Keen is a bit disappointed by his low score of 1307 on the official FFXIV benchmark. My computer is only slightly better, at 1890 in high resolution (1920 x 1080) mode, but gets up to a reasonable 3522 in low resolution (1280x720) mode. Too bad the demo doesn't support my main screen's native 1680x1050 resolution. With anything under 2,000 being officially declared as "low performance", it is worrying how many people report that sort benchmark score.
I wonder if Square Enix didn't enter into a bad alliance with Nvidia, from whose site you can download the benchmark. Spreading the word that "your computer is too slow to run this upcoming game" is obviously good for Nvidia, but bad for Square Enix. Unfortunately I have only Nvidia graphics cards, because I'd like to test the theory that the benchmark is optimized for Nvidia cards, and will show a lower score on an ATI card of similar power.
My computer is neither very old, nor was it cheap, so I'd wager that the number of people getting a "high performance" score (4500+) at high resolution is tiny. That is not a good base for a MMORPG, which lives of having a lot of players. World of Warcraft runs on anything, including netbooks, which automatically gives it a far larger potential player base. Keen already says about the benchmark: "this thing has done me a favor by allowing me to know early that I won’t be able to play", and who knows how many people will come to the same conclusion. That can hardly be what Square Enix had in mind when they published that benchmark.
Honestly given the money and age of my system I don't find it a problem. Yea sure the test may be weighted towards NVIDIA Cards but that may be more than just marketing. If Square is working with NVIDIA closely they could KNOW that the game works well on NVIDIA and questionable on ATI. ATI has typically had alot of weird bugs with major games. Developers just don't seem to care for them.
ReplyDeleteSomething else to consider... which everyone forgets. WoW didn't USE to run on everything. Some people are having issues with the spec req. for SC2 so it isn't like Blizz designs their games with netbooks in mind.
High Res 1676
Low Res 2573
Specs
Vista 32 Bit
3Gig Ram
Intel Quad Core 2.4GHZ
NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250 (X2 SLI)
Steam and Chrome running during test.
Built in 2008 by Dell for $1600
Vid Cards were upgraded in 2009 for $400
While the benchmark itself is a good indication on what kind of specs the game needs to run properly, the scale is a bit skewed.
ReplyDeleteThe Beta testers have reported that although they got a score of under 2000 in the benchmark, they have been able to test the game without trouble.
It indicates that with a score of about 5000, the benchmark runs at constant 60fps at all times, and anything under that results in a score of under 5000. That probably means with a score of 2500, your fps is around 30 which is still easily enough for the game.
Glad to see you made a blog post about it.
And the game is also released for PS3, which is the platform for the "poor" players.
ReplyDeleteI don't think taking advantage of PC's superiority as a gaming platform should be considered as a bad thing, as long as there are other options for those that lack a good gaming rig.
I've had problems with Japanese games on PC. They tend to run poorly or not at all on low spec systems, while American PC games tend to be able to run well on lower settings, while still looking decent.
ReplyDeleteIt would take an overwhelming migration from the gaming community to make me even glance a second time at playing FFXIV on a PC. IF and only IF I pick up a PS3 would I maybe check it out.
I think that scale I saw at K&G's site was way off whack. Not sure where Square got those numbers, or what system could hit the 8K mark, probably only one with nVidia inside.
ReplyDeleteHigh Res 3998
Win7 x64
AMD PhenomIIx4 3GHz
4GB DDR3
XFX Radeon 5870 XXX
Benchmark ran smooth, yet still still only in the fairly high rating range? What do they require for the top rating, dual intel i7's with 12GB RAM and SLI nVidia 480's? Probably.
I call bunk on their benchmark, their ranking system; although it was pretty, I sense they are probably biased with the numbers based on hardware.
They are not biased; take a look at this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bluegartr.com/forum/showthread.php?t=94743
In low settings CPU makes the biggest difference. In high settings both GPU and CPU are important. Someone with a top end CPU can get 8000+ score with the low settings easily.
Geforce also has no unfair advantage, they pretty much score as they should.
Haha ! the installer crashes on my laptop - a Thinkpad T61 !
ReplyDeleteWow does run on this system... though i dont usually use to do things other than fishing ! :P
Tobold, could you give the spec of the machine you tested it on? I had a score of 2499 on low res, and that was using :
ReplyDeleteWin 7 64bit
2.43ghz Dual core
4 gig ram
nvidia 9800 GTX+
Built in 2008 by myself.
The problem that i see with graphics cards marketing is that to laymen, it makes them thing that a high first number is better. Eg, ati 4xxxx is always < ati 5xxxx when it's actually not true. A 48xx will beat the pants out of a 53xx any day. The first number usually stands for it's compatibility with the latest standards (eg directx 10 or 11), the second number denotes it's performance within said generation.
I get quite bemused when people buy a nvidia 310 card and think they have the latest and greatest because of that. Also, they usually would have bought the cheaper version which has the slower DDR3 ram instead of the DDR5, which does make it much slower.
Just ran the bench tool and am reasonably happy with the result, posting this for those unsure about results on ATI machines.
ReplyDeleteMachine built late '09, by no means a powerhouse but pretty decent parts. i7 860, Sapphire 5870, G.skill ripjaws 4Gigs (all running at default settings), Win 7 x64.
High res 4694
I scored around 2600s on low, and 1500s on high. My computer is about 2 1/2 years old which cost about $800 at that time (probably $500 or even less now).
ReplyDeleteI'm happy with my score. Why? Because if I'm going to play MMORPG, I expect to play it long time. By the time FF XIV is launched, using my current computer (and if the benchmark is indeed accurate), I can play the game just fine. No problem at all with 2600s score. I don't need high res that runs on 9999 score to play the game at all. Then as time goes by (say 2-3 years into the game's life), it would be time to upgrade my computer into something better. It won't be the best of the best, but it would be enough to make me spend reasonable amount for PC that would easily run the benchmark with higher score.
There is zero need to have high score on benchmark at all. As long as the game is playable without having any problems. The rest is just to make things look prettier. It's like buying a car. Not everyone needs to own a Ferrari.
My computer is described here. I tried to upgrade it, but found that the latest generation of graphics cards is over 10" long, and I have less than 10" room in my mid-tower case.
ReplyDeleteI got pretty much the same computer setup as Tobold, except I got the GX 285. I got a score of 2846 in high res mode.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately its just come time to upgrade...
ReplyDelete@Tobold - From your own posting "Yeah, I know, the video card is nothing to write home about", this was a year and a half ago.
And as for the "latest generation" of gpu's being 10 inches and longer - upper end gpu's have been this length for years ^^ But cases arent that expensive, Ive my 5870 in a Antec 902 (case not worth the money btw ;p), which is the same size as the 900 - not that big of a case I must say, infact its the smallest one Ive had in many years - so if your case cant house a 10.5'' card, your in bad need of a new one anyway if you game ^^
Meanwhile developers continue to plow money into awesome graphics rather than gameplay and wonder why people quit after the first month.
ReplyDeleteS-E pretty much ignored character customization and rehashes a ton of models from XI ranging from areas to monsters to allow for graphics like these.
ReplyDeleteThey focus on gameplay as much as everyone else, their priorities are just different. Other MMO's put effort in to making the game run on all PC's, some put ridiculous amount of effort into character customization.
My PC must be better than I thought. Running the High Res benchmark in 1920-1080 (which is my native resolution) I get a benchmark of 2439.
ReplyDeleteI'm more than happy with that but I find it a bit surprising, given that I my FPS in EQ2 often drops into single figures on the second highest settings, and that's just running through some zones, not actually fighting anything.
Given the latest PC technology developments, I'd rather wait for next year and buy a DirectX 11 machine instead of upgrading what I have.
ReplyDeleteI think your pc should be more than able to handle it. The game's still in alpha, and about to push beta in July, so who knows what other optimisations they have yet to do.
ReplyDeleteWish i could find the source, but i remember reading that at low res, the score is more dependent on CPU, whilst at high res the graphics card becomes the bottleneck.
Am definitely looking forward to buying/building a new computer, although with the pound being extraordinarily weak against the singapore dollar, that would probably wait until FFXIV's released.
I'm surprised no one's worried about the short amount of time that FFXIV has left before release, since they are supposedly for release this year and have yet to enter beta.
Ive also read that this bench doesnt utilize multiple cpu's or gpu's, so basically your score is very much a worst case scenario. Id be fairly confident there is much room for improvement before the game actually launches.
ReplyDelete@Zaeni - That has crossed my mind about the release date too, but as excited as I am to get my hands on it, thats just the way things are now - your told about a game eons before its launch (surprised I havent seen a trailor for final fantasy eleventynine yet o.O) and its launch date can and does change - it'll be out when its out XD Trying not to think about it too much ;) (/panic)
My score was 1641. It is very likely CPU limited, as others have said.
ReplyDeleteMy laptop was $1,200 last March - it's not a top of the line gaming laptop, but it was mid range.
Core Duo 2.13, 4 gigs ram, GeForec 98000M GS 512megs.
I suspect if my CPU speed was higher I'd have done much better - it's usually the worst score.
But even so, a laptop that cost over a grand a year ago should be able to do better low performance. I mean, I run Crysis on top end settings without issue.
And I too wish that my native resolution had been supported.
I take this as a measure that square doesn't know how to benchmark, or that FFXIV will be very overly optimistic. ;)
I think the whole thing is bogus... I never had a problem with any other game I have played. I wouldnt consider myself a "poor" gamer but I will probably be playing this on my ps3 based on the benchmark...
ReplyDeleteWin Visata 64bit
Amd Phenom 9650 Quad Core 2.3ghz
4 gig ram
nvidia 9500 GT (Could this really cause such a low score?)
500 on high res
850 on low... this is BS!
Note that this test doesn't seem to use tripple buffering. So with my default settings (vsync on) i got ~3k, but when i disabled vsync - around 5k.
ReplyDeleteI got a score of 6336 high resolution
ReplyDeleteSpecs: i7 @ 3.33 ghz overclocked to 4.3 ghz
geforce 470 x2
12 gb RAM
windows 7 64bit
Here are my laptop's specs:
ReplyDeleteSager NP8690
CPU: Intel i7-720QM
GPU: ATi MR 5870 1GB GDDR5
RAM: 8GB DDR3 1333Mhz
HDD: 500GB 7200rpm
Catalyst 10.6
High Res: 2113
Low Res: 3366
@Pacifista
ReplyDeleteMy friends in the alpha who barely scored over 1000 couldn't even play.
"I don't think taking advantage of PC's superiority as a gaming platform should be considered as a bad thing"
How do you know it's this versus the game code being unoptimized? FFXI's rendering code was not optimized to take advantage of modern (for the time) GPU hardware.
Other instances of laziness in FFXI: you had to use registry hacks to access high resolution. You also had to use 3rd party programs to increase draw distance. Never understood why these weren't exposed by the game itself when the engine supported them.
This is a marketing scheme by nVidia. You'll be able to run the game fairly well if your score is 2000+
ReplyDeleteI was an Alpha tester and with my score of 1750 high res and roughly 2800 low res ran it with no problems whatsoever
This is to worry people into buying a new graphics card. nVidia paid good money to stick their logo on that benchmark.
Well heres what i got...
ReplyDeleteAMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition
8 Gig DDR 3 1333
Nvidia GeForce 470 GTX
Win7 64bit Pro
Score on HI settings 3125
2131 - score
ReplyDeleteCore 2 duo 2.8 Ghz
Vista Ult. 64 bit
GeForce GTX 260
4 GB OCZ RAM
System:
ReplyDeletei7 930 @ 4Ghz
SSD (OS drive)
Windows7 Ultimate 64bit
6GB G.Skill DDR3 Tri-Channel
Monitor 24" 1920x1200
GTX 480 (1x)
Core Clock: @830
Processor Clock: 1665
Memory Clock: 2065
Fan Speed: 100%
High: 4,707 @1920x1080
Low: 7,054 @1280x720
Here is my system (although the benchmark doesn't support multiple GPU rendering)
ReplyDeleteWin XP 32-bit
4 GB Ram
E8400 (3.0 GHz dual core) in P5Q Pro
Visiontek HD 4850 CF (demo only uses one)
I get usually around 2850. If only the benchmark supported multiple gpu rendering.
Having a problem running either the benchmark or the actual beta. When attempting to run the benchmark I get the error: " Data corrupted. Unable to run application" I have tried running the benchmark in low res and hi res and same result. When trying to run the actual beta get error message " FINAL FANTASY XIV Beta Version has stopped working." tried to run it in different compatiability modes but still wont work. if anyone could help me with this I would really appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteEmail me at mac5328@gmail.com
i just wanna know if im bottlenecking
ReplyDelete8600 phenom tricore 2.3ghz
nvidia gforce gtx 260
2GB ddr2
500gb sata harddrive
my score is poop @ 1600 low res!
im sure its the ram but is my CPU and GPU gonna cut it?
@thedvh
ReplyDeleteIt certainly wouldnt hurt to add some ram, an OS is going to take half your current ram straight away (more if using vista), thats assuming you dont have any other small items added onto your startup (most people will have some), basically you have less than 1GB of ram to run your games/apps thereafter - its cutting it close.
As for your GPU & CPU, the GTX260 is towards the bottom end of what this game needs to run, but it should be enough. Your CPU on the other hand is probably the main cause of that score, you should research the best possible cpu for your current mobo, a decent quad core with your setup should give about 2k(hi) and 3.5k(low).
thx swirl_child
ReplyDeleteso would it help to switch back to xp from windows 7 then or not much?
i dont got another 300+ bucks for a processor :(
I would have only advised you to change OS if you were using Vista. Win7 is quite decent, ofc xp uses less but unless your personally experiencing slow downs then there is no reason to change OS.
ReplyDeleteYou dont need to spend 300+ on a new cpu, a Phenom II X4 965 BE costs half that ;)
so the phenom x4 965 BE works for my mobo? and lastly could u point me in the right direction to find one online maybe with fast delivery in western canada? thx again swirl-child.
ReplyDeleteoops thought i posted motherboard type its gigabyte m61pme-s2p
ReplyDeleteHey, unfortunately after looking into your mobo, it does not support the 965. It will only support up to 95W chips (the 965 is a 125W chip). So your options are either the 945 which only comes in 95W or a 955 *IF* you can find one thats 95W (I couldnt - but they are listed as being supported by your mobo on gigabytes site).
ReplyDeleteThe good news is the 945 is cheaper and still an upgrade to you. Cant help you on where to buy - Im sure if you ask around on local forums or just search locally.. :-p
(Btw, be sure to update your mobo bios, it requires a fairly recent version to work the Phenom II X4 945)
Good luck ^^/
ok so i got the beta and shes choppy but on low its playable but not the greatest...loading times r poop aswell, i assume overpopulated places will be really laggy, now ill probably gonna get the 945 one but is it gonna be a considerable difference, while im playing aswell the cpu isnt at 100% usage..does that mean its the video card? and also.. :) how i upgrade a mobo bios? lol
ReplyDeleteI cant tell you exactly the impact of the cpu upgrade in terms of gameplay, but I can tell you the following - changing to a 945 will result in approximately doubling your low res score (so it stands to reason that you will see an improvement in game!) and that the 945 is a more powerful chip in every way. Just going on that, given how easy and cost effective the upgrade is, seems like a no brainer to me.
ReplyDeleteThis does very much apply to low res gameplay however, if you intend on playing at higher res then the gpu becomes much more of a concern - Im assuming you will be playing at low res for the time being. Also keep in mind you could OC the gpu for a small increase in performance and be sure to check your in game settings, some options are serious hogs and not exactly necessary - 'Ambient occlusion' being a good example (just play around with it until you get things running smoothly).
Things will improve a little come launch, as during beta SE is collecting info as you play and there are various things going on in the background doing checks which can cause some slow downs - that will be gone when the game goes live.
Before you attempt to update your bios, check your current version in your system information, you need "F5" or higher - chances are you will need to update tho, since the bios is typically not something you mess around with and is likely whatever version it was the day you bought it.
To update your bios, go to gigabyte.com and click support/download, enter your exact mobo model number and follow the instructions - there should also be a manual there to download should you want further reading on the process. (A friendly warning, be sure you pick exactly the right mobo model and details XD)
If you need further tips or want to learn more, try google :-p
Oh double post >< thought I would mention that NVidia released a firmware update about 2 months ago, people have been reporting a 7% performance increase with FFXIV.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, goodluck ^_^/
Had some trouble with the benchmark. I did get it to run, but could not see the number it was displaying.
ReplyDeleteAMD 64x2 6400+
Nvidia 7950gt's times 2 in SLI
4 gig memory.
Is it going to be possible to play or will I ned to upgrade?
I have a gtx 480 on hand and a new power supply on the way (needed to support the 480).
Thx