FFXIV Hardware Requirements

[Rasengan]

As far as I know, the main differences between the HX and TX series is that the HX is modular while the TX isn't, and the HX has 4 PCIe cables while the TX only has 2 (so if you're planning for SLI/CrossFireX, look for the HX... or probably a PSU with higher wattage too). Aside from that, both are pretty solid power supplies. Don't quote me on this, but I believe they're actually manufactured by SeaSonic, which would explain why they're so dependable.

[Questionable]

As far as I know, the main differences between the HX and TX series is that the HX is modular while the TX isn't, and the HX has 4 PCIe cables while the TX only has 2 (so if you're planning for SLI/CrossFireX, look for the HX... or probably a PSU with higher wattage too). Aside from that, both are pretty solid power supplies. Don't quote me on this, but I believe they're actually manufactured by SeaSonic, which would explain why they're so dependable.

Hx actually is a totally new design not the same as the tx IIRC. Check reviews, I might be wrong.

[Questionable]

the 5800's (5850,5870) are leaps and bounds over 5770. The 5850 is only $300-$330 now. It might drop soon though. The 5870 doesn't run that much hotter, about probably 60-65 depending on your case and cooling. It runs cooler than the GTX cards I think. A 5850 you can OC to 5870 speeds without issues. Right now OC'ing 5870 won't make much difference it seems.

4-5k? I only spend around $1000 for my new system. Not sure on the 3d stuff though, I rather not since I get motion sickness from FPS games

I got the TX >< (only one they had).
Selecting a grapics card is so difficult, there's 53000 reviews on each one, there's nvidia haters and ati haters, power consumptions and running temperatures.. I think what got me on the 5770 was all the reviews about it running cooler then the 5800/460-80 tier of cards and all the posts about HP's having poor airflow, etc. Did I miss something on the 5800 series? Alot of the reviews on the 5870 said they run hot and heavy and all the prices I was seeing were right around the 400$ range, but I don't remember reading much on the 5850s. If there's a big difference in price between the 5850 and 70 I might just return the 5770 but if not I'll probably just stick with it and use it for ffxi and as a backup once I get a new system. (I'd probably only be using it for a month or two anyways I just didn't want to go spend 4-5k on a new system until SE firmed up the requirements on running 3d or 3 moniter).

After looking at the 3ds on display at BB I'm pretty impressed, it's actually a totally different experience then watching 3d movies at a theater, I still don't know if I'd want to game for hours on end in 3d but it sure as hell is neat.

What I'm speculating on now is maybe 3 45"s One 3d in the middle and 2 2ds on the sides, and running 3screen 2d or single screen 3d depending on mood. Could I run different size moniters and still do 3 screen assuming they were all 1080s? I know it might not look as seamless but the perspective should remain consistant?

[kodos1]

the 5800's (5850,5870) are leaps and bounds over 5770. The 5850 is only $300-$330 now. It might drop soon though. The 5870 doesn't run that much hotter, about probably 60-65 depending on your case and cooling. It runs cooler than the GTX cards I think. A 5850 you can OC to 5870 speeds without issues. Right now OC'ing 5870 won't make much difference it seems.

4-5k? I only spend around $1000 for my new system. Not sure on the 3d stuff though, I rather not since I get motion sickness from FPS games

4-5k was ballpark, I'm tossing back and forth between 3 45" 120hz led moniters and the new 60" 3dtvs, and maybe 2k on a really really loaded tower. (SSD for OS, probably dual nvidia top end cards, big HDD, tv tuner, blu ray .. pretty much a whole new home entertainment system.

I started playing ffxi with systems that made the game look like super mario.. each time I upgraded i thought to myself "How did i ever play so long with it looking like crap?" And I've gotten 7 years out of FFXI with no end in sight. Spending 4-5 or even 6-7k when you think about all the time you spend online every week doesn't seem so bad if you boil it down to maybe 1k a year for thousands of hours a year of entertainment. I'll go dig a little deeper into the 5850s though.

[Null]

Back in the hunt for getting a Computer. I was planning to go for a cheaper one till the PS3 release, but I just got $1,500 today and decided to check for something around that range. I am very lazy and am not building a computer.

What are your thoughts on this?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16883113143

I don't need to hear the "You could build one for cheaper. Or you can find one for cheaper" unless you have a link for a decent one for cheaper. (sorry, just drives me nuts for the past month that people keep saying I can find one built for cheaper but nobody ever points one out.) Just rather interested in the thoughts on this since I've only been able to find one review on it out of all the sites I've checked.

Intel Core i7 930(2.80GHz)
ATI Radeon HD 5850 Graphics Card
750W Power Supply (can get a better one easily)

Many thanks in advanced.

[Rustyhagun]

Radeon 2400 is like a $45 videocard, so no, it's pretty much trash. If you upgrade to a decent videocard in the $150-200 range you should be able to play it at 720p.

For anyone asking if their videocard is good enough... just look it up on amazon, if it sells for cheap like $50-$100 then there is your answer, means it's a piece of crap.

Judging a card from the price only is a silly way of thinking.

Use this chart for current video car reviews:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...on,2646-7.html

[Triplesea]

Thanks everyone for the helpful advice, making this much easier on me.

Kodos1, Was your processor overclocked to get those scores or was it 2.4 ghz? Reason I ask is my pc is an HP and I cannot overclock it without a) getting a new motherboard or b) using overclocking software, which im still looking into but it seems far riskier than doing it in the bios, so I think i may just leave it at 2.4.

Also, would upgrading from 4 to 6 gb of ram improve my performance noticeably since im running vista or would it be kinda pointless?

[Tonks]

I also have a Q6600 and it was a Dell, so I couldn't overclock through the bios or very much through software. But yesterday I tried the tape mod for it.

http://forums.nvidia.com/lofiversion...hp?t58361.html

It sounds absolutely ridiculous, but it only took me about 10 or 15 minutes, booted up the computer and now instead of 2.4ghz, I'm running 3.0ghz without any problems at all. And it didn't change the temps whatsoever. (It's at 29C idle right now, and during the whole FFXIV benchmark test it never got higher than 40C.)

Give it a shot if you want to try overclocking instead of getting a new computer.

You can always remove the tape very easily if you needed to also, to restore it to default settings, but why bother.

[MakinBaconNeked]

I have a couple Overclocking questions.

1st question:
For the FSB/DRAM Ratio I have 4 options
1:4
1:3.33
1:2.66
1:2

1:4 wont start at all even to BIOS (had to reset CMOS) so this option is out.

I read somewhere (not this forum) where some people told someone they should be setting it to 1:3.33. When I set it to 1:3.33 or 1:2.66 and run Prime95 then it fails but when I run 1:2 then I have no issues. Is there concern with me running 1:2 and I should back off that ratio?

System:
AMD Athlon II x2 245 2.9 currently overclocked to 3.262
4 GB DDR3 ram (sticks)
MSI motherboard (MS-7599)
600w power supply
GeForce GTX 460 768MB
250 GB harddrive 7200 rpm
Windows 7 64bit

2nd question:
I am currently getting a lower score with any overclocking above 3.2 GHz than I was at 3.19 GHz. Any ideas why this may be happening or do you need more information. My temps (using Core Temp app while running benchmark) is averaging 40-45C. Ram usage never goes above 36%.
I did change the nVidia settings to performance which I understand will lower the quality a little but should increase the needed speed.

Thanks in advance!

[mintyice]

question: are these any good?

http://www.ibuypower.com/

[shaddix]

I have a couple Overclocking questions.

1st question:
For the FSB/DRAM Ratio I have 4 options
1:4
1:3.33
1:2.66
1:2

1:4 wont start at all even to BIOS (had to reset CMOS) so this option is out.

I read somewhere (not this forum) where some people told someone they should be setting it to 1:3.33. When I set it to 1:3.33 or 1:2.66 and run Prime95 then it fails but when I run 1:2 then I have no issues. Is there concern with me running 1:2 and I should back off that ratio?

System:
AMD Athlon II x2 245 2.9 currently overclocked to 3.262
4 GB DDR3 ram (sticks)
MSI motherboard (MS-7599)
600w power supply
GeForce GTX 460 768MB
250 GB harddrive 7200 rpm
Windows 7 64bit

2nd question:
I am currently getting a lower score with any overclocking above 3.2 GHz than I was at 3.19 GHz. Any ideas why this may be happening or do you need more information. My temps (using Core Temp app while running benchmark) is averaging 40-45C. Ram usage never goes above 36%.
I did change the nVidia settings to performance which I understand will lower the quality a little but should increase the needed speed.

Thanks in advance!

your first and second questions are probably related. the fsb:ram ratio is changing the speed of your ram. the 1:4 option is pumping your ram at 4 times the speed of your FSB, which is why it won't boot. That setting should be tuned based on your specific ram modules. What brand/model DDR3 do you have?

[MakinBaconNeked]

Crucial 2GB 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10600) Desktop Memory Model CT25664BA1339

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820148221

So I am understanding the ration wrong ... I thought it was the other way around which means that 1:3.33 is actually faster than 1:2.66

[shaddix]

Crucial 2GB 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1333 (PC3 10600) Desktop Memory Model CT25664BA1339

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820148221

So I am understanding the ration wrong ... I thought it was the other way around which means that 1:3.33 is actually faster than 1:2.66

1333mhz ddr3, you should be able to see the actual speed your ram is currently running somewhere in the bios, if not there it should show you on boot. The correct FSB/DRAM ratio is the one that puts your ram speed at 1333mhz+- a bit. So you have to play around with different FSB settings and the fsb:dram ratio in order to get the correct speed for your memory. If your bios gives you an option to unlock/unlink the fsb and dram frequencies then you can use that instead and just set your ram to 1333mhz manually.

If you want to OC your ram you just pump the FSB up a bit. But then you may have to lower cpu multiplier, or instead drop the FSB speed and change the fsb:dram ratio. Kind of a balancing act to find the right combination of settings for the best overclock.
I don't know of any detailed guides or tutorials anywhere, maybe someone else can chime in on that.

[MakinBaconNeked]

Thanks Shaddix that makes sense. I had to play for a little while but there is a read only field that tells the MHz so I got it to 1332 and now am back to making adjustments to see where I can get this thing. I'll let you know.

[Rasengan]

I'm assuming you're running the overclock at 225x14.5? At that rate, with your DDR3 1333 RAM, you should be able to run it at 1:2.66 as that would translate to DDR3 1200. 1:3.33 would definitely fail as that would be DDR3 1500. It doesn't make sense why you're not able to run it in 1:2.66... What voltage are you running the RAM at and at what timings? If you have it set at auto, I'd recommend at least placing it at the manufacturer's spec of 1.5v and CL9. Although 1.5v isn't really high when it comes to RAM, It might actually be undervolted at the moment and that might be causing the instability. If that doesn't work, +0.1v to that (so 1.6v) shouldn't damage the RAM at all and might increase stability.

The key to getting the max out of overclocking is to isolate each variable to make sure that the limits you're reaching are due to a specific constraint. This means try to keep every element at or below it's rated speeds, except for the the one you're testing. A good tip is to try to keep HTLink somewhere between 2000~2200; anything over that will actually degrade performance. At 3.2ghz, I would recommend the CPU-NB be rated around 2000~2100. You don't gain much from upping it at this level, so with the reference clock at 225, I'd go with 9x multipliers with those two settings for now.

What's your goal? You might want to lower the multi for HTLink a bit when trying a higher reference clock to keep HTLink in line with the 2000~2200 range. If you're planning on overclocking much more, 2600~2800 CPU-NB is probably a good range to be in at the end and if you have to increase the multi to achieve that, remember to up the voltage as well, but start slow. 1:2 should give you plenty of leeway before RAM becomes an issue, but once you find your "max" stable overclock, you can focus on other parameters such as the RAM, CPU-NB, voltage, etc.

[alecrast]

I have a couple Overclocking questions.

1st question:
For the FSB/DRAM Ratio I have 4 options
1:4
1:3.33
1:2.66
1:2

1:4 wont start at all even to BIOS (had to reset CMOS) so this option is out.

I read somewhere (not this forum) where some people told someone they should be setting it to 1:3.33. When I set it to 1:3.33 or 1:2.66 and run Prime95 then it fails but when I run 1:2 then I have no issues. Is there concern with me running 1:2 and I should back off that ratio?

System:
AMD Athlon II x2 245 2.9 currently overclocked to 3.262
4 GB DDR3 ram (sticks)
MSI motherboard (MS-7599)
600w power supply
GeForce GTX 460 768MB
250 GB harddrive 7200 rpm
Windows 7 64bit

2nd question:
I am currently getting a lower score with any overclocking above 3.2 GHz than I was at 3.19 GHz. Any ideas why this may be happening or do you need more information. My temps (using Core Temp app while running benchmark) is averaging 40-45C. Ram usage never goes above 36%.
I did change the nVidia settings to performance which I understand will lower the quality a little but should increase the needed speed.

Thanks in advance!

1:4 = 1600
1:3.33 = 1333
1:2.66 = 1066
1:2 = 800

You need to choose the ratio that gets your RAM as close as possible to its rated spec without going over (and potentially without exceeding your motherboard's rated speed, as well, depending how sensitive your motherboard is to exceeding spec).

If you've got an Athlon x2 245, stock is 2.9GHz. At 200FSB, that means it has a 14.5 multiplier. So if you're at 3.262GHz, you probably have a 225FSB.

1:4 (@225) = 1800
1:3.33 (@225) = 1498.50
1:2.66 (@225) = 1197
1:2 (@225) = 900

If you have DDR3 rated at 1800MHz or above, you can try 1:4 but it may fail as the motherboard spec from MSI calls for 1600MHz DDR3 max.

If you have DDR3-1600, you can try 1:3.33.

If you have DDR3-1333, you can try 1:2.66.

If you have DDR3-1066, then use 1:2.

Have you disabled cool'n'quiet?

What is your HT speed?

It's been a while since I messed with overclocking an AMD system and I am going from memory so bear with me if I make mistakes.

Before you try running prime95, you should run memtest86+ to make sure you don't get any memory errors. Do this first at stock speeds to qualify your memory modules, then at overclocked speeds. If your memory is 1333, then you should drop your FSB back to 200 so that your CPU is 2.9GHz and then use the 1:3.33 ratio to set your RAM to 1333, make sure your memory is running at its rated 1.5V, then run memtest86+. If it doesn't complete multiple passes without errors, you either need to loosen your timings, run it at 1:2, or try upping your DDR voltage slightly (1.55V - 1.6V) and then see if it passes. The memory you linked doesn't include heat spreaders so I wouldn't add too much voltage and you should never exceed 1.65V.

[Twentytwo]

Quick question, if I upgrade my Quad Core Q9400 2.66HGZ w/ 4 gigs of ram from a GTX 260, to either a 5870 or 470. What type of increased performance would you expect me to see (speaking strictly in terms of ffxiv). As of now beta runs pretty well, but I want it to run really really well. I do work on my second monitor while playing so I have to use windowed mode. Thanks bros

[Cooleko]

you will like the results upping from a 260 to a 460+
Anyone know if this system would be able to break a 2k+ on high? really want to make the grade and not sure:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboB...t=Combo.466347

[Rasengan]

you will like the results upping from a 260 to a 460+
Anyone know if this system would be able to break a 2k+ on high? really want to make the grade and not sure:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboB...t=Combo.466347

I don't think that would be able to run the benchmark. troll moar

[MakinBaconNeked]

ok thanks guys, bear with me!

I had to set up my laptop to stay on the forums since I was trying to post between making adjustments to the BIOS. I have started over at the 2.9 GHz at a 1:2 ratio with 1.5v going to the ram.

Just to clarify my process, I should get the FSB CPU frequency as far as I can and stay stable before adjusting anything else?

Here are my starting settings:
Cool n Quiet - disabled
CPU FSB freq - 200
CPU ratio - x14.5
CPU-NB ratio - x10
Advanced Clock Calibration - All Cores - 2%
FSB/DRAM Ratio - 1:2
DRAM freq - 840
HT Link Speed - x10
HT Link freq - 2000
CPU volt - 1.481
CPU-NB volt - 1.174
DRAM volt - 1.5
NB volt - 1.103
SB volt - 1.196
HT Link volt - 1.214
Speed Spectrum - disabled