Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

ARR PC Performance (Gridania ONLY)Follow

#1 Apr 29 2013 at 7:36 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
340 posts
**DISCLAIMER: Please Keep Graphical Experiences to New/Old Gridania and Player Creation. Do not discuss spell effects, combat, graphical bugs (if any), or anything encountered outside the gates).

For those wondering how their current builds might stand up to the current requirements in ARR, feel free to share your experiences in Gridania / Old Gridania performance wise. **DO NOT REFERENCE ANYTHING OUTSIDE THE GATES** I propose a format of Specs/How your benchmark scored/and how you felt your experience was in Gridania. Here's what I'm using:

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/ - A site that provides video card comparison charts for performance.

=====
Intel i5-3570k
ATI Radeon 6950
8 GB lower latency memory
200 GB Corsair Force 3 SSD
Windows 7 Professional
=====
Benchmark Setting: Maximum
Benchmark Resolution: 1920 x 1080
Benchmark Score: 5587
Gridania Setting: Maximum
Gridania Resolution: 1920 x 1080
=====
Experience was very fast. Shadows were gorgeous, the world really felt alive. I had no slowdown or real loading issues moving between Old Gridania and New Gridania. The Aethercyte crystal in town was gorgeous, and the lighting effects depending on the time of day/night were pretty impressive. If you have specs similar to mine, I would expect your experience to be quite pleasant performance-wise.

Edited, Apr 29th 2013 6:39pm by desmar
____________________________
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
#2 Apr 29 2013 at 8:35 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
818 posts
I have a gtx 470 and mid-weekend upgraded to a 660 TI. Both scored me between 4k- 5k and Gridania ran like trash on 1920X1080 on maximum settings. A bit disappointing considering I ran 1.0 on max with relatively no slow down. The only thing I would disable on that version was ambient occlusion because for the life of me I couldn't tell a difference in appearance, only in frame rate. Anyways. I'm guessing to run Gridania at max settings and in all it's beauty you'll need a score of at least 6-7k on the benchmark.
____________________________
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/
#3 Apr 29 2013 at 9:31 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
32 posts
electromagnet83 wrote:
I have a gtx 470 and mid-weekend upgraded to a 660 TI. Both scored me between 4k- 5k and Gridania ran like trash on 1920X1080 on maximum settings. A bit disappointing considering I ran 1.0 on max with relatively no slow down. The only thing I would disable on that version was ambient occlusion because for the life of me I couldn't tell a difference in appearance, only in frame rate. Anyways. I'm guessing to run Gridania at max settings and in all it's beauty you'll need a score of at least 6-7k on the benchmark.


Whats your CPU? Its probably bottle-necking your GPU as I'm running a 660 (Non Ti) with an i5 3570k and I hit 7k on benchmark.

Also wasn't 1.0 more demanding than ARR?
#4 Apr 29 2013 at 9:37 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
340 posts
Yeah I was thinking something similar. That would account for the benchmark scores not changing much between cards. It kinda indicates that the slowdown is coming from somewhere else.

Edited, Apr 29th 2013 8:37pm by desmar
____________________________
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
#5 Apr 29 2013 at 9:44 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
4,755 posts
The Benchmark isn't really a good tool from what I've gathered.

The rig I currently have ran low on the benchmark, and I just switched a couple settings around and Gridania runs fine even in the busiest of times.
#6 Apr 29 2013 at 10:12 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
**
514 posts
I'm not posting my benchmark score because it would be pointless, my reasoning being is that my CPU bottlenecks my GPUs, and Crossfire/SLI are not implemented yet as far as I know, also, the game handled better than what the score gave me credit for. However with my build, inside Old/New Gridania, everything held up well with a little lag when certain areas were heavily populated on Medium-High(custom) settings. I was using 2 screens, 1 for FFXIV and the other for internet, also never turned off Aero.

Win7 Home
6GB Ram(4Corsair/2OCZ)
XFX 5770HDx2(crossfire unavailable for FFXIV atm)
E7500 Core2Duo(2.93GHz)
1920 x 1080 Fullscreen/Borderless

Edited, Apr 30th 2013 12:43am by Demonadrastos
____________________________
DemonAdrastos of Titan(Retired)
PLD83, THF79, NIN85, WAR45, RDM45, SMN31, DRK37, DRG25
Windurst 10, Promathia COMPLETE, Zilart COMPLETE, ToAU 20

Paladin ~ Deimos Adrastos of Behemoth
#7 Apr 30 2013 at 3:40 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
1,416 posts
In 1.0, even on lowest settings, i got massive slowdown and lag. In ARR, on max settings i have 0 problems.

Windows 7 x64
Nvidia GTX 560 Ti
16GB DDR3 corsair RAM
AMD Phenom II X6 1090T
120GB Corsair force GT SSD

Maximum setting
RES: 1680 X 1050
Score 4568
____________________________

#8 Apr 30 2013 at 4:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Anterograde Amnesia
Avatar
*****
12,363 posts
My experience with the game in the beta has been very positive. I've left everything at max settings and like I said in my Q&A thread, I average between 45-60 FPS.

Intel i7 2600k (stock clock)
EVGA P67 FTW
8GB DDR3 2133 Ripjaws RAM
EVGA 650 Ti BOOST Superclocked 2GB (2x)
180GB Intel 520 Series SSD

Benchmark
Max Settings, resolution 1920 x 1080, Full screen
Score 5676
____________________________
"Choosy MMO's choose Wint." - Louiscool
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the world he didn't exist.
Keyser Soze - Ultros
Guide to Setting Up Mumble on a Raspberry Pi
#9 Apr 30 2013 at 7:06 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
818 posts
WoodGooner wrote:
electromagnet83 wrote:
I have a gtx 470 and mid-weekend upgraded to a 660 TI. Both scored me between 4k- 5k and Gridania ran like trash on 1920X1080 on maximum settings. A bit disappointing considering I ran 1.0 on max with relatively no slow down. The only thing I would disable on that version was ambient occlusion because for the life of me I couldn't tell a difference in appearance, only in frame rate. Anyways. I'm guessing to run Gridania at max settings and in all it's beauty you'll need a score of at least 6-7k on the benchmark.


Whats your CPU? Its probably bottle-necking your GPU as I'm running a 660 (Non Ti) with an i5 3570k and I hit 7k on benchmark.

Also wasn't 1.0 more demanding than ARR?


Perhaps youre right but to test this I opened the cpu monitor and ran the game full screen with all settings on high for 60 seconds. When I alt+tabbed back the usage over 60 seconds never spiked more than about 65%. I would think, at least theoretically, that I would see my CPU bogging to 100% quite often which wasnt the case at all. I have 16 gb of ram and that never accessed more than about 2.2 of it at any given time as well. Granted the "660 ti" I bought was a 2gb card (probably a low model) and when compared to my GTX 470 with 1248mb of Vram (probably a high model) I could see how it wasnt a huge leap in performance, about 700 more on the benchmark. I bet if I ran, say a 4gb 680 it would run much better. Only time will tell though...

Any thoughts ?
____________________________
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/
#10 Apr 30 2013 at 7:38 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
32 posts
electromagnet83 wrote:
Perhaps youre right but to test this I opened the cpu monitor and ran the game full screen with all settings on high for 60 seconds. When I alt+tabbed back the usage over 60 seconds never spiked more than about 65%. I would think, at least theoretically, that I would see my CPU bogging to 100% quite often which wasnt the case at all. I have 16 gb of ram and that never accessed more than about 2.2 of it at any given time as well. Granted the "660 ti" I bought was a 2gb card (probably a low model) and when compared to my GTX 470 with 1248mb of Vram (probably a high model) I could see how it wasnt a huge leap in performance, about 700 more on the benchmark. I bet if I ran, say a 4gb 680 it would run much better. Only time will tell though...

Any thoughts ?


Your cpu can be at 50% and still bottleneck your gpu for example: the Source engine uses two threads/cores, so it will hit about 50% usage (50% on a four core, 100% on a dual core, 33% on a hexa core, 25% on a 8 core, 66% on a tri core) and then start bottle-necking the GPU.

I really don't know what else it could be that limiting your performance as we both have 16gb of ram and gtx 660's (yours even a Ti)

Now I don't know specifics on ARR's engine nor can I check out Gridania until phase 4 but what CPU do you have in your system?





Edited, Apr 30th 2013 9:41am by WoodGooner
#11 Apr 30 2013 at 8:57 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
818 posts
WoodGooner wrote:
electromagnet83 wrote:
Perhaps youre right but to test this I opened the cpu monitor and ran the game full screen with all settings on high for 60 seconds. When I alt+tabbed back the usage over 60 seconds never spiked more than about 65%. I would think, at least theoretically, that I would see my CPU bogging to 100% quite often which wasnt the case at all. I have 16 gb of ram and that never accessed more than about 2.2 of it at any given time as well. Granted the "660 ti" I bought was a 2gb card (probably a low model) and when compared to my GTX 470 with 1248mb of Vram (probably a high model) I could see how it wasnt a huge leap in performance, about 700 more on the benchmark. I bet if I ran, say a 4gb 680 it would run much better. Only time will tell though...

Any thoughts ?


Your cpu can be at 50% and still bottleneck your gpu for example: the Source engine uses two threads/cores, so it will hit about 50% usage (50% on a four core, 100% on a dual core, 33% on a hexa core, 25% on a 8 core, 66% on a tri core) and then start bottle-necking the GPU.

I really don't know what else it could be that limiting your performance as we both have 16gb of ram and gtx 660's (yours even a Ti)

Now I don't know specifics on ARR's engine nor can I check out Gridania until phase 4 but what CPU do you have in your system?

Edited, Apr 30th 2013 9:41am by WoodGooner


Well first let me say When i put the 660 ti in the game did run better. $350 (Best Buy) better? No definitely not so I took the card back and ran with my 470 all weekend. I have a phenom x4 3.4 ghz. black edition.


Edited, Apr 30th 2013 11:06am by electromagnet83
____________________________
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/
#12 Apr 30 2013 at 11:02 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
***
2,536 posts
I can confirm that the benchmark doesn't necessarily reflect how your system will perform in the game.

The actual game is much more CPU intensive than the benchmark.

With an old Phenom ii 955 and a GTX 460, I scored about 3700 on the benchmark on max settings 1080p.
According to the benchmark this score is "High: Easily capable of running the game. Should perform well, even at higher resolutions."

However, when I run the game at 1080p max settings, I stand at the main aetheryte in town where there are a bunch of people standing around, and I just hold down my arrow key so my camera keeps spinning around and around. I get an average of about 18 fps. Now -that- is not what I'd consider "High" performance.

Next I switched the GTX 460 out for a GTX 660, overclocked it to 1221Mhz core and +300 memory. I scored about 5700 on the benchmark on max settings 1080p.
According to the benchmark, this score is "Very High: Easily capable of running the game. Should perform exceptionally well, even at higher resolutions."

However, in the actual game itself, doing the same thing as I did before, my average fps went up to only about 22fps. GPU usage fluctuated between 45-55% only. Highest it ever went was about 60%. Huge CPU bottleneck.

So yeah, the game itself is way, way more CPU intensive than the benchmark.

Edit: One of the CPU's cores was running over 90% while the other 3 cores were about 60%. So the game isn't optimized well enough for multiple cores.

Edited, Apr 30th 2013 12:06pm by Threx
____________________________
FF11 Server: Caitsith
Kalyna (retired, 2008)
100 Goldsmith
75 Rng, Brd
Main/Acc
Exp/Hybrid
Str/Attk
Spam/Others
#13 Apr 30 2013 at 11:12 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
32 posts
Very strange indeed as your cpu should be good enough to handle any game that's currently out.

And the 660 ti will beat out the 470 in every category with the exception of computing performance but that has to do with work related purposes and not necessarily gaming performance.
http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-660-Ti-vs-GeForce-GTX-470#top

As is though, your black edition cpu and gtx 470 is a healthy setup for ARR on high settings.

#14 Apr 30 2013 at 11:30 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
818 posts
Threx wrote:


So yeah, the game itself is way, way more CPU intensive than the benchmark.

Edit: One of the CPU's cores was running over 90% while the other 3 cores were about 60%. So the game isn't optimized well enough for multiple cores.

Edited, Apr 30th 2013 12:06pm by Threx


WoodGooner wrote:
Very strange indeed as your cpu should be good enough to handle any game that's currently out.

And the 660 ti will beat out the 470 in every category with the exception of computing performance but that has to do with work related purposes and not necessarily gaming performance.
http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-660-Ti-vs-GeForce-GTX-470#top

As is though, your black edition cpu and gtx 470 is a healthy setup for ARR on high settings.



That all makes sense. As I said the 660ti I bought was probably a low end version while the 470 I have is actually a pretty beefed up high end version that I installed a Zalman dual fan cooler on. While both cards scored between 4k and 4.9k on the benchmark, and while the 660Ti did show SOME improvement in the game itself, it ultimately would not have been worth the $350 to upgrade. I will probably wait to see how much better they have optimized Phase 3 for various systems before I decide on any upgrades.

And like I said before, aside from ambient occlusion I ran 1.0 on 1080p with all settings maxed and it rarely ever slowed down like I experience in 2.0. Odd considering 2.0 should be "easier" on systems. My best guess at this point in time is that the game simply isn't optimized for every system out there yet. Mine happens to be one that runs it pretty poorly Smiley: frown
____________________________
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/
#15 Apr 30 2013 at 12:26 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
4,755 posts
Threx wrote:
I can confirm that the benchmark doesn't necessarily reflect how your system will perform in the game.

The actual game is much more CPU intensive than the benchmark.

With an old Phenom ii 955 and a GTX 460, I scored about 3700 on the benchmark on max settings 1080p.
According to the benchmark this score is "High: Easily capable of running the game. Should perform well, even at higher resolutions."

However, when I run the game at 1080p max settings, I stand at the main aetheryte in town where there are a bunch of people standing around, and I just hold down my arrow key so my camera keeps spinning around and around. I get an average of about 18 fps. Now -that- is not what I'd consider "High" performance.

Next I switched the GTX 460 out for a GTX 660, overclocked it to 1221Mhz core and +300 memory. I scored about 5700 on the benchmark on max settings 1080p.
According to the benchmark, this score is "Very High: Easily capable of running the game. Should perform exceptionally well, even at higher resolutions."

However, in the actual game itself, doing the same thing as I did before, my average fps went up to only about 22fps. GPU usage fluctuated between 45-55% only. Highest it ever went was about 60%. Huge CPU bottleneck.

So yeah, the game itself is way, way more CPU intensive than the benchmark.

Edit: One of the CPU's cores was running over 90% while the other 3 cores were about 60%. So the game isn't optimized well enough for multiple cores.

Edited, Apr 30th 2013 12:06pm by Threx


My experience was the opposite.

My benchmark score was in the 1900s on medium settings and the game runs fine. You may want to check your drivers.

Either that, or it's currently optimized for lower-end devices and the higher-end graphics aren't doing so well without the DirectX 11 client up yet. Either case I'm about two to three hundred dollars away from getting a decent GPU.

Edited, Apr 30th 2013 2:29pm by Hyrist
#16 Apr 30 2013 at 12:35 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
2,536 posts
electromagnet83 wrote:
Mine happens to be one that runs it pretty poorly Smiley: frown


Same here. Our CPUs are identical. Yours is the Phenom 965, which is is basically my 955 clocked a bit higher from 3.2 to 3.4. Our GPUs were also almost the same, with your GTX 470 being a tier higher than my 460, hence your 4k benchmark results being a bit higher than my 3.7k results. Even upgrading to a GTX 660, in-game performance barely changed.

And since Wint's 2600k + GTX 650 Ti boost is getting 45-60 fps, I can only assume our CPUs are the big bottleneck. There is no other explanation.

Gotta wait and see how much they optimize the game over the next few months. I'm already planning on getting a new CPU once Haswell is released, so my CPU bottleneck will be gone. Expecting to see a solid 60 fps with an overclocked i5-4670k + GTX 660 combo. :)
____________________________
FF11 Server: Caitsith
Kalyna (retired, 2008)
100 Goldsmith
75 Rng, Brd
Main/Acc
Exp/Hybrid
Str/Attk
Spam/Others
#17 Apr 30 2013 at 12:41 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
2,536 posts
Hyrist wrote:

My experience was the opposite.

My benchmark score was in the 1900s on medium settings and the game runs fine. You may want to check your drivers.


Drivers are up to date. :)

What CPU, Ram, and GPU and you running? You said you got 1900 score on the benchmark on med settings, what was the resolution, and was that windowed or full screen?

And when you say "the game runs fine," can you give more details? What settings? Res? CPU+GPU usage? FPS in crowded areas like at the aetheryte?

____________________________
FF11 Server: Caitsith
Kalyna (retired, 2008)
100 Goldsmith
75 Rng, Brd
Main/Acc
Exp/Hybrid
Str/Attk
Spam/Others
#18 Apr 30 2013 at 1:22 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
630 posts
Core i5 3570k
GTX 680 x2 SLI
16 GB Ram

7200 benchmark high. Some absurd number on low.

Zero lag in Gridania, 6000 x 1080 or 1920 x 1080. I didn't have my FPS setting on in afterburner for the 2d surround set up so I can't say FPS wise where I was at but it always seemed to be above 30 with zero spikes the whole time. 1920 x 1080 always 50+ fps. I'll cap some screenshots of my GPU stats next phase.

Definitely a GPU dependent game.

Edited, Apr 30th 2013 3:23pm by burtonsnow
#19 Apr 30 2013 at 1:23 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
818 posts
Threx wrote:
electromagnet83 wrote:
Mine happens to be one that runs it pretty poorly Smiley: frown


Same here. Our CPUs are identical. Yours is the Phenom 965, which is is basically my 955 clocked a bit higher from 3.2 to 3.4. Our GPUs were also almost the same, with your GTX 470 being a tier higher than my 460, hence your 4k benchmark results being a bit higher than my 3.7k results. Even upgrading to a GTX 660, in-game performance barely changed.

And since Wint's 2600k + GTX 650 Ti boost is getting 45-60 fps, I can only assume our CPUs are the big bottleneck. There is no other explanation.

Gotta wait and see how much they optimize the game over the next few months. I'm already planning on getting a new CPU once Haswell is released, so my CPU bottleneck will be gone. Expecting to see a solid 60 fps with an overclocked i5-4670k + GTX 660 combo. :)


Well that sucks because I run mine in an HTPC using a micro-atx board that supports 16gb of memory and a full size graphics card. It can't seem to find any modern mobos that have that same agility, but for a newer processor and in micro-atx form.
____________________________
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/
#20 Apr 30 2013 at 1:40 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
2,536 posts
electromagnet83 wrote:

Well that sucks because I run mine in an HTPC using a micro-atx board that supports 16gb of memory and a full size graphics card. It can't seem to find any modern mobos that have that same agility, but for a newer processor and in micro-atx form.


Dunno how small you need but there are a bunch of micro atx boards on newegg that support amd fx cpus. However, none of them have pcie 3.0 slots.

Time to buy a new case. =P
____________________________
FF11 Server: Caitsith
Kalyna (retired, 2008)
100 Goldsmith
75 Rng, Brd
Main/Acc
Exp/Hybrid
Str/Attk
Spam/Others
#21 Apr 30 2013 at 2:16 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
818 posts
Threx wrote:
electromagnet83 wrote:

Well that sucks because I run mine in an HTPC using a micro-atx board that supports 16gb of memory and a full size graphics card. It can't seem to find any modern mobos that have that same agility, but for a newer processor and in micro-atx form.


Dunno how small you need but there are a bunch of micro atx boards on newegg that support amd fx cpus. However, none of them have pcie 3.0 slots.

Time to buy a new case. =P


I'm going to hold off and see if I can get away with nothing or just a new GFX card first. My PC was built for 1.0 and ran it just fine. Since this one is supposed to be easier on the system I have to play the wait-and-see game for phase 3 and 4. Maybe they will modify and make adjustments that will enable smoother operation across a number of different setups, mine included. And maybe by then I can opt to get a new card only, if I want to play it maxed with good frame rates. Time will tell.
____________________________
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/
#22 Apr 30 2013 at 2:50 PM Rating: Good
Hyrist wrote:
Threx wrote:
I can confirm that the benchmark doesn't necessarily reflect how your system will perform in the game.

The actual game is much more CPU intensive than the benchmark.

With an old Phenom ii 955 and a GTX 460, I scored about 3700 on the benchmark on max settings 1080p.
According to the benchmark this score is "High: Easily capable of running the game. Should perform well, even at higher resolutions."

However, when I run the game at 1080p max settings, I stand at the main aetheryte in town where there are a bunch of people standing around, and I just hold down my arrow key so my camera keeps spinning around and around. I get an average of about 18 fps. Now -that- is not what I'd consider "High" performance.

Next I switched the GTX 460 out for a GTX 660, overclocked it to 1221Mhz core and +300 memory. I scored about 5700 on the benchmark on max settings 1080p.
According to the benchmark, this score is "Very High: Easily capable of running the game. Should perform exceptionally well, even at higher resolutions."

However, in the actual game itself, doing the same thing as I did before, my average fps went up to only about 22fps. GPU usage fluctuated between 45-55% only. Highest it ever went was about 60%. Huge CPU bottleneck.

So yeah, the game itself is way, way more CPU intensive than the benchmark.

Edit: One of the CPU's cores was running over 90% while the other 3 cores were about 60%. So the game isn't optimized well enough for multiple cores.

Edited, Apr 30th 2013 12:06pm by Threx


My experience was the opposite.

My benchmark score was in the 1900s on medium settings and the game runs fine. You may want to check your drivers.

Either that, or it's currently optimized for lower-end devices and the higher-end graphics aren't doing so well without the DirectX 11 client up yet. Either case I'm about two to three hundred dollars away from getting a decent GPU.

Edited, Apr 30th 2013 2:29pm by Hyrist


Saving up for that EVGA Titan Hyrist? Smiley: tongue
____________________________
Our team is like a flock of woodpeckers in a petrified forest. We just need to keep working and keep an eye open for opportunity.

FFXI
Toofar - Asura (Formerly of Lakshmi (Garuda)) - WHM BLM SMN
Rafoot - Asura (Formerly of Lakshmi (Garuda)) - THF SAM BRD
#23 Apr 30 2013 at 3:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Guru
***
1,310 posts
Threx wrote:
Edit: One of the CPU's cores was running over 90% while the other 3 cores were about 60%. So the game isn't optimized well enough for multiple cores.


If all your cores were running between 50 and 100% isn't that the definition of optimized? None of them were under or over-utilized.
#24 Apr 30 2013 at 3:22 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
818 posts
burtonsnow wrote:
Core i5 3570k
GTX 680 x2 SLI
16 GB Ram

7200 benchmark high. Some absurd number on low.

Zero lag in Gridania, 6000 x 1080 or 1920 x 1080. I didn't have my FPS setting on in afterburner for the 2d surround set up so I can't say FPS wise where I was at but it always seemed to be above 30 with zero spikes the whole time. 1920 x 1080 always 50+ fps. I'll cap some screenshots of my GPU stats next phase.

Definitely a GPU dependent game.

Edited, Apr 30th 2013 3:23pm by burtonsnow


Interesting. I am looking at a 680 4gb card. Hopefully that will be the only thing I need to upgrade, if anything at all.
____________________________
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/
#25 Apr 30 2013 at 4:05 PM Rating: Good
**
618 posts
electromagnet83 wrote:

Well first let me say When i put the 660 ti in the game did run better. $350 (Best Buy) better? No definitely not so I took the card back and ran with my 470 all weekend. I have a phenom x4 3.4 ghz. black edition.



Strange you paid $350 for the card and i paid less than $300 *(GTX 660 TI - Also got the same processor you mentioned phenom II x4 3.4 Ghz. Working on a custom build and finally got all the pieces together to start putting it together and doesn't work. Taking it in for a diag to see what if any parts may be bad.

Needless to say this card and processor is a huge jump for me and expecting to do a lot better once I get it up and running


Edit: In one final attempt, went back through everything and noticed a few pins on the CPU were bent (no clue how being the processor fell into place smoothly) straightened them out and got it up and running. Now to d/l everything i had b4 and try the benchmark on max settings and full screen.





Edited, Apr 30th 2013 8:20pm by SillyHawk
____________________________
FFXIV Gilgamesh: Nghthawk Evenfall
FFXIV Gilgamesh: Nytehawk Evenfall


Time is but a window,
Death is but a doorway,
I'll Be Back
#26 Apr 30 2013 at 4:15 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
818 posts
SillyHawk wrote:
electromagnet83 wrote:

Well first let me say When i put the 660 ti in the game did run better. $350 (Best Buy) better? No definitely not so I took the card back and ran with my 470 all weekend. I have a phenom x4 3.4 ghz. black edition.



Strange you paid $350 for the card and i paid less than $300 *(GTX 660 TI - Also got the same processor you mentioned phenom II x4 3.4 Ghz. Working on a custom build and finally got all the pieces together to start putting it together and doesn't work. Taking it in for a diag to see what if any parts may be bad.

Needless to say this card and processor is a huge jump for me and expecting to do a lot better once I get it up and running





$350 was from best buy....about $60 more than what I saw it on newegg for. However I bought it with the intention of testing and taking back Smiley: nod and since Best Buy is .25 miles from my house.....it was much quicker than newegg shipping.
____________________________
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/
#27 Apr 30 2013 at 5:17 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,122 posts
EDIT: SORRY, WAS BEING A MORON.

See below.

Edited, May 28th 2013 5:27am by Dizmo
#28 Apr 30 2013 at 6:06 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
818 posts
Dizmo wrote:
555m mobile GPU
Core i7 3610QM processor (quad core)
8GB RAM
1920*1080
Medium settings

Very laggy. This is a PS3 game, so should really be playable on high end hardware from 7 years ago, let alone an upper middle range gaming laptop from 2012. It's still too demanding for the level of graphics.

Edited, Apr 30th 2013 7:22pm by Dizmo


Square-Enix God bless em, they just don't know how to code a PC games without it being morbidly obese, figuratively speaking.

Edited, Apr 30th 2013 8:09pm by electromagnet83
____________________________
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/
#29 Apr 30 2013 at 7:30 PM Rating: Good
**
618 posts
electromagnet83 wrote:
I have a gtx 470 and mid-weekend upgraded to a 660 TI. Both scored me between 4k- 5k and Gridania ran like trash on 1920X1080 on maximum settings. A bit disappointing considering I ran 1.0 on max with relatively no slow down. The only thing I would disable on that version was ambient occlusion because for the life of me I couldn't tell a difference in appearance, only in frame rate. Anyways. I'm guessing to run Gridania at max settings and in all it's beauty you'll need a score of at least 6-7k on the benchmark.



Just got my pc up and running, evil bent pin on the processor and here is the benchmark with the 660ti in it

GTX 660 TI


Specs

AMD Phenom II Black Edition x4 965 3.4 GHz
12 GB Ram
Seagate 1 TB HD
Windows 8 - 64 bit
ASRock 970 EXTREME3 AM3+ AMD 970 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard
GeForce GTX 660 TI (OC Edition)

Can say I'm fairly impressed compared to what I was using. But then again the score was over 6k just with a low resolution (medium setting) with my GTS 250


Edit: added card in the list





Edited, Apr 30th 2013 9:36pm by SillyHawk
____________________________
FFXIV Gilgamesh: Nghthawk Evenfall
FFXIV Gilgamesh: Nytehawk Evenfall


Time is but a window,
Death is but a doorway,
I'll Be Back
#30 Apr 30 2013 at 7:34 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
818 posts
SillyHawk wrote:
electromagnet83 wrote:
I have a gtx 470 and mid-weekend upgraded to a 660 TI. Both scored me between 4k- 5k and Gridania ran like trash on 1920X1080 on maximum settings. A bit disappointing considering I ran 1.0 on max with relatively no slow down. The only thing I would disable on that version was ambient occlusion because for the life of me I couldn't tell a difference in appearance, only in frame rate. Anyways. I'm guessing to run Gridania at max settings and in all it's beauty you'll need a score of at least 6-7k on the benchmark.



Just got my pc up and running, evil bent pin on the processor and here is the benchmark with the 660ti in it

GTX 660 TI


Specs

AMD Phenom II Black Edition x4 965 3.4 GHz
12 GB Ram
Seagate 1 TB HD
Windows 8 - 64 bit
ASRock 970 EXTREME3 AM3+ AMD 970 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard

Can say I'm fairly impressed compared to what I was using. But then again the score was over 6k just with a low resolution with my GTS 250






Looks like you're ready to rock and roll. VERY similar set up to mine as well. If you wanted mind I'd really love to know how that score translates to actual gameplay in phase 3 (if you're in it). Maybe that way I can make a more informed decision on what gfx card to purchase. Pm me or something during that time.


Edited, Apr 30th 2013 9:41pm by electromagnet83
____________________________
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/
#31 May 01 2013 at 1:08 AM Rating: Good
I just did a few upgrades over the past couple weeks and ya, the game is optimized fairly well. Seems to use both components to get good results. I initially had a q9550 with gtx 460 and scored about 3700 on maximum. Then switched out the 460 for a 7950 HD and got a score of 5500. Finally, upgraded to a 3570k with new ram and got 6800. My 3570k is at stock speeds now so there's a little wiggle room to maybe hit that 7000 score mark, but might need a better cooler for that as this chip runs a bit hotter then my previous q9550.
____________________________

#32 May 01 2013 at 2:42 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
Avatar
***
2,536 posts
Xoie wrote:
Threx wrote:
Edit: One of the CPU's cores was running over 90% while the other 3 cores were about 60%. So the game isn't optimized well enough for multiple cores.


If all your cores were running between 50 and 100% isn't that the definition of optimized? None of them were under or over-utilized.


Not in my book. GW2, for example, is much better optimized on 4 cores (at least on my Phenom 955). When one core is near 100%, at least two others are around 80%.
____________________________
FF11 Server: Caitsith
Kalyna (retired, 2008)
100 Goldsmith
75 Rng, Brd
Main/Acc
Exp/Hybrid
Str/Attk
Spam/Others
#33 May 01 2013 at 10:37 AM Rating: Good
****
6,898 posts
Threx wrote:
Xoie wrote:
Threx wrote:
Edit: One of the CPU's cores was running over 90% while the other 3 cores were about 60%. So the game isn't optimized well enough for multiple cores.


If all your cores were running between 50 and 100% isn't that the definition of optimized? None of them were under or over-utilized.


Not in my book. GW2, for example, is much better optimized on 4 cores (at least on my Phenom 955). When one core is near 100%, at least two others are around 80%.


Yeah, but look at GW2 and compare it to ARR and it's easy to see why it's probably better optimized.
____________________________
Bartel Hayward--- Ultros Server
The Kraken Club <ZAM>
50 WAR • 50 MNK • 50 MIN • 50 GSM • 50 ARM • 50 LTW • 50 CUL • 50 WVR
thekrakenclub.shivtr.com
#34 May 04 2013 at 10:00 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
751 posts
Play Experience in Gridania

Setting: Max - generally good with similar comments to below but some frame rate issues when screen has lots of other characters on it.

Setting: High - Excellent, great detail, great textures (I'm not one of these people who zoom in as far as possible to look for flaws - I just play the game). Smooth animation, minimal frame rate issues (if any at all). Looks virtually as good as max anyway unless you start looking for impressive lighting effects which seem to be more prevalent at Max settings.

Now the system: Built this for release of Version 1.0 so was good then - less so now but played 1.0 very well indeed.

System:
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit (6.1, Build 7601) Service Pack 1 (7601.win7sp1_gdr.130104-1431)
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 960 @ 3.20GHz
12279.113MB
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480(VRAM 4048 MB) 9.18.0013.1090

Benchmark score at Max settings.

Score:4982
Average Framerate:41.511
Performance:High
-Easily capable of running the game. Should perform well, even at higher resolutions.

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

____________________________
FFXIV: Crafty Hallie, Ultros





#35 May 08 2013 at 10:12 AM Rating: Excellent
SillyHawk wrote:
electromagnet83 wrote:
I have a gtx 470 and mid-weekend upgraded to a 660 TI. Both scored me between 4k- 5k and Gridania ran like trash on 1920X1080 on maximum settings. A bit disappointing considering I ran 1.0 on max with relatively no slow down. The only thing I would disable on that version was ambient occlusion because for the life of me I couldn't tell a difference in appearance, only in frame rate. Anyways. I'm guessing to run Gridania at max settings and in all it's beauty you'll need a score of at least 6-7k on the benchmark.



Just got my pc up and running, evil bent pin on the processor and here is the benchmark with the 660ti in it

GTX 660 TI


Specs

AMD Phenom II Black Edition x4 965 3.4 GHz
12 GB Ram
Seagate 1 TB HD
Windows 8 - 64 bit
ASRock 970 EXTREME3 AM3+ AMD 970 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard
GeForce GTX 660 TI (OC Edition)

Can say I'm fairly impressed compared to what I was using. But then again the score was over 6k just with a low resolution (medium setting) with my GTS 250


Edit: added card in the list





Edited, Apr 30th 2013 9:36pm by SillyHawk


I have a similar set up and I can't break the high 5800s. I can hit 6300 if I turn off distance draw and lower ambient occlusion to low.

AMD FX-6300 4.2 GHz OC
16 GB RAM
120 GB OCZ SSD
Asrock 990FX Extreme9
Sapphire 7870 OC GHz OC

#36 May 08 2013 at 11:03 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
818 posts
I think this whole thread illustrates that, in my opinion and experience, 2.0 doesn't require any less of a system than 1.0 did.
____________________________
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/
#37 May 08 2013 at 11:13 AM Rating: Good
***
3,386 posts
electromagnet83 wrote:
I think this whole thread illustrates that, in my opinion and experience, 2.0 doesn't require any less of a system than 1.0 did.


It depends what you're talking about...

If you're just talking about running the game AT ALL, then yeah.. 2.0 requires less of a system than 1.0 did. That's intentional.
If you're talking about running the game well, then you're probably right.

I'm running 2.0 on the system I built to run 1.0 (except for my graphics card that died on me). The 2.0 beta runs MUUUUUCH better than the 1.0 beta did.

in gridania of course... don't hurt me

Edited, May 8th 2013 12:14pm by Callinon
____________________________
svlyons wrote:
If random outcomes aren't acceptable to you, then don't play with random people.
#38 May 08 2013 at 11:55 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
818 posts
lol
____________________________
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/
#39 May 08 2013 at 11:58 AM Rating: Good
electromagnet83 wrote:
I think this whole thread illustrates that, in my opinion and experience, 2.0 doesn't require any less of a system than 1.0 did.


If anything it gives us something to talk about while waiting to see how the game actually runs on our rigs Smiley: wink
#40 May 08 2013 at 5:43 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
1.0 ran like **** on my system. I played it anyway, at low HD resolution instead of full screen, because it was enjoyable near the end. But it was so poorly optimized that even my very good system struggled to run it well.

2.0 beta runs like silk. It'd run even better if it wasn't for my 2.5 year old crappy processor. The graphics are crisp and clear, and the graphical lag is non existent.
____________________________
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
#41 May 08 2013 at 7:01 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
818 posts
Catwho wrote:
1.0 ran like **** on my system. I played it anyway, at low HD resolution instead of full screen, because it was enjoyable near the end. But it was so poorly optimized that even my very good system struggled to run it well.

2.0 beta runs like silk. It'd run even better if it wasn't for my 2.5 year old crappy processor. The graphics are crisp and clear, and the graphical lag is non existent.


I'm so jelly and the complete opposite. Except a few slowdowns here and there 1.0 ran at 1080p amazingly on my rig. 2.0 not so bueno Smiley: frown
____________________________
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/
#42 May 08 2013 at 10:54 PM Rating: Good
It's hard to compare, the detail in 2.0 to me is greatly improved, but the textures from 1.0 seem to be shinier. This is just my opinion though, these visual opinions will vary from person to person. The advantage of 2.0 is that even on crap settings, the game looks good, where as 1.0 on crap settings, it looked like crap. There's no doubt though that 2.0 is more optimized since everything was 10x more fluid from 1.0 to 2.0 on my q9550.
____________________________

#43 Apr 30 2013 at 3:22 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
*
66 posts
Originally played 1.0 on a
Asus g51j-x2 it ran intel I7, 8 GB,windows 7 home premium 64 bit, with a GTS360m, the only problem I ever had was that whith 1.0 if I played in Grandia ( sorry about the spelling) in about 10-15 min 1.0 would crash. So I could play on med settings in 2 cities but low in Grandia?
In ARR I played the same system for hours without a problem recently. medium graphics

I just upgraded to a g75vw I7, 12gb, windows 8 64 bit, gtx 660m. And runs smooth on all settings so far so I put my old system on eBay the other day.
#44 May 28 2013 at 2:13 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,122 posts
Dizmo wrote:
650m mobile GPU
Core i7 3610QM processor (quad core)
8GB RAM
1920*1080
Medium settings

Very laggy. This is a PS3 game, so should really be playable on high end hardware from 7 years ago, let alone an upper middle range gaming laptop from 2012. It's still too demanding for the level of graphics.

Edited, Apr 30th 2013 7:22pm by Dizmo


OKAY, I must apologise here. My laptop was defaulting to the onboard graphics without me realizing. -_-

I ran the benchmark again out of curiosity and tried changing the global preferred GPU to the 650m instead of the integrated chip, and my benchmark went up several times (from 1300~ to 3890 on 1920x1080 on standard settings).

I'm an idiot.

Edited, May 28th 2013 4:15am by Dizmo

Edited, Jun 12th 2013 8:12pm by Dizmo

Edited, Jun 12th 2013 8:12pm by Dizmo
#45 May 28 2013 at 11:12 AM Rating: Good
****
6,898 posts
No you aren't, it's a very easy mistake to make, especially if you don't have it set to ask you which graphics card to use when you open a program for the first time and it just defaults to the integrated card. I've made that mistake myself. It seems like common sense to me to run everything on the better GPU, but I suppose sometimes if you are trying to save on battery power running the lower card might make more sense for simple stuff like web browsing.
#46 May 28 2013 at 7:45 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,122 posts
I guess it was not completely my fault. The graphics chip selection was set to auto in the Nvidia menu and despite my computer always being plugged in, it was using the integrated chip for everything. >_>
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 75 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (75)