11. Even the minimum spec GPU supports DX10 IIRC. What the **** is the point of a shiny new GPU that supports DX11 if the highest-spec game (soon to be) on the market doesn't support DX11.

I think so too. I've heard rumblings from people that the beta actually already supports a few DX10 features, but I can't confirm that. And I think SE has said they plan to add DX11 support in the future, but to believe that we have to count on them doing a **** of a lot more for FFXIV's PC port than they ever did for FFXI.


Ambient Occlusion is one of those, if I'm not mistaken.
____________________________
FF11 Server: Caitsith
Kalyna (retired, 2008)
100 Goldsmith
75 Rng, Brd
Main/Acc
Exp/Hybrid
Str/Attk
Spam/Others
#58 Jul 21 2010 at 10:06 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
***
2,536 posts
Hulan wrote:
Mikhalia wrote:
No hexacore for computer, system tower with 60 fps, but is it for 30 like 60 fps when you overclock be it for game, for 60 fps instead? or half is 30 for 60 fps?


Any chance you have a link to the original post of this, I used to have it on my bookmarks under folder "Epic Thread", but it disappeared a few months ago and I can't seem to find it again. I'm sorry for the derail, this has just been bothering me for weeks.



I ain't Mik, but here you go.

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?fjob=7&mid=1154383045272627858&page=1&howmany=50


Edit: And yes, it was indeed epic. I was there, live. haha

Edited, Jul 21st 2010 11:11am by Threx
____________________________
FF11 Server: Caitsith
Kalyna (retired, 2008)
100 Goldsmith
75 Rng, Brd
Main/Acc
Exp/Hybrid
Str/Attk
Spam/Others
#59 Jul 21 2010 at 10:34 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
190 posts
Mikhalia wrote:
No hexacore for computer, system tower with 60 fps, but is it for 30 like 60 fps when you overclock be it for game, for 60 fps instead? or half is 30 for 60 fps?


FTW /endthread

Edited, Jul 21st 2010 12:40pm by DrymChaser
____________________________
Pikko wrote:
I'm here with the Sticky Wand of Doom!!

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


Crysania Majere 50WHM, 50SCH, 50SMN
Kraken Club - Ultros
#60 Jul 21 2010 at 10:44 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
***
2,536 posts
But I hate yellow. :(
____________________________
FF11 Server: Caitsith
Kalyna (retired, 2008)
100 Goldsmith
75 Rng, Brd
Main/Acc
Exp/Hybrid
Str/Attk
Spam/Others
#61 Jul 21 2010 at 10:58 AM Rating: Decent
Sage
**
743 posts
The website only says the recommended cpu as i7 2.66 GHz or higher. It doesn't say anything about i7-920.

Edited, Jul 22nd 2010 10:26am by AngusX
____________________________
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)
#62 Jul 21 2010 at 11:32 AM Rating: Decent
*
237 posts
how did you navigate to that webpage? I can't seem to get to it from SE's main site, or any of the FFXIV official sites.
____________________________
FFXIV has it's first official RMT'r: Zyuu
#63 Jul 21 2010 at 12:22 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
339 posts
****...

I was planning on making my PC with an i5 750 and a GTX 460.

Now I may have to throw a few more quid at it.

Question?

I've had a dig around the prices for stuff and to change my planned PC from i5 750 to an i7 930 it looks to add another £200.

Is it really gonna make that much difference? Would I be better using that £200 to buy a better GPU, say have the i5 750 with a GTX 480?
#64 Jul 21 2010 at 12:28 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,010 posts
Quote:
This is like complaining about getting killed by a tornado when the National Broadcast System warned you it was coming an hour ago. Yes the tornado sucks, but it's not like no one told you about it.


Not really - since we were also told that it was definintely coming to the Ps3 and would be launching together. So a lot of us who aren't really PC gamers to begin with, kind of just went along our merry way and didn't worry about it. Now, we *have* to worry about it because SE went back on their word. Now I understand that there are issues with the Ps3 release, but it doesn't change the fact that they are going back on their word and now a good portion of us are screwed.

It's more akin to the NBS telling you there is a thunderstorm watch in effect an hour ago, and then changing their story 5 minutes before it hits to its actually a hurricane.
#65 Jul 21 2010 at 12:33 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
743 posts
SevenLittleChipmunks wrote:
how did you navigate to that webpage? I can't seem to get to it from SE's main site, or any of the FFXIV official sites.

I just clicked on the link in the OP. I'm using Firefox, if that helps.
http://www.finalfantasyxiv.com/media/recom/na/pc.html
____________________________
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)
#66 Jul 21 2010 at 12:39 PM Rating: Good
**
592 posts
I'm very concerned that the reqs mention windowed mode. Has there been any confirmation that the game will run in full screen at all, much less resolutions besides 720p and 1080p? Is this their sadistic payback for the unofficial windower use in XI?
____________________________
Inralkil-Seraph 75NIN/75SAM/68BST

Retired: Inra-Dark Crag 40/40 Witch Elf
Retired: Hollow-Thunderlord 70 Warlock S1/S3 T4 SL/SL
Retired: Horknee-Thunderlord 70 Druid T4/T5 Feral
#67 Jul 21 2010 at 3:58 PM Rating: Decent
Sage
***
1,675 posts
Y'know recommended specs or not the game looks good, but not 'recommended specs good.' (judging off the benchmark alone)

Now I know this is an MMO and that it won't look as good as a first person/regular RPG...

In any case, I'm sure a lot of people WILL be able to play the game just with the bells and whistles off.
#68 Jul 21 2010 at 4:09 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
61 posts
So this thread partly contributed to me finally just ordering this component bundle from Newegg to give my PC a hefty upgrade. It's basically a new computer haha, although I do already have some things such as the graphics card, a 600W or so power supply, and the case. What this will end up looking like...

Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
AMD Phenom II X6 1055T @2.8GHz
Radeon HD4890 1GB for graphics
4GB DDR3 RAM probably clocked at 1333mhz
1.5TB HDD @ 3.0GB/s SATA

With the same video card and Win7, what I had before was
Core 2 Duo E4300 @1.8G
2GB DDR2 RAM (can't remember clockspeed...)
150GB HDD, at I have no clue speed but likely slow

If it needs a few small improvements, at least I've got the big stuff out of the way for now. It may not be the best gear, but it worked for what I needed, and I'm looking forward to a bit higher benchmark scores to tide me over until 9/22! :D
#69 Jul 21 2010 at 4:28 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
751 posts
I didnt want to upgrade my motherboard so am stuck with Socket 775 (and hence restrictions on processor).

Just upgraded from Dual core E8400 (3Ghz) to Quad Core Q9505 (2.83Ghz). Running with a Radeon HD 4870 with 512mb ram, I score 3696 on the benchark which is ample to run the game on medium settings apparently.

Im happy with that until after launch when I will upgade to a GTX 460.

Edited, Jul 21st 2010 7:52pm by HallieXIV
____________________________
FFXIV: Crafty Hallie, Ultros





#70 Jul 21 2010 at 5:05 PM Rating: Decent
*
237 posts
lol thats not what i meant... What i meant was, how was this page found originally? As far as i can see there isn't a way to access that page from the www.finalfantasyxiv.com website.
Nor was this info shared to beta testers before hand. Weird.

____________________________
FFXIV has it's first official RMT'r: Zyuu
#71 Jul 21 2010 at 5:21 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
4,775 posts
Wint wrote:
[quote=ShadowedgeFFXI]I

Do realize these specs are recommended, not minimum. Some of us don't have to have everything turned up to ZOMGMAX.

I spent a ton of money building a new gaming computer a little over a year an a half ago, and I don't plan on upgrading again just because I can't crank up the max settings.


Yep, I'm well aware of how bare minimum spec systems play games. That's why I'm waiting for the PS3 version for now. I don't have very fond memories of my lag fest with a sub par PC. It's not juts about graphics, it's more about stability and better frame rates. If you prefer to play FFXIV like how the PS2 handles FFXI's Campaign battle be my guest.
#72 Jul 21 2010 at 5:34 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
602 posts

Updated Post and added color coded differences between Minimum/Recommended Specs for a one-stop thread for the known requirements. I'll work on the colors late though I know they are somewhat off. Take care!
#73 Jul 21 2010 at 5:43 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
602 posts
SevenLittleChipmunks wrote:
lol thats not what i meant... What i meant was, how was this page found originally? As far as i can see there isn't a way to access that page from the www.finalfantasyxiv.com website.
Nor was this info shared to beta testers before hand. Weird.


Chinese secret. Found the link on BG actually, you will have to ask the person there how they got it. I am sure something exists to where you can scan a website and find pages that are accessible by a direct link. That would be my guess on how it was found. Also, I still think my system will play just fine on High without much lag at all. Won't know until I get a Beta invite or the Collector's Edition.

While you are waiting for FFXIV though there are two games that are fun that you could be playing. League Of Legends and Alien Swarm @ Steam. Both are FREEEEEEE.

Edited, Jul 21st 2010 7:47pm by Excenmille
#74 Jul 21 2010 at 5:48 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
751 posts
People seem to be taking a fairly black and white view on these issues.

Firstly there is the minimum specs required to run the game. I dont recommend anyone even attempts to play the game with those settings as whilst it may run, it could be a fairly frustrating experience.

Then there is the recommended specs which is how to run it the way that S-E think it should be played. This will probably run well in HD with minimal lag, glitching or other issues.

Between these two extremes are a range of very playable set ups. I scored 3696 on the official benchmark. According to SE this will play the game at fairly high quality and should run well on medium settings at 720. I dont have the "recommended specs" but am fairly hopeful for a decent gaming experience.

There are a few people here who are saying that if you dont have an overclocked liquid cooled i-9 980XDDD Extreme mad, 8gb graphics card running on devil juice the game will not be playable. I jsut dont buy it.

The official benchmark was designed to be a guide by the developers of the game. WHy dont we take their word for it since it is their game after all.

Or maybe some people know better than S-E what computer will be required to play the game?
____________________________
FFXIV: Crafty Hallie, Ultros





#75 Jul 21 2010 at 5:52 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
602 posts
HallieXIV wrote:
Or maybe some people know better than S-E what computer will be required to play the game?


I think I know better, here let me show you what computer will be required to play the game: Best Computer In The World - Only $600.00 too

Edited, Jul 21st 2010 7:53pm by Excenmille
#76 Jul 21 2010 at 6:05 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
29 posts
I'm glad SE decided to push the envelope on this one. If I'm going to be playing this game for the next several years, then I want it to stand the test of time.

I bought a new pc for $600, 2 and a half years ago, that got me a 3000 on the benchmark. This is fine for me, and I can always upgrade down the road. I just don't see the rush to spend the extra money at this point.

Now if you're someone that's scoring real low, then its probably time to upgrade. Plus lets face it, you were probably due for one anyway.
#77 Jul 21 2010 at 6:43 PM Rating: Excellent
39 posts
I'm not a PC gamer so I had a PC built for me now I'm confused. I scored 3100 on low 2400 on high so according to these new specs that Square just release does this mean I just wasted my money? Does it mean It's not worth playing the game on my new PC?
#78 Jul 21 2010 at 6:48 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,159 posts
Your color scheme here is horrendous. Can hardly see the yellows.
#79 Jul 21 2010 at 7:05 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
751 posts
@Sundaymoney,

depends, are you happy playing like this.

[3000-4499] Fairly High Performance
Capable of running the game on default settings. Consider switching to a higher resolution depending on performance

From S-E themselves. Ignore anyone else.
____________________________
FFXIV: Crafty Hallie, Ultros





#80 Jul 21 2010 at 7:13 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
554 posts
Mikhalia wrote:
FenrirXIII wrote:
I don't see why anyone should be complaining about the steep requirements. We've had plenty of time to be saving up for a new PC.


The complaints are because for the past year, SE has told us "This game will have high requirements" and everyone's thoughts were "psh, no it won't; my FFXI system should be able to run FFXIV at max."

Then a year later when SE actually gives us the numbers, people sh*t bricks because SE was actually telling them the truth, and then some.



No... just no... No one was foolish to think their "FFXI system" was good enough,
what they were thinking was their normal upgraded computer would at least run it well at
low specs. My computer is only 11 months old was and was top of the line last year but now it can barely handle the benchmark.

It's like the Dev's Had this Vision and they didn't even bother to ask "what dose are target
player base have, what can they use, what do they like, ect.. They basicly said this is what we're doing and you will need "xyz" to play it. (not to mention the fact that their target console the Ps3 can't even handle the specs!)

I'm intrested in FFXIV but I see no point in upgrading a pc I plan On replacing in 2 more years for something even better just to play one game. I suspect quite a few here will but not all will.

Go and Google Vanguard: Saga of hero's to see what happens to a game the sets the computer
specs so high at a launch.
#81 Jul 21 2010 at 8:50 PM Rating: Good
***
3,450 posts
Quote:
It's like the Dev's Had this Vision and they didn't even bother to ask "what dose are target
player base have, what can they use, what do they like, ect.. They basicly said this is what we're doing and you will need "xyz" to play it. (not to mention the fact that their target console the Ps3 can't even handle the specs!)


That's exactly what they did. It's what they did for FFXI, and it's what they did for this.

Also I love the fact that the game doesn't run as designed on the PS3's hardware. That means the PC version of this game isn't a half-hearted port of the PS3 version like FFXI was from the PS2.

SE's never been terribly interested in designing PC games for the mass market, I realize this seems counter-intuitive since they obviously want to make money, but they've always been content to just put their stuff out and wait for the technology to catch up to it.

The good news here, is that if you either don't have or can't build a PC that can run this game, you don't have to wait all that long for the PS3 port.. all those are the same (except the hard drives) and cost a relatively fixed amount

Quote:
No one was foolish to think their "FFXI system" was good enough,

Prepare to be surprised

Edited, Jul 21st 2010 9:50pm by Callinon
____________________________
svlyons wrote:
If random outcomes aren't acceptable to you, then don't play with random people.
#82 Jul 21 2010 at 9:09 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,448 posts
Roquis wrote:

Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
AMD Phenom II X6 1055T @2.8GHz
Radeon HD4890 1GB for graphics
4GB DDR3 RAM probably clocked at 1333mhz
1.5TB HDD @ 3.0GB/s SATA


This looks like a pretty good build. Probably around $600-$700, depending if you include the power supply or the graphics card price tags. I only have concern for the power supply. Did you get one that is 80+ efficiency certified? Active PFC? One or two 12v rails with at least 26amp +?

If your 12v rail has a rating of something like 24amps then you might want to consider a different one. Specially for such a power hungry card like the old 48xx's. The 80% efficiency is also highly important for the PSU. A 600w PSU at 80% efficiency rated means it can only be rated to output 80% of 600w under load@ a temp of 50 degrees celsius.
That's 480 watts. Now imagine how much trouble you'd be in if you had a 420w or 500w PSU rated the same. Then imagine the trouble you'd be in if that 600w PSU wasn't even rated or certified w/e for 80% or higher efficiency under load. It can get pretty nasty. PSU's can endager the entire system.

I don't mean to scare you but it is very important with a higher end performance system that you get a PSU that is up to snuff. A rule of thumb is the heavier, the better. Weight wise. A lot of 80%+ PSUs are out there now. You will also see Bronze/Silver/Gold PSU's, those are even more power efficient. You will pay a premium for them, but PSU's are one of those very, very few components you carry over to a new computer down the road. It's like shoes and mattresses. You don't skimp out on them or you'll suffer. :3


tl:dr make sure the PSU is 80%+ w/ active PFC and more than 24amps on the 12v rail or you will pay for it down the road.
____________________________
Currently Playing: FFXIV:ARR
Lacaan Vasiim:Cactuar
Free Company:Cactuar Corp<CCorp>
catwho wrote:
If you need a bard to get "good exp" in a merit party, you're the weakest link.
#83 Jul 21 2010 at 9:19 PM Rating: Decent
**
829 posts
Hmm, so right now this is what it takes to run the game well. No interest for 12 months if paid in full, sounds good to me.
____________________________
Tauu Aori
Lalafell
WHM
Sargatanas
#84 Jul 21 2010 at 10:03 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Devildawgs wrote:
No... just no... No one was foolish to think their "FFXI system" was good enough,


Yes, actually, some people were. 3 or 4 weeks ago, before the minimum specs were posted, there were people SWEARING that since their system can run FFXI on high/max, especially those who used mods to increase FFXI's drawing distance or resolution, etc, that they should be fine running XIV with no issues. Then the benchmark hits them with a 1000-2000 or lower.

There were quite a few people running 4-5 year old systems who were INSISTENT that there was NO WAY their system could not handle XIV without breaking a sweat.

And then the benchmark came out. And people shat bricks, and they said to pay no attention to it; "the benchmark MUST be wrong because my system is fine".
And then the minimum specs were posted. And people still ignored that and pretended they were the recommended specs, insisting "Well that's just to run the game on high; I don't have that, but my system should still run it on medium at max FPS" or "Well I'll just buy a system close to that and my performance should be high, because that's what SE recommends"
And now we have the recommended specs.

I get the concept that people are annoyed their systems won't run it. If I had bought a new computer (pretending for a moment that I'd buy retail) within the past year and found out it wasn't gonna run XIV, I'd be a little livid myself.

The problem is that there are people who are insistent that "SE is wrong, my computer will run it, I don't care what they tell me". These people have decreased in number since the benchmark and the specs were published, but they'll still be around until the 22nd/30th.

At that point, it will change from "SE is wrong, my computer will run the game fine" to "SE releases broken games! My computer is just fine but I have so much lag and horrible FPS" and/or "I tried to install FFXIV on my perfectly fine computer and it doesn't even install! FFXIV is worthless and you shouldn't buy it!"

You know the five stages of grief? We have a lot of people who are -still- stuck on Denial and Anger. Humans, by nature, do not react well to being told they are wrong. That's why, when faced with an undesirable truth, they will twist evidence and facts around in their head to convince themselves that they are right.

Fortunately, most people have moved on and come to terms with it and have acted on this. Some have bought new systems, others have upgraded where necessary, others still have decided to wait for the PS3 version or just not to play at all. And these are all valid choices.

But yes, there are still people who do not care how many facts and numbers and proof you throw at them, they will vehemently believe what they -want- to believe is true.

See also: politics, religion, history, science, ghosts, bigfoot, aliens, nessie....

Edited, Jul 22nd 2010 12:17am 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.
#85 Jul 22 2010 at 7:14 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
61 posts
FenrirXIII wrote:

tl:dr make sure the PSU is 80%+ w/ active PFC and more than 24amps on the 12v rail or you will pay for it down the road.

Ok, even though I couldn't remember what my power supply was offhand, I remembered brilliantly that I could just look up old order emails to find it - and so I did! And... I found that I went cheaper on the PSU than I thought lol. At the time I bought it I was in a bit of a rush just to get something that would support the 4890, my financial situation being such that I was in no way making a strong gaming rig, and so went with a 550W system from a non-major company (Chiefmax lol).

Despite that, it's been running my current rig seemingly well in nearly a year since, but I agree an update is almost definitely needed for what I'm doing now. It does have a 12V rail @ 28A, but what else I know is a bit lacking - the 550W and probably not even having enough SATA connectors for the new system (my current system only has one SATA drive). Nothing about certifications, so apparently it doesn't have them.

After a bit of looking, I think I'll go with this Coolermaster 750W 80PLUS Bronze from Newegg, and I threw in a smooth new case too since I've been working out of the same one now for... 10 years? Haha. It's not a bad case, but I'm missing a lot of the coverings, it's so dusty, and well, with a system needing this kind of cooling, I don't think it's particularly well ventilated haha. Plus, this way I can just store the old parts in the old case and basically have a decent second computer! If you're gonna do it, might as well do it right, eh? :)
#86 Jul 22 2010 at 7:23 AM Rating: Good
Anterograde Amnesia
Avatar
*****
12,363 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
Yep, I'm well aware of how bare minimum spec systems play games. That's why I'm waiting for the PS3 version for now. I don't have very fond memories of my lag fest with a sub par PC. It's not juts about graphics, it's more about stability and better frame rates. If you prefer to play FFXIV like how the PS2 handles FFXI's Campaign battle be my guest.


Who is talking about bare minimum?

You said,

ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
anyone not benchmarking at least 4000 should either upgrade or wait for the PS3 version.


I very much disagree with this statement, which is what I was trying to point out with my comment. See HallieXIV's comment:

HallieXIV wrote:
[3000-4499] Fairly High Performance
Capable of running the game on default settings. Consider switching to a higher resolution depending on performance


And even more from the official site:

SE wrote:
[2500-2999] Standard Performance
Capable of running the game on default settings.
[2000-2499] Slightly Low Performance
Capable of running the game, but may experience some slowdown. Adjust settings to improve performance.


I would think that anyone benching 2000 up could theoretically play the game just fine. I imagine there will be options to turn off weather, shadows, etc just like FFXI has currently.

We will know soon enough at any rate Smiley: nod

____________________________
"Choosy MMO's choose Wint." - Louiscool
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist.
Keyser Soze - Ultros
Guide to Setting Up Mumble on a Raspberry Pi
#87 Jul 22 2010 at 7:47 AM Rating: Good
**
711 posts
Now the question is.....

Should I go for the AMD Phenom II X6 1055T? Or Intel i7 930?
____________________________
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。

#88 Jul 22 2010 at 8:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Anterograde Amnesia
Avatar
*****
12,363 posts
AMD traditionally run cooler, but I haven't looked at those in a few years now. Found a motherboard/cpu combo at newegg that has a 900 series i7 that I'm currently drooling over, but it will be a year or more until I can upgrade.
____________________________
"Choosy MMO's choose Wint." - Louiscool
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist.
Keyser Soze - Ultros
Guide to Setting Up Mumble on a Raspberry Pi
#89 Jul 22 2010 at 8:21 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,120 posts
OneFatAngel wrote:
Now the question is.....

Should I go for the AMD Phenom II X6 1055T? Or Intel i7 930?


That's about where I'm at too, or the 1090T. Been mixing & matching ideas & parts looking for some magical combination while also taking a crash course in pc building. Even if I get all of that sorted out there's the matter of paying more @ a trusted site or gambling on a site with mixed reviews but has lower prices. It's giving me a headache...

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
On that chart the 1090T rates a good bit higher than the other 2, but the top 20 overall systems shows nothing but intels...

Wint wrote:
Newegg.com all the way. I also hear good things about tigerdirect, but I've been a loyal Newegg customer for years with great service from them.

Yeah after some research that seems to be the popular opinion. Some of the others I looked at are hit or miss and that's a scary risk to take on big purchases.

Edited, Jul 22nd 2010 10:32am by TwistedOwl
#90 Jul 22 2010 at 8:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Anterograde Amnesia
Avatar
*****
12,363 posts
TwistedOwl wrote:
there's the matter of paying more @ a trusted site or gambling on a site with mixed reviews but has lower prices. It's giving me a headache...


Newegg.com all the way. I also hear good things about tigerdirect, but I've been a loyal Newegg customer for years with great service from them.
____________________________
"Choosy MMO's choose Wint." - Louiscool
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist.
Keyser Soze - Ultros
Guide to Setting Up Mumble on a Raspberry Pi
#91 Jul 22 2010 at 8:32 AM Rating: Good
***
3,450 posts
If you've got one near you, check Micro Center for processors, they're often significantly less expensive than newegg on those.

And buy online with in-store pickup.. here's the comparison for the machine I just built

i7 930 chip

newegg: 290
micro center online: 200
micro center in-store: 350 (yeah stay away from that one)

So I saved almost 100 dollars in my build just by buying my processor somewhere else.

Everything else? Newegg, all the way
____________________________
svlyons wrote:
If random outcomes aren't acceptable to you, then don't play with random people.
#92 Jul 22 2010 at 8:47 AM Rating: Good
***
2,010 posts
Callinon wrote:

SE's never been terribly interested in designing PC games for the mass market, I realize this seems counter-intuitive since they obviously want to make money, but they've always been content to just put their stuff out and wait for the technology to catch up to it.



Yet, they are releasing this game at launch for PC only.

I don't really know about them "putting their stuff out and waiting for tech to catch up" - I mean they can only design for what's out there and they have primarly designed for consoles. In this case, it really isn't them putting something out and waiting on technology since the tech today is Dx11 and well, they are a bit behind on that front.

From a programming standpoint and seeing the screen shots of things from the actual game - it seems to me like it's really just hogging resources with no clear explanation as to *why*.

I guess we are just going to have to wait and see. I feel they are making a mistake with a lot of this, but if they want to be the next Crysis then I guess that's what they are going to do regardless of what the playerbase thinks. They have never really listened to us in the past, so there is no reason for them to break with tradition now.

For the record - I'm also glad that they aren't just creating crappy ports all over the place, but the Ps3 isn't exactly garbage either.
#93 Jul 22 2010 at 9:24 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
247 posts
These min specs seem to be much lower than what I was fearing. Let me cut out the min specs and post them without all the distracting colors:

OS:
Windows XP SP3

CPU:
Intel Core 2 Duo 2.0Ghz or higher
AMD Athlon X2 2.0GHz or higher

RAM:
Windows XP: 1.5GB or higher

GPU:
nVidia GeForce 9600 or better with VRAM 512MB or more
ATI HD 2900 or better with VRAM 512MB or more

That basically describes a $1000 gaming PC built 2-3 years ago. I built almost that exact PC to play Vanguard a few years ago, which was the hardest game to run on any PC at the time.

Having said that, I can't for the life of me understand why devs and hardcore MMO players can't get one simple fact through their heads:

The success of an MMO relies completely on taking money from the people with Walmart PCs that play 5 hours per week, and using it to create more and more content for the hardcore players to devour. Any new game MUST be playable on a PC that can play WOW, and it MUST allow the graphics to scale up from there to a level that requires cutting edge PC-tech. Having PC specs so high needlessly limits the size of your playerbase.

#94 Jul 22 2010 at 9:38 AM Rating: Good
Sage
*
190 posts
Wint wrote:
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
Yep, I'm well aware of how bare minimum spec systems play games. That's why I'm waiting for the PS3 version for now. I don't have very fond memories of my lag fest with a sub par PC. It's not juts about graphics, it's more about stability and better frame rates. If you prefer to play FFXIV like how the PS2 handles FFXI's Campaign battle be my guest.



Who is talking about bare minimum?

You said,

ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
anyone not benchmarking at least 4000 should either upgrade or wait for the PS3 version.



I very much disagree with this statement, which is what I was trying to point out with my comment. See HallieXIV's comment:

HallieXIV wrote:
[3000-4499] Fairly High Performance
Capable of running the game on default settings. Consider switching to a higher resolution depending on performance



And even more from the official site:
SE wrote:
[2500-2999] Standard Performance
Capable of running the game on default settings.
[2000-2499] Slightly Low Performance
Capable of running the game, but may experience some slowdown. Adjust settings to improve performance.



I would think that anyone benching 2000 up could theoretically play the game just fine. I imagine there will be options to turn off weather, shadows, etc just like FFXI has currently.

We will know soon enough at any rate Smiley: nod



This needs to be quoted and reiterated. Just because you don't hit 2000/3000/4000/whatever on the benchmark doesn't mean you are SOL and now you've gotta wait for the ps3 release or shell out thousands in upgrades. As long as you're close enough to minimum that you can run in low settings it won't be that much of an issue. The game will work and look good on low settings. You'll still get acceptable frame rates with a machine near minimum specs and still be able to play without a hitch.

Honestly, If it helps any, the beta on low settings still looks amazing.
#95 Jul 22 2010 at 9:45 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
4,775 posts
Wint wrote:


I very much disagree with this statement, which is what I was trying to point out with my comment. See HallieXIV's comment:


[2500-2999] Standard Performance
Capable of running the game on default settings.
[2000-2499] Slightly Low Performance
Capable of running the game, but may experience some slowdown. Adjust settings to improve performance.

I would think that anyone benching 2000 up could theoretically play the game just fine. I imagine there will be options to turn off weather, shadows, etc just like FFXI has currently.

We will know soon enough at any rate Smiley: nod



I don't agree that simply turning down the weather effects and such will make the game playable enough in all settings. Sure you'll be able to walk though town and go out in the field without much of a problem. However, what about those times where you are swarmed by players and mobs? You seriously don't think there was be huge system lag issues. Heck, the PS2 plays FFXI perfectly under most conditions. Try a Campaign with a ton of NPC's and mobs that are on screen and watch you'll be able to count the frames. Considering the premise of the game is to fight several mobs at once, doesn't seem reasonable that lag/frame rate issues will be a huge concern. Forget all the graphical eye candy, I'm talking about serious play control issues and stability. SE posted those recommended specs for a single reason. "This is what you need to play FFXIV with minimal lag and effects on." For those that say hogwash to that, enjoy your crappy frame rate and non interactive experience because all the graphics effects are off.

As for the Ps3, never underestimate SE's professional skill on the consoles. FFXI should be impossible by all accounts, I don't care how much they butchered the resolution. FFXIII is very close to FFXIV's graphic bar, I don't see much of a problem here. I think the delay for the PS3 was natural because of the increased emphasis on the PC version basically took too long. Remember SE is the master of optimizing console games, it's their PC games that need some work. If Blizzard released this benchmark, I might actually agree with your analysis. But this is SE we're talking about and chances are you'll need to overcome their short comings as programmers by paying for it with your wallet. Another fact to remember is that the PC Beta/Alpha offerings weren't set to full settings. Everything was toned down and some people on these forums are using that reasoning to believe that there 2500 PC will handle everything just fine. Time will tell in the long run. I'm predicting heavy system maintenance at launch anyways trying to fix this stuff.
#96 Jul 22 2010 at 10:38 AM Rating: Good
Anterograde Amnesia
Avatar
*****
12,363 posts
I think the difference between you and I is that you are inclined to distrust SE as a company, while I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
____________________________
"Choosy MMO's choose Wint." - Louiscool
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist.
Keyser Soze - Ultros
Guide to Setting Up Mumble on a Raspberry Pi
#97 Jul 22 2010 at 10:47 AM Rating: Good
***
3,178 posts
This stands to be potentially useful for awhile. Could you please change the text to black and white?
#98 Jul 22 2010 at 7:42 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
751 posts
Shadowedge, you have somewhat misquoted me.

The section that I pulled out was the one that describes the score of 3000-4499.

S-E are of the view that a computer scoring this will run the game at a reasonably high level.

No dis-respect intended but if I have a choose of believing the game developer when they say I will have a mid to high end gaming experience on low resolution, or believe you in saying I will have terrible frame rates - Im going to go with S-E every time.

If you have a compelling reason why we should believe you over S-E please share?
____________________________
FFXIV: Crafty Hallie, Ultros





#99 Jul 22 2010 at 8:26 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
163 posts
Ok, so I've been working on getting a new desktop ever since my laptop hung itself after I ran the benchmark on it.
I had a set up in mind but after seeing the minimum/recommended requirements I dug alittle deeper into my pockets to improve my scores on the benchmark.
The new specs are;
Windows 7 64-bit
Intel Core i5-750 quad-core processor
Memory 6GB DDR3-1333MHz
Graphic Card 1GB ATI Radeon HD 5770
I know the graphics card is lacking but will it run within reasonable settings? Thanks for all the help with all this computer stuff.
____________________________
So I rated you up for no good reason, big deal. Wanna fight about it?
#100 Jul 22 2010 at 8:35 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
602 posts
@RSquires, that will run it just fine. I am not sure if you can but is there a DDR2 motherboard you can opt for instead of the DDR3 board? And then perhaps spend that saved money on a better GPU or processor? Going to go research it myself right now, though Intel boards typically have nice triple channel support too. Dunno. Depends on what you want more I guess. Then you could drop memory down to 4GB DDR2 1200 and have even more money. I think the setup above is good though :)

And for $200.00 you can get the Phenom II x6 1055T over the quad core, and I think it also does better in benchmarks than that i5, I'll check that too.

Update: Okay so the 1156 chipset doesn't support DDR2 at all on any motherboard.

Edited, Jul 22nd 2010 10:44pm by Excenmille
#101 Jul 22 2010 at 8:37 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
HallieXIV wrote:
Shadowedge, you have somewhat misquoted me.

The section that I pulled out was the one that describes the score of 3000-4499.

S-E are of the view that a computer scoring this will run the game at a reasonably high level.

No dis-respect intended but if I have a choose of believing the game developer when they say I will have a mid to high end gaming experience on low resolution, or believe you in saying I will have terrible frame rates - Im going to go with S-E every time.

If you have a compelling reason why we should believe you over S-E please share?


Your wording of this, while semi-accurate in this post, is misleading to people who would read it at first glance. The key is in paragraph 4:

"I will have a mid to high end gaming experience on low resolution"

What exactly constitutes "mid to high end experience" is EXTREMELY open to interpretation. Bear in mind that on any computer between "minimum" and "maximum", there will always be a trade-off of appearance vs performance. Turning draw distance, effects, shadows, anti-aliasing, etc UP will cause frame rate to go DOWN. The more you turn up, the worse your frame rate will be and the more you turn down, the better your frame rate will be. Unless you're either at the bottom (horrible frame rate on the lowest settings) or at the top (perfect frame rate on max settings), you will always have to balance appearance with performance.

The better your system, the higher you can turn the settings up before you start to get slowdown, and a system with lower settings will start slowing down at lower settings.

Many people do understand this. The problem comes in with the people who don't. You can't exactly quantify what "mid to high end experience" means in terms of "With these settings, you will get this frame rate" because we don't know -exactly- what it will be. What SE has given us are guidelines, and some people interpret these guidelines more liberally than others.

If you tell someone they can expect a "mid to high end gaming experience", some will read it as in (on a scale of 1-10) "I can turn my settings up to about a 6-7 and get 25-30 FPS" (that's how I'd read it, personally). Others might read it as "I can turn it up to a 8-9 and should get max FPS".

See, the problem is that when you can't quantify performance, there's this whole spectrum (using a 1-10 scale again) where 1 is minimum specs and 10 is maximum performance. Recommended specs from a game usually put you in the 7-8 area. Maybe 6-7 or 8-9 depending on game. Many people think though, that if they get a system that is just slightly better than 1, they can expect to be around 5 or 6. Others still expect that by getting [what they consider to be] "good" parts, they should get an 8 or 9 because "Well, I don't have the top of the line, but I have close". a 5770 -sounds- close to a 5870 and a GTS 450 -sounds- close to a GTX 460 but the difference in performance is -huge-, and a lot of people don't get that.

So until we can really quantify what parts give what EXACT performance (e.g. "A benchmark score of X will get you medium shadows, draw distance 7, water ripples medium, animation quality 6 at 24-26 FPS on 720P), it will end up being open to interpretation. This will leave people assuming their system will perform better than it will, and being disappointed because they're expecting one thing and getting another.

It's kinda like sub/soda/pizza size; people have different interpretations of what size a "large" drink or a "large" pizza are. Similarly, people have different interpretations of what "high performance" -is- exactly. And we can't quantify that, so it's still vague.
____________________________
[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: 22 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (22)