Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
This Forum is Read Only

for players with Slow computer like mineFollow

#1 Sep 19 2010 at 9:24 AM Rating: Good
*
175 posts
I know the lag and heavy graphics are really slowing a lot of people down, including me... I have purchased a new Graphics card and RAM and still having troubles with stable playing.

My specs:

1.6 GHz CPU
Windows 7
3GB Ram
nvidia 9800 GT GPU

I get about 900 on the Benchmark.

I have used the Priority Booster, Game Booster, Windower... all these help, but this had given me the best results:

1.) Open FF Beta Config
2.) General -> Video Settings -> Display Mode -> Fullscreen (Very Important or game will not fit on screen)
3.) Window Size (your current monitor REZ, mine is 1440x900)
4.) Window Size and Buffer Size can be changed for further quality/performance you perfer.
5.) Save & Exit
6.) Go to C:\Program Files\Square Enix\FFXIV
7.) Right-Click on ffxivgame.exe
8.) Properties - > Compatibility
9.) Turn on the following:
Run in 640x480 screen resolution
Disable Visual themes
Disable Desktop composition
Disable display scaling
10.) Click OK and exit

Now run your game like normal.

I hope this people as much as it helped me.
____________________________

Skills & Levels: lodestone.finalfantasyxiv.com/rc/character/status?cicuid=1355392
Bazaar: ffxiv.yg.com/bazaar?fl&mn=Shounin&srv=17
100 local levequests completed!
100 regional levequests completed!
2000 enemies defeated!
#2 Sep 19 2010 at 9:46 AM Rating: Decent
**
723 posts
The 9800 GT is what you bought? Or did you buy something to replace that? The CPU is quite slow, the GPU is outdated...but I guess you know these things already. I can't imagine playing any game on 640x480. Good luck with that =/
#3 Sep 19 2010 at 9:49 AM Rating: Good
*
175 posts
Hello.

Yeah, things are slow here.

But this is the best part of the 640x480 mode.

When you put the config to Fullscreen and resolution to whatever you want.. it plays full screen that rez, I am 1440x900 running much smoother than it ever did, with higher graphic settings.

Trust me I have done many things to get FF to go just a bit faster, please try it... then give me your opinion, thanks
____________________________

Skills & Levels: lodestone.finalfantasyxiv.com/rc/character/status?cicuid=1355392
Bazaar: ffxiv.yg.com/bazaar?fl&mn=Shounin&srv=17
100 local levequests completed!
100 regional levequests completed!
2000 enemies defeated!
#4Auftragskiller, Posted: Sep 19 2010 at 9:59 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Did you really waste money on a 9800 GT?
#5 Sep 19 2010 at 10:03 AM Rating: Default
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Hope you didn't pay more than like, $50 for the 9800 GT.
____________________________
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.
#6 Sep 19 2010 at 10:05 AM Rating: Good
*
175 posts
Again.. keep all opinions to yourself... this post is about this method only... my specs and slow running computer are the reason for this post... and helping others.. your replies are pointless...

This card is very nice, my CPU is slow.
http://www.ffxivcore.com/wiki/Graphics_Card_Matrix

This card is tier 8

I had the 8600 GT (tier 16)
for $50 it was not a bad upgrade...

Again, if possible, please keep replies on topic
____________________________

Skills & Levels: lodestone.finalfantasyxiv.com/rc/character/status?cicuid=1355392
Bazaar: ffxiv.yg.com/bazaar?fl&mn=Shounin&srv=17
100 local levequests completed!
100 regional levequests completed!
2000 enemies defeated!
#7 Sep 19 2010 at 10:08 AM Rating: Default
**
723 posts
gennji wrote:
Again, if possible, please keep replies on topic


Don't mention that you just recently bought that card then in your first post if you don't want us to discuss that.
#8 Sep 19 2010 at 10:08 AM Rating: Default
*
62 posts
Your video card is still terrible, for a new purchase. Don't tell me not to express my opinion :)

Edited, Sep 19th 2010 12:09pm by Oblivia
#9 Sep 19 2010 at 10:11 AM Rating: Good
*
175 posts
Don't ignore the point of the topic to talk about things that do not concern you. What I paid or why I upgraded is not the topic. No one cares about your thoughts on what I should have done. This is what has happened, this is how I am working with FFxiv to play better and share what I have done with anyone else not getting the performance they want from the game...
____________________________

Skills & Levels: lodestone.finalfantasyxiv.com/rc/character/status?cicuid=1355392
Bazaar: ffxiv.yg.com/bazaar?fl&mn=Shounin&srv=17
100 local levequests completed!
100 regional levequests completed!
2000 enemies defeated!
#10 Sep 19 2010 at 10:12 AM Rating: Excellent
*
90 posts
as for the full screen i gotta say i totally agree running full screen made a huge difference for me. I also turned all the settings waaay down turned off shadows and all that extra flashy mess and i have been running beta just fine.

I ran my bench mark for giggles and im at an abyssmal 590. Yet i can run the beta just fine. Using the beta as a litmus test ive decided to buy the game for PC. I hope im not going to regret it but i really dont see how if im satisfied with how i ran the beta that the full game is gonna run any worse. The benchmark is kinda lol anyways its a freaken cutscene (which can be skipped) Lets face it ever since FF games got on the PS1 the cutscenes and the game have been 2 totally different things. Im fine with choppy cutscenes or just skiping them outright as long as i can actually play the game. Ill watch the CS and play the game in all its glory when they finnaly put it on my beautiful PS3 but until then..... i refuse to let you PCers get a leg up on me! Ill gimp through my barebottom settings and still have fun.

If a game has to have the settings turned up to high for it to be enjoyable its more an action dvd then a game IMO. Back in the day our graphics sucked kids.... AND WE LIKED IT!
#11 Sep 19 2010 at 10:14 AM Rating: Decent
**
723 posts
DionysusJones wrote:
I ran my bench mark for giggles and im at an abyssmal 590. Yet i can run the beta just fine.


I can't remember exactly where I read this, but it's been discussed by people at nVidia that the benchmark is hardly a benchmark at all and doesn't accurately reflect what kind of performance you'll get in game.
#12 Sep 19 2010 at 10:15 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
431 posts
Quote:
Don't ignore the point of the topic to talk about things that do not concern you.


Don't post stuff you don't want to discuss then?
Just post the part with the settings then...
____________________________
AlexisLucia wrote:
It's ok, my native language is Typo, so I probably would have understood.

#13 Sep 19 2010 at 10:18 AM Rating: Good
*
175 posts
Yes, playing the beta on different settings is the best test for right now... and hoping the retail version will be much better. I have been able to play with normal graphics settings / fullscreen with this 640x480 tip
____________________________

Skills & Levels: lodestone.finalfantasyxiv.com/rc/character/status?cicuid=1355392
Bazaar: ffxiv.yg.com/bazaar?fl&mn=Shounin&srv=17
100 local levequests completed!
100 regional levequests completed!
2000 enemies defeated!
#14 Sep 19 2010 at 10:21 AM Rating: Decent
*
90 posts
Quote:
I can't remember exactly where I read this, but it's been discussed by people at nVidia that the benchmark is hardly a benchmark at all and doesn't accurately reflect what kind of performance you'll get in game


Bingo hit the nail on the head.... i didnt know Nvidia and the benchmark didnt like each other but it makes since that my score was horrible then still i only got a 9800 in this laptop and i knew if i was gonna make the cut it would be just barely but in all honesty im pleasantly surprised with my performance for a 2yr old laptop. It will help me get by till PS3 launch atleast :p
#15 Sep 19 2010 at 10:26 AM Rating: Decent
gennji wrote:
Don't ignore the point of the topic to talk about things that do not concern you. What I paid or why I upgraded is not the topic. No one cares about your thoughts on what I should have done. This is what has happened, this is how I am working with FFxiv to play better and share what I have done with anyone else not getting the performance they want from the game...


Not to fuel the flames, but there are a couple of things you might want to keep in mind:

1) As others have said, if you write it, people are free to comment on it. Writing it and then telling people to keep their opinions to themselves is bad mojo.

2) There's benefit in your post to be gained by anyone who reads it and is using a PC that doesn't quite measure up. Some of that benefit might come from the settings information you posted. Some of it also might come from having it pointed out to you that a 9800GT was probably not a wise purchase as an upgrade so that anyone else who comes along with a 9800GT or lower sees that and doesn't think, "Oh, I can just spend $50 instead of $150 and then force all of my settings way, way down and I'll be okay!"

Some people might well be on tight budgets where even squeezing out $50 for a new GPU is a real stretch, and I'm not judging. But for the person who might have a little more to spend, a 9800GT would be an extremely poor investment and it's worth having that pointed out.
#16 Sep 19 2010 at 10:30 AM Rating: Decent
*
175 posts
Whatever helps you sleep at night..

Look now I am doing it.. ok.. so yeah, when running in the 640x480, you can still lower the graphics for even more FPS.
The UI is more responsive and the Map loads/closes much faster for me... also this is the only way I can start crafting in less than a couple mins.

Not saying it is the fix-all... but I was struggling to do simple things before
____________________________

Skills & Levels: lodestone.finalfantasyxiv.com/rc/character/status?cicuid=1355392
Bazaar: ffxiv.yg.com/bazaar?fl&mn=Shounin&srv=17
100 local levequests completed!
100 regional levequests completed!
2000 enemies defeated!
#17Bezmir, Posted: Sep 19 2010 at 10:44 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) So what your really trying to say is that your going to be way behind everyone else in the game because your GPU ROCKS? or no?
#18 Sep 19 2010 at 10:48 AM Rating: Good
*
175 posts
No... just saying that this helps the game run better for me... and maybe it can help someone else.. ok my info has been posted, leaving this post...
____________________________

Skills & Levels: lodestone.finalfantasyxiv.com/rc/character/status?cicuid=1355392
Bazaar: ffxiv.yg.com/bazaar?fl&mn=Shounin&srv=17
100 local levequests completed!
100 regional levequests completed!
2000 enemies defeated!
#19 Sep 19 2010 at 11:03 AM Rating: Decent
2 posts
Gennji, I would just ignore most people posting, they do not seem to know much of what they are talking about. And I know this isn't the point of the thread, but I'm going to post anyways.
*But you seem to already know it's your processor so this is more for the other people looking to upgrade their video cards for cheap*

The 9800GT is more than good enough, I'm using one right now (the ECO version at that) and all my settings are On (and on high/highest) playing on my 37" 720p TV (1366x768) with rarely less than 30 FPS. The only thing I don't have enabled is AO, but I haven't even tried, and that's just because the people I talked to said it wrecked the FPS due to poor optimization. And DoF is off just because I don't like it, even though it doesn't effect my FPS really.

There is only 1 downside to the card, and that's no DX11.
I would say the processor is what's holding you back, as that is the only negative difference between my PC and yours. I have a phenom x4 9850 2.5ghz with only 2GBs of RAM and with the 9800GT the game runs perfectly as far as frame rates & graphics go.


Now as for the topic, you can accomplish the same type of thing by just changing the Buffer Size in the FFXIV Config to Half, and at 1440x900 that would mean you're game is essentially running at 720x400.
#20 Sep 19 2010 at 1:09 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
20 posts
I run a 9800GT(1024mb) at 1680x1050 and it runs fine. I havent gone above standard settings yet but thats mainly because it runs smooth as it is and im upgrading soon anyway to an i5 and a 465GTX.

Either way the card is fine but from what Ive seen CPU's take a hit with FFXIV my Intel core2duo E8400 runs at 100% with this game(hence why im buying a new setup ;)).
#21 Sep 24 2010 at 6:32 AM Rating: Default
*
175 posts
This method works with the retail version also...
____________________________

Skills & Levels: lodestone.finalfantasyxiv.com/rc/character/status?cicuid=1355392
Bazaar: ffxiv.yg.com/bazaar?fl&mn=Shounin&srv=17
100 local levequests completed!
100 regional levequests completed!
2000 enemies defeated!
#22Reyra, Posted: Jan 23 2011 at 10:27 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) [b]I had the same problem yesterday..
#23 Jan 23 2011 at 1:40 PM Rating: Good
**
395 posts
Thank you for your suggestions, these helped me get a way better performance out of FFXIV on my macbook pro (9600M GT)

A 9800 should be able to play the game decently, I mean the minimum it says is a 9600.
You may way to consider buying a second of the graphics card you use and using SLI, I know I got a major performance boost with SLI on my GTX 480s
____________________________

http://www.prismaticllama.com/
http://www.sologensystems.com
The Prismatic Llama - Peru's llamas got nothing on us.
#24 Jan 23 2011 at 2:08 PM Rating: Good
5 posts
Quote:
The 9800GT is more than good enough, I'm using one right now (the ECO version at that) and all my settings are On (and on high/highest) playing on my 37" 720p TV (1366x768) with rarely less than 30 FPS. The only thing I don't have enabled is AO, but I haven't even tried, and that's just because the people I talked to said it wrecked the FPS due to poor optimization. And DoF is off just because I don't like it, even though it doesn't effect my FPS really.



I also run a 9800GT and the games runs absolutely perfect for me. The only setting i have turned down (off) is AO. Too many people have the mindset that if you don't have the biggest, baddest, most overpriced GPU available, then you wasted your money. I for one cannot afford a new $500 GPU every year. If my "outdated card" runs everything i throw at it without a hitch then why exactly do i need to upgrade it?

Flame on
____________________________


#25 Jan 25 2011 at 7:44 AM Rating: Decent
*
79 posts
please use facts and not just well my GPU runs it fine !!

a 9800GT is not a fast GPU it was ok several years ago but there are better options for similar prices

a 9800GT will not run this game anywhere near full settings if you think otherwise show my your settigns and a FRAPS SS.

The game is rather intensive and a GPU upgrade may not solve all issues.

The game is much better played using 4GB of RAM, a fast quadcore and a decent GPU.

The other thing to consider is resolution as its much much easier to drive this game at 1280x720 than 1920x1080 with the same settings applied in the config.

you really dont have to have the biggest badest graphics card but using low end cards will result in rubbish frames and horrible graphics.


____________________________


#26LyleVertigo, Posted: Jan 25 2011 at 8:46 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) LOL, I love when I see a reply in the effect of "keep opinions to yourself" on a public forum where everyone has an opinion about everything. It just begs to be opinionated :D
#27 Jan 25 2011 at 9:40 AM Rating: Decent
*
52 posts
Nice little trick there OP. Since your graphics are going to wind up nice and crispy you can effectively turn MSAA OFF, which is one of the larger CPU hogs.

Can't really beat Performance AND Prettiness.

Edited, Jan 25th 2011 10:41am by WarkupoZ
#28Mikhalia the Picky, Posted: Jan 25 2011 at 9:42 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) GOD **** IT NECROPOSTING FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUU
#29 Jan 25 2011 at 11:37 AM Rating: Excellent
**
415 posts
BlackstarrStrife wrote:
please use facts and not just well my GPU runs it fine !!

Ok, let's use facts.

BlackstarrStrife wrote:
a 9800GT is not a fast GPU it was ok several years ago but there are better options for similar prices

It was AMAZING several years ago, not just "ok". The G92 chipset in the 9800 GT was nearly on par with top-of-the-line cards in terms of performance, and it was $200 cheaper.

BlackstarrStrife wrote:
a 9800GT will not run this game anywhere near full settings if you think otherwise show my your settigns and a FRAPS SS.

Full settings? No. Playable settings without making the game look like crap? **** yes. I was running XIV on an 8800 GT at 30-50 FPS quite easily on Mid settings.

BlackstarrStrife wrote:
The game is much better played using 4GB of RAM, a fast quadcore and a decent GPU.

That's how it is with every new game that utilizes more than two cores. But considering OP's situation where he has a dual core, there is no better GPU for him without severely bottlenecking himself. Him getting a better GPU with a low-end dual core would result in performance LOSS.

BlackstarrStrife wrote:
you really dont have to have the biggest badest graphics card but using low end cards will result in rubbish frames and horrible graphics.

9800 GT isn't a low end card. It was a mid range card that ran at top level performance. It's still better than a lot of low end cards today.

Don't talk like you know facts when you really don't.

Edited, Jan 25th 2011 12:45pm by SoumaKyou
#30 Jan 25 2011 at 12:26 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
97 posts
OP good job on putting out some info that can help people make the game run smoother.

I find it funny others have to put down your comp specs probably because they wasted so much money on their pc and your pc runs the game fine for you. But hay i guess they need to justify spending money on their PC instead of saying " thats some good info for people to make the game run better". Anyways OP great job keep up the good work.
____________________________


#31 Jan 25 2011 at 1:02 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,313 posts
I played the game fine on low-medium settings in 720p on a pentium dual core (not core 2 duo) and a 9800gt with the stock 4g ram.
____________________________
Eithne Draocht
My IG: archaicmachinery - Friend me!
#32 Jan 25 2011 at 2:50 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,431 posts
BlackstarrStrife wrote:
a 9800GT will not run this game anywhere near full settings if you think otherwise show my your settigns and a FRAPS SS.
SoumaKyou wrote:
Full settings? No. Playable settings without making the game look like crap? **** yes. I was running XIV on an 8800 GT at 30-50 FPS quite easily on Mid settings.

I'm calling BS here... My oldest desktop has a 9800 GT (kids PC) and you cannot run FFXIV at any normal looking settings without dropping frames to about 10-15 Smiley: lol.
Like he asked, prove it, just take a short video of you running through town using FRAPS and post it on youtube, or just a reasonable screenshot (not of a wall). You either have the buffer size and or resolution so low its PS2 quality (like OP explained how to do), or you are not aware that 10-15 FPS is unplayable.
#33 Jan 25 2011 at 3:02 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
97 posts
You can't call BS on it. all PC are different. You may have the same Guts in your pc but what do you have on it? What are you running in the background that will slow your PC down. I bet the OP has all his unnecessary background programs off when he players the game to make it run fast.
____________________________


#34 Jan 25 2011 at 3:14 PM Rating: Decent
*****
11,539 posts
flavvor wrote:
You can't call BS on it. all PC are different. You may have the same Guts in your pc but what do you have on it? What are you running in the background that will slow your PC down. I bet the OP has all his unnecessary background programs off when he players the game to make it run fast.


All PCs are different, but they are not magical beings that operate with no explanation. In the case of the OP, which was a necrobump from SEPTEMBER, he specifically posts that in order to get the game to run well, he had to decrease the game's resolution to 640x480, which is the lowest possible resolution you can run anything on.

So in short, he not only had to turn the game's settings all the way down to minimal, he had to reduce the game beyond the lowest resolution that most games natively offer (800x600) to get decent performance.

Yes, a lower resolution will improve performance, at the cost of appearance. While not running anything in the background -will- improve performance, the OP is using a very very low end video card and a very very low end CPU and had to accommodate them by configuring the game to run BELOW the minimum settings.

EDIT: And again, this is a necrobump from September. Can someone lock this thread?

Edited, Jan 25th 2011 4:16pm 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.
#35 Jan 25 2011 at 3:43 PM Rating: Decent
**
415 posts
sideways wrote:
BlackstarrStrife wrote:
a 9800GT will not run this game anywhere near full settings if you think otherwise show my your settigns and a FRAPS SS.
SoumaKyou wrote:
Full settings? No. Playable settings without making the game look like crap? **** yes. I was running XIV on an 8800 GT at 30-50 FPS quite easily on Mid settings.

I'm calling BS here... My oldest desktop has a 9800 GT (kids PC) and you cannot run FFXIV at any normal looking settings without dropping frames to about 10-15 Smiley: lol.
Like he asked, prove it, just take a short video of you running through town using FRAPS and post it on youtube, or just a reasonable screenshot (not of a wall). You either have the buffer size and or resolution so low its PS2 quality (like OP explained how to do), or you are not aware that 10-15 FPS is unplayable.

Was your desktop custom built or something from Dell/HP? Processor? Processor speed? All of these have an effect on a game's playability, not the card itself. I was running a E4600 C2D @ 3.0 GHz, 8800 GT, 2GB DDR2, 1680x1050, with regular buffer size, low shadows, med textures, AO off, DoF off, AA off. Buffer size would have been the biggest hit on graphic quality, and having it to regular made the game look perfectly fine.

Proof? Why would I need to further prove a card that's proven itself by being capable of running Crysis on Very High settings? Something even newer low end cards still can't do.

Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
All PCs are different, but they are not magical beings that operate with no explanation. In the case of the OP, which was a necrobump from SEPTEMBER, he specifically posts that in order to get the game to run well, he had to decrease the game's resolution to 640x480, which is the lowest possible resolution you can run anything on.

So in short, he not only had to turn the game's settings all the way down to minimal, he had to reduce the game beyond the lowest resolution that most games natively offer (800x600) to get decent performance.

Yes, a lower resolution will improve performance, at the cost of appearance. While not running anything in the background -will- improve performance, the OP is using a very very low end video card and a very very low end CPU and had to accommodate them by configuring the game to run BELOW the minimum settings.

No, he can't call BS on it because FACTS back up the card's capabilities. It is NOT a low end card by ANY means. His CPU is low end, which I'm 99% sure is the cause of him being required to run it at such a low resolution. The card is enough to run the game without sacrificing a huge hit on performance, with the track record to back it up.

Edited, Jan 25th 2011 4:46pm by SoumaKyou
#36 Jan 25 2011 at 4:00 PM Rating: Decent
*****
11,539 posts
SoumaKyou wrote:
sideways wrote:
BlackstarrStrife wrote:
a 9800GT will not run this game anywhere near full settings if you think otherwise show my your settigns and a FRAPS SS.
SoumaKyou wrote:
Full settings? No. Playable settings without making the game look like crap? **** yes. I was running XIV on an 8800 GT at 30-50 FPS quite easily on Mid settings.

I'm calling BS here... My oldest desktop has a 9800 GT (kids PC) and you cannot run FFXIV at any normal looking settings without dropping frames to about 10-15 Smiley: lol.
Like he asked, prove it, just take a short video of you running through town using FRAPS and post it on youtube, or just a reasonable screenshot (not of a wall). You either have the buffer size and or resolution so low its PS2 quality (like OP explained how to do), or you are not aware that 10-15 FPS is unplayable.

Was your desktop custom built or something from Dell/HP? Processor? Processor speed? All of these have an effect on a game's playability, not the card itself. I was running a E4600 C2D @ 3.0 GHz, 8800 GT, 2GB DDR2, 1680x1050, with regular buffer size, low shadows, med textures, AO off, DoF off, AA off. Buffer size would have been the biggest hit on graphic quality, and having it to regular made the game look perfectly fine.

Proof? Why would I need to further prove a card that's proven itself by being capable of running Crysis on Very High settings? Something even newer low end cards still can't do.

Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
All PCs are different, but they are not magical beings that operate with no explanation. In the case of the OP, which was a necrobump from SEPTEMBER, he specifically posts that in order to get the game to run well, he had to decrease the game's resolution to 640x480, which is the lowest possible resolution you can run anything on.

So in short, he not only had to turn the game's settings all the way down to minimal, he had to reduce the game beyond the lowest resolution that most games natively offer (800x600) to get decent performance.

Yes, a lower resolution will improve performance, at the cost of appearance. While not running anything in the background -will- improve performance, the OP is using a very very low end video card and a very very low end CPU and had to accommodate them by configuring the game to run BELOW the minimum settings.

No, he can't call BS on it because FACTS back up the card's capabilities. It is NOT a low end card by ANY means. His CPU is low end, which I'm 99% sure is the cause of him being required to run it at such a low resolution. The card is enough to run the game without sacrificing a huge hit on performance, with the track record to back it up.

Edited, Jan 25th 2011 4:46pm by SoumaKyou


Okay, maybe it's not a low end card, but it's still on the lower end of the high end cards.

http://videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html Passmark rating is a 914. I agree that the CPU is the bigger bottleneck than the card, but the 9800 GT is a 2008 card. It's cool that it can run a 2007 game (Crysis) on very high settings, and yes, Crysis is a very demanding game, but FFXIV is way more demanding than Crysis is (which many attribute more to poor coding efficiency moreso than better graphics, but I digress).

At any rate, on the scale of "Cards that will run FFXIV", The 9800 may be on the list, but it's near the bottom.

Assuming that, again, this post wasn't FOUR MONTHS OLD, I'd suggest the OP upgrade their CPU and GPU, but yes, I'd upgrade the CPU first.
____________________________
[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.
#37 Jan 25 2011 at 4:09 PM Rating: Decent
**
415 posts
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
Okay, maybe it's not a low end card, but it's still on the lower end of the high end cards.

http://videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html Passmark rating is a 914. I agree that the CPU is the bigger bottleneck than the card, but the 9800 GT is a 2008 card. It's cool that it can run a 2007 game (Crysis) on very high settings, and yes, Crysis is a very demanding game, but FFXIV is way more demanding than Crysis is (which many attribute more to poor coding efficiency moreso than better graphics, but I digress).

At any rate, on the scale of "Cards that will run FFXIV", The 9800 may be on the list, but it's near the bottom.

Assuming that, again, this post wasn't FOUR MONTHS OLD, I'd suggest the OP upgrade their CPU and GPU, but yes, I'd upgrade the CPU first.

Agreed. Though I'd like to point out that Crysis is much more taxing on the GPU (still more taxing than most current games, in fact), while FFXIV is much more taxing on the CPU (seems to be the trend these days).
#38 Jan 25 2011 at 4:14 PM Rating: Decent
*****
11,539 posts
SoumaKyou wrote:
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
Okay, maybe it's not a low end card, but it's still on the lower end of the high end cards.

http://videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html Passmark rating is a 914. I agree that the CPU is the bigger bottleneck than the card, but the 9800 GT is a 2008 card. It's cool that it can run a 2007 game (Crysis) on very high settings, and yes, Crysis is a very demanding game, but FFXIV is way more demanding than Crysis is (which many attribute more to poor coding efficiency moreso than better graphics, but I digress).

At any rate, on the scale of "Cards that will run FFXIV", The 9800 may be on the list, but it's near the bottom.

Assuming that, again, this post wasn't FOUR MONTHS OLD, I'd suggest the OP upgrade their CPU and GPU, but yes, I'd upgrade the CPU first.

Agreed. Though I'd like to point out that Crysis is much more taxing on the GPU (still more taxing than most current games, in fact), while FFXIV is much more taxing on the CPU (seems to be the trend these days).


According to people who have far more time on their hands than I to be testing these sort of things, it's heavily taxing on the CPU only at lower resolutions and more GPU taxing at higher resolutions like 1680x1050 or 1920x1080.

So if you're only playing it at 1280x720, then the CPU will be more important obviously.
____________________________
[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.
#39 Jan 25 2011 at 4:22 PM Rating: Good
Sage
***
1,675 posts
Just to add:

My OC'd 8800GT and OC'd Q9550 are maxed out on an aging bad OCing 775 board and run the game, objectively fine. I get mostly around 40 FPS at 720p.

My scores on the benchmark were so high (at 720p) that they rivaled a stock GTX460, meaning (at the time) I didn't have to buy a new card.

Though I'm pretty sure all of this is already in the sticky. Also so many things have changed like driver updates and tweaks (like disabling Aero) so I'm sure the game is running even better on lower end systems like the OPs and mine.
#40 Jan 25 2011 at 4:27 PM Rating: Decent
**
415 posts
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
SoumaKyou wrote:
Mikhalia the Picky wrote:
Okay, maybe it's not a low end card, but it's still on the lower end of the high end cards.

http://videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html Passmark rating is a 914. I agree that the CPU is the bigger bottleneck than the card, but the 9800 GT is a 2008 card. It's cool that it can run a 2007 game (Crysis) on very high settings, and yes, Crysis is a very demanding game, but FFXIV is way more demanding than Crysis is (which many attribute more to poor coding efficiency moreso than better graphics, but I digress).

At any rate, on the scale of "Cards that will run FFXIV", The 9800 may be on the list, but it's near the bottom.

Assuming that, again, this post wasn't FOUR MONTHS OLD, I'd suggest the OP upgrade their CPU and GPU, but yes, I'd upgrade the CPU first.

Agreed. Though I'd like to point out that Crysis is much more taxing on the GPU (still more taxing than most current games, in fact), while FFXIV is much more taxing on the CPU (seems to be the trend these days).


According to people who have far more time on their hands than I to be testing these sort of things, it's heavily taxing on the CPU only at lower resolutions and more GPU taxing at higher resolutions like 1680x1050 or 1920x1080.

So if you're only playing it at 1280x720, then the CPU will be more important obviously.

That only applies to bottlenecked systems, really. A person with a GPU bottleneck (stronger CPU, weaker GPU) would decrease resolution to put more load onto the CPU and offset the bottleneck, while a person with a CPU bottleneck (stronger GPU, weaker CPU) would increase resolution and all settings to max to put more load onto the GPU.

If neither component is bottlenecked, the CPU gets taxed quite heavily unless running an i7 with hyperthreading (loads spread through 8 cores). I've actually found the sweet spot between a Q6600 @ 3.6GHz and a GTX 480, both running at 85-90% usage on max settings. My i7 setup with SLI GTX 460's, however, is more along the lines of 60-65% CPU and 90% GPU. i7's are beasts.
#41 Jan 25 2011 at 5:10 PM Rating: Decent
4 posts
Please i still need you guys help -.-"
#42 Jan 25 2011 at 5:54 PM Rating: Decent
*****
11,539 posts
Reyra wrote:
Please i still need you guys help -.-"


First, please don't necrobump threads. When you posted in this thread, you were replying to a thread that is four months old. In fact, I'm not really sure how you even found it unless you were intentionally looking for it.

Second, this is the information you provided:

Quote:
3,33GHz CPU
Windows 7 - 64 bit
6GB Ram
Nvidia GeForce GT 430


Two things:

One: The GeForce GT 430 is actually a worse card than the 9800 GT that the OP mentioned. Your graphics card is very weak.

Two: Could you please provide the model of CPU you have? You said it's 3.33 which makes me wonder if you're using a P4 or something.

My base suggestion would be to try turning settings way down, as your rig sounds a bit on the low end but I'll wait to hear back on that CPU. GPU is still pretty wimpy though.
____________________________
[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 Jan 25 2011 at 8:01 PM Rating: Decent
4 posts
http://img690.imageshack.us/i/unbenanntfg.png/

the weird thing is, it worked perfectly and really smoothe for a day...(graphic settings was on normal)
the next day everything turned really slow... i dont thing its graphic lag..
just like the whole game is in slow-motion
been trying everything what people in those threads mentioned.. nothing worked--
#44 Jan 25 2011 at 8:09 PM Rating: Decent
*****
11,539 posts
Reyra wrote:
http://img690.imageshack.us/i/unbenanntfg.png/

the weird thing is, it worked perfectly and really smoothe for a day...(graphic settings was on normal)
the next day everything turned really slow... i dont thing its graphic lag..
just like the whole game is in slow-motion
been trying everything what people in those threads mentioned.. nothing worked--


eew... core i3.

Best suggestion I have for you with a 430 GT and an i3, besides "upgrade" is to turn your settings down more in the FFXIV config tool. I'd suggest starting with lowering the resolution one or two steps since that will provide the most noticeable immediate difference.
____________________________
[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 Jan 25 2011 at 8:13 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,313 posts
I said earlier that my old Dualcore/9800gt PC ran it fine and people seem to think that they can't.

http://i841.photobucket.com/albums/zz332/jonathandcowden/FFXIV/FFXivWinBenchmark2010-07-0523-22-40.jpg

How you like them apples?

Here's a screen shot. I got around 30 fps
http://i841.photobucket.com/albums/zz332/jonathandcowden/FFXIV/1283498716.jpg

Edited, Jan 25th 2011 9:14pm by Transmigration
____________________________
Eithne Draocht
My IG: archaicmachinery - Friend me!
#46 Jan 25 2011 at 8:24 PM Rating: Decent
14 posts
I play on a Quad Core Q6600@2.4GHz with a nVidia 8800 GTS on default settings without FPS problems, got like 2100 on the benchmark.

But I admit that if I continue to play FFXIV I will probably buy a new PC sooner than expected!
#47 Jan 25 2011 at 8:29 PM Rating: Decent
4 posts
been trying everything what people in those threads mentioned.. nothing worked--
the weird thing is, it worked perfectly and really smoothe for a day...(graphic settings was on normal)
& ive tried that long ago... i even set that to minimun and it was still like slow-motion :(

Edited, Jan 25th 2011 9:29pm by Reyra
#48 Jan 25 2011 at 9:02 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
48 posts
Shazima wrote:
Quote:
The 9800GT is more than good enough, I'm using one right now (the ECO version at that) and all my settings are On (and on high/highest) playing on my 37" 720p TV (1366x768) with rarely less than 30 FPS. The only thing I don't have enabled is AO, but I haven't even tried, and that's just because the people I talked to said it wrecked the FPS due to poor optimization. And DoF is off just because I don't like it, even though it doesn't effect my FPS really.



I also run a 9800GT and the games runs absolutely perfect for me. The only setting i have turned down (off) is AO. Too many people have the mindset that if you don't have the biggest, baddest, most overpriced GPU available, then you wasted your money. I for one cannot afford a new $500 GPU every year. If my "outdated card" runs everything i throw at it without a hitch then why exactly do i need to upgrade it?

Flame on


Okay. Heres a $150 card:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130591

for ~$50 more you could have a card that blows a 9800gt out of the water
____________________________


#49SoumaKyou, Posted: Jan 25 2011 at 9:25 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Why would he get that when it would just be extremely bottlenecked by his CPU and perform even worse?
#50 Jan 25 2011 at 10:09 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
48 posts
SoumaKyou wrote:
mnikad12 wrote:

Okay. Heres a $150 card:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130591

for ~$50 more you could have a card that blows a 9800gt out of the water

Why would he get that when it would just be extremely bottlenecked by his CPU and perform even worse?

I swear, some of you people seem like you make suggestions out of your rears and don't really know anything about computers.


I wasn't responding to the 4 month old OP. Sorry, thought you could read within the context of my post since I quoted and bolded the parts I was responding to. Wut r bottleneckz?
____________________________


#51 Jan 25 2011 at 10:59 PM Rating: Decent
**
415 posts
mnikad12 wrote:
SoumaKyou wrote:
mnikad12 wrote:

Okay. Heres a $150 card:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130591

for ~$50 more you could have a card that blows a 9800gt out of the water

Why would he get that when it would just be extremely bottlenecked by his CPU and perform even worse?

I swear, some of you people seem like you make suggestions out of your rears and don't really know anything about computers.


I wasn't responding to the 4 month old OP. Sorry, thought you could read within the context of my post since I quoted and bolded the parts I was responding to. Wut r bottleneckz?

Unless he's running a high-end quad and still using a 9800 GT, a low end quad or dual core isn't gonna power a GTX 460 in FFXIV. There's your bottleneck.
« Previous 1 2
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 20 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (20)