Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

Benchmark Score VS Beta PerformanceFollow

#1 Aug 22 2010 at 7:39 PM Rating: Good
Sage
***
1,500 posts
I making this thread (even when I consider it's a bit late) cuz I believe everyone should be warned about the scores in ffxiv benchmark.

On Friday my wife won one of the beta 3 keys for JP users, we decided to download the game on my machine which was specifically build for this game (benchmark score was a bit over 5000) it ran smooth and flawlessly as it was expected on default settings.

Just for the sake of testing we decided to run it on her machine, which benchmark score was a bit under 1500) and to our surprise the game also ran smooth and flawlessly in default (not minimum) settings, the machine was able to handle the game, msn and chrome at the same time with 0 drawback on the game performance, and the very acceptable default quality.

Her PC specs:

CPU: Intel Core2 Duo E7500 2.93GHz
MOBO: ASUS P5B
V.Card: GeForce 9400 GT 1GB DDR2 PCI
RAM: 2G kingston memory dual channel (2X1G)

While it was a very nice build 2 years ago when we made it, I consider it border line obsolete for today's standards, besides this PC isn't overclocked at all.

My recommendation for the people still deciding to purchase (or build) a new computer for this game: I urge you to wait and run the game in your current PC first!

Additionally people in beta can post their specs and let us know how the game is working for them, honestly the hype of the benchmark score seems IMHO overrated at this point and this thread may help us to really define what are the lowest build that can still run the game acceptably.

Ken.

Edit: I will update this post with the graphic settings that we are using in her computer once I get back home.

Edited, Aug 23rd 2010 1:40am by kenage
____________________________
"Maybe it means: you're the evil man, and I'm the righteous man, and Mr. Nine-millimeter here, he's the shepherd protecting my righteous *** in the Valley of Darkness." - Jules.
FFXIV: Mabel Rand (Gugnir)
FFXI: Kenage, retired.
K&K forever!,
#2 Aug 22 2010 at 7:44 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
1,416 posts
Just to let you know, SE has stated somewhere, that a new benchmark was in the works. There have been a lot of adjustments throughout beta. I scored a 2300, and the game runs great on almost maxed settings. The only things that most of us can't do is run Ambient Occlusion and AA. Turn those off and most lower end of the benchmark machines will run this game.

Edit: spelling.

Edited, Aug 22nd 2010 9:45pm by Teneleven
____________________________

#3 Aug 22 2010 at 7:44 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
771 posts
A good thing to note about your wifes machine is it's running an intel processor. SE worked directly with Intel for optimization with their hardware.
#4 Aug 22 2010 at 7:45 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
I'd recommend waiting to try the benchmark until they develop a new version (it's already in the works). The benchmark performance for me is far lower than my actual in-game beta performance.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#5 Aug 22 2010 at 8:00 PM Rating: Decent
**
275 posts
That's good news, though I suppose it remains to be seen how those type of rigs perform when there's a full load of players rather than just the beta load. But still great news considering sub-1500 is supposed to be "unplayable." (Well, as far as the old benchmark goes.)

The laptop I use ran the benchmark at about 1400, so my boyfriend bought a new desktop so that he could give me his, both of which are gaming computers that run the old benchmark at ~5000 on regular settings, and somewhere like 2500-3000 on the higher settings. Though both computers run SLI/dual video cards, which apparently isn't supported by the current benchmark, so those scores are maybe artificially low? (Needless to say I'm very grateful... Just one of the many reasons he's a keeper!) However, I would love to think that the laptop which ran 1400 before would be able to at least handle the game on minimal settings, even poorly, so that I don't have to lug this monster of a rig every time I visit him (living three states away sucks!)... Your post gives me some hope for that; thank you for sharing.
____________________________

#6 Aug 22 2010 at 8:03 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
***
1,416 posts
Kaelia88 wrote:
That's good news, though I suppose it remains to be seen how those type of rigs perform when there's a full load of players rather than just the beta load. But still great news considering sub-1500 is supposed to be "unplayable." (Well, as far as the old benchmark goes.)

The laptop I use ran the benchmark at about 1400, so my boyfriend bought a new desktop so that he could give me his, both of which are gaming computers that run the old benchmark at ~5000 on regular settings, and somewhere like 2500-3000 on the higher settings. Though both computers run SLI/dual video cards, which apparently isn't supported by the current benchmark, so those scores are maybe artificially low? (Needless to say I'm very grateful... Just one of the many reasons he's a keeper!) However, I would love to think that the laptop which ran 1400 before would be able to at least handle the game on minimal settings, even poorly, so that I don't have to lug this monster of a rig every time I visit him (living three states away sucks!)... Your post gives me some hope for that; thank you for sharing.

TBH, you will see more load here in beta than in regular circumstances, since SE is stress testing the servers. It may get out of hand if they impliment something like besieged later on, but having all players start in the same city is pretty heavy load.
____________________________

#7 Aug 22 2010 at 8:06 PM Rating: Decent
**
275 posts
Ah, I hadn't even really considered that. If that's so then this really is good news! :) I'm not terribly computer-savvy, so that didn't even occur to me.
____________________________

#8 Aug 22 2010 at 8:20 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
256 posts
I was going to make a similar thread like this but for laptops. I consider my laptap the lowest you can go (more than likely) which kills me to say since i spent $2400 on it one year ago (i knew i was getting ripped though but just couldnt say no to dells new line of amazing looking studio xps with their leather accents ><)

But to get to the point...

Benchmark Score: 1590 on low

Specs
CPU: Intel Core2 Duo P8600 @ 2.4 GHz
Video Card: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4670
RAM: 6 GB
Operating System: Windows 7

Experience
First of all, this is with settings at lowest although I didn't see much of a fps change between mid settings and lowest settings so I may go back to mid and play some more to experiment a little bit more...
(using fraps) As far as fps goes, I typically see about 10 fps within the city and in crowded areas. In the area right outside of the city, I typically see 10 - 15 fps and far away from everyone I'll hover around 20 fps. Now, to make sense of those, anything 10 - 15 fps IS playable but a little bothersome. Anything above 15 fps really isn't bothersome at all. When you get below 10 fps you're starting to get annoyed.
Now, the main issue I am having... and that may make the game unplayable for anyone with laptop specs similar to mine, is loading time. Within the city where I am getting the worst performance load times are atrocious. When i refer to load times I am referring to NPC and character load times as well as c/s load times. The c/s load times are something you can deal with, but the npc load times are not. When I enter a room where I know a NPC is that I need to talk to, it can take up to 15 seconds for him to load onto my screen. Now this actually does make the game unplayable b/c what if you are looking for a certain NPC, it would be impossible to find him without knowing exactly where he was.
Other than that, the game still looks great on low settings on my laptop but its just a bit slow which could mean the difference between life and death not only for yourself but also party members.

My recommendation: Get a new PC for the game. Although it is playable, the lag and low fps in crowded areas does take a bit of the fun out of the game.

but if your only concerned about graphics, here are some screens to prove, even with low settings, the game looks relatively great.
image1
image2
image3
image4
image5
image6

*edit* I will mention though, as has been alluded to in this thread, that SE is still optimizing the game and creating more stress on your comp due to info grabs they need from beta. So might take that into considering. My laptop might actually do fine with the retail considering i am borderline in beta. I will also mention that my laptop that i played XI with scored low benchmark as well (just below the min i believe) and it ran XI great. SE is pretty good with optimization so thats worth considering before taking my experience to the bank.


Edited, Aug 22nd 2010 9:29pm by Raionn
____________________________
*Retired :: August 2002 - December 2005*
Raion
Ragnarok Server
Linkshells: DigitalBackSpin, DBSDynamis, CKofVD
PLD75-WAR45-RDM30-BLM30-WHM25-NIN25-THF25-RNG10-BST9
Goldsmith 85, Blacksmith 30
#9 Aug 22 2010 at 8:40 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Kaelia88 wrote:
That's good news, though I suppose it remains to be seen how those type of rigs perform when there's a full load of players rather than just the beta load. But still great news considering sub-1500 is supposed to be "unplayable." (Well, as far as the old benchmark goes.)
Having played on a pc that got 1150 on the benchmark, I wouldn't want to put up with that. It's playable, but barely. Technically you could do it but the performance is so poor that just didn't want to. The word "smooth" seems to get tossed around pretty easily.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#10 Aug 22 2010 at 8:44 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
351 posts
I scored around 1900 on low with a Q9400 and a GT230. Game runs very smoothly with all the basic graphical features turned on. The game is basically running on moderate settings with hardly a hitch. There's some minor occasional lag, but nothing I'm not used to (I played lotro on lowest settings with insane lag spikes 24/7, so this is like smooth sailing in comparison). All in all, I'm inclined to agree that the benchmark is, indeed, complete BS.
____________________________
Quote:
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
This may quite possibly be the most epicly failed anti-antitroll trolling attempt.
#11 Aug 22 2010 at 9:25 PM Rating: Decent
**
778 posts
All I can tell you is turning down the shadows helps the game run even smoother than you'd think. In heavily congested areas I was seeing upwards of 35-40FPS at 1368x768 windowed. In other areas I could see 50, nearly 60FPS unless running around the starting city, Limsa Lominsa. There I could see a consistent 30-40FPS or higher varying on where I went.

First, my rig:

Windows 7 Home Premium
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.6GHz (OC'd)
4GB G.Skill DDR3 1333 (Clocked in at 1280MHz due to processor OC.)
ASUS CuCore Radeon HD5770

Now my settings:

Display Mode - Windowed
Window Size - 1368x768
Multisampling - No AA
Buffer Size - Resolution
Shadow Detail - Low
Ambient Occlusion - Off
Depth of Field - Off
Disable cutscene effects - Off
Texture Quality - High
Texture Filtering - High

I plan to tweak with them a little mode but overall I'm happy with the results. On low settings the benchmark can score around 3900, and in some instances, 4000. The second seems to be when all other applications are closed. And for those worried about heat, the FPS during beta play seems to cap at 60FPS.

Edited, Aug 22nd 2010 8:30pm by SamusKnight
____________________________
FINAL FANTASY XIV Roleplayer

Sair Gammonari - Hyur Midlander Male - Conjurer (Somewhat retired.)
Mihana Zhralyia - Miqo'te Seeker of the Sun Female - Archer



#12 Aug 22 2010 at 10:29 PM Rating: Decent
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
SamusKnight wrote:


Display Mode - Windowed
Window Size - 1368x768
Multisampling - No AA
Buffer Size - Resolution
Shadow Detail - Low
Ambient Occlusion - Off
Depth of Field - Off
Disable cutscene effects - Off
Texture Quality - High
Texture Filtering - High


Increasing your buffer size would probably improve performance.
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.


I thought of it first:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 21 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (21)