Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

Benchmark experience around 2k?Follow

#1 Sep 01 2010 at 12:39 PM Rating: Decent
19 posts
Im hitting just above 2.000 benchmark on the low resolution.

Anyone hitting the same have any experience running this game?

Was it awfull or did it run okay?
#2 Sep 01 2010 at 12:39 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
320 posts
1,700 was more than acceptable for me.
____________________________


#3 Sep 01 2010 at 12:40 PM Rating: Good
Score of 2k works for me. But I do plan on upgrading.
#4 Sep 01 2010 at 1:14 PM Rating: Default
*
147 posts
i wouldn't worry too much, i read somewhere on here that someone said you will play the game with no probs with a score of 1500
#5 Sep 01 2010 at 1:19 PM Rating: Decent
*
195 posts
I'm sure you will be fine. But maybe post your specs and maybe people with the same set up can give you a better answer then the "should be fine". #1 testers 2000 score set up could be completely different then yours and cant play well. Where #2 tester is the same as yours and runs pretty well.

IMO the benchmark is just borked. *shrug*
#6 Sep 01 2010 at 1:34 PM Rating: Good
I scored a 2100 on the high res benchmark.

AMD dual core 3.0 GHz
Nvidia 250

Ran the beta at 1920x1080 full screen, 2x AA, high res textures, depth of field on, high quality shaders, low quality shadows.

I would typically see 15-20 FPS, which for me was very playable, it was noticeable and I would love to upgrade, but the game was playable.
#7 Sep 01 2010 at 3:03 PM Rating: Decent
**
863 posts
From what I understand some people have been playing with scores around the 1k mark and said it was playable. I think it is a matter of preference as, personally I don't consider 15-20fps playable unlike Lamnethx, but like I said we are all different in that respect.

One thing I think could have an effect though is that in Beta some people used quite low-end specs to play, but there I don't think the servers were very full either? I haven't played it myself, but I suspect what could run the game decently in closed beta (1k?), could have some issues at release.

Of course this is all me just speculating since I wasn't even in beta, I am sure some people who are in beta could help out more.
#8 Sep 01 2010 at 3:04 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
320 posts
Quote:
One thing I think could have an effect though is that in Beta some people used quite low-end specs to play, but there I don't think the servers were very full either? I haven't played it myself, but I suspect what could run the game decently in closed beta (1k?), could have some issues at release.


During the beta test Square-Enix performed a stress test on Shadowlord and I was a part of it. There were hundreds of players around me and I didn't have much slowdown.
____________________________


#9 Sep 01 2010 at 3:06 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
764 posts
I got just over 2k and I play on high (not top but very high) setting no problems at all, I lag a little inside towns or other area's with a large quantity of people, but its not even enough to bother me.

Honestly, I was surprised how well the game ran
____________________________


#10 Sep 01 2010 at 3:09 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
351 posts
Q9400 2.66GHz
Gt 230

I scored a bit over 1900 and ran the game fine on low res. All of the basics were set on High while things like Ambient Occlusion and all that jazz were automatically set to off. I pick up small bits of lag every now and then, and it takes half a minute to pick up a large group of players and the environment around them (e.g. after teleporting back to camp via aethyrite crystal).

It's bearable, but I want to see this game in all its glory, so I plan on upgrading.
____________________________
Quote:
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
This may quite possibly be the most epicly failed anti-antitroll trolling attempt.
#11 Sep 01 2010 at 3:18 PM Rating: Decent
**
529 posts
i scored 1300 on high and got up to 3300 on low with

q6600 2.4ghz O.C. to 3.0
4gb ram
2 8800 gt cards (benchmark only read 1)
windows 7 64bit.

I had no issues on standard and even some settings on high. I still plan on upgrading, but only due to it being about time. Pretty old hardware.

I've also heard SE is working on a new benchmark for ffxiv?
____________________________

#12 Sep 01 2010 at 3:45 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
630 posts
Not that this will be everyones experience, but my machine that scored 2000 with settings on 720p and low I usually ran in the 30-40fps range and would drop to 15-20fps around crowds. On my second machine I scored a 6,000 on low and 5,000 on high but wouldn't dare run it on high, just because the difference between 30fps and 60fps is HUGE. Like astronomically. The running is smooth, the turning is smooth, everything....at 30fps it still seems slightly choppy and clunky for some reason.
#13 Sep 01 2010 at 4:07 PM Rating: Good
Sage
*
190 posts
Lamnethx of the seven seas wrote:
Ran the beta at 1920x1080 full screen, 2x AA, high res textures, depth of field on, high quality shaders, low quality shadows.


There have been quite a few people that reported depth of field as being a cause of lower frame rates. Try turning that off and maybe even bumping down to a lower resolution next time you get a chance. I'll bet you could get better fps by altering those settings.

Still pretty **** good for the benchmark score you got. I didn't do much experimenting with depth of field and ambient occlusion, so I plan on checking those out when the open beta starts.
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 15 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (15)