Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

Your computer's performance in the beta.Follow

#1 Aug 22 2010 at 3:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
Avatar
***
2,536 posts
I couldn't find the other thread so I decided to just make a new, fresh one.

If it doesn't take too much of your time, please post your computer specs (just CPU and GPU is fine, and whether it's overclocked). Check your fps by using a program such as Fraps or MSI Afterburner and post your results here.

Please say whether you are running the game generally on low settings, medium settings, or high settings (Depth of Field, Ambient Occlusion, and AA don't count, please turn them off). Also state what resolution you're playing on.

Also, please list your MINIMUM fps at very crowded areas, such as at the Bearded Rock Camp Aetheryte with a crapload of people crowded around it.


I'll start:

Phenom 955 (OC'ed from 3.2 to 3.8)
GTX 460 (OC'ed from 800 to 860)
720p with medium settings
Minimum FPS: about 18-22 fps facing a huge crowd at the Bearded Rock Aetheryte.



When playing the game normally, fps is usually in between 30-60. It's just in the crowded areas that my fps drop to about 20.

The performance I get in the beta is actually pretty accurate with the performance I get on the benchmark. I score 4700 on the benchmark on low with that OC settings. The game runs fine on medium settings and 720p most of the time, except when there are crowds.

I was expecting to get better performance than this, but it seems, in my case at least, the performance in the game holds true to the performance in the benchmark.

I'd like to know other people's overall performance in the game, but especially at very crowded areas. Please list your set up and performance like I did above in bold.

Thank you for your time. :)


Edit:
If you would like to contribute to this thread, please post your actual FPS in the game instead of saying your system "runs well at high settings."

The words "fine," "good," "very well," "smooth," "ok," etc. are very subjective to one's opinion and tolerance.

"Fine" to someone might be considered "good" to another, and it might be considered "bad" to another.

When you say the game runs "well," it means almost nothing to me. Your definition of "well" and mine are probably different.

Please post NUMBERS. All that matters to me is numbers. :)



Edited, Aug 24th 2010 2:33pm by Threx
____________________________
FF11 Server: Caitsith
Kalyna (retired, 2008)
100 Goldsmith
75 Rng, Brd
Main/Acc
Exp/Hybrid
Str/Attk
Spam/Others
#2 Aug 22 2010 at 3:30 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
66 posts
My rig is...

i7-860 (2.8ghz)
8gb ram
ATi 5770

As for beta, the only thing I changed from the original settings was my resolution to 1600x1024.
- Multisampling: No AA
- Buffer Size: Resolution
- Shadow Detail: Standard
- Ambient Occlusion: Off
- Depth of Field: Off
- Texture Quality: HIGH
- Texture Filtering: HIGH

The results with these settings and FRAPS running...

@Bearded Rock Camp... 33-38fps. I would say there were no less than 15 players at any given time either crafting, afk, doing leves or coming back from being KO'd.

@xp grinding.... 40-50fps when there was a crowd of players waiting for mobs to re-spawn in a small area. 58fps was the highest I got soloing further away from other players near the more the distant aether crystals.

@the city.... 22-30fps. But I was expecting lower fps in the city itself.

Hopefully, this will be helpful to some questions others might have about their concerns about their PC specs.

Edited, Aug 22nd 2010 5:30am by Anaris85
____________________________
Phoenix Server, Final Fantasy XI (Retired)
Etoh 75 Warrior, 75 White Mage, 75 Black Mage, 75 Summoner
37 Ninja, 37 Red Mage, 37 Samurai, 37 Thief, 37 Monk, 37 Blue Mage, 37 Dark Knight

Volkmar Server, Warhammer: Age of Reckoning (Retired)
Diabolos Nox R40/RR80 Sorcerer
Greasuss R40/RR68 Choppa
Rhra R40/RR63 Zealot
#3 Aug 22 2010 at 3:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
*
103 posts
I have some posts here and here.

Reposting the last link.

Quote:
Pardon the varied camera angles. 1152x864 resolution.

Min: http://daow.net/images/FFXIV/ffxivgame%202010-08-21%2020-30-03-99.jpg
Max: http://daow.net/images/FFXIV/ffxivgame%202010-08-21%2020-34-10-80.jpg

Min: http://daow.net/images/FFXIV/ffxivgame%202010-08-21%2020-30-15-12.jpg
Max: http://daow.net/images/FFXIV/ffxivgame%202010-08-21%2020-34-03-79.jpg

Min: http://daow.net/images/FFXIV/ffxivgame%202010-08-21%2020-30-33-09.jpg
Max: http://daow.net/images/FFXIV/ffxivgame%202010-08-21%2020-34-23-69.jpg

It's nighttime so it's not as pretty, but you judge the graphic fidelity for now.

Note: Another oversight, forgot I disabled the FPS counter capture. Only enabled for the HQ pictures. 8xCSAA, forgot to turn distance drawing back on, texture quality and filtering maxed on both sets, 8xAF forced since the game does not include it. Buffer set to double.

Edit: Well, looking out into the water sets my GPU at 50% usage. (min settings) Spin view to look behind me, 70%. Yup, something's messed. 37 and 30 FPS respectively.

Edit2: Testing distance drawing. Same shots, but both are low quality settings.

Off: http://daow.net/images/FFXIV/ffxivgame%202010-08-22%2007-18-58-75.jpg
On: http://daow.net/images/FFXIV/ffxivgame%202010-08-22%2007-19-09-20.jpg

Off: http://daow.net/images/FFXIV/ffxivgame%202010-08-22%2007-19-25-31.jpg
On: http://daow.net/images/FFXIV/ffxivgame%202010-08-22%2007-20-02-83.jpg

Off: http://daow.net/images/FFXIV/ffxivgame%202010-08-22%2007-20-11-06.jpg
On: http://daow.net/images/FFXIV/ffxivgame%202010-08-22%2007-20-23-54.jpg

Edit3: Okay, wow. I'm not sure if it's the nighttime or what, but I changed shadows to standard (from lowest) and I actually gained 3 FPS. GPU usage went up to 80%.

I did some more testing. I disabled all but 1 processor core for the game and my FPS dropped to 8 with staticy sound. GPU usage went to 11%. Increased to 2 cores and it went back up to about 35, still glitching, GPU usage around 30%. 3 cores restored it almost back to what it was, GPU usage 70%. 4 cores fully restored it. Never did CPU usage go over 48%, not sure why it was performing bad on 2 dedicated unused cores.

Horrible, horrible game engine. So much seems to be software processed. Then again, it's being developed with consoles in mind, like FFXI. If open beta is in September, then, well, I don't see what hope the game has for optimization.

Edit4: AA to 2x, GPU usage 97%, though FPS dropped by 7. Way too big of a performance hit for MSAA.

Shadows to highest, GPU usage 50%, what? 41 FPS vs standard 47FPS at 80% GPU.

I'm about done testing, I can't take the randomness of an awful 'beta' game engine.


Edited, Aug 22nd 2010 8:43am by DAOWAce
____________________________
I don't mean to sound rude, but I can't help the way people interpret my words.
#4 Aug 22 2010 at 7:51 AM Rating: Good
**
749 posts
AMD X6 1090T O/C'd 4.11Ghz
Gigabyte 5870 1GB, factory overclocked to 950/1250, further O/Cd to 965/1300
8 gig DDR 2000

Benchmarks:

Low, 6167
High, 5248

Full screen, 1920 x 1080
AA 8XQ MSAA
Buffer Size: resolution
Shadows: Standard
Texture quality: High
Texture filtering: Highest

With these settings, I get a solid 60FPS in empty areas and 35ish around aetherite [heavily clustered with ppl]
Turning up shadows to max gives me 60/24, I have it turned down for breathing room. Playability is not affected.

Turning on Depth of field causes crashes every 5 minutes, but makes no difference in my Frames.

Ambient Occlusion. . . . Ye gods Ambient Occlusion. 24 frames in empty areas with AA off, shadows off. Almost playable like this. Screen quits jittering around, graphical distortions stop, but the mouse lag becomes very irritating after about 5 minutes. [With Ambient occlusion off I get this weird horizontal line across the bottom of my screen about 1/4" long that likes to bounce up and down when I run. Thankfully I'm not prone to epileptic seizures].





Edited, Aug 22nd 2010 9:52am by seneleron

Edited, Aug 22nd 2010 9:52am by seneleron
____________________________
http://www.rantmedia.ca/newsreal/
http://www.piratepartyradio.com


The Truth is a virus
#5 Aug 22 2010 at 8:20 AM Rating: Decent
CPU: Intel i7-980x
GPU: 2x PNY GTX 480 in SLI
RAM: 12GB (3x4GB) Mushkin DDR3 1600
Mobo: Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD7

Benchmark score (Full Screen score)
720: 7502 (~8600)
1080: 6510 (7324)

Beta Settings
Display/Resolution: Full Screen @ 1920x1080
Multisampling: 16xQ CSAA
Buffer Size: Resolution
Shadow Detail: Highest
Ambient Occlusion: On
Depth of Field: On
Texture Quality: High
Texture Filtering: Highest

FPS (FPS with SLI profile)
Limsa Lominsa: ~17 (~30) FPS
Bearded Rock (Aetheryte): ~17 (~30) FPS
Bearded Rock (out grinding): ~20 (~35+) FPS
____________________________
Steam: Xavier1216
FFXI: Astyanax (Bismarck)


[ffxivsig]1749659[/ffxivsig]
#6 Aug 22 2010 at 9:49 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
771 posts
Here's what I'm running:

-GA-MA770-UD3 Motherboard
-Phenom 9650 Quad-Core OC'd to 2.7GHz
-4GB G. Skill DDR2 1066 RAM
-XFX Radeon 5770 1GB
-Sigma Monster 650W PSU
-Windows Vista 64-Bit
Minimum FPS: 15-32 all around Limsa Lominsa, including around a giant crowd(looked like linkshell gathering) near the aetheryte.

Running around normally I get 25-55. This varies depending on where I am. 25-35 about in wide open areas where the view distance is far, up to 55 in enclosed or short-view distance areas.

I was expecting better performance, and am still hoping that they optimize things better in the future. However, this is good enough that I can still play without getting angry about lag. I actually thought my FPS would be higher until I ran the program(used MSI Afterburner).

On another note I did this with highest settings except Depth of Field, Ambient Occlusion, and AA were off as requested. I'm running the game at 1680x1050 on a 22" widescreen 720p monitor. Normally I run it with the same settings except AA at 2x.
#7 Aug 22 2010 at 10:14 AM Rating: Decent
**
447 posts
Her you go sir,

Phenom 965 OC to 3.6
EVGA 470 OC to 800/1600
1768 X 992 (whichever one that is)
Settings on HIGH with one HIGHEST

FPS using FRAPS in crowded areas (Aetheryte Camp Bearded ROck) 25-30 with other no crowded ares 45-60

Overall, rather pleased with the performance!

____________________________
FFXIV:
PL (40) CRP (32) CON (27) ALC (17) THM (15) GSM (15)


FFXI (Retired):
PLD [75] RDM [75] WAR [75] BRD [75] NIN [75] SAM [75]

[ffxivsig]1493579[/ffxivsig]
#8 Aug 22 2010 at 10:24 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
771 posts
Quote:
Her you go sir,

Phenom 965 OC to 3.6
EVGA 470 OC to 800/1600
1768 X 992 (whichever one that is)
Settings on HIGH with one HIGHEST

FPS using FRAPS in crowded areas (Aetheryte Camp Bearded ROck) 25-30 with other no crowded ares 45-60

Overall, rather pleased with the performance!


Is that with Depth of Field, Ambient Occlusion, and AA on or off?
#9 Aug 22 2010 at 1:08 PM Rating: Good
***
2,120 posts
Mine look about the same, we have some very similar builds so far this thread. My worst is low 20s in the most crowded areas and max is 60. Often in the 40s to 50s when running around in the field.

I'm running on default settings with 1280x720 resolution

Phenom iix4 965
GTX 470
4 GB RAM
BenchLow: 4285
BenchHigh: 3372

No OCing yet
____________________________

#10 Aug 22 2010 at 1:47 PM Rating: Decent
**
447 posts
Depth of field & AO off, 2x AA
____________________________
FFXIV:
PL (40) CRP (32) CON (27) ALC (17) THM (15) GSM (15)


FFXI (Retired):
PLD [75] RDM [75] WAR [75] BRD [75] NIN [75] SAM [75]

[ffxivsig]1493579[/ffxivsig]
#11DirectorCobbs, Posted: Aug 22 2010 at 1:51 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) These performance reports seem horrible. Almost all of you are using top-end consumer hardware, and you're getting crap performance at low settings. Disappointing
#12 Aug 22 2010 at 2:08 PM Rating: Excellent
*
137 posts
I'm running a 9800 GTX, Intel Quad Core 9550 with 6 gigs of DDR3 ram and it runs nicely on 720p.

I was fearful that it would chug a lot, but it surprisingly doesn't. I left everything on the standard settings for 720p as well.
#13 Aug 22 2010 at 2:08 PM Rating: Good
****
9,043 posts
Benchmark: 950

I can play XIV on the lowest settings with almost no lag, apart from when it's loading 30 characters all of a sudden. But even then I can still move around with no problems, they just take a few secs to show on screen.

I'm happy that my 2 year old laptop can run it. Yes, I'll upgrade eventually, but it doesn't mean I have to now. Which is nice.

I'd say anyone with 800+ can run it... but be prepared for lag.
____________________________
Likibiki ~ 75 WHM ~ 75 SAM ~ 75 THF ~ 75 SMN ~ 74 NIN
Pandemonium Server, FFXI. Retired. Gone but not forgotten.
Cailey ~ 90 DNC ~ 90 RDM ~ 90 BLM
Asura Server, FFXI. Adventurer Extraordinaire.
#14 Aug 22 2010 at 2:09 PM Rating: Decent
11 posts
Ha, going ingame is the only way to be sure your rig can handle the game... If only i had a key :(
#15 Aug 22 2010 at 2:15 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
771 posts
Quote:
These performance reports seem horrible. Almost all of you are using top-end consumer hardware, and you're getting crap performance at low settings. Disappointing


You do realize that this game's graphics are amazing? I never expected my computer to run it at full settings, wanted it to, but didn't expect it. SE has stated that they designed the graphics engine with the idea in mind that it would be able to be ran at full settings optimally in two to three years.

Also take into account that, as SE has stated, optimization for different hardware is an ongoing process and they are still working on it. As a matter of fact they will probably always be working on it as new technology comes out even after the games release.
#16 Aug 22 2010 at 2:16 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
413 posts
DirectorCobbs wrote:
These performance reports seem horrible. Almost all of you are using top-end consumer hardware, and you're getting crap performance at low settings. Disappointing


Yea... I have a feeling the majority of players of this game are gonna be on PS3. And launch of this game may only consist of hardcore gamers. I just don't see a lot of people being able to hop on this right off the bat. This game is prolly gonna take off slowly, imo. I don't think requirements were even this high at the time FFXI came out. REALLY curious to see how packed things are gonna be next month.
____________________________
FFXI:
Trazier-Lakshimi(Garuda) Server:
Tarutaru BLM75/DRG75/SMN60/RDM48/WHM45

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


You're on Allah, just posting can be turned into an argument.
#17 Aug 22 2010 at 2:19 PM Rating: Decent
11 posts
Quote:
I'm running a 9800 GTX, Intel Quad Core 9550 with 6 gigs of DDR3 ram and it runs nicely on 720p.

I was fearful that it would chug a lot, but it surprisingly doesn't. I left everything on the standard settings for 720p as well.

great i have about the same spec as you have :D
#18 Aug 22 2010 at 2:21 PM Rating: Good
****
9,043 posts
Daan wrote:
Ha, going ingame is the only way to be sure your rig can handle the game... If only i had a key :(


It's good to have friends sometimes ;)
____________________________
Likibiki ~ 75 WHM ~ 75 SAM ~ 75 THF ~ 75 SMN ~ 74 NIN
Pandemonium Server, FFXI. Retired. Gone but not forgotten.
Cailey ~ 90 DNC ~ 90 RDM ~ 90 BLM
Asura Server, FFXI. Adventurer Extraordinaire.
#19 Aug 22 2010 at 3:02 PM Rating: Good
AMD Athlon 64 X2 dual core clocked at about 3.1GHz
Nvidia 250 GT

I run at 1920x1080 full screen with 2x AA, high res textures, high quality shaders, low shadows.
I push about 25 FPS in cities and in a crowded fight it can drop to around 15, but it's very very playable, I've been pretty happy with the performance I was expecting much much worse.

Screenshot
Image for reference
#20 Aug 22 2010 at 3:30 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
413 posts
It's really weird. There are a lot of rigs that, according to the benchmark/SE, shouldn't be able to handle FFXIV that are playing the game very well. Then there are the high end rigs that are just missing the playable mark and are running "ok". I wonder what it comes down to. CPU, graphics card... what is it? I wanna know what area can you slack off in and what piece absolutely MUST be up to snuff. I'm sure that would help a lot of people in the PC purchasing/upgrading department.
____________________________
FFXI:
Trazier-Lakshimi(Garuda) Server:
Tarutaru BLM75/DRG75/SMN60/RDM48/WHM45

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


You're on Allah, just posting can be turned into an argument.
#21 Aug 22 2010 at 4:01 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
175 posts
Lamnethx of the Seven Seas wrote:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 dual core clocked at about 3.1GHz
Nvidia 250 GT

I run at 1920x1080 full screen with 2x AA, high res textures, high quality shaders, low shadows.
I push about 25 FPS in cities and in a crowded fight it can drop to around 15, but it's very very playable, I've been pretty happy with the performance I was expecting much much worse.

[img=174867]
Image for reference


Same boat as them. (same LS too :P)

GTS 250, AMN Athlon II, 2.9 GhZ Quad Core, 4 GB of RAM

Generally 20-25 FPS all around. Very playable.
____________________________
FFXI:(Remora -> Leviathan -> Shiva) WHM, BLM, RDM, THF, SAM, DNC
FFXIV: (Rabanastre) Working on: CON ~ LNC




[ffxivsig]1683745[/ffxivsig]
#22 Aug 22 2010 at 5:20 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
771 posts
Quote:
It's really weird. There are a lot of rigs that, according to the benchmark/SE, shouldn't be able to handle FFXIV that are playing the game very well. Then there are the high end rigs that are just missing the playable mark and are running "ok". I wonder what it comes down to. CPU, graphics card... what is it? I wanna know what area can you slack off in and what piece absolutely MUST be up to snuff. I'm sure that would help a lot of people in the PC purchasing/upgrading department.


I think what it really comes down to at this point is optimization. Some video cards and CPUs have been optimized for FFXIV by SE and some haven't. For instance the i7 series of processors has been optimized, and they worked with intel on it to support hyperthreading(SE stated this). As far as GPU goes I'm not sure what the best is, I've heard Radeon works better but from this thread it seems my 5770 is running this game at about the same as most of the Nvidia cards so far.
#23 Aug 22 2010 at 5:38 PM Rating: Good
**
749 posts
Quote:
You do realize that this game's graphics are amazing?


Nobody is denying that the graphics are absolutely beautiful. I think some people are starting to realize that there are other epic games out there with graphics just as if not more beautiful. . and run max settings with much "weaker" hardware.

So what gives?

Well, many of today's games use advanced software and coding. .ya know, things like DX11. . and as new ways of doing things come about, old ways of doing things become obsolete. If one wants to continue to do these things, it needs to be emulated somehow, which usually adds some kind of translation program into the mix.

Now, I can't prove any of this. It's just theory work in my head with no basis, and if someone has hard evidence that I'm mistaken I'll gladly take the opportunity to learn. . but it almost seems like they just ported the FFXI engine, revamped the graphics with the same dated code they used initially, and built the whole world on top of it.

This has nothing to do with whether or not the game is good or bad, beautiful or ugly. I just wonder if they coded it the way they knew how to with what they already had, vs recoding from the ground up. . which COULD have led to a way more efficient program [IE, uses hardware more efficiently] It makes sense, recoding those base engines would've taken years, I'm sure, not to mention having to rebuild every piece of code from the ground up tends to drive programmers insane, or so I hear.

Again, I'm not judging this, and I'm not saying this is or isn't the truth. I'm simply looking at a line of possibility so that I can begin to get an understanding of WHY things are they way they are. From where I'm sitting on my [relatively] high end machine, the payload does not seem to justify the performance requirements. I'm not a programmer, but I know what my machine is capable of. . and I really feel it's not WHAT's on my screen, but how it's being processed that's the cause.


And one more time, this is OPINION AND SPECULATION LOOKING FOR THOUGHTFUL DIALOGUE. I'm not condemning the game, I'm not praising it. I'm not claiming it sucks, and I'm not praising it as the second coming of Altaana. I'm just looking for helpful and insightful conversation to either bear out my theory, or put it to rest.



Last second edit:

Quote:
GPU goes I'm not sure what the best is


SE is sponsored by Nvidia.


Edited, Aug 22nd 2010 7:39pm by seneleron
____________________________
http://www.rantmedia.ca/newsreal/
http://www.piratepartyradio.com


The Truth is a virus
#24 Aug 23 2010 at 12:07 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
413 posts
I just want the truuuuuth lol
____________________________
FFXI:
Trazier-Lakshimi(Garuda) Server:
Tarutaru BLM75/DRG75/SMN60/RDM48/WHM45

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


You're on Allah, just posting can be turned into an argument.
#25 Aug 24 2010 at 1:00 PM Rating: Default
The problem is SE doesn't offer low enough graphic settings to make today's mid-high end rigs capable on running the game at 60fps. That's what is silly about this.

And people keep on saying "people with mid end computers are running the game very well!"
20-30fps isn't "very well", playing an mmo for hours at a varying 20-30fps will give you a headache.
____________________________
Requested self-ban from admin. Later guys, good luck
#26 Aug 24 2010 at 1:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
Avatar
***
2,536 posts
Yes, the words "fine," "good," "very well," "smooth," "ok," etc. are very subjective to one's opinion and tolerance.

"Fine" to someone might be considered "good" to another, and it might be considered "bad" to another.

When you say the game runs "well," it means almost nothing to me. Your definition of "well" and mine are probably different.

That's why in my original post I asked people to post NUMBERS. All that matters to me is numbers. :)



Edited, Aug 24th 2010 2:33pm by Threx
____________________________
FF11 Server: Caitsith
Kalyna (retired, 2008)
100 Goldsmith
75 Rng, Brd
Main/Acc
Exp/Hybrid
Str/Attk
Spam/Others
#27 Sep 04 2010 at 6:09 PM Rating: Decent
Here's my benchmark/PC data- (Scored a 703 x.x)

Playing with everything on high is fine (Fine as in... 5 FPS and a good 8 second delay on everything I do.)
If I play with everything on low, I get low FPS (10-15) and some input lag (3 seconds).
If I run with the buffer on half- it runs great (25-30 FPS)! (Looks like crap, but it's fantastic!)

Edited, Sep 4th 2010 8:11pm by Ovada
#28 Sep 04 2010 at 6:19 PM Rating: Decent
These threads always make me laugh cause 90% of the people posting are people with crazy rigs, then the one or 2 guys who finally post what most probably have at home.
____________________________

#29 Sep 04 2010 at 7:47 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
771 posts
Quote:
Now, I can't prove any of this. It's just theory work in my head with no basis, and if someone has hard evidence that I'm mistaken I'll gladly take the opportunity to learn. . but it almost seems like they just ported the FFXI engine, revamped the graphics with the same dated code they used initially, and built the whole world on top of it.


Hard evidence is here! FFXIV uses Crystal Tools, first used for FFXIII.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Tools
#30 Sep 05 2010 at 10:26 PM Rating: Good
Sage
***
1,675 posts
This should be stickied.

Computer Specs:

Q9550 @ 3.5GHz Stock Cooler (I know) Idle temp: 40c Max temp: ~65c
8800GT 512MB varied OC 700/1800/950
6GB RAM

Benchmark: ~3700 Low - 2100 High

In the open beta I get an average of around 30 FPS @ 720p (windowed mode + aero OFF) with everything on high. No AO and no DoF.

Here are two screens:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/47400209@N03/4962803348/

@ Bearded Rock? 15-20FPS

http://www.flickr.com/photos/47400209@N03/4962802348/

Out and about 30-40FPS

This is totally playable and looks great, but I will upgrade.


Disclaimer:

My cooling in my case is horrendous. I need a better CPU cooler as my temps reach almost 70c. The highest CPU percentage was 75% so I'm doing OK there. I have a Accelero cooler on my 8800gt but a literal box fan blowing on it with the case open. Hopefully once I get my cooling situation figured out, I might splurge for a better case and for a 5850 or a cheaper GTX460.

#31 Sep 05 2010 at 11:11 PM Rating: Default
Sage
*
55 posts
Pretty much everything is subjective with it "runs great, or well on my machine."

If you try running FF XIV on full settings 90% of all machines will fail.

Don't worry as SQUARE ENIX has a 1-2 year buffer in place money and resource wise to make sure XIV is successful to some degree. There won't be another WoW phenom... There shouldn't be anyone trying to do it.

But too answer your questions...

Quote:
Nobody is denying that the graphics are absolutely beautiful. I think some people are starting to realize that there are other epic games out there with graphics just as if not more beautiful. . and run max settings with much "weaker" hardware.

So what gives?


Alot of those "epic games" out there with graphics just as good as graphics as FF XIV aren't MMOs.

Crysis or Crysis 2 are not MMOs.

There is no MMO to my understanding atm on the level graphically as FFXIV. Now Guild Wars 2 is looking very good so we'll see what ArenaNet those.

Also like the link posted they are using "Crystal Tools" for FFXIV. It's an engine built from the ground up for their future products.

COMPANY MINDSET - Programming
---------------------------------------------
Here is the scenario programming wise with a game like FFXIV you have the numerous variables to consider from alot of different machines you can't all test for.

On top of that you have a:
1) Client to Server and vice-versa relationship taxing your processor and internet connection compared to a game like "Crysis" running off your machine.
2) Additional variables of "other" (npcs/pcs, menus, etc.) items being displayed on your screen at any given time taxing your machine
3) Also DirectX 10 is the lastest of the DirectX line with FF XIV using 9. And most machines 2-3 years old able to run it, anything before that 3 year + margin is pushing being able to run Direct X9 efficiently let alone the other taxing items FF XIV requires.

COMPANY MINDSET - Stretching the Moneymaker
---------------------------------------------
Now take that stuff which some is obvious and some is not... then multiple that by "possible longevity". And remember when I said SE has a buffer to make this successful even launch isn't 100% there.

Do you program something that is consider obsolete in a year or so... or do you build something that even though "everyone" can't acquire it at the moment once people are able to the base of actually users/profit increases.

That ideal is what any programmer looks like from web to game-based programming. (example: The PS3 still hasn't be fully accessed in what games can actually look like with it. You had FF13 one of few games that had 1-2% need for loading screens. That was unheard of with game programming for PS3 at the time.)

So to sum it all up it's simple and complex at the same time what goes into this and the whole process. Yes there are things they've could planned better or fixed... but PC games are notorious of having the "patch-work" model of business.

Consumers in the PC world will love a broken product as there is some attachment to it. Be it fun factor, necessity (any Microsoft product), etc.

WoW is a prime example of that statement.

Hope that helps


Edited, Sep 6th 2010 1:17am by sodux

Edited, Sep 6th 2010 1:17am by sodux
#32 Sep 05 2010 at 11:36 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
626 posts
Quote:
"Crystal Tools" for FFXIV. It's an engine built from the ground up


im gonna be speared for this as i dont have a resource, but as a die hard modder it was my duty to figure out this crystal tools engine as soon as i heard FF14 would be made using it (so i hoped it could be hacked for my modding pleasures). well i came to find out that SE stated that they used the unreal engine basicly as its base.
which essentially means yeah the system was built from the ground up, but using existing technology. so im sorry SE doesnt deserve thaaaat much slack.

one thing i remember them saying was that SE liked how unreal engine would color existing mesh using sort of a lighting technique or some crap which why were now able to pick things like skin color shades and armor textures/colors. so they decided to model their engine off unreal, which ofcourse happens all the time in the developer world.

Edited, Sep 6th 2010 1:36am by pixelpop
____________________________
[ffxivsig]1770452[/ffxivsig]
#33 Sep 05 2010 at 11:44 PM Rating: Decent
Sage
*
55 posts
Quote:
im gonna be speared for this as i dont have a resource, but as a die hard modder it was my duty to figure out this crystal tools engine as soon as i heard FF14 would be made using it (so i hoped it could be hacked for my modding pleasures). well i came to find out that SE stated that they used the unreal engine basicly as its base.
which essentially means yeah the system was built from the ground up, but using existing technology. so im sorry SE doesnt deserve thaaaat much slack.

one thing i remember them saying was that SE liked how unreal engine would color existing mesh using sort of a lighting technique or some crap which why were now able to pick things like skin color shades and armor textures/colors. so they decided to model their engine off unreal, which ofcourse happens all the time in the developer world.


Uh... all programming comes from a base.

Nothing is original... even the Unreal Engine is based off something else.

The "Ground Up" shouldn't be taken literally, especially in the programming world. The "Ground Up" is more proprietary to what elements are unique to your program that no one else has done or used.

So with that said "Crystal Tools" is from the ground up...



Edited, Sep 6th 2010 1:45am by sodux
#34 Sep 06 2010 at 12:22 AM Rating: Decent
5 posts
My system specs that affect game performance:

CPU: Intel I7 930 @ 4Ghz
Mem: 6GB DDR3 @ 1600
Video: 2x XFX 5870's crossfired @ 900/1300
OS: Win 7 64 Ultimate
Sound: Titanium x-fi (when I use speakers) or Logitech G35 (when I have headphones and vent going)
Hardrive: OCZ 120GB Vertex 2 SSD

Game config

Display mode: Windowed
Resolution: 1920x1080
AA: 2xMSAA
Buffer: Resolution
Shadows: Highest
Ambient Occ: Off
Field of Depth: Off
Texture: High
Filtering: Highest

I get 60 fps everywhere except at highly congested camp crystals. I get 45-50 fps there. No performance issues what so ever.

I noticed that if I up my AA higher than 2x, I crash more often, especially when approaching busy camp crystals. Even at 2x it still happens some, but less not much more than with it off so I would rather have the increased visual quality.

Also at 4x, my fps drops around busy camp crystals to 25-35 fps. Otherwise it holds at 60 fps everywhere else.

I saw no difference with shadows and my performance. However, with shadows at anything but lowest or highest settings they look terrible on the characters themselves. So I put it to highest for the increased visual quality.

I know the game is more tuned to Nvidia cards than ATI since they are the sponsor. Other than that I do well enough.

For the benchmark I get 7500~ish on low resolution and 4900~ish on high resolution.

Edited, Sep 6th 2010 2:22am by Healnotfound
#35 Sep 06 2010 at 12:44 AM Rating: Good
*
81 posts
Wow Anaris, we must have the same computer!

Intel i7-860 - octocore
8 gig ram - DDR3
ATI 5770

I'm running on mid to high settings. For the most part it plays well, but every now and then it seems when I'm running from one area to another (outside the city) that I see my character lagging a bit.

I don't have anything to measure my fps ingame. All in all, it seems a decent set up, but I am looking to getting a better video card eventually. I've been wanting to get an Nvidia 460 GTX, but in reviews I've seen they keep talking about how ridiculously loud the cards are. Can anyone verify if they've had a noisy 460 GTX?

EDIT: I almost forgot this, but it seems anytime I get to an area with other people around, and especially in instances, I have to wait a few moments for all the npc's to appear. I guess that means I'm not really running all that well I guess. My benchmark was pretty crappy considering the decent specs I have - it was around 2400 or 2500.

Also, I'm running on a 1920x1080 full screen resolution.

Edited, Sep 6th 2010 2:55am by Mimotep
____________________________
Just Play - Have Fun!
#36 Sep 06 2010 at 12:59 AM Rating: Good
Sage
*
105 posts
CPU: AMD Phenom II 1055t 2.8GHz
GPU: HIS ATI Radeon 5870 2GB
RAM: 4GB DDR3 Ram

Running Game at:

Resolution: 1920 x 1080
Buffer: Resoultion
Multisampling: 2x MSAA
Shadow: Highest
Ambient Occlusion: Off
Depth of Field: Off
Texture Quality: High
Texture Filtering: High

Benchmark Low: ~4100
Benchmark High: ~4100

In camps and cities I get 20 - 30 FPS and out in the field 45 - 60FPS.

I do have this weird graphical anomaly while running/walking. Best way to describe it is a line that isn't in sync. Apart from that, it runs fine.
____________________________
AMD Phenom II 1055t 2.8GHz | ATI Radeon HD5870 2GB | 4GB G.Skill Ripjaws Ram | 1TB HDD | Corsair HX 850w | Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 41 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (41)