New Nvidia drivers for FFXI.

[Cephius]

As far as I know... FFXI only runs on "one cpu" and wasen't optimized for 2, having quad core just leaves the other 2-3 cores "idle" i'd imagine. Considering a quad core vs a dual core... has slower overall mhz per core, you'd be slowing FFXI to go dual core -> quad core.

No, just... no. You aren't slowing FFXI down by using a quad core over a dual. That's not the issue at all. Unless you're using a P3 or something, your processor isn't the problem. For the umpteenth time, the graphic card drivers are the cause. If you're getting low FPS on a dual/quad/whatever, you're having graphics card issues.

[terraflarex]

Break your Nvidia Cards and get an ATI.

Seriously..

[Gulkeeva]

As far as I know... FFXI only runs on "one cpu" and wasen't optimized for 2, having quad core just leaves the other 2-3 cores "idle" i'd imagine. Considering a quad core vs a dual core... has slower overall mhz per core, you'd be slowing FFXI to go dual core -> quad core.

No, just... no. You aren't slowing FFXI down by using a quad core over a dual. That's not the issue at all. Unless you're using a P3 or something, your processor isn't the problem. For the umpteenth time, the graphic card drivers are the cause. If you're getting low FPS on a dual/quad/whatever, you're having graphics card issues.

As of about.... 5min ago , FFXI still uses --> 1 Single cpu <---

(note CPU usage only 50%)
http://www.neko-sentai.com/images4a/ffxipic.jpg

4 cpu = 25% cpu usage, and I hope anyone using a quad core isn't thinking its 4 X 2.66Ghz but 4 = total 2.66ghz so you'd be technically downgrading ffxi to go dual -> quad core.
and yeah video card has something to do with slowdowns too!

[Cephius]

As far as I know... FFXI only runs on "one cpu" and wasen't optimized for 2, having quad core just leaves the other 2-3 cores "idle" i'd imagine. Considering a quad core vs a dual core... has slower overall mhz per core, you'd be slowing FFXI to go dual core -> quad core.

No, just... no. You aren't slowing FFXI down by using a quad core over a dual. That's not the issue at all. Unless you're using a P3 or something, your processor isn't the problem. For the umpteenth time, the graphic card drivers are the cause. If you're getting low FPS on a dual/quad/whatever, you're having graphics card issues.

As of about.... 5min ago , FFXI still uses --> 1 Single cpu <---

(note CPU usage only 50%)
http://www.neko-sentai.com/images4a/ffxipic.jpg

4 cpu = 25% cpu usage, and I hope anyone using a quad core isn't thinking its 4 X 2.66Ghz but 4 = total 2.66ghz so you'd be technically downgrading ffxi to go dual -> quad core.
and yeah video card has something to do with slowdowns too!

Yes... I'm well aware it only uses one core. The point is, unless you're running something ancient, any dual or quad core has enough processing power in a single core to handle FFXI easily. That, and 90% of all FPS issues of people using 8-series Nvidia card are driver related.

[GSDragoon]

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/2...icpugb9.th.jpg

FFXI barely even touches your video card. Very little video memory is used, and it's not working that hard because the temps only go up a few degrees. I can load up that HDR demo and get upto 52c within a few minutes. Sit in whitegate on FFXI and it just rapes your CPU. It's just that poorly ported from the PS2 version. No magic driver is going to fix that.

[Cephius]

Wow. Seriously. I don't know what I have to say. I know it doesn't use any video card power, and it relies on CPU power. But this is a game based on architecture that is 6 years old now! I've run the game on a Pentium D processor with a 6800 video card, and a quad core with a 8800GT. It runs EXACTLY the same. I've helped tons of friends who had the FPS issues when using old nvidia drivers, once they switched to the corrent ones their FPS lag was reduced to nothing. I'm not talking about getting a constant 30fps everywhere, because that's impossible. But drivers WILL fix FPS issues when they're 10-20 FPS lower than what they should be given your hardware.

[SnickySnacks]

4 cpu = 25% cpu usage, and I hope anyone using a quad core isn't thinking its 4 X 2.66Ghz but 4 = total 2.66ghz so you'd be technically downgrading ffxi to go dual -> quad core.

Uhm. Back to EE with you. Each core in a multi-core CPU runs at the rated speed. Frankly, even a cursory examination of the history of PC speeds should have shown you this. After all, we went from single core processors that went up to nearly 4Ghz back down to 2-4 core processors in the 1.5-3ghz range, simply because it was overall more efficient to run multiple cores at (slightly) slower speeds than to run a single core at 8ghz. Now, of course 4 2ghz cores aren't the same as 1 8ghz core, but it's all about parallelism...

Also, while FFXI doesn't take advantage of multiple cores...it does help as windows/other programs can run on the other CPUs rather than needing to timeshare a single cpu.

[Reality]

4 cpu = 25% cpu usage, and I hope anyone using a quad core isn't thinking its 4 X 2.66Ghz but 4 = total 2.66ghz so you'd be technically downgrading ffxi to go dual -> quad core.

wow. lol
wrong answer! a quad core at 2.66Ghz is 4 CPU's, running at 2.66Ghz each.

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/2...icpugb9.th.jpg

FFXI barely even touches your video card. Very little video memory is used, and it's not working that hard because the temps only go up a few degrees. I can load up that HDR demo and get upto 52c within a few minutes. Sit in whitegate on FFXI and it just rapes your CPU. It's just that poorly ported from the PS2 version. No magic driver is going to fix that.

yup, i've said this for years, thanks for the rivatuner graphs that basically prove it.

[Ezrael]

4 cpu = 25% cpu usage, and I hope anyone using a quad core isn't thinking its 4 X 2.66Ghz but 4 = total 2.66ghz so you'd be technically downgrading ffxi to go dual -> quad core.

wow. lol
wrong answer! a quad core at 2.66Ghz is 4 CPU's, running at 2.66Ghz each.

http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/2...icpugb9.th.jpg

FFXI barely even touches your video card. Very little video memory is used, and it's not working that hard because the temps only go up a few degrees. I can load up that HDR demo and get upto 52c within a few minutes. Sit in whitegate on FFXI and it just rapes your CPU. It's just that poorly ported from the PS2 version. No magic driver is going to fix that.

yup, i've said this for years, thanks for the rivatuner graphs that basically prove it.

I've been saying this too. I've used RivaTuner to prove the same as well. As for the dual core vs quad core vs single core goes.... Let's remember.. Back when FFXI first came out on PC we had single core CPUs that were reaching the 3.0+ ghz mark. Then after a while dual cores came out (shortly followed w/ quads) and the speed was dropped dramatically. Well, since FFXI was coded for a single core (and still is to my knowledge) this meant a drop in performance. However, now our current dual core/quad core CPUs are reaching the previous single core CPU speeds and in some cases surpassing them (With overclocking of course).

As for the Nvidia + Vista + FFXI issue goes... Don't worry my friends you aren't alone. Anyone remember this chart?
http://media.arstechnica.com/news.me...stacrash-1.jpg

[ShinseiRyu]

I've been saying this too. I've used RivaTuner to prove the same as well. As for the dual core vs quad core vs single core goes.... Let's remember.. Back when FFXI first came out on PC we had single core CPUs that were reaching the 3.0+ ghz mark. Then after a while dual cores came out (shortly followed w/ quads) and the speed was dropped dramatically. Well, since FFXI was coded for a single core (and still is to my knowledge) this meant a drop in performance. However, now our current dual core/quad core CPUs are reaching the previous single core CPU speeds and in some cases surpassing them (With overclocking of course).

As for the Nvidia + Vista + FFXI issue goes... Don't worry my friends you aren't alone. Anyone remember this chart?
[#img]http://media.arstechnica.com/news.media/vistacrash-1.jpg[#/img]

A single core off a Core2Duo 2.0GHz will outperform a P4HT 3.0GHz. GHz/MHz is not everything when it comes to CPU power. The newer cores run more efficiently and have higher FSBs. Before Intel released the Core2Duo line AMD was winning in terms of performance even though their cpus were running at lower clock speeds. Hence why AMD labeled their cpus with #s that were supposed to compare to Intel's CPUs (IE: AMD Athlon 64 4000+ actually runs at 2.4GHz).

[Ezrael]

I've been saying this too. I've used RivaTuner to prove the same as well. As for the dual core vs quad core vs single core goes.... Let's remember.. Back when FFXI first came out on PC we had single core CPUs that were reaching the 3.0+ ghz mark. Then after a while dual cores came out (shortly followed w/ quads) and the speed was dropped dramatically. Well, since FFXI was coded for a single core (and still is to my knowledge) this meant a drop in performance. However, now our current dual core/quad core CPUs are reaching the previous single core CPU speeds and in some cases surpassing them (With overclocking of course).

As for the Nvidia + Vista + FFXI issue goes... Don't worry my friends you aren't alone. Anyone remember this chart?
[#img]http://media.arstechnica.com/news.media/vistacrash-1.jpg[#/img]

A single core off a Core2Duo 2.0GHz will outperform a P4HT 3.0GHz. GHz/MHz is not everything when it comes to CPU power. The newer cores run more efficiently and have higher FSBs. Before Intel released the Core2Duo line AMD was winning in terms of performance even though their cpus were running at lower clock speeds. Hence why AMD labeled their cpus with #s that were supposed to compare to Intel's CPUs (IE: AMD Athlon 64 4000+ actually runs at 2.4GHz).

Actually the FSB speed is not really "faster" per say... Yes you see the pretty 1066, 1333, or 1600 FSB but that is not what it really means. Let's take a Intel Q6600 for example.. This processor has a 266 Mhz FSB but is "Quad Pumped" (Think quad core!) multiplied against a 9x Multiplier so you have the processor speed of 2.40 GHz.

Info credited here: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1198647

CPU power works for FFXI.. Maybe not so in other PC games, but definitely in this one.


Back on topic.... Nvidia needs to figure something out soon b/c the new cards are about to hit the street soon and we will be back at square one again.

[Reality]

overall though, the reason FFXI runs like shit on nvidia systems has a lot to do with nvidia hardware coupled with windows vista

i can set the affinity on my Q6600 to 1 core (Each core is currently @ 3.4Ghz), and if i throw in my ATI 1950XT 512MB PCI-E card and take out my Geforce 8800 GTX, my framerates are fucking awesome (not 30FPS everywhere, but this game has never been like that in all situations), even with full shadows enabled i'm getting about 10fps higher in almost every situation vs my 8800 GTX which is about twice as powerful as my 1950XT

same intel cpu, same motherboard, same operating system. the only difference is the videocard. so it's either a microsoft issue with DirectX & Nvidia cards while playing FFXI, or it's an NVidia driver issue. It can still be an nvidia driver issue, even though the game itself doesn't utilize much of the videocards resources. Just wanted to be clear on that.

[Ezrael]

It's Nvidia.

There was a huge percentage of Vista errors that originated from Nvidia based drivers... If people remember a little over a year ago Nvidia faced a class action lawsuit over this.

Everytime I see the little icon in the bottom right corner of this picture I lol.


Anyone try FFXI out w/ a new 9xxx series? From what I have read they seem to be re-hashed 8xxx series cards.

[Fallso]

Pretty much any CPU newer than 5 years old will do for FFXI (maybe even older, haven't checked or anything). As for graphics card, nvidia are bollocks for drivers, may aswell swap to ATI.

[Zanz L. Barre The 3rd]

The 9 series is pretty much the 8 series lol.

Same Vista bullshit too!

[terraflarex]

The 9 series is pretty much the 8 series lol.

Same Vista bullshit too!

Co-signed.

[Reality]

9 series is just a refresh of the same technology that was in the G80 architecture

55nm (g92 core/256bit memory bus, 8800 GT, 8800 GTS 512MB, 9600 GT, 9800 GTX, 9800 GX2) vs 90nm (g80 core/320bit memory bus (GTS) & 384bit memory bus (GTX/Ultra), 8800 GTS 320/640MB, 8800 GTX, 8800 Ultra)

i believe the g92 core has 16 rops vs 20 on the old 8800 GTS (320/640MB) cards, and 24 on the 8800 GTX/Ultra. however, the g92 cards have much faster shaders (stream processors) @ over 1600mhz, vs 1300~ on the g80

the g92 cards also have 64 TMU's (Same as the g80 8800 GTX & Ultra), the g80 GTS cards only have 48 TMU's

it's a shame Nvidia released the 9800 GTX & 9800 GX2 as a "9000-series", as the 9800 GTX is basically the exact-same-card as the 8800 GTS 512MB, except with a faster clock speed on the core, memory and shaders (8800 GTS Core/Mem/Shader: 670/1950/1675, 9800 GTX Core/Mem/Shader: 755/2300/1890)

so, a summary of this highly convoluted and confusing post

G92 = 256bit memory interface, 16 ROPs, 64 TMU's, Faster Memory chips (GDDR3)
G80 = 320/384bit memory interface, 20/24 ROPs, 48/64 TMU's, Slower Memory chips (GDDR3)

The new GT200 core on the next Geforce series (Geforce GTX 260 & 280) will be truly amazing, though. The high-end variant (GTX 280) is rumored to be twice as fast as a 9800 GX2 (This is probably on paper, will probably only see a 30-50% increase in speed in applications/games). The GT200 will sports a 448bit (GTX 260) and 512bit (GTX 280) memory bus, as well as shaders that are "Twice as fast....-Nvidia" as those on the G92 cards

abbrev. summary:

ROP = Raster Operations/Processors
TMU = Texture Memory Units

none of this has anything to do with FFXI, nor will these cards run FFXI faster or smoother than the current cards.

[Xanthe]

Not to derail too much, but the whole nVidia driver business is part of what has been holding me back from building my new PC. That and the lack of a full HDMI video/audio output solution (don't give me that S/PDIF over HDMI crap). The new ATI 4800 series looks to be the answer to all that. I've had better luck with ATI drivers in the past (last desktop had a 9800 XT, but I currently have GeForce Go 6800 GTX in my laptop. It's done pretty well, not as bad as having to deal with the 8000 series issues, but the same finicky driver issues remain. I think that if the new ATI cards coming out next month can deliver I'll finally be ready to build.

[spooky]

Did a search and got these results:

search.php?keywords=GeForce+8400&terms=all&author= &sc=1&sf=all&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&st=0&ch=300&t=0&su bmit=Search

Didn't find what I was looking for though, I'm looking at getting a new PC. how does GeForce 8400 fair for FFXI on 32-bit XP Pro?

Thanks!

[Reality]

Did a search and got these results:

search.php?keywords=GeForce+8400&terms=all&author= &sc=1&sf=all&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&st=0&ch=300&t=0&su bmit=Search

Didn't find what I was looking for though, I'm looking at getting a new PC. how does GeForce 8400 fair for FFXI on 32-bit XP Pro?

Thanks!

i guess i can't comprehend building a PC with such a low-end videocard and only using that PC for FFXI gaming and never wanting to try any other PC games

that 8400 is really really low-end, you won't be able to play anything else with good image quality with it. the lowest card i'd recommend right now for a new PC would be the Geforce 9600 GT @ $119.99 after mail-in rebate. this card will last you at least 2-3 years if you don't upgrade your PC often, it's the best bang for your buck mid-range card on the market right now

alternatively, you can get an 8800 GTS 512MB card for about $170

the 8400 is just a really really slow card (128bit memory interface was "High end" 8 years ago, and has been bargain-bin for the last 3 years)

to answer your question though, yes the 8400 will play FFXI just fine, it's just.... i can't recommend that card, it's just terrible.