Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

Recommened Core I-7 you have to be kidding!Follow

#1 Jul 23 2010 at 10:16 AM Rating: Default
*
209 posts
Recommened Core I-7 you have to be kidding! http://www.ffxivblog.com/really-core-i7-for-ffxiv/ How the **** do they expect to sell this game when they recomend a $300 processor. I have a huge feeling this game is going to flop on PC! I think SE has lost touch with reailty!

Edited, Jul 23rd 2010 2:11pm by TheBSTGuy
#2 Jul 23 2010 at 10:20 AM Rating: Good
You don't have to play the game on the recommended settings. There is a minimum system spec for a reason.
#3 Jul 23 2010 at 10:22 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
An i5-750 has the same gaming power as any i7 (except for the hexacore) and it's $200.
#4 Jul 23 2010 at 10:24 AM Rating: Default
*
209 posts
Quote:
You don't have to play the game on the recommended settings. There is a minimum system spec for a reason.
Have you ever tried to play a game on minium settings before? Its less then enjoyable and this game will be no different!
#5 Jul 23 2010 at 10:24 AM Rating: Decent
*
169 posts
A tiny little gaming laptop ran the beta quite well. I'm sure if you have anything slightly higher than that, you'll be happy.

EDIT: I wasn't using Minimum settings most of the time, but when I did use them, they looked pretty amazing too. You'll be fine. :P

Edited, Jul 23rd 2010 10:26am by MokiSunscar
#6 Jul 23 2010 at 10:26 AM Rating: Decent
**
423 posts
Quote:
Have you ever tried to play a game on minium settings before? Its less then enjoyable and this game will be no different!


I have, have you?

Don't complain until you try the game, recommended is often med-high settings.

Talk about making a big deal out of nothing. No one is forcing you to buy a new pc let alone even play on the pc...
#7 Jul 23 2010 at 10:28 AM Rating: Default
*
209 posts
Quote:
Don't complain until you try the game, recommended is often med-high settings
How do you know if I have tried the game or not?
#8 Jul 23 2010 at 10:28 AM Rating: Good
Quote:
Have you ever tried to play a game on minium settings before? Its less then enjoyable and this game will be no different!


A friend of mine has played FFXI since launch on a laptop that can hardly run it. While I personally don't enjoy playing MMOs when they are chugging, if people like a game enough they will just deal with stutters and bad graphics and still have an enjoyable experience.

I'm personally glad SE put out a good looking game, who's graphics will last years, instead of hoping to make more money and putting out something that looks like FFXI and could run on my toaster.
#9 Jul 23 2010 at 10:30 AM Rating: Good
**
394 posts
It's Core i7. And you don't need it, it's just recommended. The AMD equivalent is plenty cheaper and will do just as good of a job. The benchmark has been running fine on lesser hardware, too. As for how they expect it to sell, I'm sure they expect it to sell very well, and I'm sure it will. SE has not lost touch with reality; they are recommending a current-generation CPU, which other games this generation are also recommending. Apparently you don't play PC games that often, or you'd have noticed that XIV isn't asking for anything dramatically higher than any other game released within the past year, and just about every game you see from now on for PC will also be recommending an i7. This is how the world of PC gaming works, deal with it.

The recommendation is a sort of future-proofing. They know that not everyone has an i7, but it won't be that long before everyone does. And when that upgrade becomes an affordable option that you take advantage of, SE just wants you to know that FFXIV will look even better because of it.

I'm not the only one getting tired of this type of overreaction. As for your 'huge feeling' that the game is going to flop on PC, I have a huge feeling that you're wrong.
#10TheBSTGuy, Posted: Jul 23 2010 at 10:38 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I have a AMD Phenom 2 x4 3.2GHZ 4GB of ram 275GTX 896MB 500GB hard drive 850watt power supply and there is no way my PC will run 1080p. How do I know? Santa told me! This is 2010 720p rez might be ok if this was 1999!
#12TheBSTGuy, Posted: Jul 23 2010 at 11:35 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) UMMM... ok "Pinky and the Brain" mean anything to you? My monitor is 1080p which is 1920X1080 rez and like I said my PC will not run 1080p. By run I mean smooth game play no lag!
#13 Jul 23 2010 at 11:37 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
122 posts
How far off that am I with an overclocked Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400 2.66GHz @ 3.20GHz?

Mine can't be much worse than the recommended, is it?
#14TheBSTGuy, Posted: Jul 23 2010 at 11:41 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) If you guys notice the recomended rez is 720p 1280x720! Its like we just went backwards in time when 720P was high end for PC gaming!
#15 Jul 23 2010 at 12:28 PM Rating: Decent
*
216 posts
Those recommended specs do seem high, but we'll have to see how it looks and how it performs on the lower settings before we can say the impact it may have on sales. As long as the lower settings aren't all blurry, I don't think many people would mind toning them down.

But if the lower settings aren't very attractive, I agree that could become an issue. With WoW's upcoming expansion, and Star Wars: The Old Republic's upcoming launch, we're looking at 2 big MMO releases, both of which would be playable on older PC's. If people end up having to upgrade for FFXIV, they may decide to skip the title and just go to one of those other upcoming MMO's instead.

I know that if it doesn't run well on my PC I wont be upgrading for it. I have no reason to as I can run every other game out there right now, and there's none on the horizon that I'm needing to upgrade for. As much as I don't relish the thought, I would end up sitting FFXIV out.
TheBSTGuy wrote:
If you guys notice the recomended rez is 720p 1280x720! Its like we just went backwards in time when 720P was high end for PC gaming!
I still use 1024x768 for my desktop and games.
#16TheBSTGuy, Posted: Jul 23 2010 at 12:33 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I run all my games on 1080P 1920X1080 and my PC dosen't have any problems getting 60FPS+ on max settings including on BF:BC 2! Why they went crazy with this games specs I will never know!
#17 Jul 23 2010 at 12:58 PM Rating: Decent
*
135 posts
You don't need a Core I7 to run the game. I have a Core 2 duo 2.4 ghz and it runs just fine on default settings. Any dual core processor 2.0 ghz or more will run the game.
____________________________
Zumi - Server: Phoenix
PLD 75 / WAR 75 / RDM 75 / WHM 75 / RNG 75 / SAM 75 / MNK 75 / BRD 75 / THF 75
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/profile.xml?57256
#18TheBSTGuy, Posted: Jul 23 2010 at 1:19 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I should just toss my PC in the trash then because I can not run default settings on 1080p (1920x1080)!
#19 Jul 23 2010 at 1:38 PM Rating: Good
**
394 posts
TheBSTGuy wrote:
I should just toss my PC in the trash then so I won't be able to post anymore

Please do, you'll be doing everyone a favor.
#23 Jul 23 2010 at 2:13 PM Rating: Good
*
205 posts
They probably want the i7 because of the triple memory and faster memory access. It's not to say that something less won't run it. Heck my roommate runs a 3.0 Ghz Wolfdale and was still able to do ~2500 on the benchmark, and the graphics look astounding. On HD it's laggy and slow, but honestly even on low 720p you'll definitely cope with the game.

Yes it's a fairly high recommendation, but I'd rather they had a high recommendation than P4 1.8 Ghz or something. Then we'd all be saying "This game is going to suck because it's highest recommendation is YEARS old." Also, think about it, this is a next generation game so it would definitely make sense to have higher recommendation specifications to accommodate for future progress.
____________________________
It's not who we are, but what we do that define us. - Batman Begins

#24 Jul 23 2010 at 2:25 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,010 posts
We're really just going to have to wait and see. The reports coming out of that benchmark are really all over the place, and we aren't going to know until launch what actually will and will not run this game reasonably.

Boris - you do sometimes come across as really abrasive. Why is that? BST is just ranting and he's a regular part of the community here - give him a break.
#26 Jul 23 2010 at 3:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Boriss, GuardianFaith, both of you drop this attitude now, because there's no call for it whatsoever. Keep it up and you won't be able to post again.
____________________________
Lady Jinte wrote:

Vlorsutes' Negotiation Skill rises 0.2 points
Vlorsutes' Observant Parent Skill rises 0.3 points
Vlorsutes' Argument Diffusing Skill rises 0.1 points

#27 Jul 23 2010 at 3:10 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,754 posts
you dont need that stuff. I can let you know right here and now that without overclocking, my intel DUAL CORE E7200 + my 4gig DDR2 and my gainward geforce GTX 260 can handle the game quite nicely at 1920x 1080 (high mode in benchmark) and can do it very smoothly at 1280x720. all these components are a good 2 years old now too

POST EDIT

just thought you should know i'm running on server 2008R2, which helps alot with keeping everything smooth

Edited, Jul 23rd 2010 5:11pm by Jenovaomega
____________________________
The Accursed Being Sent By Heaven; Jenova: The Calamity From The Skies

WoW - EU - Al'Akir - Goblin Warlock
Taoquitok

FFXI - Bismarck
Jenovaomega
#28 Jul 23 2010 at 3:26 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
811 posts
I love the high specs. 5 years from now the game will still look great and we won't be stuck looking at something like WoW.
If you have a horrible gaming PC unable to run the game and you have an unwillingness to upgrade it, wait for PS3 release I suppose.
It's not really worth complaining about. On a larger scale, it would be like people without a few hundred thousand dollars complaining that they can't drive around in a Ferrari. It would all seem a little rediculous, don't you think?
#29 Jul 23 2010 at 3:32 PM Rating: Good
***
2,754 posts
the PS3 version won't be as pretty. they've already announced that the reason they're releasing it later on PS3 is that they're having issues compressing the game to run smoothly on the console... 'tis amusing really that they've made the game to powerful for the console they were planning to use.. hehe
____________________________
The Accursed Being Sent By Heaven; Jenova: The Calamity From The Skies

WoW - EU - Al'Akir - Goblin Warlock
Taoquitok

FFXI - Bismarck
Jenovaomega
#30 Jul 23 2010 at 3:36 PM Rating: Good
Sage
***
1,246 posts
If you want the game to run in full 1080p HD, with Max settings, Anti-Aliasing, and full effects what did you expect? No True-HD is gonna require less than an i7. If you want to run the game on the just as beautiful 720p mode however, it'll probably run on as little as a $70 2.4 Core 2 Duo.
____________________________
Meowth!
#31TheBSTGuy, Posted: Jul 23 2010 at 4:00 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I would love for the game to run True-HD but I cant justify spending $1500+ on a PC right now. So I am going to do a minor update to my PC and hope for the best.
#32 Jul 23 2010 at 4:27 PM Rating: Decent
8 posts
Quote:
I would love for the game to run True-HD but I cant justify spending $1500+ on a PC right now. So I am going to do a minor update to my PC and hope for the best.


If you aren't willing to spend some coin in order to play the game at its fullest potential, then why are you complaining? Thus is the life of a pc rig; people are just going to have to accept the fact that the super pc they bought 2 or 3 years ago aren't going to run these new games at max settings anymore unless they are willing to constantly upgrade their pc.
#33 Jul 23 2010 at 4:32 PM Rating: Default
*
209 posts
Quote:
If you aren't willing to spend some coin in order to play the game at its fullest potential, then why are you complaining? Thus is the life of a pc rig; people are just going to have to accept the fact that the super pc they bought 2 or 3 years ago aren't going to run these new games at max settings anymore unless they are willing to constantly upgrade their pc.
My PC is not very old I just upgraded it in march, why would I want to spend another $1000+ 6 months latter? I dont have a problem maxing any game including BF:BC 2 I only have a problem with FFXIV.
#34 Jul 23 2010 at 4:36 PM Rating: Decent
8 posts
If you don't want to upgrade it and you're set on the fact that it's not worth it, then why are you complaining? The pc scene has always operated like this- it's not like FFXIV is doing something so drastic that it's unprecedented. Look at what happened when Crysis launched.
#35 Jul 23 2010 at 5:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
29 posts
I'm getting 3300 on low and 2600 on High. My processor is an Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 2.66Ghz and not overclocked.

My point is that you're overreacting OP.
#36 Jul 23 2010 at 5:28 PM Rating: Default
2 posts
SE is lying about their system requirements and benchmark score descriptions and I can't for the life of me understand why they would do that. Is it good business to turn away customers?

My i5 laptop scored 1800. According to SE this means "low performance, significant slowdown unlikely to improve by adjusting settings". Orly? then why were FPS butter smooth never dipping below 40?
#37 Jul 23 2010 at 5:41 PM Rating: Decent
*
149 posts
Quote:
Regarding FINAL FANTASY XIV for Windows® Recommended System Requirements


The following PC specifications are required to run the game smoothly with the recommended in-game settings below.

Window Size and Display Mode 1280×720 (Windowed)
Ambient Occlusion OFF
Depth of Field ON
Shadow Detail Standard
Multisampling 4x MSAA
Buffer Size Window Size
Texture Quality High
Texture Filtering High


Those are pretty high settings

You can bet turning off depth of field and turning textures down to even standard would increase frame rate dramatically.

I'm sure XIV on worst settings will still be wayyyy better than XI (and I never had any complaints about XI).

edit. BTW Those settings were attached to the recommended sys. req.'s for those that didnt know.


Edited, Jul 23rd 2010 7:42pm by djbenny

Edited, Jul 23rd 2010 7:43pm by djbenny
____________________________
Former THF, BST, PLD, NIN 75
#38 Jul 23 2010 at 6:46 PM Rating: Good
**
749 posts
Quote:
How the **** do they expect to sell this game when they recomend a $300 processor


As opposed to what, the intel $900+ extreme edition processors?

Sorry to burst your bubble but $300 is about the going rate for a mid level intel chip. Intel's chips have always been [imo] overpriced anyway, so what you're looking at is actually fairly standard pricing.

For intel.

Of course, you could get an unlocked Phenom II X4 for $179, or for $300 you can get this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103849&cm_re=phenom_ii_x6-_-19-103-849-_-Product

And remember kids, those hyperthreaded virtual cores? *NOT* the same performance as a physical core :D

____________________________
http://www.rantmedia.ca/newsreal/
http://www.piratepartyradio.com


The Truth is a virus
#39 Jul 24 2010 at 11:59 PM Rating: Good
*
108 posts
djbenny wrote:
You can bet turning off depth of field and turning textures down to even standard would increase frame rate dramatically.

I'm sure XIV on worst settings will still be wayyyy better than XI (and I never had any complaints about XI).


Why does anyone use Depth of Field anyway? I really don't feel the need to use extra processing power to simulate in my games the bad eyesight I have IRL. Making things blurry doesn't make them any prettier, it just covers up the ugliness.

OP, I don't really understand your sentiment here. Usually people want new games to utilize the latest technology to improve the quality of the visuals, meaning that the very highest settings will require at least the very latest technology. Is your complaint that the quality of the graphics is too low for the power required?
#40 Jul 25 2010 at 1:50 AM Rating: Decent
*
109 posts
seneleron wrote:
Quote:
How the **** do they expect to sell this game when they recomend a $300 processor


As opposed to what, the intel $900+ extreme edition processors?

Sorry to burst your bubble but $300 is about the going rate for a mid level intel chip. Intel's chips have always been [imo] overpriced anyway, so what you're looking at is actually fairly standard pricing.

For intel.

Of course, you could get an unlocked Phenom II X4 for $179, or for $300 you can get this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103849&cm_re=phenom_ii_x6-_-19-103-849-_-Product

And remember kids, those hyperthreaded virtual cores? *NOT* the same performance as a physical core :D


I was actually wondering how much difference the HT would make from an i7-hexa versus the Phenom X6 1090T, cause for a third of the price, I'm ok with "just" six physical cores and not 6x2
____________________________

Kashius wrote:
Things WoW did not invent:
...
- Fun
#41 Jul 25 2010 at 6:04 AM Rating: Good
*
228 posts
BST Guy wrote:
My PC is not very old I just upgraded it in march, why would I want to spend another $1000+ 6 months latter? I dont have a problem maxing any game including BF:BC 2 I only have a problem with FFXIV.


If you spent $1000 this March , you will be fine.
Remember that the game also does not HAVE to be played in 1920x1080 it just supports a resolution this high if you have the hardware.
The game is still going to look great at much lower resolutions and on smaller monitors. I expected good graphical quality but from what I have seen it blew my expectations away. Look at the benchmark then think about playing in that quality.

Dragoon Rising wrote:
Why does anyone use Depth of Field anyway? I really don't feel the need to use extra processing power to simulate in my games the bad eyesight I have IRL. Making things blurry doesn't make them any prettier, it just covers up the ugliness.

OP, I don't really understand your sentiment here. Usually people want new games to utilize the latest technology to improve the quality of the visuals, meaning that the very highest settings will require at least the very latest technology. Is your complaint that the quality of the graphics is too low for the power required?


DOF simulates the real situation. I agree and to me it actually detracts from the game. I don't need additional depth cues , certainly not this type of game.

The game is likely to be fine on any gaming PC. You won't be able to get the absolute highest graphical quality right now unless you spend big money. But then again, in 2-3 years time you may well be able to on a modest computer. I see this as having your cake now and eating it later. WIN

Edited, Jul 25th 2010 8:29am by oleum
____________________________
oleum
Old Nick Sargantanas
Merlon Wytarensyn - not there yet but probably Balmung
#42 Jul 25 2010 at 6:13 AM Rating: Decent
*****
11,539 posts
oleum wrote:
The game is likely to be fine on any gaming PC. You won't be able to get the absolute highest graphical quality right now unless you spend big money. But then again, in 2-3 years time you may well be able to on a modest computer. I see this as having your cake now and eating it later. WIN


If I had a cake now and waited 2-3 years to eat it, I would probably not want that cake. Wedding cake top eaten on 1st anniversary notwithstanding.
____________________________
[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.
#43 Jul 25 2010 at 6:31 AM Rating: Default
*
228 posts
Mikhalia wrote:
If I had a cake now and waited 2-3 years to eat it, I would probably not want that cake. Wedding cake top eaten on 1st anniversary notwithstanding


This is obviously a very special cake then :)
____________________________
oleum
Old Nick Sargantanas
Merlon Wytarensyn - not there yet but probably Balmung
#44 Jul 25 2010 at 6:35 AM Rating: Decent
*****
11,539 posts
oleum wrote:
Mikhalia wrote:
If I had a cake now and waited 2-3 years to eat it, I would probably not want that cake. Wedding cake top eaten on 1st anniversary notwithstanding


This is obviously a very special cake then :)


Or is 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.
#45 Jul 25 2010 at 7:11 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
4,775 posts
ZumiPhoenix wrote:
You don't need a Core I7 to run the game. I have a Core 2 duo 2.4 ghz and it runs just fine on default settings. Any dual core processor 2.0 ghz or more will run the game.


Are you talking about a high benchmark score or the toned down Beta version that isn't full specs yet?
#46 Jul 25 2010 at 10:33 AM Rating: Good
**
576 posts
TheBSTGuy wrote:
Quote:
You don't need a Core I7 to run the game. I have a Core 2 duo 2.4 ghz and it runs just fine on default settings. Any dual core processor 2.0 ghz or more will run the game.
I should just toss my PC in the trash then because I can not run default settings on 1080p (1920x1080)!


Or you could actually analyze the weaknesses in your system, but then you wouldn't be able to rant about stupid stuff...

Your processor is fine. See here:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AimI6xhXN4XXdF9xQWRTTWlSWFZmWkRSTHFkR05zNEE&hl=en#gid=0

Several Phenom2's are in the upper 25% of the list. It's your video card that's holding you back. It seems that Nvidia needs to optimize their drivers for this game, as they are under-performing across the board. This is good news for you, as it means that you'll likely see increased performance after they get that implemented.

I'd say that in the meantime, you should just run at 720p, but that seems to diminish your e-peen too much for you to handle.

Edited, Jul 25th 2010 12:43pm by Pickins
____________________________
FFXI, Siren: Pickins BST99.:~:.BLM75.:~:.RDM56
FFXIV, Siren: Miss Pickins - Builder of the Realm
#47 Jul 25 2010 at 2:30 PM Rating: Decent
11 posts
If they set the requirements too low now, a few years down the road two things will happen:

1. Players complain about the graphics being lousy and outdated.
2. SE will say they cannot do anything due to "technical limitations".
____________________________
We are still looking for Oceanic players (we are mainly from Singapore/Australia) to join our Company/Linkshell! Feel free to visit our website at http://ffxiv-invictuscodex.com
#48 Jul 25 2010 at 4:49 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
185 posts
@Pickins: Nice link you posted, though it's making me rethink some of my build I was planning to purchase later this week XD

was gonna go with the 1090T for various reason(video encoding among other things) but think I'll step it down to 965 now and use the extra money towards a better video card. I Could get both, but I'm trying to limit myself on money.

sorry for going off topic, just couldn't help but respond and voice my thanks for the link and further helping me with my decision making.
____________________________

Dranio - FFXI Tarutaru BLM/BLU

#49 Jul 25 2010 at 6:48 PM Rating: Good
**
576 posts
Don't thank me, thank these guys:
http://www.ffxivcore.com/topic/7393-gpu-and-cpu-score-list/
____________________________
FFXI, Siren: Pickins BST99.:~:.BLM75.:~:.RDM56
FFXIV, Siren: Miss Pickins - Builder of the Realm
#50 Jul 27 2010 at 3:23 PM Rating: Good
***
2,535 posts
DragoonRising wrote:
Why does anyone use Depth of Field anyway? I really don't feel the need to use extra processing power to simulate in my games the bad eyesight I have IRL. Making things blurry doesn't make them any prettier, it just covers up the ugliness.


I can add a more cinematic feel to a game, and it can improve immersion in first-person.

That said, SE's implementation of DoF is utter rubbish that should have stayed on the PS2 - it consumes too much geometry processing for each frame, doesn't fully utilize the capabilities of modern hardware, and doesn't hold up at HD resolutions.
#51 Jul 27 2010 at 5:27 PM Rating: Decent
*
58 posts
Well those scores have me rethinking my plans. I am going to build a new pc since my wife and I are tired of sharing our pc and was planning on going with 2 GTX 480s. Might have to consider 5870s or the 5970 Toxic.
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 22 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (22)