Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Benchmark is up!Follow

#152 Apr 10 2013 at 4:09 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,443 posts
Quote:
Hey gys this was my score with these custom setting.. Im not terribly satisfied with this. Any suggestions on parts of anything that I can do to make it better able to run this game? Although I score Fairly High the fps are terrible.. anyways to make this better? Any suggestions are welcome!


The two things I see are your video card and your RAM.

RAM is cheap, but a video card is probably going to be your biggest upgrade here. Take a look at the GTX 460, 660, and 660Ti. As for RAM, you're running a 32bit OS so there are hard limits on what you can do with that, and your video card is going to take a bite out of it. I'd stick with a 1GB VRAM video card and try to squeeze an extra 1GB of hard RAM into there for the computer to use.
____________________________
svlyons wrote:
If random outcomes aren't acceptable to you, then don't play with random people.
#153 Apr 10 2013 at 4:23 PM Rating: Good
*
229 posts
Archmage Callinon wrote:
Quote:
Hey gys this was my score with these custom setting.. Im not terribly satisfied with this. Any suggestions on parts of anything that I can do to make it better able to run this game? Although I score Fairly High the fps are terrible.. anyways to make this better? Any suggestions are welcome!


The two things I see are your video card and your RAM.

RAM is cheap, but a video card is probably going to be your biggest upgrade here. Take a look at the GTX 460, 660, and 660Ti. As for RAM, you're running a 32bit OS so there are hard limits on what you can do with that, and your video card is going to take a bite out of it. I'd stick with a 1GB VRAM video card and try to squeeze an extra 1GB of hard RAM into there for the computer to use.


Alright, thank you very much! I appreciate it.
____________________________
[IMG]http://www.avatarsdb.com/avatars/anime_avatar_01.gif[/IMG]
#154 Apr 10 2013 at 6:42 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
32 posts
SaitoMishima wrote:
Archmage Callinon wrote:
Quote:
Hey gys this was my score with these custom setting.. Im not terribly satisfied with this. Any suggestions on parts of anything that I can do to make it better able to run this game? Although I score Fairly High the fps are terrible.. anyways to make this better? Any suggestions are welcome!


The two things I see are your video card and your RAM.

RAM is cheap, but a video card is probably going to be your biggest upgrade here. Take a look at the GTX 460, 660, and 660Ti. As for RAM, you're running a 32bit OS so there are hard limits on what you can do with that, and your video card is going to take a bite out of it. I'd stick with a 1GB VRAM video card and try to squeeze an extra 1GB of hard RAM into there for the computer to use.


Alright, thank you very much! I appreciate it.



Also as Wint mentioned in another thread, the GTX 650Ti Boost is good value @ $175
#155 Apr 11 2013 at 10:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
**
340 posts
The best time of year to get a video card is just after they introduce the new generations. (600 -> 700) (6000 -> 7000) etc. They try to liquidate the old cards very quickly, and you can get quite powerful cards on the cheap.
____________________________
WoW Blackhand-US-Date of Retirement: 9/21/2010... /Sigh
Devari - 90 Rogue 85 DK Druid/Mage/Warrior 70+

FFXI - Shiva "Retired.... Or not? One more try, honest."
Desmar - 65 Sam 36 Mnk 18 Thf 12 War

FFXIV - Devari Garamond - Sargatanas 50 Paladin / Culinarian / Weaver / Armorer
Beta - Devaria Ariadne - Ultros - Pugilist
#156 Apr 13 2013 at 1:34 AM Rating: Decent
5 posts
Hello, all, I've been trying to figure this problem out for a long while now. I've looked up guides on ways to improve performance on my computer but nothing seems to work. This is the worst part, my score has actually dropped when switching to a 7870 from my 6850. What I notice is that my GPU and CPU load never reach 99/100%, so it is kind of hard to tell if my CPU is really bottlenecking my GPU or not. I am aware from research that there may be other bottlenecks but since I'm not all that experienced at putting together rigs (this is my first one), it's kind of hard for me to identify the problem, and I was hoping that someone could please help me with this situation.

I'm starting to regret the "upgrade" and think that I should have purchased a better CPU and mobo first, but you can find a few results on Google on the question of whether or not the CPU I have could bottleneck the 7870, the majority stated that an OC'd CPU would be fine.

The average score I received with my 6850 was 4800 on 1280x720 Medium. Even that seemed kind of low to me, but I don't know, I might just be wrong. I have tried searching for people in a similar situation like mine, but all I have found is maybe two or three people with only the same GPU, and those people got scores in the 5k's on Maximum 1080p.

Here are my results with my 7870 on the exact same settings as the 6850:

Score:3441
Average Framerate:30.160

My CPU has had a stable OC from 3.2GHz to 3.8GHz.

Here are my system specs:
XFX Double D FX-787A-CDFC Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition 2GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card

Western Digital WD Blue WD5000AAKX 500GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive - OEM

G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model F3-12800CL9D-8GBRL

ASUS M4A88TD-V EVO/USB3 AM3 AMD 880G HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard

Rosewill Green Series RG630-S12 630W Continuous @40°C,80 PLUS BRONZE Certified, Single 12V Rail, Active PFC "Compatible with Core i7,i5" Power Supply

AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition Deneb 3.2GHz Socket AM3 125W Quad-Core Processor HDZ955FBGMBOX

I appreciate any suggestions or recommendations (like hardware upgrades), and any help. Thank you for your time.

I have a pretty low budget, btw, it took a while to save up for that 7870 so you can see how I feel kind of bad about how things have turned out...

I only mention this so that nobody goes "Just buy [insert all this expensive stuff here]" lol

[EDIT] I've found stuff about a "power saving mode" for GPUs causing low load and therefore low clocks, but I have no idea how the GPU could have its power saving mode. Is that just the performance plan or something? Could that even be it?

[EDIT 2] I have also found about how the CPU load might not actually show up as full load because it means the game is efficiently using all 4 cores. I have also turned off all power saving features from the BIOS. Still would appreciate any info.. thanks.

Edited, Apr 13th 2013 3:43am by RedMage1993

Edited, Apr 13th 2013 1:57pm by RedMage1993
#157 Apr 13 2013 at 4:41 PM Rating: Decent
5 posts
I took some snapshots of my gpu/cpu activity during the benchmark, notice the low usage of GPU:

http://f.cl.ly/items/1b1Z092K2i2P1s0D0y0o/1.jpg

http://f.cl.ly/items/3Y2H3E132c3T0c143m2r/2.jpg

Edited, Apr 13th 2013 6:41pm by RedMage1993
#158 Apr 13 2013 at 9:44 PM Rating: Decent
5 posts
Okay, well, I managed to get it fixed!

It's kind of hard to tell what exactly was the fix since I ended up formatting my HDD, but the things I did was when installing the AMD drivers, I ONLY installed everything BUT the CCC. I also installed this tool from HIS called iTurbo that allows you to Disable ULPS and 2D Clocks. The 2D clocks seemed to be not necessary so currently I only have Disable ULPS enabled. I have managed to get 5572 on Maximum 1080p with an average 45fps, previously impossible. I get 10500 approximately at 720p. Hope this helps whoever had problems with GPU utilization.
#159 Apr 14 2013 at 8:14 AM Rating: Decent
26 posts
FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Official Benchmark (Exploration)
Tested on:4/14/2013 9:11:11 AM
Score:7643
Average Framerate:65.035
Performance:Extremely High
-Easily capable of running the game on the highest settings.

Screen Size: 1280x960
Screen Mode: Windowed
Graphics Presets: Maximum
General
-Improve overall graphic quality. : Enabled
-Disable rendering of objects when not visible. (Occlusion Culling) : Disabled
-Use low-detail models on distant objects to increase performance. (LOD) : Disabled
-Cache LOD data only when necessary. (LOD Streaming) : Disabled
-Smooth edges. (Anti-aliasing) : Enabled
-Increase transparent lighting quality. : Enabled
-Grass Quality : High
Shadows
-Use low-detail models on shadows to increase performance. (LOD) : Disabled
-Display : All
-Shadow Resolution : High: 2048 pixels
-Shadow Cascading : High
-Shadow Softening : High
Texture Detail
-Texture Filtering : High
-Anisotropic Filtering : High
Effects
-Naturally darken the edges of the screen. (Limb Darkening) : Enabled
-Blur the graphics around an object in motion. (Radial Blur) : Enabled
-Effects While in Motion : Display All
-Screen Space Ambient Occlusion : High
-Glare : Normal
Cinematic Cutscenes
-Enable depth of field. : Enabled

System:
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (6.1, Build 7601) Service Pack 1 (7601.win7sp1_gdr.120830-0333)
Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-3570K CPU @ 3.40GHz
8079.215MB
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti (VRAM 4049 MB) 8.17.0013.0142

Benchmark results do not provide any guarantee FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn will run on your system.

FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Official Website http://na.finalfantasyxiv.com
(C) 2010-2013 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. All Rights Reserved.

Tweet
http://sqex.to/ffxiv_bench_na #FFXIV Score:7643 1280x960 Maximum Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-3570K CPU @ 3.40GHz NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti
#160 Apr 15 2013 at 1:34 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
2,536 posts
WoodGooner wrote:
Overclocked it and totally satisfied. Best $150 i've spent on my rig yet. GTX 660 is a beauty of a card

Score:7282
Average Framerate:60.968

System:
Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-3570K CPU @ 3.40GHz
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 (VRAM 4042 MB) 9.18.0013.1422


Very nice! My overclocked 660 paired with my rusty Phenom II 955 (stock clock) only scores 5200ish. Talk about severe bottleneck...

Edit: Btw, what did you OC your GPU up to?


Edited, Apr 15th 2013 2:37pm by Threx
____________________________
FF11 Server: Caitsith
Kalyna (retired, 2008)
100 Goldsmith
75 Rng, Brd
Main/Acc
Exp/Hybrid
Str/Attk
Spam/Others
#161 Apr 17 2013 at 5:30 AM Rating: Decent
1 post
RedMage1993 wrote:
Hello, all, I've been trying to figure this problem out for a long while now. I've looked up guides on ways to improve performance on my computer but nothing seems to work. This is the worst part, my score has actually dropped when switching to a 7870 from my 6850. What I notice is that my GPU and CPU load never reach 99/100%, so it is kind of hard to tell if my CPU is really bottlenecking my GPU or not. I am aware from research that there may be other bottlenecks but since I'm not all that experienced at putting together rigs (this is my first one), it's kind of hard for me to identify the problem, and I was hoping that someone could please help me with this situation.

I'm starting to regret the "upgrade" and think that I should have purchased a better CPU and mobo first, but you can find a few results on Google on the question of whether or not the CPU I have could bottleneck the 7870, the majority stated that an OC'd CPU would be fine.

The average score I received with my 6850 was 4800 on 1280x720 Medium. Even that seemed kind of low to me, but I don't know, I might just be wrong. I have tried searching for people in a similar situation like mine, but all I have found is maybe two or three people with only the same GPU, and those people got scores in the 5k's on Maximum 1080p.

Here are my results with my 7870 on the exact same settings as the 6850:

Score:3441
Average Framerate:30.160

My CPU has had a stable OC from 3.2GHz to 3.8GHz.

Here are my system specs:
XFX Double D FX-787A-CDFC Radeon HD 7870 GHz Edition 2GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFireX Support Video Card

Western Digital WD Blue WD5000AAKX 500GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive - OEM

G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model F3-12800CL9D-8GBRL

ASUS M4A88TD-V EVO/USB3 AM3 AMD 880G HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard

Rosewill Green Series RG630-S12 630W Continuous @40°C,80 PLUS BRONZE Certified, Single 12V Rail, Active PFC "Compatible with Core i7,i5" Power Supply

AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition Deneb 3.2GHz Socket AM3 125W Quad-Core Processor HDZ955FBGMBOX

I appreciate any suggestions or recommendations (like hardware upgrades), and any help. Thank you for your time.

I have a pretty low budget, btw, it took a while to save up for that 7870 so you can see how I feel kind of bad about how things have turned out...

I only mention this so that nobody goes "Just buy [insert all this expensive stuff here]" lol

[EDIT] I've found stuff about a "power saving mode" for GPUs causing low load and therefore low clocks, but I have no idea how the GPU could have its power saving mode. Is that just the performance plan or something? Could that even be it?

[EDIT 2] I have also found about how the CPU load might not actually show up as full load because it means the game is efficiently using all 4 cores. I have also turned off all power saving features from the BIOS. Still would appreciate any info.. thanks.

Edited, Apr 13th 2013 3:43am by RedMage1993

Edited, Apr 13th 2013 1:57pm by RedMage1993


Does your power supply provide enough amps for the 7870? If a card doesn't get enough juice it will either crash or throttle down.

I ran the benchmark on my i5 and a gtx 670 at medium with that resolution and settings and got a score of 16,376. 7870 is pretty close to the 670, the 995 is a fair bit off the i5 but if you were bottlenecking at the cpu the benchmark would be thrashing your cpu and it would be running at 100% constantly during the benchmark.

For what it is worth, the benchmark doesn't push my gpu to stay constantly at 100% either, there might be something about the engine which is causing that. My cpu usage fluctuates between 50-80% but is usually around 60% ish and I am not OCing my cpu or gpu.

Before spending money on upgrades, you should find specifically what you need, look around at what components other people have close to what you have and see what makes the biggest difference.
#162 May 10 2013 at 10:01 PM Rating: Decent
5 posts
Actually, it ended up being something strange with what I was installing or simply it was just Windows 8 x64 professional that could not let me use it fully. I still don't have CCC installed, but yeah, I have been doing just fine on Windows 7 64-bit. I actually don't mind the "downgrade" since it's very similar and stuff.

I can't tell what happened because I did a fresh install of Windows 8 before going to 7, and it still did not work. But I'm gonna assume that there was something I was doing on the OS that was causing it, and not just blame it on the OS lol.

My 955 OC'd to 3.8ghz and psu with 630W is working pretty good with the 7870. I'll probably upgrade to a better AMD chip later or just switch to Intel tho.
#163 May 11 2013 at 10:10 PM Rating: Good
RedMage1993 wrote:
Actually, it ended up being something strange with what I was installing or simply it was just Windows 8 x64 professional that could not let me use it fully. I still don't have CCC installed, but yeah, I have been doing just fine on Windows 7 64-bit. I actually don't mind the "downgrade" since it's very similar and stuff.

I can't tell what happened because I did a fresh install of Windows 8 before going to 7, and it still did not work. But I'm gonna assume that there was something I was doing on the OS that was causing it, and not just blame it on the OS lol.

My 955 OC'd to 3.8ghz and psu with 630W is working pretty good with the 7870. I'll probably upgrade to a better AMD chip later or just switch to Intel tho.


I had the 955, great cpu. If you decide to stick with AMD I would recommend the FX-6300/FX6350. Ridiculously easy to OC. I have mine running at 4.2 on stock voltage no problem. I also have the 7870 and I'm getting high 5900s on the bench.
#164 May 28 2013 at 1:23 AM Rating: Decent
Hey everyone. I just did the benchmark.
I don't understand why, but my score isn't as high as i expected it to be. I just bought a new CPU and MOBO and graphics card, and they're all pretty much top notch. The only thing I could think of is that I ran the test without my mobo in overclock mode as well as my graphics card, did the test in standard mode. Haven't gotten around to trying it after overclocking yet. Still installing all the new updates for this new build. Any suggestions of what I could do?

FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Official Benchmark (Exploration)
Tested on:5/28/2013 12:15:57 AM
Score:5163
Average Framerate:41.937
Performance:Very High
-Easily capable of running the game. Should perform exceptionally well, even at higher resolutions.

Screen Size: 1920x1080
Screen Mode: Full Screen
Graphics Presets: Maximum
General
-Improve overall graphic quality. : Enabled
-Disable rendering of objects when not visible. (Occlusion Culling) : Disabled
-Use low-detail models on distant objects to increase performance. (LOD) : Disabled
-Cache LOD data only when necessary. (LOD Streaming) : Disabled
-Smooth edges. (Anti-aliasing) : Enabled
-Increase transparent lighting quality. : Enabled
-Grass Quality : High
Shadows
-Use low-detail models on shadows to increase performance. (LOD) : Disabled
-Display : All
-Shadow Resolution : High: 2048 pixels
-Shadow Cascading : High
-Shadow Softening : High
Texture Detail
-Texture Filtering : High
-Anisotropic Filtering : High
Effects
-Naturally darken the edges of the screen. (Limb Darkening) : Enabled
-Blur the graphics around an object in motion. (Radial Blur) : Enabled
-Effects While in Motion : Display All
-Screen Space Ambient Occlusion : High
-Glare : Normal
Cinematic Cutscenes
-Enable depth of field. : Enabled

System:
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (6.1, Build 7601) Service Pack 1 (7601.win7sp1_gdr.110408-1631)
AMD FX(tm)-8350 Eight-Core Processor
8141.504MB
ASUS HD7850 Series(VRAM 1743 MB) 8.17.0010.1119

Benchmark results do not provide any guarantee FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn will run on your system.

FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Official Website http://na.finalfantasyxiv.com
(C) 2010-2013 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. All Rights Reserved.

Tweet
http://sqex.to/ffxiv_bench_na #FFXIV Score:5163 1920x1080 Maximum AMD FX(tm)-8350 Eight-Core Processor ASUS HD7850 Series
#165 May 28 2013 at 1:43 AM Rating: Decent
I decreased the resolution slightly to 1680x1050 and the result was 1000 points higher than at 1920x1080. I can see a noticeable difference when I cut back in the resolution though :/ I hate being a perfectionist hahah
#167 May 28 2013 at 6:23 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
**
818 posts
Musicalgenocide wrote:
I decreased the resolution slightly to 1680x1050 and the result was 1000 points higher than at 1920x1080. I can see a noticeable difference when I cut back in the resolution though :/ I hate being a perfectionist hahah


I think the game is really GPU dependent, particularly vRam. You can see on this thread people with almost the same setup as me, except a GPU with 4gb of vRam vs my 1100~ get a much better score than I can get.
____________________________
The entire Universe to the furthest Galaxy, we are told, is no more than a closed electron existing as part of a much bigger Universe we can never see. And that Universe is only an elementary particle in a still grander Universe. An infinite regression, up and down. - Carl Sagan

Check out my Gamer Blog at http://www.baffledgamer.com/
#168 May 28 2013 at 9:10 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
36 posts
Score:8987
Average Framerate:78.644
Performance:Extremely High
-Easily capable of running the game on the highest settings.

Screen Size: 1920x1080
Screen Mode: Full Screen
Graphics Presets: Maximum

Can't wait till the game is released! :D Will run beautifully with my GTX 780!
#169 May 28 2013 at 9:14 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,122 posts
Score: 3890

1920x1080
Full Screen
Standard Graphics

This is on a mid range gaming laptop with a quad core i7-3610QM (2.3GHz), 650m graphics card, so I'm fairly pleased.

I got 1300 with the integrated graphics chip, for comparison.

Edited, May 28th 2013 9:46pm by Dizmo

Edited, Jun 12th 2013 8:10pm by Dizmo
#170 May 29 2013 at 5:00 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
****
4,475 posts
Mine:

Quote:

FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Official Benchmark (Exploration)
Tested on:5/29/2013 6:58:42 AM
Score:4371
Average Framerate:34.943
Performance:High
-Easily capable of running the game. Should perform well, even at higher resolutions.

Screen Size: 1920x1080
Screen Mode: Full Screen
Graphics Presets: Custom
General
-Improve overall graphic quality. : Enabled
-Disable rendering of objects when not visible. (Occlusion Culling) : Disabled
-Use low-detail models on distant objects to increase performance. (LOD) : Enabled
-Cache LOD data only when necessary. (LOD Streaming) : Disabled
-Smooth edges. (Anti-aliasing) : Enabled
-Increase transparent lighting quality. : Enabled
-Grass Quality : High
Shadows
-Use low-detail models on shadows to increase performance. (LOD) : Disabled
-Display : All
-Shadow Resolution : High: 2048 pixels
-Shadow Cascading : High
-Shadow Softening : High
Texture Detail
-Texture Filtering : High
-Anisotropic Filtering : High
Effects
-Naturally darken the edges of the screen. (Limb Darkening) : Enabled
-Blur the graphics around an object in motion. (Radial Blur) : Enabled
-Effects While in Motion : Display All
-Screen Space Ambient Occlusion : High
-Glare : Normal
Cinematic Cutscenes
-Enable depth of field. : Enabled

System:
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (6.1, Build 7600) (7600.win7_gdr.110622-1503)
AMD FX(tm)-6300 Six-Core Processor
4077.242MB
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti(VRAM 2776 MB) 8.17.0012.6644


I guess my old 560ti will be viable for one more year on this rig.
#171 May 29 2013 at 10:37 AM Rating: Decent
Yeah I guess I kind of figured that a 2gb vRAM GPU would suffice, plus my 8-core CPU on top of that but I suppose not! Oh well, I suppose 6k-ish will have to do haha
#172 May 29 2013 at 11:05 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
I've noticed that AMD processors, regardless of cores, tend not to do as well as the Intel processors. Also, the game can't take advantage of hyper threading as far as I know, so 8 cores isn't really going to help that much.

All the best scores I've seen have come from Intel Core i7s.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#173 May 29 2013 at 12:27 PM Rating: Good
Catwho wrote:
I've noticed that AMD processors, regardless of cores, tend not to do as well as the Intel processors. Also, the game can't take advantage of hyper threading as far as I know, so 8 cores isn't really going to help that much.

All the best scores I've seen have come from Intel Core i7s.


Another thing I noticed was that Nvidia cards seem to be scoring higher. Earlier in the thread someone had a similar set up to mine but was scoring about 400 points higher with a 660TI vs my 7870. The cards are pretty similar performance-wise, but the 660TI seems to handle the bench better.
#174 Jun 03 2013 at 8:12 PM Rating: Decent
1 post
Score:6611
1600x900 Medium
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3610QM CPU @ 2.30GHz
NVIDIA GEFORCE GT 650M

I am surprised this laptop could get those scores on medium lol :O

Edited, Jun 3rd 2013 10:12pm by amthysir
#175 Jun 03 2013 at 8:57 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
262 posts
I actually have a question and hope someone can answer for me.

I have a gaming laptop with a Nvidia 680m in it, but when I run the benchmark and get my score and all that it tells me my GPU is the Intel HD graphics.

Is that the Nvidia Optimus' fault? My scores at running everything maxed out has been right at 5200 at about 40 fps if I remember right. I haven't looked at it in a while. But it's been annoying that everytime I've tried it that it won't bring up my actual GPU in the system summary.

Edited, Jun 3rd 2013 10:59pm by Hatamaz
#176 Jun 03 2013 at 9:12 PM Rating: Good
****
6,898 posts
My guess would be that because you have an integrated card, it automatically defaults to that for the summary (the benchmark probably just doesn't know how to read multiple cards and just picks the base chip for analysis). I'm really not sure how you'd go about changing that... but I can tell you with 100% certainty that you wouldn't be getting even close to that score if you were running the integrated card for the test, so I wouldn't worry about it.
#177 Jun 03 2013 at 9:17 PM Rating: Good
**
618 posts
Toward the middle/end around Post 44 in another topic someone else had the same issue and he had to adjust the settings to get it to use the other card and not the intergrated. 5200 with a integrated card... hmmmm I don't know much about laptops let alone a gaming one but with a integrated card I just can't fathom a score that high. What laptop are you using?
____________________________
FFXIV Gilgamesh: Nghthawk Evenfall
FFXIV Gilgamesh: Nytehawk Evenfall


Time is but a window,
Death is but a doorway,
I'll Be Back
#178 Jun 03 2013 at 9:46 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
262 posts
SillyHawk wrote:
Toward the middle/end around Post 44 in another topic someone else had the same issue and he had to adjust the settings to get it to use the other card and not the intergrated. 5200 with a integrated card... hmmmm I don't know much about laptops let alone a gaming one but with a integrated card I just can't fathom a score that high. What laptop are you using?



I have an iBuypower Valkyerie CZ17 laptop
Windows 8 64 bit
Intel core i7-3840QM @ 2.80GHz
Nvidia 680m GPU

From what I've read Nvida Optimus switches back and forth between the Intel HD graphics and the 680m depending on what type of load it's under. I'm thinking that is causing it, but it's just so **** frustrating to not see my GPU's name in the summary.
#179 Jun 04 2013 at 5:30 AM Rating: Decent
So I ran this for "WTF Why Not" reasons. The previous game just BARELY ran on this old gaming rig.

Got a 2324 on the default Medium settings. No idea where that places me on the Play/Cannot Play range. Details in spoiler
FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Official Benchmark (Exploration)
Tested on:6/4/2013 7:27:00 AM
Score:2324
Average Framerate:18.839
Performance:Standard
-Capable of running the game on default settings.

Screen Size: 1280x720
Screen Mode: Windowed
Graphics Presets: Medium
General
-Improve overall graphic quality. : Disabled
-Disable rendering of objects when not visible. (Occlusion Culling) : Enabled
-Use low-detail models on distant objects to increase performance. (LOD) : Enabled
-Cache LOD data only when necessary. (LOD Streaming) : Enabled
-Smooth edges. (Anti-aliasing) : Disabled
-Increase transparent lighting quality. : Disabled
-Grass Quality : Low
Shadows
-Use low-detail models on shadows to increase performance. (LOD) : Enabled
-Display : Personal and Environmental
-Shadow Resolution : Mid: 1024 pixels
-Shadow Cascading : Normal
-Shadow Softening : Low
Texture Detail
-Texture Filtering : Medium
-Anisotropic Filtering : Low
Effects
-Naturally darken the edges of the screen. (Limb Darkening) : Disabled
-Blur the graphics around an object in motion. (Radial Blur) : Enabled
-Effects While in Motion : Display Own
-Screen Space Ambient Occlusion : Off
-Glare : Low
Cinematic Cutscenes
-Enable depth of field. : Disabled

System:
Microsoft Windows XP Professional (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 3 (2600.xpsp_sp3_gdr.130307-0422)
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Extreme CPU X7900 @ 2.80GHz
3069.977MB
NVIDIA GeForce 8700M GT (VRAM 512.0 MB) 6.14.0012.6658

Benchmark results do not provide any guarantee FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn will run on your system.

FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Official Website http://na.finalfantasyxiv.com
(C) 2010-2013 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. All Rights Reserved.

Tweet
http://sqex.to/ffxiv_bench_na #FFXIV Score:2324 1280x720 Medium Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Extreme CPU X7900 @ 2.80GHz NVIDIA GeForce 8700M GT


Regardless when ARR drops, I have the PS3 version I was intending to play on.
____________________________
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/pawkeshup
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/pawkeshup
Twitch: http://www.twitch.tv/pawkeshup
Blog: http://pawkeshup.blogspot.com
Olorinus the Ludicrous wrote:
The idea of old school is way more interesting than the reality
#180 Jun 04 2013 at 6:15 AM Rating: Good
****
6,898 posts
Hatamaz wrote:
SillyHawk wrote:
Toward the middle/end around Post 44 in another topic someone else had the same issue and he had to adjust the settings to get it to use the other card and not the intergrated. 5200 with a integrated card... hmmmm I don't know much about laptops let alone a gaming one but with a integrated card I just can't fathom a score that high. What laptop are you using?



I have an iBuypower Valkyerie CZ17 laptop
Windows 8 64 bit
Intel core i7-3840QM @ 2.80GHz
Nvidia 680m GPU

From what I've read Nvida Optimus switches back and forth between the Intel HD graphics and the 680m depending on what type of load it's under. I'm thinking that is causing it, but it's just so **** frustrating to not see my GPU's name in the summary.


Like I said, it's most likely an issue with the benchmark not being able to interpret multiple cards, so it defaults to the built-in integrated GPU for the summary. There is absolutely no way you would ever get a score even CLOSE to that if it was using the integrated card for the test, so there's no reason to be frustrated.
#181 Jun 04 2013 at 9:04 AM Rating: Good
**
923 posts
So maybe a PC Guru could help me out here....my current PC's hardware is pretty good aside from the video card...it has served me well but it's time for an upgrade...I'm looking to spend $200-$300 max and I'd like something complementary to my CPU...I don't really keep up with PC hardware anymore sadly..

Thank you very much in advance!

Here are the "important" current specs:
I7-3770K
8 Gigs of DDR3 1333
Radeon 5770 (I know I know...but this thing really has done me proud..)

#182 Jun 04 2013 at 9:50 AM Rating: Good
Sage
**
743 posts
Newegg has HD 7870's for just over $200.
____________________________
I think you've been smoking the Moko...
http://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodestone/character/350413/
http://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodestone/character/1628942/
http://www.nerdist.com/
Angus of Cerberus (retired)
#183 Jun 04 2013 at 9:55 AM Rating: Excellent
samosamo wrote:
So maybe a PC Guru could help me out here....my current PC's hardware is pretty good aside from the video card...it has served me well but it's time for an upgrade...I'm looking to spend $200-$300 max and I'd like something complementary to my CPU...I don't really keep up with PC hardware anymore sadly..

Thank you very much in advance!

Here are the "important" current specs:
I7-3770K
8 Gigs of DDR3 1333
Radeon 5770 (I know I know...but this thing really has done me proud..)



I had a 5770, good card. Still running strong in my GF's PC. In that price range you're looking at a 660TI or 7870. They are similar performance-wise so it's really a matter of preference. The 660TI tends to be a bit more expensive, but Geforce cards seem to be doing better on the benchmark than Radeon cards. If you expand your budget to the $350 range you can get a 7950, also saw some 670s in that price range on newegg. So, you have a few options.

Edit: Forgot to mention I have a 7870. Good card. OC'd fairly easily, though I think I got a mediocre OCing card.

Edited, Jun 4th 2013 8:57am by SkinwalkerAsura
#184 Jun 04 2013 at 10:51 AM Rating: Good
**
923 posts
Thanks guys ;)
#185 Jun 04 2013 at 11:06 AM Rating: Good
7950's go down to 299$ on sale (if you check all the major sites, newegg, tigerdirect, canadacomputers if you're up north etc). The GTX 660ti can be had for around 280$ and is comparable to the 7950 (sometimes better). Depending who you ask, you'll get people telling you to go AMD, others to go NVIDIA, it's all personal preference. As great as benchmarks are, fans of either card will manipulate numbers to their favour. Then the new drivers come out, and AMD pulls ahead, then the next week NVIDIA has a new driver set and pulls ahead.

AMD still has their reloaded deal going on with free copies of Crysis 3, Bioshock Infinite and Far Cry Blood Dragon. I think you get Metro and something else with NVIDIA cards if that matters at all. I had a GTX 460, served me well, bought a 7950 (cause it was cheaper then a 660ti at the time), and it's fantastic. So for my next card, who knows, whatever's best bang for the buck from either company.

Edit: You get Tomb Raider on top of those three with AMD, and only Metro with Nvidia right now.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-3.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-4.html

Edited, Jun 4th 2013 1:10pm by Montsegurnephcreep

Edited, Jun 4th 2013 1:12pm by Montsegurnephcreep
____________________________

#186 Jun 04 2013 at 11:33 AM Rating: Excellent
Montsegurnephcreep wrote:
7950's go down to 299$ on sale (if you check all the major sites, newegg, tigerdirect, canadacomputers if you're up north etc). The GTX 660ti can be had for around 280$ and is comparable to the 7950 (sometimes better). Depending who you ask, you'll get people telling you to go AMD, others to go NVIDIA, it's all personal preference. As great as benchmarks are, fans of either card will manipulate numbers to their favour. Then the new drivers come out, and AMD pulls ahead, then the next week NVIDIA has a new driver set and pulls ahead.

AMD still has their reloaded deal going on with free copies of Crysis 3, Bioshock Infinite and Far Cry Blood Dragon. I think you get Metro and something else with NVIDIA cards if that matters at all. I had a GTX 460, served me well, bought a 7950 (cause it was cheaper then a 660ti at the time), and it's fantastic. So for my next card, who knows, whatever's best bang for the buck from either company.

Edit: You get Tomb Raider on top of those three with AMD, and only Metro with Nvidia right now.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-3.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-4.html

Edited, Jun 4th 2013 1:10pm by Montsegurnephcreep

Edited, Jun 4th 2013 1:12pm by Montsegurnephcreep


How do you like your 7950? When I bought my 7870 I was considering the 7950 but I opted to go cheaper and put the difference toward a new monitor, but I have the "what if" buyer thing going on...
#187 Jun 04 2013 at 11:44 AM Rating: Good
I'm enjoying it, thing runs a bit hot (I don't have a dual fan one, just the reference card with single fan). My 3570k with the 7950 gets me a score of 6900 maxed out on the XIV benchmark. Crysis 3 runs maxed out minus a couple AA options that need to be toned down, everything else runs great. This is all at 1920x1200, so not sure how it does if you're going beyond that.

I've been satisfied with my last 5 cards to be honest, had the Radeon 9800 pro, then a 7900 GS (or maybe this one first), then the GTX 260 OC, GTX 460, now this 7950. They've all done what they've advertised. I think the 7950 has room for improvement if games use certain technologies and the drivers get better, but that's all speculation.
____________________________

#188 Jun 04 2013 at 11:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Montsegurnephcreep wrote:
I'm enjoying it, thing runs a bit hot (I don't have a dual fan one, just the reference card with single fan). My 3570k with the 7950 gets me a score of 6900 maxed out on the XIV benchmark. Crysis 3 runs maxed out minus a couple AA options that need to be toned down, everything else runs great. This is all at 1920x1200, so not sure how it does if you're going beyond that.

I've been satisfied with my last 5 cards to be honest, had the Radeon 9800 pro, then a 7900 GS (or maybe this one first), then the GTX 260 OC, GTX 460, now this 7950. They've all done what they've advertised. I think the 7950 has room for improvement if games use certain technologies and the drivers get better, but that's all speculation.


I am satisfied with my 7870. I OCd it to stock 7950 speed and I'm hitting 6000 on the XIV benchmark. I'm just the type that will always wonder I should have spent the extra cash...and there's always crossfire if it bugs me that much Smiley: lol
#189 Jun 04 2013 at 11:57 AM Rating: Good
That's why I always wait a couple generations before I upgrade. Otherwise, you notice some performance increase, but not enough to justify that 200-300$. You wait 2-3 generations, then you REALLY notice a performance boost. It's like these people upgrading from Sandy, to Ivy, to Haswell for 3-15% performance increases (in mostly non real world applications), it boggles my mind.

I suppose if it's your hobby and you have the cash, then go nuts, but otherwise...I don't see the point.
____________________________

#190 Jun 04 2013 at 12:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Montsegurnephcreep wrote:
That's why I always wait a couple generations before I upgrade. Otherwise, you notice some performance increase, but not enough to justify that 200-300$. You wait 2-3 generations, then you REALLY notice a performance boost. It's like these people upgrading from Sandy, to Ivy, to Haswell for 3-15% performance increases (in mostly non real world applications), it boggles my mind.

I suppose if it's your hobby and you have the cash, then go nuts, but otherwise...I don't see the point.


Absolutely agree. The upgrade from my 5770 to the 7870 was a pretty good bump in performance, and I'm always looking for best bang for my buck situations. When I built my current rig I was looking at the i5 3570k but went cheaper and got an AMD FX-6300. Obviously not as good a performer as the 3570 but with the 100 bucks I saved I got an SSD, and the FX 6300 works perfectly fine for me.
#191 Jun 04 2013 at 1:08 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
3,599 posts
I'm looking to upgrade my GPU as well but worried that I will be wasting money with my CPU possibly bottlenecking it.

Currently:

Radeon 5750
Intel Core 2 Quad 2.5 gh

I ran the benchmark at max and got a sad, sad score of 2588.

Beta ran fine with the settings tweaked down a bit, but I'm wondering if jumping to the 7950 would be a waste of money versus a slightly lower card like 7870.
____________________________


#192 Jun 04 2013 at 1:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Louiscool wrote:
I'm looking to upgrade my GPU as well but worried that I will be wasting money with my CPU possibly bottlenecking it.

Currently:

Radeon 5750
Intel Core 2 Quad 2.5 gh

I ran the benchmark at max and got a sad, sad score of 2588.

Beta ran fine with the settings tweaked down a bit, but I'm wondering if jumping to the 7950 would be a waste of money versus a slightly lower card like 7870.


I think it will bottleneck both of those cards, the 7950 much more than the 7870. I would upgrade the CPU if you want to go with one of those cards.
#193 Jun 04 2013 at 1:31 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
3,599 posts
SkinwalkerAsura wrote:
Louiscool wrote:
I'm looking to upgrade my GPU as well but worried that I will be wasting money with my CPU possibly bottlenecking it.

Currently:

Radeon 5750
Intel Core 2 Quad 2.5 gh

I ran the benchmark at max and got a sad, sad score of 2588.

Beta ran fine with the settings tweaked down a bit, but I'm wondering if jumping to the 7950 would be a waste of money versus a slightly lower card like 7870.


I think it will bottleneck both of those cards, the 7950 much more than the 7870. I would upgrade the CPU if you want to go with one of those cards.


Yeah, this is what I was thinking as well.
____________________________


#194 Jun 04 2013 at 7:00 PM Rating: Good
I had a c2q q9550 with my 7950 for a bit, it bottlenecks a touch, but not too much. From the 460 to the 7950 my ffxiv bench score went from 3000 to about 5500 on max settings. Then when I put in the 3570k (with new ram), I hit the 6900 mark. I think the game was simply utilizing the better processor for other things to up the score.
____________________________

#195 Jun 04 2013 at 8:29 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
297 posts
I am pretty happy with my score. The fact that I can run the game decently impressed me on my 4+ year old rig (only recently replaced the graphics card cause it crapped out. 4+ years on a card is good freakin' run I say).

I will most likely run the game on low, though, I assume that that my frame rate will drop when in busy areas. But we shall see.

FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Official Benchmark (Exploration)
Tested on:6/4/2013 10:25:31 PM
Score:4148
Average Framerate:34.022
Performance:High
-Easily capable of running the game. Should perform well, even at higher resolutions.

Screen Size: 1680x1050
Screen Mode: Full Screen
Graphics Presets: High
General
-Improve overall graphic quality. : Enabled
-Disable rendering of objects when not visible. (Occlusion Culling) : Enabled
-Use low-detail models on distant objects to increase performance. (LOD) : Enabled
-Cache LOD data only when necessary. (LOD Streaming) : Enabled
-Smooth edges. (Anti-aliasing) : Enabled
-Increase transparent lighting quality. : Disabled
-Grass Quality : Normal
Shadows
-Use low-detail models on shadows to increase performance. (LOD) : Enabled
-Display : All
-Shadow Resolution : Mid: 1024 pixels
-Shadow Cascading : High
-Shadow Softening : Low
Texture Detail
-Texture Filtering : High
-Anisotropic Filtering : Low
Effects
-Naturally darken the edges of the screen. (Limb Darkening) : Enabled
-Blur the graphics around an object in motion. (Radial Blur) : Enabled
-Effects While in Motion : Display All
-Screen Space Ambient Occlusion : Low
-Glare : Low
Cinematic Cutscenes
-Enable depth of field. : Enabled

System:
Windows 7 Professional 64-bit (6.1, Build 7601) Service Pack 1 (7601.win7sp1_gdr.130318-1533)
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E6750 @ 2.66GHz
4094.539MB
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti(VRAM 2768 MB) 9.18.0013.1407

Benchmark results do not provide any guarantee FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn will run on your system.

FINAL FANTASY XIV: A Realm Reborn Official Website http://na.finalfantasyxiv.com
(C) 2010-2013 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. All Rights Reserved.

Tweet
http://sqex.to/ffxiv_bench_na #FFXIV Score:4148 1680x1050 High Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E6750 @ 2.66GHz NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti
____________________________
FFXIV - Ultros - Kraken Club - Karma Zameleons
Autumn Klmbkvist

FFXI - Fenrir (Retired)
Osmund
Diogenes

"Move with confidence."
"Anything worth doing is never easy."
#196 Jun 04 2013 at 8:46 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
**
600 posts
I have a quick question...
So I have two Hard Drives on my pc,
1. SSD that has windows and programs I want to run fast installed on it.
2. HDD that houses other programs and data (pics,vids etc.)

When I download the benchmark, I have it on my HDD. Will it make a difference if I download the benchmark to the SSD instead? Or does it really matter for the Benchmark? I know I would put the game on the SSD, but wasn't sure if it makes a difference for the benchmark. I'm thinking that it will and will try some tests out once I reload the benchmark. Anyone else know a bit about this?

Edited, Jun 4th 2013 10:47pm by jayfly
____________________________

Quote:
Fiddle Faddle!

#197 Jun 04 2013 at 8:54 PM Rating: Excellent
jayfly wrote:
I have a quick question...
So I have two Hard Drives on my pc,
1. SSD that has windows and programs I want to run fast installed on it.
2. HDD that houses other programs and data (pics,vids etc.)

When I download the benchmark, I have it on my HDD. Will it make a difference if I download the benchmark to the SSD instead? Or does it really matter for the Benchmark? I know I would put the game on the SSD, but wasn't sure if it makes a difference for the benchmark. I'm thinking that it will and will try some tests out once I reload the benchmark. Anyone else know a bit about this?

Edited, Jun 4th 2013 10:47pm by jayfly


Just tried it from my SSD, no difference.
#198 Jun 04 2013 at 8:58 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
**
600 posts
SkinwalkerAsura wrote:
jayfly wrote:
I have a quick question...
So I have two Hard Drives on my pc,
1. SSD that has windows and programs I want to run fast installed on it.
2. HDD that houses other programs and data (pics,vids etc.)

When I download the benchmark, I have it on my HDD. Will it make a difference if I download the benchmark to the SSD instead? Or does it really matter for the Benchmark? I know I would put the game on the SSD, but wasn't sure if it makes a difference for the benchmark. I'm thinking that it will and will try some tests out once I reload the benchmark. Anyone else know a bit about this?

Edited, Jun 4th 2013 10:47pm by jayfly


Just tried it from my SSD, no difference.


K thanks! Was wondering about it. Smiley: smile
____________________________

Quote:
Fiddle Faddle!

#199 Jun 04 2013 at 9:26 PM Rating: Decent
**
304 posts
I just went through a CPU upgrade and wanted to share some pretty surprising results!

Old
Phenom II 955 Stock Speeds
8GB DDR2 1066
Radeon HD 6870 Stock Speeds

New
Core i7 4770
16GB DDR3 1600mhz
Radeon HD 6870 Stock Speeds

So you can see that the video card stayed the same.

FFXIV
1280*720
Medium Preset - OLD 8092 - NEW 12647

1920*1200
Medium Preset - OLD 6679 - NEW 8892
Maximum Preset - OLD 4056 - NEW 4604

As you can see, a Phenom II 955 at stock speeds was holding back FFXIV by quite a bit! It looks to be a really CPU dependent game.

I hope this info will help some people prep for FFXIVv2!

Edited, Jun 4th 2013 11:35pm by ShadowField
____________________________
Then when Fingon heard afar the great trumpet of Turgon his brother, the shadow passed and his heart was uplifted, and he shouted aloud: 'Utủlie'n aurë! Aiya Eldalië ar Atanatári , utủlie'n aurë! The day has come! Behold, people of the Eldar and Fathers of Men, the day has come!' And all those who heard his great voice echo in the hills answered crying: 'Auta i lómë! The night is passing!'
-From the Silmarillion.
#200 Jun 04 2013 at 10:31 PM Rating: Excellent
jayfly wrote:
I have a quick question...
So I have two Hard Drives on my pc,
1. SSD that has windows and programs I want to run fast installed on it.
2. HDD that houses other programs and data (pics,vids etc.)

When I download the benchmark, I have it on my HDD. Will it make a difference if I download the benchmark to the SSD instead? Or does it really matter for the Benchmark? I know I would put the game on the SSD, but wasn't sure if it makes a difference for the benchmark. I'm thinking that it will and will try some tests out once I reload the benchmark. Anyone else know a bit about this?

Edited, Jun 4th 2013 10:47pm by jayfly


No worries :)
#201 Jun 05 2013 at 12:23 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*
79 posts
I'm actually building a new comp for this game(that and other stuff but mostly for the game). I'm already buying the parts as we speak and at the end of it my specs should read

Windows 7 Home 64bit
8 GB rams 1600 DDR3
EVGA Geforce 650 TI 2GB GDDR5
I5-3470 Quad core 3.2GHz

I'm hoping for a really good score since they're making the game more poor friendly lol
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 70 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (70)